Crawfordsville Review, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County, 29 October 1892 — Page 3
CONGRESSMAN BROOKSHIRE.
Full Text of His Speech, as Delivered at Brazil.
He Gives an Account of His Stewardship in Congress.
What Measures of Relief for the PeGple He Voted and Why.,
Every Important Public Question Fully, Fairly and Frankly uiscussed.
What He Has Done and What He Will Do if Re-Electsd.
The Speech of a Man Who Has Dealt and Will Deal Honestly VS^th the People.
Every Voter in the District Should Read What He Has to Say.
Congressman E. V. Brookshire spoke at the Democratic wigwam in Brazil Thursday night, Oct. 20. The occasion was enlivened by music from the Brazil band. The sp^ker was introduced to
the audience by Frank. A. Horner, the energetic chairman of the county committee.
After the applause that had greeted his appearance had subsided Mr. Brookshire began his speech. He was listened to with close attention and frequently applauded. Below is given the full text of his Bpeech:
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen
1'
ment. because every argument, deceitful and fallacious, that the monopolists of this country cau invent, hosbeen used to pervert tho truths ol history with reference to the period in question. My Republican brethren, have you ever read the speech delivered in the National House of Representatives by President James A. G'irfield on the Gth day of March, 1878, when tariff taxes were about two-thirds as high as now on an average on dutiable goods, imported? Mr. Garfield along in those days tried to prevail upon his party to take the back track upon the tariff question. In those times Mr. Garfield insisted that tariff taxes werft too high upon the common necessities of life and in his speech of March 6tb, 1878, he went on to give the facte, showing that the peopl# were more prosperous from 1850 to 1860 than ever before or since in the history o! the United States. He showed thatthejarms of the country increased from 1850 to 1860,103 per cent that is to say, that the farm lands of the country, owned by the faiuers, doubled in value, and 3 per cent over. He also showed that capital invested iu manufactures increased 90 per cent, from 1850 to 1800, or in other words almost doubled he also went on to show that commerce had prospered, that theout-put of the luines hadgreatly increased
during
the decade in question
over former decades. He closed nis speech with these words. Mark them well. "The fact is the decade from 18o0 to 18G0 was a period of peace and general prosperity." If Mr. Garfield were living today, could he say truthfully that the decade through which we have just passed has been a "period of peace and general prosperity?"' I submit that he could not.
ALMOST C1VJL WiB IN FIVE
STATES.
My fellow countrymen, within this very year there has substantially bsen war in five states of this union at Homestead, Penn., in Buffalo, N. Y. in the mines of Tenneaee, and in Idaho and Wyoming, where the army of the United States has been called into action. Discontented labor, riot, bloodshed and murder. In the light of these conditions could Mr. Garfield say, as he did in his speech of March 6th, 1878, that the de" cade through which we hive just passed was one of peace and general prosperity? Again I insist that he could not. In the year 1861 the Morrill tariff bill was passed which increased the average tax upon dutiable goods imported from 19 per cent to about 86 per cent on an average. Thus you see the rate of taxation upoo'dutiable goods, due to the passage of the Morrill tariff bill, were doubled, and almost simultaneously with the passage of the Morrill tariff bill there WM a tax laid upon the gross output of the manufactures of our country of from 3 to 5 percent. "When we had tariB taxes averaging 19 percent upon dutiable goods imported we had a system of tariff rates which were in the main 'for revenue only,' but when this rate of taxation was doubled, all along the line, it at once became, in its nature, a protective tariff. But lor this protection and for purooae* ot. revenue the
S E E N
FFECT6 OF THE MCKINLEY BILL ON LABOR. My fