Primary tabs





The CHAIRMAN. The House is now in Committtee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and will resume the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 2315) to provide for the appointment of a commission to investigate the question of the tarriff and internal-revenue laws, upon which the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. RUSSELL] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, the tariff-commission bill, as reported from the Ways and Means Committee, and now under consideration, provides that the President shall select and appoint nine citizens of the United States, from civil life, to constitute a commission whose duties shall be to investigate our tariff and revenue laws as they relate to duties on imports, and that their proceedings shall be reported to Congress as its guide for future legislation. I opposed this measure in the committee on the ground that it was the duty of the Ways and Means Committee at the present session of Congress to enter into a general revision of the tariff laws, believing that earlier conclusions could be reached by such a course. The committee could have drawn upon the same sources of information, made as thorough and intelligent investigation of the subject as a commission, and on completion of their work, agreed to by the committee, it would have been so fully understood by them as to greatly facilitate the passage of a bill when reported to the House.

In admitting the necessity for early action, as I do, I am not moved by the considerations urged by some, that the industrial interests of the country are suffering for want of marked changes in our tariff laws, for such is not the case. The busy hum of industry was never more manifest than now. The farmer, the mechanic, and those engaged in professional pursuits are not without occupation, and find ample reward for their labor. The country as a whole was never more prosperous.

But while the discussion and support of great economic questions are too often determined by considerations of party policy rather than by the real merit of the issues involved, and the public mind, from recent agitation of the tariff, is impressed that a revision should be made, I believe the tariff should be taken up, reviewed, and disposed of so that there may be on this question stability of law for some years to come. The business of the country is always sensitive to and alarmed at any contemplated changes in laws touching any of the great economic questions, and no laws are more widespread in their effect upon business than those on the tariff, bearing as they do directly upon our manufactures and our foreign and domestic trade. Business enterprises now established will be confined within their present limits, and new ones delayed until this question has been passed upon and settled by Congress.

It is for this reason that I urged early action on the tariff, but your Ways and Means Committee in reporting this bill have virtually, so far as they are concerned, delegated the whole matter to the commission. I therefore shall vote for the commission bill in the House as the now speediest way of reaching a result.

Mr. Chairman, I ask now the attention of the House while I submit a few remarks on the general subject of the tariff, although I cannot expect to enlighten its members upon this much-debated question, the ground has now been so thoroughly traversed. But I desire to put on record my observations, coming to me through a long experience with business, workmen, and work, both as employer and employe. The people whom I directly represent are, I think, more largely engaged in the manufacture of textile fabrics than the people of any other district in the country, and therefore have a vital interest in your action.

There is a variety of views in regard to the manner in which a revenue should be raised for the support of the Government. Some believe, and their policy has advocates on this floor, that our system of levying imposts upon foreign goods to raise revenue is a wrong one; that our custom-houses never should have been established, but the revenue raised by direct taxation upon property. These, however, hardly expect to bring about at this late day such a revolution in our affairs. The struggle, therefore, that is going on with the great body of our people is with the question, Shall the tariff be adjusted so as to protect and promote industries here; or shall we be left to compete even-handed with all the world, and duties be imposed only upon articles of luxury, and such as are not, from our climatic conditions or our want of facilities, produced here?

Whether the founders of our present system of raising the revenue foresaw the great moral, social, and material benefits which it has worked out for us or not, they are certainly the authors of the principle which has so far governed us. The text is set forth in the preamble to the first tariff law, passed July 4, 1789, which reads:
Whereas it is necessary for the support of Government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares, and merchandise imported, &c.

The next year in another law this principle was reiterated in a preamble as follows;
An act for levying a duty on goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States, divers duties were laid on goods, wares, and merchandise so imported, for the discharge of the debts of the United States and the encouragement and protection of manufactures.

Our pursuits at that time were chiefly agricultural and commercial. Our early efforts to establish manufacturing were retarded and finally destroyed by the repressive legislation of the mother country and by the after devastation of war. Without the protective features of the tariff if manufacturing had been re-established at all it would have been in competition with Europe and European prices for labor. The only advantage to us, the transportation from shore to shore, would have been more than counterbalanced by their long-established business. The progress of manufactures here, if they had crept in at all under such circumstances, would have been gradual, and the rate of compensation for labor, and the condition of our workmen kept on the same level as then existed and now exists in European countries.

As I have said, whether our early legislators understood that the law then made would work out for us such grand and noble results or not, we find ourselves to-day as a nation in material prosperity and a condition of social life among all classes far in advance of any other people — the envy of the whole world. Are we then to abandon the policy which has achieved for our people such beneficial results on the simple declaration (without any tests to prove it) that we would have been as well off under a system of free trade? This doctrine, though lashed to a great political party as an issue, will hardly induce the people to reverse a policy so successful in its results.

The Tariff a Political Issue.

As I have suggested, the tariff question is made a political issue. All the arguments for free trade, or its equivalent, a tariff for revenue only, that come to us in the RECORD from the other end of the capitol are from Democrats, and those for protection from Republicans. With a few exceptions (those gentlemen who represent manufacturing districts on this floor) the other side of this House supports a tariff for revenue only. The two parties in the last Presidential campaign declared, one for a tariff for protection and revenue, and the other for a tariff for revenue only.

The Democratic party, which claims to espouse the cause of the working classes, occupies a strange position on this question. It can be accounted for in no other way than from the fact that the Republican party has from its birth, as well as its predecessor, the Whig party, pronounced for protection, and having tenaciously held this ground, has left the other party no alternative but to declare as a party issue for anti-protection.

A Tariff for Revenue Only.

This term is ambiguous and misleading — an ingenious one for its purpose. It is interpreted in sections inclined to free trade to mean free trade, and in sections inclined to protection (and there a dangerous doctrine for party success) it is claimed that it has in it elements of protection.

The Senator from Texas [Mr. COKE] in his recent speech, after paying a high compliment to the superiority of our workmen and machinery, says, "Can it be possible that this people thus conditioned need more protection than a strictly revenue tariff will give to preserve their home market and their home manufactures?" How deceptive! There is no protection in a strictly revenue tariff — that is, to an American manufacture; for if a revenue is to be derived from an imported article it must be imported, which certainly involves its manufacture elsewhere, and the rate of duty must be so fixed as to invite its importation. Therefore a tariff cannot be adjusted on a single article to serve the double purpose of revenue and protection. It must either be at a point to check importation and thus protect, or it must be at a point low enough to admit importation and thus produce a revenue. That is, when fixed at a revenue point it ceases to protect, and when fixed at a protective point it ceases to yield a revenue.

A Tariff for Revenue and Protection.

A tariff for revenue and protection requires the division of articles of import into two classes, one for revenue and one for protection, adjusting the duty upon the various articles of merchandise we have facilities to and desire to manufacture here to the protective point, or to that point that will enable our manufacturers to pay American wages and compete with the foreign manufacturer with foreign wages; and selecting such articles of necessity or luxury as cannot well be produced here, upon which to impose a duty for revenue.

A protective tariff not only involves the manufacture of the necessaries of civilized life in our own country, by our own citizens, but makes it possible, through higher wages, to maintain our working classes on a higher plane of civilization than is enjoyed by any other people. This is the principle involved in a protective tariff — nothing more, nothing less.

It is neither necessary nor politic to fix a protective tariff so high as to encourage combinations for unreasonable profits, although we have passed that period in the history of this country when such combinations can exist. Our industries are too wide-spread, capital is too eager for investment, skill and enterprise too ready, to permit for any length of time unreasonable profits. In fact, an over-high tariff would bring about an unhealthy competition among ourselves. No wise protectionist asks it.

Free Trade Taught in Colleges.

The principle of free trade is maintained and taught in many of our colleges on the so-called broad philanthropic ground that legislation should embrace within its care the whole world. Its theory is that


there should be no artificial barrier erected between one country and another to prevent a free interchange of products, cereal, raw or manufactured; that all people should stand or fall, unaided by legislation, upon their natural advantages and resources. Such freedom would be exceptional, rather than general. Our whole system of life, whether it relates to social life or business affairs, is one of barriers. Free-trade would be as disastrous to our business affairs as free-love to our social life. Treaties and armaments are necessary to protect the nation from the encroachments of other nations. Our national, State, and municipal laws prescribe rules for the regulation of property and many phases of social life; and shall we shrink from regulating by law our commercial dealings with other nations?

This doctrine seems to a casual observer a fair one, but history and our own observations show that it is a theory not profitable in practice. Diversified interests, agricultural and manufacturing combined, lead the people in any country to the highest type of civilization. The old countries of the world, those with the simpler and fewer occupations, rank lowest in civilization. A people following single pursuits are cramped in their views and actions. Our own thinly-populated States or sections of the country are without the best facilities for the highest development of mankind. The country village, with its schools, churches, lyceums, and libraries, affords better privileges for education; and cities, with all their attendant evils, offer peculiar advantages for the interchange of thought, for rivalry, for high attainment. The farming sections of the country, if confined exclusively to the cultivation of the soil, must necessarily be thinly populated and the opportunity for social intercourse and educational advantages somewhat limited.

Under a free-trade system we should have been confined principally to agriculture; manufactures could never have obtained a foothold and made such progress and the scale of prices been maintained for wage labor in this country. Now, manufacturing enterprises are spreading South, East, and West, improving our water powers, consuming our raw material, and adding wealth to the country. The two, agriculture and manufacturing, are helpmeets. The farmer finds a home market for his products and the manufacturer a market for his, each receiving in return the highest possible reward for his labor.

Therefore, if we so legislate as to combat the collegiate theory, improve the condition of our own people and those who seek refuge here, we maintain our position as pioneers in a system that elevates the race, rather than follow the example of the older countries of the world which have kept their subjects in poverty and ignorance.

Does the Tariff Protect Labor or Capital?

It is charged that a tariff for protection is to protect capital or the manufacturer and not the laborer. Is this true? Capital is but accumulated labor, and when labor has taken the form of capital it needs no protection. It is free to find its own channel of usefulness.

The opportunities, thrift, and prudence of our people have now accumulated such an abundance of capital as to force the rate of interest here nearly as low as at any other point in the world, and capital to-day in this country would find sufficient inducement for investment in manufacturing under a system of free trade, were it not for the question of higher wages paid to our working classes. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that foreign capital, though free to invest in American manufactures, has not to any extent done so. Foreign capital invests in our government, State, and municipal bonds and our railroads, but not in our mills. It is the foreign laborer that seeks our shores that he may better his condition for it is for no other reason that people in large numbers will leave their native land and kindred. From the report of the Bureau of Statistics it appears that the number of immigrants arrived in the United States during the calendar year 1881 was 720,045, being much larger than during any preceding year. It exceeded the population of the State of Connecticut by 97,345, the population of Maine by 71,109, the populations of West Virginia by 101,588, and the population of Rhode Island by 443,514; and it was less by only 127,417 than the aggregate population of the States of Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Nevada, and Oregon. It also exceeded by 113,226 the aggregate population of all the Territories of the United States, exclusive of the District of Columbia. Such a tide of immigration from all nationalities, embracing common and skilled laborers as well as farmers, is the best argument or speech that can be made in favor of our system of protection, whether in relation to manufacturing or farming.

Capital is an important factor in the development of our resources, whether it be in farming, manufacturing, or mining; but as capital, or wealth, it is the representative of labor. A very small percentage of it is the native product of the earth; not over 10 per cent. is raw material, whether it comes form the forest or the earth. The other 90 per cent. is the human power, bone and muscle used in mining and fashioning this raw material into forms for use, whether for building houses, implements for agriculture, ships, or clothing, or food, or what not. Hence, if you are protecting any farming, mechanical, or mining enterprise at all, you are in some form protecting labor. The advocates of free trade cannot gainsay this fact.

Most of our manufacturing establishments are built and operated by incorporated capital, a union of the savings of the many. Without such combinations of capital our manufacturing development would have been limited. The advocates of free trade, in discussing the tariff issue, assail these corporations and try to arouse public prejudice against them.

The Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. WILLIAMS,] in a recent speech said "The great moneyed corporations are rapidly absorbing all the wealth of the nation." I have from official sources a statement showing that fifty of the leading corporations in Lowell, Lawrence, Chicopee, and Salem, Massachusetts; Manchester, Nashua, and Newmarket, New Hampshire; Lewiston and other points in Maine, representing a capital of $50,000,000 engaged in manufacturing the various grades of cotton and woolen fabrics, have paid to their stockholders in the last five years an average dividend of a little less than 7 per cent. per annum only.

Larger dividends were formerly realized, but sharper competition has reduced their earnings. Manufacturing capital is subject not only to revolutions in business but to floods and fire. The dividends thus paid exceed but very little the interest paid for the same time on guaranteed capital. The operatives employed by these corporations have received on their deposits in the savings banks during the same time, without the risk of business, about 6 per cent.

The cost of American manufactured goods is not only enhanced by the extra wages paid to the workmen in manufacturing the same, but it costs twice as much to build a mill in America as it does to build a like mill in England, our principal competitor in textile fabrics. A mill is built here by protected labor. The value of the raw material, the lumber in the forest, ore in the earth, and clay for bricks is less than 10 per cent. of the total cost. More than 90 per cent. is in labor.

The following tables show the comparative rates paid American and English laborers in erecting mills:

  Per week.
Laborers $7 00 to $9 00
Bricklayers 12 00 to 18 00
Masons 9 00 to 15 00
Gas-fitters 10 00 to 18 00
Carpenters 10 00 to 15 00
Painters 12 00 to 16 00
Plasterers 10 00 to 15 00
Plumbers 12 00 to 18 00
Slaters 10 00 to 15 00
Granite-workers 12 00 to 18 00
Millwrights 12 00 to 18 00
  Per week.
Laborers $5 82
Bricklayers 9 25
Masons 8 70
Gas-fitters 7 80
Carpenters 9 00
Painters 8 50
Plasterers 9 72
Plumbers 9 00
Slaters 9 72
Granite-workers 8 00
Millwrights 7 00 to 10 00

I also print letters of the Conant Thread Company, Clark Thread Company, and J. & P. Coates, who are familiar with the cost of mills in both countries and with the cost of labor in operating them to substantiate this fact

Pawtucket, Rhode Island, January 19, 1882.

In reply to yours of the 18th, we can say that, from the best data we can obtain, the cost of building and equipping a cotton factory in New England, as compared with the cost of a similar structure in Lancashire or Scotland, is just about double, or, to give a few figures, a new fire-proof brick structure, furnished with steam-power and all necessary adjuncts, in shape of store-houses and accessories, containing 50,000 to 80,000 spindles, spinning, with all prepared machinery complete for spinning, 60s. to 12s. yarns, land and all, can be furnished in Lancashire to-day for twenty-two to twenty-four shillings per spindle.

In Rhode Island the same will cost $12 to $15 per spindle.

Trusting this will be satisfactory, we remain,
Yours, truly,
H. CONANT, Treasurer.

January 25, 1882.

DEAR SIR: As requested, we herewith send you a list of wages paid the workers of Clark & Co.'s, Paisley, Scotland, and the wages paid the same class of workers in Newark, N.J.:
Employes. Paisley, Scotland. Newark, N.J.
  Per week. Per week.
Spoolers $3 50 to $3 75 $7 00 to $9 00
Reelers 3 50 to 3 75 7 50 to 8 50
Cop-winders 3 50 to 3 75 7 50 to 8 50
Twisters 2 25 to 2 50 5 00 to 6 00
Strippers 1 50 to 1 75 3 00 to 3 00
Bobbin Cleaner 1 25 to —— 2 50 to 2 50
Carpenters 7 00 to 7 50 16 50 to 18 00
Machinists 7 00 to 7 50 16 50 to 18 00
Dyers 7 00 to 7 00 15 00 to 15 00
Bleachers 6 50 to 6 50 13 50 to 13 50
Firemen 6 00 to 6 00 12 00 to 13 00

The above is, to the best of my knowledge, correct.

P.S. — Erecting a factory, including buildings and machinery, in Newark will cost 80 to 85 per cent. more than in Paisley.

Yours, respectfully,



DEAR SIR: I have to acknowledge receipt of your favor of the 24th ultimo, and in reply have the pleasure to hand you comparative rates of wages paid in our factories here and in Scotland.

Our manufacture is a specialty, requiring the employment of good steady hands, it being impossible for us to maintain the quality of our goods with a floating class of help. The general average of female help in Scotland, you will observe, is under $3 a week, whereas here it averages $7.50 per week. (Remember the difference in the time run between the two countries is deducted from the rates paid here to make the comparison more correct.) The difference in male help is not so great, but the great bulk of those we employ are females. We are obliged to pay higher wages, as we have to employ help corresponding to the best class engaged in weaving and other highly paid departments of labor. Unless we do so, we find our help unwilling to remain with us steadily, subject to the strict discipline necessary to produce our quality of goods. These conditions apply to Scotland as well as here, where our experience proves the help to be quite as efficient and able to attend to as many machines or spindles.

The great difference in wages between the two countries affects the prices of the various descriptions of supplies required in a factory in a corresponding ratio, and coal and gas are very much lower in Scotland than here, not to speak of the average rate of interest. Coal is laid at our furnaces there for 3s. 9d. per ton, equal to about 90 cents; it is, of course, small coal, but well adapted for handling with the automatic stoker, and gives as good results as the coal used here, which averaged last year $4.70, laid down at the works. The price of 25 candle power gas is 3s. 9d. per 1,000 cubic feet, equal to 90 cents, and taxes are less than one-third of what we pay here.

To the best of my judgment and experience, a factory would cost fully twice as much to build here as in Scotland.

I deduct from the wages paid here an amount corresponding to the difference of time run during the week in the two countries.

Trusting that the information given sufficiently covers the ground, as it represents the great mass of our employes.

I am yours, very respectfully,
Of J. & P. Coates.
Wages paid operatives per week.
Operatives. United States. Scotland. Difference.
Amount. Per ct.
Spoolers $6 59 $3 40 $3 19 94
Twister-tenders 5 69 2 55 3 14 123
Doffers 4 37 1 94 2 43 125
Cleaners 2 63 1 52 1 11 73
Reelers 7 88 3 52 4 36 124
Winders 7 25 2 80 4 45 159
Wrappers and boxers 7 96 3 04 4 92 162
Dyers 9 84 6 32 3 52 56
Bleachers, men 11 81 5 10 6 71 132
Bleachers, women 5 25 2 43 2 82 116
Mechanics 13 13 7 94 5 19 65
Firemen 10 66 5 83 4 83 83

I venture to say that there is not a man or corporation who could erect a mill at the English cost, purchase the raw material and employ labor at foreign prices, but would, viewing this strictly from a material stand-point, independent of the higher benefits derived from it, scorn the suggestion of protection. Approaching this question from any stand-point you will find that the compensation or reward for labor is the bone of contention between the free-trader and the protectionist. Eliminate that and there is no contest between us.

I insert tables obtained from consular reports, showing prices paid in different countries for labor and the retail prices for the principal necessaries of life:

Statement showing retail prices of necessaries of life in the several countries, compiled from consular reports, and compared with prices in New York.
Articles. Belgium. France. Germany. Italy. Switzerland. England. New York.
  Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents.
Bread...per pound 4 to 5 3 3 to 7 6 4 3˝ to 4˝ 4 to 4˝   4 5˝ 10 7 3˝ to 4˝ 3 to 4
Roasting...per pound 20 22 22 20 30 22 12 to 16
Soup ... do 16 16 14 12 18 15 6 to 8
Rump steak ... do 20 20 20 20 30 26˝ 14 to 16
Corned ... do 16 16 13 12 18 18 8 to 12
Fore quarter . . . per pound 16 16 14 15   18 8 to 10
Hind quarter . . . do 18 20 20 18 22˝ 10 to 12
Cutlets . . . do 20 22 22 20 27 20 to 24
Fore quarter . . . per pound 16 16 14˝ 15   17 9 to 10
Hind quarter . . . do 20 18 18 18 22 12 to 14
Chops . . . do 20 20 18   25 14 to 16
Fresh . . . per pound 16 14 17 13 18   8 to 10
Salted . . . do 16 14 17 18 20   8 to 10
Bacon . . . do 18 20 20 22   12 to 16 8 to 10
Ham . . . do 25 25 22 25 28 13 to 23 8 to 12
Shoulder . . . do 20 18 20 20   12 8 to 10
Sausage . . . do 20 16 19 20   18 8 to 10
Lard . . . do 20 16 19 20   18 8 to 10
Codfish       9   8 6 to 7
Butter 20 to 50 25 22 28 36 29 to 38 25 to 32
Cheese 20 to 25   24 26 23 15 to 21 12 to 15
Potatoes . . . per bushel 56 50 50 $1 15 60 $1 12 to $2 00 $1 40 to $1 60
Statement showing weekly rates of wages in the several countries, compiled from consular reports, and compared with rates prevailing in United States
Occupations. Belgium. Denmark. France. Germany. Italy. England. United States.
Agricultural laborers:
Men, without board or lodging     $3 15 $2 87 $3 50 $3 60  
Men, with board and lodging     1 36 1 48 1 80 2 60  
Women, without board or lodging     1 10 1 08 1 55 1 80  
Women, with board and lodging       75 60 1 15  
House-building trades: Bricklayers $6 00   4 00 3 60 3 45 8 12 $12 00 to $15 00
Carpenters and joiners 5 40 $4 25 5 42 4 00 4 18 8 25 9 00 to 12 00
Gas-fitters 5 40     3 65 3 95 7 25 10 00 to 14 00
Masons 6 00 4 45 5 00 4 30 4 00 8 16 12 00 to 18 00
Painters 4 26 4 15 4 90 3 92 4 60 7 25 10 00 to 16 00
Plasterers 5 40     3 80 4 35 8 10 10 00 to 15 00
Plumbers 6 00   5 50 3 60 3 90 7 75 12 00 to 18 00
Slaters       4 00 3 90 7 90 10 00 to 15 00
General trades:
Bakers 4 40 4 25 5 55 3 50 3 90 6 50 5 00 to 8 00
Blacksmiths 4 40 3 90 5 45 3 55 3 94 8 12 10 00 to 14 00
Book-binders   3 72 4 85 3 82 3 90 7 83 12 00 to 18 00
Brass-founders   4 20   3 20 5 49 7 40 10 00 to 14 00
Butchers 4 50 4 50 5 42 3 85 4 20 7 23 8 00 to 12 00
Cabinet-makers 4 80   6 00 3 97 4 95 7 70 9 00 to 13 00
Coopers   4 10 7 00 3 30 4 35 7 30 12 00 to 16 00
Coppersmiths   3 85   3 30 3 90 7 40 12 00 to 16 00
Cutlers   3 85 4 63 4 00 3 90 8 00 10 00 to 13 00
Engravers       4 00 4 00 9 72 15 00 to 25 00
Horseshoers   3 85 5 40 3 25 3 50 7 20 12 00 to 18 00
Millwrights   4 00   3 30 4 95 7 50 10 00 to 15 00


Are Farmers Protected?

The gentleman from New York, [Mr. COX,] in a speech made in this House last Congress, (a copy of which he has just put into my hands,) undertakes to show by computation that of the 15,000,000 of the working class in this country 11,700,000 are taxed by the tariff provisions for the benefit of the 3,300,000 engaged in manufacturing and mining. I insert his table:

Table showing number of persons engaged in the various classes of vocation
Vocation. Per cent. Number engaged.
Agriculture 47 7,050,000
Profession and personal services 22 3,300,000
Trade and transportation 9 1,350,000
Manufacturing, mechanical, and mining 22 3,300,000

This reduced to terms of tariff means that the protected workers are 3,300,000; unprotected workers, 11,700,000.

In the first place, the 47 per cent. of the whole working population, the farming class, which he puts with the unprotected, is in fact directly and highly protected.

Are the farmers not protected? Can the farmers want free trade? All their products have protection.

The duty is, on animals, (except for breeding purposes,) 20 per cent.; bacon, per pound, 2 cents; beef, per pound, 1 cent; buckwheat, 20 per cent.; butter, per pound, 4 cents; cheese, per pound, 4 cents; corn, 10 per cent.; hay, 20 per cent.; oats, per bushel, 10 cents; pease, 10 to 20 per cent.; potatoes, per bushel, 15 cents; rye, per bushel, 15 cents; sheep, 20 per cent.; wheat, per bushel, 20 cents; wool, 10 to 12 cents and 10 to 11 per cent. ad valorem.

To be specific, we would not fear a competition in breadstuffs and other agricultural products other than from Canada, though we are now importing potatoes from Ireland and cabbages from Germany; but Canada, lying along our border and convenient to our market, with cheaper labor, would materially affect our farmers.

There was imported in 1881, principally from Canada, farm products to the value of $16,634,498.55, paying a revenue of $4,419,748.97. The following table shows how distributed:

Products. Value Duty
Cattle $384,066 59 $76,813 30
Hogs 3,834 22 766 84
Horses 2,520,692 80 504,138 54
Sheep 972,396 38 194,479 23
All other 36,863 94 7,366 78
Total animal products:

3,917,823 93

783,364 69

Other Products:
Potatoes 874,019 56 325,207 46
Butter 45,187 88 9,507 13
Cheese 622,878 84 140,214 81
Hay 1,965,632 11 393,126 40
Breadstuffs 9,208,956 23 2,762,128 48
Total 16,634,498 55 4,419,748 97

Those engaged in the professions and personal service, trade and transportation, the gentleman puts down as the unprotected class. If there are any advantages to the manufacturing, mechanical, and mining classes in protection, those in the professions and trades must certainly share that advantage. These are the necessary adjuncts, supported by the farming and mechanical classes, and they are directly affected by their prosperity or adversity. But divide this 4,650,000 engaged in incidental service proportionately between the agricultural and mining industries, and you have engaged in agriculture and its attendant services 10,300,000, leaving 4,700,000 engaged in the manufacturing, mechanical, mining, and their attendant occupations. We have, then, 50,000,000 population, in which the working classes and those engaged in professions and occupations are represented in the following proportions: in round numbers, say 17,000,000 supported by manufacturing, mining, and attendant vocations, and 33,000,000 supported by agriculture and its attendant vocations. In this calculation I am more than fair, for I doubt if there is connected with the agricultural interests so large a percentage of persons engaged in personal services as I have allowed.

No one contends that this population of 17,000,000, (equal to our entire population in 1840,) or at least but a small portion of it, would have been American citizens to-day if we had lived under a free-trade system. They might have lived elsewhere and been consumers, but not in America. None of these are producers as we are treating this question, but all are patrons of the farmers, dependent on them for their food, clothing, fuel, and the material for building their homes.

The great metropolis of New York, the very hot-bed of freetradism, the money source for promulgating the Cobden Club doctrines, largely occupied in dealing in foreign commodities, would still flourish. But the extension of our foreign trade and importation centralizes wealth and population in our seaboard cities, and does little toward the best development of the interior sections of the country, (by joining manufacture with agriculture.) The many small manufacturing industries growing up in this city of New York, giving employment to a large number of mechanics and skilled laborers, will soon change the sentiment, and in time perhaps leaven the whole lump.

The marvelous increase in the leading agricultural products in the last decade are shown in the following table:

  1870. 1880.
Indian corn, bushels 760,940,594 1,754,449,435
Wheat, bushels 287,745,626 459,667,022
Oats, bushels 282,107,157 407,859,033
Tobacco, pounds 262,735,341 473,103,573

The total cereal productions for the last for decades are —

Wheat, corn, and oats.
1850 867,453,967
1860 1,239,039,947
1870 1,387,299,153
1880 2,697,962,456

With an increase of but 29 per cent. in population in the last decade, these cereal products have doubled. This proportionate increase is accomplished mainly by improved implements and modes of performing farm labor.

The increase in sheep, cattle, and other farm products is even more striking. I append a table showing the progress of the sheep and wool-growing industry:

Year. Sheep. Wool.
1860 22,471,275 60,264,913
1870 28,477,951 100,102,387
1880 42,381,389 235,684,834

As shown in the eighth, ninth, and tenth censuses, from which these figures are taken, there has been a steady but rapid increase in the number of sheep and the wool-clip. The high tariff has had much to do with the thrift in this branch of industry, and has been of immense importance and advantage to the farmers. Sheep-raising is not confined to any one section of the country; all the States participate in it, ranging in the census year from 17,211 sheep in Rhode Island to 4,902,486 in Ohio; Indiana has 1,100,511, Kentucky 1,000,269, Michigan 2,189,389, North Carolina 461,638, and so on.

We find in these figures no argument against the protective features of the tariff as it relates to agriculture. There is no evidence in them that it is a burdened industry; checked somewhat between 1860 and 1870, during the rebellion, but showing a wonderful increase during the last decade.

Should the South Want Free Trade?

Take the South, more purely agricultural. Her cotton crop in 1870 was 4,352,317 bales; in 1860, 6,600,000 bales, the largest crop ever raised in any one year. Free labor may have aided in this result, but the fact that labor there now is better paid adds another argument to support our theory.

We find in this reasons why men on this floor who represent the agricultural sections of the country, who have heretofore given encouragement and strength to the free-trade party, are now coming one by one to support the protective tariff principle. The South, heretofore the most clamorous for free trade, is now in sections where manufacturing is creeping in, hesitating, and will soon fall into line. In fact, in some of the agricultural sections of the South, light is dawning. I take pleasure in quoting from the speech of Colonel John Scriven, of Georgia, delivered at the recent tariff convention in New York. He says:
We of the South have observed the grandeur of the growth of the North, and let me say to you in all candor that despite defeat, despite humiliation, (it matters not whether it be deserved or not,) we are proud now to join you in the glory of your country. I believe, fellow-citizens, in common with many of my countrymen in the South, that these great results, these enormous evidences of your prosperity and welfare, are due to the high, conservative principles which you have announced in this convention. We would follow, humby though it be, in the shadows that you leave behind you

Let them fall from some northern sun
Upon the climes from which I come.

Colonel Robert Beverly, of Fauquier Country, Virginia, who is a large farmer, in a communication recently made to the Religious Herald, expressed the following sentiments

What Virginia wants most is manufactures. Never let a ton of iron ore, a foot of timber, a pound of wool or cotton or tobacco, or a bushel of wheat leave her borders until it is manufactured, and her home people supplied. Move people here to work these machines, and not send the raw material to Pennsylvania or New England or Old England to be manufactured and brought back to us at an enormous rate of freight both ways, and from 100 to 500 per cent. for manufacturing it. Here, where it is produced it must be manufactured, to bring prosperity. We want protection to our State manufactures by State legislation, and do not talk any more about that old, effete doctrine of free trade till we can stand on our legs. I am glad to see that Mr. VOORHEES, at Atlanta, the other day said the South and West wanted protection. Georgia has seen it for some time past, and is giving it to her people, and hence her prosperity. With not half the mineral resources or agricultural fertility or temperate climate that Virginia has, Georgia has gone far ahead of us in wealth and prosperity. What has made sterile, rock-bound, ice-clad, New England what she is except protection to her manufactures and our raw material? Every day now you see our iron ore and timber going from Virginia to Pennsylvania and Delaware for manufacture. Was there ever such suicidal folly? Our season has been unpropitious, it is true; but it has been equally so all over the United States. But the trouble is our people are not making the most of their productions and country and climate — the finest that God ever gave to man.


I see an improvement in some sections along all the various railroads, in founderies and manufactories starting and many new railroads building — all indicating a great boom of prosperity to the old State; but we want these enterprises everywhere in her borders. Why not manufacture all the tobacco, cotton, and wool grown in south-side and tide-water Virginia at home; also agricultural implements, horseshoes, &c., thus building up little towns and villages among us and keeping our money at home? Then we could stand droughts better and nobody would want a political office, and Readjusters' occupation would be gone; and when providence smiled on us with His next propitious season we would forget we had a drought and a frost in 1881, and would be happier and more prosperous people.

The Richmond Dispatch, one of the ablest Conservative papers in the South, comments on this as follows

From what we have been able to observe, but few men in the South now hold to free-trade doctrines. England's experience has amounted to nothing so far as the rest of the world is concerned; indeed her own people are getting sick unto death of it. The agitation there under the name of "fair trade" indicates how utterly Cobden and his fellow-prophets have failed in their predictions. We in the South are just beginning the world in manufactures, but the beginning has been a good one. We have at hand all the raw materials necessary for these manufactures, and the country money that used to go into negroes is finding its way into the stock of these factories. The live men who manage these industries understand fully the fact that what made such industries prosperous in the North cannot fail to have the same effect in the South, hence they want our protective tariff to continue, and laugh to scorn the old free-trade notions that used to prevail in our section.
Pennsylvania looks with no jealous eye on the iron and coal regions of the South, and the North is joining hands and capital with Georgia to build mills and improve her water power, aiding her to consume her raw material.

The South has heretofore depended upon the North for her manufactured cotton fabrics, but she now finds that she has some climatic advantages. She can both grow and spin her cotton. Gunny-bagging, used for baling cotton, heretofore imported or manufactured at the North, is now being made at the South also. Several mills are already established there, employing the people and saving transportation. The raw material, jute and jute butts, is imported directly from India to the southern ports. Upon this raw material there is a duty in the interest of the hemp-growers of the Southwest and West. The South in many ways, though somewhat slowly, is improving opportunities that always have been within her reach.

Yet in some portions of the South they are restless under that they call a system for the benefit of a section. The country's prosperity and greatness is national, not sectional. If the North is prosperous the South is also; it is a natural consequence.

North Carolina's Senator [Mr. VANCE] would have free trade. His instructors, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Fawcett, Wells, &c., teach him that a country cannot get rich trading with itself. The object lesson which this country affords must shake the faith of any who have entertained these views — growing rapidly in wealth, as we are, and never so fast as when we most nearly supply our own wants by our own people.

A nation's greatness depends first upon the breadth of its boundaries, the fertility of its soil, and its mineral deposits, and second, but not least, upon the willingness of its people to improve the facilities they have. No nation has variety of climate to furnish all the needs and luxuries of modern life, so we are in a measure dependent on each other. But those people that have the most possibilities and improve them will lead in richness and greatness, and protective America leads the van to-day. It is not enough to say that our natural advantages, climate, and soil have done all this. The Indian tribes had these. Their primitive living would never have led to wealth or greatness, neither would the single pursuit of the farmer.

It is true our natural resources are unsurpassed; we have extensive and cheap arable lands, with varied climate; our forests and deposits of gold, silver, copper, iron, coal, and other minerals are of superior quality and in abundance. But with all these England, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Asia, and Africa would have controlled prices for labor here for all time without the intervention of our Government with protective tariff laws prescribing how exchange of products should be carried on with other countries. We should have got on in some way without trade restrictions, and perhaps a little better than the countries I have named, but we never could have reached such an advanced position as we occupy without them.

We grow rich in proportion to the number of our diligent population, and the more varied our vocations the more numerous our people, and therefore the greater our facilities for accumulating wealth. The latent native forces are good for nothing if not wrought upon. Mine your iron and other minerals, build your machinery, spin your cotton and wool with your own people. If a man is able by his work to add anything above his own bare subsistence to the nation's wealth, it matters not whether it has come through farm or mechanical labor.

But the Senator, when he gets along to what he calls "my own people," says:
I want all American labor to have a fair and even chance. I want my own poor workingmen at home protected not only against foreign paupers but also against domestic brigandage. Almost every item of foreign raw material used by our factories is the product of foreign "pauper labor," and is admitted duty free. By the report of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics for the three months ending September 30, 1880, there is seen a statement of the imports of iron ore which shows a total of 425,000 tons, worth $1,192,000, brought from every quarter of the world, all dug by pauper labor, and much of it even by convict labor as I am informed, notably 113,000 tons from the French possessions in Africa. This in preference to the ore dug by free American labor in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and other States. It comes in as ballast in foreign bottoms, to the detriment of American shipowners.

And here he leaves those who may read his speech to infer, if not believe, that the iron-ore producers of Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and other States are obliged to compete with free iron ore, when in fact it is protected 20 per cent.

The duty on rough lumber of all kinds is about 20 per cent. ad valorem, which protects our timber sections against the forests of Canada. Every tree in North Carolina is enhanced in value by this duty directly; and it is further enhanced in value by the general protective features of the tariff, for the country is now largely dependent upon the southern pine timber for the erection of mills and warehouses. There is, according to the report of the Census Bureau, 5,229,000,000 feet of this timber now standing in North Carolina.

The Senator [Mr. VANCE] puts the claims of protectionists in the following order

In the first place, they say that protection increases the wages of labor and prevents our free workingmen from being compelled to compete with the pauper labor of the world; second, that it builds up a home market, keeps our money at home, and in this respect increases the national wealth; third, that the prosperity of the manufacturers is the prosperity of the people generally and especially of consumers; and fourth, that it cheapens production.

His answer to the first, admitting that protection enables increased wages, answers the second and third, and gives away his whole case. Everybody must admit that American wages are higher than foreign wages, and as to the purchasing power of American wages compared with foreign, that is shown by the savings-bank statements giving the financial condition of the wage laborers in both countries. But there is an unquestioned test — water will find its level. An ocean passage costs less than $30 — which way is the tide flowing?

There is another very important consideration in estimating the value of protection as it affects compensation for labor here; that is the steady employment furnished our workmen. Our wages are not only more per diem than in other countries, but the employment constant, insuring a larger yearly income. Our works are not so easily affected by the ebb and flow of surplus products as with other countries; the laws of demand and supply control the increase of manufactures here, and we seldom have long seasons of depression and consequent suffering among our people.


We have in our manufacturing cities good illustrations of the advantages of protection and diversified interests, both as they relate to the cities themselves and to their importance to other sections of the country.

The city of Philadelphia, the second in the Union, has within its limits a greater variety of industries than any other in the country. It is both commercial and mechanical. It deals with the interior and abroad, and manufactures cotton, wool, silk, paper, iron, glass, machinery, and chemicals, and the people are less affected by commercial and financial revulsions than any people in this country. Even Wall street transactions do not shake its foundations. They are almost a world to themselves, yet a prosperous one.

Lowell, though with less variety of interests and of more recent growth, is another example. This city is in the district I represent. It is only about sixty years ago that steps were taken to establish manufacturing at this point. Twenty years later a like work was begun at my home, Lawrence, and where not more than a score of families then found support, there now exists in these two cities, in prosperity and comfort, 100,000 persons.

Nature here provided facilities for improvement, which capital readily seized by erecting the dam; then came the mills, then homes and places of business. Now are engaged the spinners, weavers, machinists, and all kinds of mechanical laborers, supporting the merchant, minister, lawyer, physician, and all the other attendant occupations. They have free schools and libraries, the lyceum, the lecture-room, and all the privileges of civilized society. Not only the farmers and small industries in the immediate vicinity of these cities find a ready and convenient market for their products, but you gentlemen of the South share in our prosperity, furnishing us cotton to spin; you of Pennsylvania, coal for fuel and iron and steel for machinery, and you of the West our breadstuffs and wool. Not one of these 100,000 persons, in your sense, a producer but a consumer.

We have Manchester, Fall River, and a score of other large manufacturing cities in New England alike depending upon the agricultural regions for their food. All of these have sprung up since the protective tariff of 1816, and not one of them would have been in existence to-day without it.

Manufactures, fortunately for our safety, are not now confined to the water courses in New England and the Middle States. They follow the railroads as they seek the remoter sections of the country. Like advantages to both the farmer and those engaged in manufacture will come to these smaller and newer villages and cities as are now enjoyed in the large centers of manufacture. The improvement in steam power, by which mills are being located nearer the raw material, thereby saving transportation, is doing much to distribute manufacturing more widely throughout the States.

Lowell is about twenty-five miles from the sea-coast, with an area of about 7,000 acres. It has a population of 60,000, the largest in the State of in the United States wholly engaged in the manufacture of textile fabrics, and therefore well illustrates the condition of the industrial classes in our New England manufacturing centers.

Of the 60,000 inhabitants 22,559 are employed in the various corporations and mills. There are seven banks of discount, with a capital


of $2,500,000. There are six savings-banks, with a total deposit of $11,646,212 to the credit of 33,408 depositors. OF this number 1,735 are depositors of amounts above $300, and 31,673 depositors of $300 and under, showing how general the habit of saving has become among our people, and what a large proportion of the funds in the savings-banks are the earnings of wage laborers. I have it from authority that about seven-eighths of the deposits in these savings banks are the laid-by earnings of the wage laborers.

In Lawrence, with a population of 40,000, grown up wholly out of manufacturing and now supported by it, we find a like result. There are 13,000 operatives, three savings-banks with $5,000,000 deposits and 13,728 depositors.

Manchester, England, corresponds with these two cities in its occupations more nearly than any other. Let us contrast the condition of its people: Manchester, with a population of 341,508, has in its various savings-banks Ł1,434,140 or $6,883,872; a city three and a half times as large as Lowell and Lawrence, and less than one-half the amount of deposits in its savings institutions. I commend these facts to the other side of this House, who claim that the wage laborers in this country are no better off with our wages and cost of living than those in England.

Mr. HEWITT, of New York. But the gentleman has left out of his calculation money invested by operatives in co-operative associations, which erect homes for them.

Mr. RUSSELL. I have taken all the deposits in the city and postal savings-banks. We have some co-operative associations in this country, but what is better still and absorbs the earnings of our laborers is the building and owning of their own homes, which is true, to a large extent, in our manufacturing cities, and would fully counterbalance the investments you refer to.

While this well illustrates the financial condition of these people, it does not tell the whole story. The American laborer is better fed and clothed, and spends more for the modern comforts of life than the English laborer, as well as lays up more money.


It is claimed that the tariff for protection which maintains high wages here adds such additional cost to our manufactured products that we are not able to compete with those countries that have low-waged labor. There is some force in this, if you look alone to the primary cost of the article, but let us look at its converse. If a high tariff makes high wages and low tariff would make low wages, and what would our home demand and consumption be with low wages here? We cannot afford to destroy that.

A much larger percentage of our agricultural products than of our mechanical is exported, yet of the $9,000,000,000 worth of agricultural products raised last year, only 10 per cent. was exported, our own people consuming the balance. Are we to trifle with such a customer in the home of gaining an uncertain market abroad?


There are ways in which we can aid our mechanical industries, now overlooked and neglected. Our agricultural products will always find a market; hungry people will come for them. But our surplus manufactures cannot find their way to foreign markets for the want of better facilities for trade and transportation. I called your attention to that in the last Congress, in my report on the decadence of our merchant marine and the extension of our foreign commerce, and I call your attention again to the fact that the South American States depend almost wholly upon other countries for manufactured goods, textile fabrics, &c., which we might supply if we had more direct communication; they buying almost wholly from England and France. We purchased from Brazil alone, in 1880, $51,900,000 worth of her products, selling to her in exchange only $8,600,000 of ours.

If we despair of regaining the freight traffic between our country and the principal ports of Europe, we should by some means, by subsidy or otherwise, open up direct communication with Brazil and other countries where we have reciprocal trade, unless the outcry against subsidies has made us cowards.

Our shipping property swept from the sea by the war has not impoverished the nation. The capital thus displaced found better investment at the time; but our now cheaper capital and the importance of establishing new markets for our surplus products sure to come demand the attention of Congress to find some scheme to encourage our capital to invest in steamship lines to be engaged in reaching these markets.


An important consideration for the encouragement of home industries and mechanical products is the fact that in the last business boom, so-called, in 1879-'80, those articles of merchandise produced here were least affected in price, while those imported advanced 50 and 100 per cent., and in some instances more. The more largely we are dependent upon imports the more we shall be subject to fluctuations in prices. Both the foreign manufacturer and the importer can take advantage of our necessities when a scarcity exists, and with a surplus glut our markets and upset values and business. It is a noteworthy fact that those articles that are free, and not manufactured in this country at all, experienced the greatest fluctuation. Bleaching powders, which are on the free list, advanced more than 100 per cent., while alum, protected, and largely manufactured here, made no advance whatever. This fact is a direct challenge that a spirit of monopoly exists among our manufacturers.


I propose to present some facts and statistics in relation to a few of our now well-established industries, which show conclusively that protection cheapens commodities, and that duties fixed for protection are not added to the cost of goods here, but that competition here regulates prices.

I referred to the fact that the article of alum was unmoved by the speculative prices in 1879-'80. This article is used very largely in manufacturing, and it is but a few years since its manufacture began in this country. Its production here has been steadily increasing, and although it is protected by a tariff of 60 cents per 100 pounds, or about 30 per cent. ad valorem, the price has been gradually decreasing. In 1873 it was selling for about 3˝ cents per pound; to-day at about 2ź cents per pound. Although the consumption of this article is increasing, its importation is rapidly falling off. In 1879, 5,961,057 pounds were imported, against 2,086,950 in 1881. Here is an instance in the manufacture of chemicals where, by protection, home manufacture has been established and now home competition is reducing prices without a corresponding reduction of the tariff.

The gentleman from Texas [Mr. COKE] further says, in commenting upon the encouragement of "infant industries," that the first tariff law, framed in 1789, imposed an average ad valorem duty of 8˝ per cent. The next year it was raised to 11 per cent.; in 1792 to13 ˝ per cent.; in 1816 to 30 per cent.; under the tariff of 1824 raised to an average of 37 per cent.; under the act of 1828 increased to an average of 41 per cent., and they are to-day on the ad valorem principle, and as values have fallen off the tariff has been increased to maintain the same proportionate protection and therefore has not in many cases increased the duty at all. But the gentleman has not told the whole story. Notwithstanding the duty on some articles has been raised and on others maintained to the highest point fixed, the cost of all manufactured articles has greatly declined under protection. And this decline is constantly going on by home competition, independent of the provisions of the tariff.

When the cotton industry was in its infancy the price of sheetings was 30 cents per yard, while it is now about 7 cents. Calicoes in 1816 were 22 cents per yard, and now about 6˝ cents. What is true of the cotton manufacture is true of many other kinds of textile fabrics.

Under the protection first imposed, and in some cases an increased tariff duty, prices have been steadily reduced, and to-day through superior skills of workmanship, born of protection, we are able to compete with the world in the manufacture of cotton cloth. If we cannot send our cloth to England we can to the countries she has been supplying, and all this has been brought about without any reduction of the tariff. The very cheapest kind of cotton cloth is protected to-day 5 cents per square yard or about 70 per cent. ad valorem. Why, if the gentleman's argument is correct, that capital and corporations take advantage of every opportunity, as he says, "to swell its hoard," do they not combine and demand 10 or 12 cents per yard for their cotton cloth? The protective tariff certainly affords them this opportunity.

The truth is, as is shown in this case, if the people could have reliance that the tariff would not be changed in its main features, capital would be attracted to manufacturing, and on those articles of manufacture where we have the raw material or import it free, we should grow away, and for a time be independent of the tariff. But we should be imitated. The European manufacturer would substitute new modes for old, and supplant his old and obsolete machinery with new and improved.

The vantage ground we occupy to-day in the manufacture of cotton cloth we have acquired by skill and enterprise and we shall hope to hold it. The tariff of 5 cents per yard on cheap cotton cloth and calico troubles no one, imposes no burden, and no one asks to have it stricken from the law. It may stand there as encouragement to those who may in the future embark in this business, and to prevent the foreign product being dumped upon us in a time of extreme depression, or to protect our laborers if we are ever overtaken. The contest thus provoked will go on, and its benefits accrue to the common good.

Soda-ash, the principal chemical used in this country, in quantity or value, is almost wholly imported. There was imported last year 295,227,766 pounds, or 147,613 tons, valued at $4,154,258.44. This article is used in glass, paper, and soap making, for bleaching, and in various other industries. We have the ingredients here — salt, coal, and pyrites — and an attempt was made to establish its manufacture in 1850, but the protection was too small and not long enough maintained to effect this. A history of the effort to establish this industry was well set forth by Mr. John L. Hayes, a well-known authority on tariff matters, in 1867. He says

The first effort to manufacture soda-ash in this country was made in Pittsburgh, a favorable locality, from the abundance of coal and facility of obtaining salt from saline springs, about 1850 or 1851, when the duty on this article was 10 per cent. ad valorem. Although the duty was hardly high enough to protect the American against the foreign manufacturers, it sufficed to induce capital to embark in the business. The manufacturers here were able even under this duty to compete with the English, who, to use their own words, as written to their agents in this country, were determined to "put out the fires of the American works." To


accomplish this they authorized their agents to lower the price from ten cents to six cents a pound. Still the American manufacturers were able to compete, and struggled along, though with but little profit, until 1857. At this time the eastern manufacturers of textile fabrics suffering under the horizontal tariff of 1846, and despairing of a return of the public mind to the protective ideas of 1842, were compelled to make some compromise of their old principles and adopted the theory of free trade in raw materials; a theory which, sound enough as applied to materials which could not be produced in this country, was unsound when applied to those which could be produced here — such as wool and many chemicals, which, though raw material to the woolen manufacturer, are ultimate manufactures to the chemist and farmer requiring the raw materials of coal, hay, and grain. This theory prevailed in the tariff of 1857, which lowered the rate of duty to 4 per cent. The manufacturers of this article still struggled along and kept down by their competition the price of the British product to four and one-half cents. By the tariff of 1861 soda-ash was made free. The effect was to completely crush out the American manufacture, and to raise the price of the British article in this country to from twelve to fifteen cents. A great inconvenience resulting from the withdrawal of the American product is the irregularity and sometimes almost total deficiency of the foreign supply, a usual consequence of dependence upon foreign trade. When we consider that we consume at least 40,000 tons a year of this chemical; that it is the most important of all chemical products for our manufactures except sulphuric acid; that it is indispensable in the bleaching, soap-making, paper-making, and in many other arts, we must admit that the restoration through protection of a manufacture which furnishes at home a regular and abundant supply to all these arts would be no little boon to manufacturers and consumers.

Although soda-ash was put upon the free list in 1861, as above stated by Mr. Hayes, there is a duty of ź cent per pound upon it now, insufficient, however, to encourage home competition to any extent.

The boot and shoe industry fears but very little from foreign manufactures now that this work is so largely accomplished by machinery. It was one of the first industries protected, being incorporated into the tariff act of 1794. The industry has grown rapidly, and through our experience we have perfected machinery for the manufacture of boots and shoes which reduces very largely the percentage of hand labor. The protection of 35 per cent. more than counter-balances the difference between foreign and American labor, yet the home competition holds prices below import prices. The entire abolition of the duty might invite competition from across the Canadian border where labor is not so well paid and the raw material free.

Iron, one of the leading interests of the country, has in its manufacture a larger percentage of manual labor than any article produced. The native value is small. It is a business in which the question of protection to labor comes especially to the front. It is said that the material progress of a nation is measured by the consumption of iron. I find that in 1880 the total production was 7,265,140 tons as against 3,655,215 tons in 1870, or about double the quantity. Allowing for the increase in population, which was 29 per cent., and for the greater importation of foreign iron in 1880 than in 1870, it would make the increase in consumption of iron in the United States in the last decade fully 60 per cent. per capita. This result proves, by this well-admitted test, all the most sanguine protectionist could claim as to the effect of our system of protection upon the growth and prosperity of the country. The accompanying tables show the extent of this industry.

The following table presents the quantities of mineral products used by the iron and steel works in 1880:

Works. Iron ore. Limestone. Anthracite coal. Bituminous coal Coke.
  Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons.
Blast furnaces 7,256,684 3,169,149 2,615,182 1,051,753 2,128,255
Rolling-mills 363,959   526,126 3,915,377 14,834
Bessemer and open-hearth steel works 7,327   140,458 465,655 104,980
Crucible steel works 2,128   40,392 224,657 22,791
Forges and blomaries 79,610   340 1,613 6,695
Total 7,709,708 3,169,149 3,322,498 5,659,055 2,277,555

Of the iron ore and limestone given in the table, at least one-half was purchased from independent producers; of the anthracite coal, nearly all was so purchased; and of the bituminous coal and coke, fully two-thirds was so purchased.

The following table shows the quantities of all other leading raw materials used in 1880 in the manufacture of iron and steel:

Works. Charcoal Mill cinder Pig Iron Old iron rails Scrap iron Ore blooms Pig or scrap blooms Muck bar purchased
  Bushels Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons
Blast furnace 53,909,828 354,048            
Rolling mills 2,569,756   1,574,693 708,534 422,282 14,147 46,861 53,754
Bessemer and open-hearth steel works 37,552   966,603   13,911 16,053 250  
Crucible steel works 60,594   17,226   1,952 13,211 2,400  
Forges and Blomaries 13,014,261   38,113   8,933      
Total 69,592,091 354,048 2,596,635 708,534 447,078 43,411 49,511 53,754
Works. Spiegeleisen Old steel rails and crop ends. Bessemer steel ingots and blooms purchased. Open-hearth ingots and blooms purchased. Scrap steel Sweedish billets and bars. Other billets and bars. Oil used as fuel
  Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Bbls.
Blast furnace                
Rolling mills                
Bessemer and open-hearth steel works 86,138 85,653 42,939 17,713 90,645      
Crucible steel works         19,726 10,410 16,496  
Forges and Blomaries               853
Total 86,138 85,653 42,939 17,713 110,371 10,410 16,496  

In the following table is presented a summary of the hands employed, hours of labor required, and wages paid in the iron and steel industries of the United States in 1880, compared as far as possible with like statistics for 1870:

United States. Males above sixteen years. Males below sixteen years. Females above fifteen years. Females below fifteen years. Total hands employed. Average number of hours of labor per week. Average day's wages for a skilled mechanic Average day's wages for an ordinary laborer. Total amount paid in wages.
Grand total in 1880 133,203 7,709 45 21 140,978 65 $2 59 $1 24 $55,476,785
Grand total in 1870 75,037 2,436 82     77,555     $40,514,981
Percentage increase in 1880 77.52 216.46       81 78     36 93
Percentage of decrease in 1880       45.12          


Much is said about the tariff on steel rails. Let us see what protection has done for this industry.

The manufacture of steel rails by the Bessemer process began in England in 1863. The first imported into this country cost, laid down here, about $180 per ton. They were selling here at $166 per ton in 1867, when their manufacture began here. Small works were established at Wyandotte, near Detroit, Michigan, in 1867. In that year but 2,277 tons were made; in 1868, 6,451 tons; in 1869, 8,616 tons; in 1870, 30,357 tons, with the following result in its effect on prices; in 1867 they were selling in this market at $166 per ton; in 1868, at $158 per ton; in 1869, $132 per ton; in 1870, $106 per ton.

At this point the duty was changed from an ad valorem duty of 45 per cent. to a specific duty of $28 per ton. This gave a new impetus to the business here. New works were commenced, and there has been a rapid increase in production and consequent decline in price. The production has risen from 30,357 tons in 1870, to 1,200,000 in 1881. The works have increased in number from the one at Wyandotte in 1867 to fifteen in 1881. The price has fallen by home and foreign competition from $106 per ton in 1870, at the time the tariff was raised, to $55 per ton at the present time.

It is claimed and computations are made to show that the country has suffered to the extent of many millions of dollars in consequence of the tariff on steel rails. It is by no means certain, however, that we have in the aggregate, independent of the incidental advantage through the manufacture of the rails here, paid any more for our


rails up to the present time, while the prospective gain to the country by the establishment of this industry can hardly be estimated.

Without the tariff, works would not have been established here and we should have been dependent entirely upon the foreign manufacturers. Such a demand upon their works would of necessity materially advance the price abroad. Furthermore it is our experience that when we have no domestic competition foreigners take advantage of our necessities.

We have evidence of this very article. Although the manufacture of steel rails with the improved process commenced in England in 1863 the price was maintained up to $166 per ton in 1867, when we commenced the manufacture here, they following down in price, year by year after that, the price fixed here by home competition.

If the duty on steel rails was removed, the price might fall to about $35 per ton, the importing price. Our fires would go out, and then a steady rise in the cost of rails would follow from the great demand on foreign works. The capacity of our own works now exceeds that of all Europe, aggregating 1,500,000 tons in 1880, but improvements recently completed, and others now in progress, will increase the capacity to over 2,000,000 tons per year, a quantity fully equal to the present demand of the country. There are now no patents in force essential to the manufacture of steel rails. Any one is free to embark in the business. The home competition has forced, year by year, and now month by month, the price down. From these facts there is every reason to believe that American made steel rails will be furnished to American customers as low as American labor will permit, independent of the tariff. Steel rails at present prices are among those manufactures most heavily protected; but mark you, there is no industry that has made greater strides as to extent of manufacture in the last fifteen years, and none have shown more marked improvement in the application of mechanical appliances; and have, too, have been wrought out from our own experience and these greatly reduced the cost to consumers. The consumption of pig-iron in the Bessemer steel works of this country in the next fiscal year will equal the total production of pig-iron in 1878.

While the consumption of iron may mark the material growth and prosperity of a country, it is also said that the consumption of paper indicates its intellectual growth and condition. The United States consumes per capita twice as much as England, and nearly twice as much as France. I cite this as another proof of the high intellectual standard of the American people, as well as to show the importance of paper-making as an industry. I regret that the statistics of the Census Bureau showing the growth in the last decade and the present extent of this industry are not available. It ranked in 1870 as the third or fourth in the manufactured fabrics in importance as to capital invested and value of product.

Although paper is among the least protected articles, the duty on news paper, but 20 per cent., has been the subject of constant assault. The enormous consumption of paper in this country has made us largely dependent upon the European countries for the raw material – rags, but the discovery and use of wood as a paper-making fiber, recent improvements in paper machinery, and home competition have steadily reduced the price to the consumer. The cost for the plant (so called) in the manufacture of paper is very great compared with the production. Were it not for this additional cost and the higher wages paid to American labor, we should be able to furnish paper as cheaply as England, and there is but very little difference now for like qualities.

The opponents of the tariff select, to illustrate their theory, those articles most general in their use.

Blankets is a favorite one with them, as they are articles of necessity and used by all classes. Although there are cheap blankets made from a mixture of cotton and wool, the principal production here is made from all wool, medium grade. They are therefore manufactured from a raw material — wool — heavily protected. There is nothing that better illustrates the falsity of the charge that the duty is added to the cost of our domestic production than the article of blankets.

I have it from unquestioned authority that a recent purchase of blankets was made in England for the purpose of making comparisons as to cost with our own manufactures, with the following result: a pair of English-made blankets cost in England 18s. 1d. or $4.45. A specific and ad valorem duty and custom-house fees paid, $4.90, made a total cost of $9.35. The American blankets of equal quality are now selling in our market for $5.58 per pair, which is only about 25 per cent. above the original cost of the English blanket, although there is a duty on blankets to cover the duty on wool and extra wages paid of about 80 per cent. ad valorem.

But if there never had been any duty on blankets, their manufacture would not have been established here at all, and the price, no doubt, be fully equal to the cost price to the consumer here to-day. As it is, we have a large and growing industry, producing last year in value $7,000,000 worth of blankets, consuming large quantities of wool, with good prices to the farmer, and with well-paid labor, supporting 50,000 of our people.

The home competition has, as I have shown, reduced the cost to the consumer far below the importing price. Whatever the additional cost to the consumer may have been it has not gone out of the country, but is in the hands of the wool-grower and the well-paid laborer. I wish to here note: the duty on wool valued at 32 cents per pound is 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent. ad valorem, about 15 cents per pound or 50 per cent. ad valorem; but this does not show the full effect upon the manufactured article, from the fact that wool shrinks from 45 to 65 per cent. in its conversion into cloth, and this really makes the duty upon the woolen manufacturer's imported raw material nearly 100 per cent. or on the domestic clip such percentage thereof as is added to the cost in consequence of the tariff.

This high duty on wool and consequent high duty on all imported wool and part-wool fabrics makes woolen goods higher here than in other countries. Woolen fabric in some form is used by all classes, and it may be regarded as the leading article which materially increases the cost of living here as compared with other countries. Cotton fabrics are cheaper here and nearly all kinds of food. The removal of the duty on wool would doubtless affect the cost of all woolen fabrics; but believing, as I do, firmly in the protective principle, the tariff must be general and fair in its application and the wool-growers protected.

The increased cost of woolen fabrics to the farmer or any class of consumers is many times compensated for by increased value to farm products and higher compensation to mechanical and professional service.

But it is asked why, with all this inventive genius and superior facilities, we hesitate to throw open the doors to the foreign competitor. If it were not to prevent foreigners making this the dumping-ground for their overproduction at times, which would make our business here unstable and deter American capital from embarking in manufactures, we might from time to time consign articles now protected to the free list; though I have plainly shown, as in the case of cotton cloth and other manufactures, that the reduction of the cost of manufactured articles to the consumer is brought about by home competition and not by the reduction or abolition of duties.


In every manufacturing industry I have cited protection has cheapened products, and there is not a single manufactured article that can be named to disprove this rule. Protection in the long run will inevitably cheapen all kinds of manufactured commodities. In legislating, therefore, upon any of the great economic questions not immediate nor local interests should govern us.

The invariable rule as applied to manufactures will not hold good as applied to all kinds of raw material, especially as it relates to wool. In the present condition of sheep husbandry in this country the value of the domestic product is affected by the duty on foreign wool.

We imported in 1881 67,416,966 pounds of wool, on which there was assessed and paid into the Treasury as duties $4,860,815.40. A part of this sum was added to the cost to the consumer of this raw material imported. It also enhanced the cost of the wool-clip here. The wool imported last year was about one-fifth the total amount consumed. If the one-fifth imported was made to cost more in consequence of the duties, it is fair to say that our whole domestic clip was increased in value, and this advantage has gone into the pockets of the wool-growers of America, and has so far helped to lift this class of our population above the wool-growers of other countries.

The competition among farmers is unlike the competition among manufacturers. If there is an over product of wool or other farm product they can change their crops or stock; but manufacturing capital once invested in a plant must struggle on through the varying conditions of business without change. Iron works cannot be converted into cotton mills, nor woolen mills into shoe shops.

The gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Aiken] — the professional and practical farmer — in his speech the other day brought forward the old but fallacious argument that the tariff duties imposed upon an imported article were wholly added to the total cost of the domestic production in this country, and taking up the article of iron in its various forms endeavored to show by computation that the country suffered thereby many millions of dollars.

This is all wrong, as I have demonstrated on several articles, and could on many more. But let us admit it to be true for the purpose of carrying out the gentleman's theory to a conclusion; and, as the gentleman speaks for the farmers, we will take their products to further illustrate his theory. There was produced in this country, in 1880, Indian corn, wheat, rye, oats, barley, buckwheat, potatoes, tobacco, and hay to the value of $1,850,812,617; on these articles, according to his theory, there would be a duty cost of $580,281,204.40. The production of farm animals, horses, cows, sheep, hogs, & c., in the same year, was valued at $760,147,480. On these the duty would be $152,029,496. No one claims that these two sums, amounting to $732,310,700.40, are really added to the cost to the consumers of our farm products, yet it is as fair to assume this as it is to believe his statement in regard to the duty cost of the product of iron. If this were true, the gentleman's figures for "total tariff on iron products in 1880, $150,733,900," look small beside the total tariff cost on his products, $732,310,700.40. And I have not included in this estimate many other agricultural products, such as wool, or butter, cheese, and provisions. But this whole plan of reasoning is good for nothing from the fact that our home competition has more to do with prices than the tariff, either in farm products or manufactured articles.


It is said that our system of production makes the rich richer and


the poor poorer, and a few men who live in our great commercial cities are made the scape-goats. Their great fortunes furnish the text for all sorts of hostile legislation. The very general prosperity of the country makes it possible for the bold and enterprising to accumulate. The great fortunes, however, have been made in this country in land, railroad, and commercial speculations, and not in manufacturing. Very few manufacturers have fortunes independent of their brick and mortar investments. It is quite the reverse in England. The largest fortunes there are among the manufacturers and land-holders. We have no law of primogeniture, handing down estates one generation to another. Death scatters our fortunes. Property is more generally distributed among the people in America than in any other country. It has been no easy task to establish manufacturing in this country. It has been done by hard-working, plucky, persevering men, and the successes have come through years of struggle and anxiety. Wrecked fortunes and worn-out lives in vain attempts are more numerous. You only call attention to the successful. If a history were written showing the losses and misfortunes it would disarm all criticisms upon manufacturers. While successes have inspired many, misfortunes have deterred more from attempting what is free to all.


Protection maintains the women of America in their proper sphere. The difference in the percentage of women engaged in factory and out-door labor here and in Europe is very marked. Out-door female farm laborers are almost as common as male in England, Scotland, and Ireland and on the Continent. Our farmers' wives and daughters, with simpler homes than now, with less refinement and education, might have time to perform farm labor; but do we desire that? Does such a system tend to the highest and best development of the race? Let history answer that question. I admit that there is apparently a measure of profit in this; it makes a wide difference whether wives and daughters are spending money or earning it. But the intellectual and social condition of our women is one of the foundation stones upon which we are building up this new-world system, and is only made possible by our protective policy, by which there can be such division of labor as to give the mothers and children time for mind-culture while the adult males, by their well-paid labor, provide for the material wants of the family.

Our population as shown by the tenth census is not yet classified into occupations, but the proportion of males and females employed in the different industries has not probably materially changed from that shown in the ninth census. I find that in 1870 there were engaged in agricultural pursuits in the United States 5,225,503 males and 396,968 females — 14 males to 1 female. By official returns of the industries of Great Britain and Ireland the proportion engaged in agriculture there at that time was as 6 to 1 — 6 males to 1 female.

In the United States the number engaged in manufacturing, mechanical, and mining industries was, males, 2,353,471; females, 353,950 — 7 males to 1 female. There were engaged in these same pursuits, at the same time, in Great Britain and Ireland 2 males to 1 female.

The proportion of children employed in manufacturing industries indicates more forcibly the straits to which the people of these countries are put to obtain a livelihood. The statistics showing the number of children employed in manual labor in the United Kingdom and this country are not computed on the same basis as to age. Those in Great Britain and Ireland are taken at 20 years and under, while those in the United States are taken at 16 and under.

I find that of the 2,707,421 persons engaged in manufacturing and mining in the United States, 75,643 are children under 16 years of age. Add twice this number for those between 16 and 20, to bring the calculation on the same basis with Great Britain and Ireland, and we have 226,929, or 12 adults to 1 child. In Great Britain and Ireland in a total of 6,425,137 engaged in like pursuits, 1,567,716 are children under 20 years — or 4 adults to 1 child.

In England the proportion of children engaged in the above-named pursuits is about 2 males to 1 female; in Scotland 1 ˝ males to 1 female, and in Ireland 1 1/3 females to 1 male. The percentage of female children to male is greater in Ireland and Scotland than in England, and you will observe the very much greater percentage of female children laborers in the two former than in the latter country. And here I leave this picture.


But they say Great Britain gets on with free trade; but how does she get on? In her early history she had a protective tariff, but, cramped territorially and with a large share of her narrow domain absorbed for deer parks for her lords, she found that she could not be a great nation with such limited agricultural resources. So she determined to obtain outlying possessions and turn her islands into workshops to supply her subjects and neighboring countries with manufactured articles. Being possessed with mechanical facilities to supply the wants of her own people, and wanting cheap raw material, she launched into the troubled sea of free trade. Although they have been thus far successful as a manufacturing nation in competing with the whole world, yet their prosperity has not been general among all classes of their people. It has built up an aristocracy of wealth. Their artisans, through whom they have acquired such wealth, have not had their share. Very few possess homes or laid-by earnings, and they are ill-prepared to meet the new condition of affairs that awaits her now that the countries of all Europe, and even her own colonies, are shutting their doors against the free introduction of her products.

In this country the possibilities for acquiring wealth, social, and public position are open and easier to all. The employe to-day may to-morrow be the employer. His rise or fall is marked only by his own diligence and prudence.

But it is said that England cannot stand the drain of paying for the breadstuffs we furnish her, in gold rather than in her manufactures. What marvelous concern for our great rival! These same men who cry out for fair play for England on this question of free trade deplore the fact that England is permitted to carry even the breadstuffs she purchases of us in her own ships, and urge free trade as the only possible way by which we can build ships and take from her the carrying trade. What consistency!


Our people are well fed, well clothed, and educated, and stimulated to ingenuity and skill, providing us with the best appliances for progress in mechanics, arts, and the sciences. Underfed ignorant men seldom invent anything except mischief.

Our schools of technology turn out young men between twenty and twenty-five years of age with better knowledge of these than were acquired formerly in a lifetime.

The development of the mental force or ingenuity of our people is plainly revealed at the Patent Office. The spirit of improvement is fully aroused; the zeal and rivalry for superior methods in material or social life were never more apparent than now. The patents issued in 1837 were but 435; in 1850, 995; in 1880, with only about double the population of 1850, there were issued 13,947 patents.

Comparing this with Great Britain we find that but 3,461 patents were issued by them in 1879, (no later reports are given.)

The free-traders claim that the tariff is a burden, and that it bears more heavily upon those least able to bear it. This is not true. With the exception of the duty on sugar, and some of the raw materials for manufacture, our revenue is largely derived from articles of luxury, and articles to meet the demands of taste and fashion among the wealthy or "well-to-do" classes, which are not articles of necessity. Our own cotton and woolen manufactures supply substantially all the fabrics of these classes consumed by the great mass of our people. I insert a table showing the value of and duties paid upon articles of luxury and fine dress goods imported last year:

Article. Value. Duty.
Beer, ale, and porter $848,958 80 $341,185 62
Diamonds,& c. 8,330,071 45 835,052,19
Fancy articles, (alabaster & c.) 1,526,734 38 763,367 19
Fancy feathers and artificial flowers 2,835,282 90 957,826 95
Musical instruments 1,385,892 02 415,767 60
Paintings and statuary 2,188,865 47 218,386 55
Silk, piece goods and manufactured 32,377,226 48 19,038,665 81
Spirits and wines 2,081,679 34 2,963,889 67
Champagne and wines 2,888,668 08 1,369,763 60
Other spirits, & c., and still wines 3,650,990 41 2,011,269 32
Tobacco and cigars 6,474,938 67 4,655,591 67
Braids, laces, & c., for ornamenting hats 2,340,384 00 702,115 20
Laces, cords, braids,gimps 5,124,102 76 1,793,435 96
Chinaware decorated 1,621,112 35 810,556 18
Cotton embroideries 3,135,500 00 1,096,756 50
Meerschaum pipes 64,354 00 53,679 79
Fire-crackers 238,025 20 227,800 05
Fruits and nuts 12,511,806 39 3,341,848 66
Fine cut glasaware 802,807 20 328,322 88
Fire-arms 1,137,514 35 398,130 01
Cotton velvets and fine cotton goods 8,590,297 49 3,006,604 12
Total 100,093,301 74 44,329,915 52

This sum is greater than the revenue of the Government from customs in any year up to 1851, and nearly equal to that received in 1858, 1859, or 1860.

Let us turn for a moment to our neighbor, the Dominion of Canada. They have had a long and full trial of free trade, and abandoned it. Their experience ought to be worth something to us and fortify rather than weaken us in our protective policy.

The Dominion of Canada has a total area of territory almost equal to our own. Although much of it is in perpetual winter they have a large domain of fertile lands and abundant mineral resources. This country was settled simultaneously with our own, and has been for more than a century a colony of an English-speaking race. Her growth in population and wealth has been very slow. Like the other colonies of Great Britain she has been made to furnish the products of her soil and forests to the mother country in exchange for manufactured commodities – the theorist's way of enriching a country – by trading largely with other nations.

The Canadian provinces have been almost wholly engaged in farming, lumbering, and fishing, adding but very little to their population of wealth. In 1871, of their total population of 3,602,331, less than 5,000 persons were engaged in manufacturing woolen or cotton fabrics.

The English-speaking people of these provinces, who control its destinies, have been long loyal to the mother country; but seeing


England's present condition, the movement among the continental countries to strengthen their present or adopt new protective tariffs, and our own bright example right before them, made them dissatisfied and restless. For a time they saw no other relief than through annexation to the United States, and were ripe for it. First came the confederation of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Canadas. Then their statesmen were determined to try our policy, which took shape in a high protective tariff, adopted in March, 1879. Such has been the result of their new departure in this brief period that the question of voluntary annexation has ceased to be discussed. Now manufacturing is springing up all over the provinces, and you are to have a young rival on this continent. I bid them Godspeed! Though in this imitation of our system we are to be deprived of some trade, it will inure to their social and material benefit.

The Premier's last address to the Dominion Parliament is an argument full of facts to prove the benefits of their new protective policy. I quote a few extracts


Sir, the position of the government when they introduced what is called the national policy was a difficult one, because they had a difficult question to deal with. There was necessarily a great deal of speculation with respect to the effect of the adoption of that policy then in the minds of some of its friends and advocates. There was a question in their minds, as well as in the minds of gentlemen opposite, whether, if it proved to be a protective policy we would obtain sufficient revenue; and if on the contrary, it proved to be a revenue tariff, whether it would give the protection to the industries of the country which was demanded by the people, as is evidenced by the elections of 1878; and necessarily, perhaps, we who had given consideration to this matter had to speculate to a certain extent with respect to its effect. But, sir, in 1880, the opinions we had entertained in 1879 were still stronger, because evidence accumulated to show that our position was the correct one, and to-day we stand in an impregnable position with respect to the results of the tariff, both for protective and revenue purposes.


When the house took recess I was calling the attention of honorable members to some facts to prove that the fears entertained by some gentlemen of the opposition, that this policy would not increase the number of industries in the country or give additional employment to manufacturers were unfounded. I was about to state the following fact in reply. I will take up first the increased imports of the following raw materials used in manufactures, namely, raw cotton, and hides, and wool imported. These three articles, especially cotton, give a very fair idea of the increase of value of the manufactures. The raw cottons imported in 1877-'78 amounted to 7,243,413 pounds, and in 1880-'81 amounted to 16,018,721 pounds, or an increase of more than double in the three years. The hides imported in 1877-'78 amounted in value to $1,207,300; in 1880-'81, to $2,184,884, or nearly double. The wool imported in 1877-'78 was 6,230,084 pounds; in 1880-'81, 8,040,287 pounds. The wool exported in 1877-'78 amounted to 2,445,893 pounds; in 1880-'81, to 1,404,123 pounds, giving an increase of imports of 1,810,000 pounds, and a decrease of exports, which shows that there was a consumption in 1880-'81, of Canada wool, over that of 1878, of 1,041,770 pounds, thus making an increase in the consumption of wool between the two periods of 2,857,973 pounds. The increased value of cotton, leather, and woolen manufactures for the year 1881, as compared with 1878, taking these facts into consideration, exceed $5,500,000 on these articles alone.

Now, let us see what facts we have been able to gather with reference to the new factories established and the number of persons employed. I will deal with the general statement first, and then with one or two different localities showing the influence that has been produced there by the operation of the tariff. I have some statements with reference to wages, but I will take the number of persons employed first, upon a very partial investigation, because it only extended over a portion of the Dominion. We ascertained that there have been ninety-five new factories established down to October last, since March, 1879, employing 7,025 hands. [Applause.] I may say that the cotton factories that are now in course of construction and will probably be completed within twelve months will employ 3,000 hands in addition to those I have already mentioned. [Hear! Hear!] Some four hundred odd factories visited and that were in existence, less the ninety-five that I have named as being established since 1878, show an increase of employes varying from 5 to 35 per cent., and with an average of 17 per cent. In these three hundred and fifty factories that were in operation before that 17 per cent. on the number of employes, as far as we can gather from the census of 1871, making an allowance for reduction in the number employed between 1871 and 1878, would give 17,850, making down to October last 24,875, as the increase of employes since 1878. [Applause.]


Great sympathy is expressed by our friends opposite with reference to the farmer, and I quite admit if it could be shown that this tariff had no advantages for the farmer, that he paid more and received nothing in return, that he might be induced to accept the invitation of honorable gentlemen opposite, and oppose this policy whenever it is put upon its trial. Let us see, now, if the leading articles which he is consuming are no higher than before and in many cases they are less than before, what benefit he has in addition to the lowest price. In my judgment the farmer is as greatly interested in the tariff as any other class of men in the Dominion. In the first place, he has the home market. An honorable member opposite referred to the home market last session I think, stating that it was of very little importance. Visit any section of the Dominion; put yourself in communication with a farmer, especially in the different towns where manufacturing industries have been established, and ask them if they are deriving no advance. Why, sir, under the operation of this tariff for the vegetables, the fruit, the poultry, the lamb and veal and other meats, the butter, the cheese, for almost everything they offer for sale, they obtain higher prices on account of the home market than is obtained in localities where they have to sell to the middleman and ship to another market. Now, sir, in conversation with some of those gentlemen I found that in 1878 – I speak now especially of a conversation I had with some farmers not a hundred miles distant, in the active and energetic manufacturing town of Ganenoque – I ascertained that they frequently came to market with their vegetables, would stand there all day, and not being able to get a price which would be an object to them, would drive home and wait for another opportunity, frequently being compelled to return and take what was offered. "There is no difficulty now. We sell everything we bring in for cast at better prices." Why? "Because in that locality everything is in an active and flourishing state; manufactories have increased, the number of the employed have increased, and their wages have increased." They have plenty of money with which to buy perishable products. I speak particularly of perishable goods which cannot be sent to a distant market. Now, it is said, and it may be said by some honorable gentleman opposite, that there is something in that; you have shown that some 25,000 more people are employed than in 1878 in these manufactories, and if they represent four for each family you have 100,000 people to be fed who were without employment or were only partially employed or not in the country in 1878, it and the benefit to the farmer can be clearly understood; but the duty on oats is no protection to the farmer; the duty on corn is of very little benefit to the farmer and that while they derive no benefits in these respects they are burdened with increased taxation. What is the fact? Do they not obtain better prices for their corn than they did before with a duty of 7˝ cents per bushel? They certainly do. There is no question about that. Do they not obtain better prices for their rye? I admit that is regulated to a very large extent by the prices in Germany and elsewhere, the markets to which it is generally shipped from the Dominion, but the distillers of Canada now come to the farmers of Canada for rye which they use as a substitute for corn. That gives an increased market, and to a certain extent affects the price.


This is a marvelous fact to which I wish just here to call the attention of the house: that the amount that is now being paid into savings-banks of the Dominion of Canada every month is nearly $400,000 over and above the sums withdrawn, and has been so for the last three years. It is an important fact that I am able to state here, that in three years and four months ending on the 1st of February there were deposited in the post-office savings-banks of Canada — notwithstanding that the government did not want this money, and had made stipulations by which the amount to be received should be reduced from $10,000 to $3,000, and by which no interest should be paid for the month of deposit or withdrawal, so as to discourage depositors — over and above the sums withdrawn, $13,000,000 and upward, and in the banks of the country they have increased during the same period $23,000,000 and upward, making an increase in deposits of the earnings of the people of this country in the banks of the government and the savings-banks in that time of $36,000,000 and upward; and this while we are investing in our manufactories and other industries of the country large sums of capital; while we are sending our money to Manitoba and the Northwest and investing it there; while the people of Canada have invested in the last three months $3,000,000 of the C.P. and other securities. Still, notwithstanding this increased demand, notwithstanding that the banks have increased largely their discount sheets, we find that these deposits have increased in that period to the extent I have pointed out. No better evidence could be given of the prosperity of the country than this, and I shall, because I hope to prove it before I get through, largely ascribe it as due to the N.P.

The time fixed for the report of the commission makes early action of Congress necessary. The evidence or facts to be collected by a commission cannot be gathered in a day. Different sections of the country should be visited and the condition of all branches of industry reported upon, that Congress can more readily formulate a law.

Mr. Chairman, it would not seem necessary in the light of our own experience and the experience of other nations, at this day, among our intelligent people, to discuss the merits or demerits of a protective-tariff policy. We might differ in the details of a law, but how can we be divided on its general principles.

In a plain and homely way I have endeavored to show that the protective features of our tariff were instituted and have been maintained in the interests of no one class of our citizens, but for all. Labor, the source of all wealth, is the first and the largest recipient of these benefits; capital has its share. There is no class in the various divisions of labor that is borne down by the provisions of the tariff. Business is made so diversified in this country that talent, taste, and ambition find a wide and free field for employment.

I again assert, our early statesmen founded this newest of republics upon a wise system of revenue laws that would both raise a revenue and protect its industries. It has worked out for us comfort, wealth, and intellectual power more than its founders could have possibly anticipated; and I mistake my duty if I am not here to perpetuate this principle and to legislate for the best interests of our own people. I believe in the declaration of our late lamented President, "We legislate for the people of the United States — not for the whole world."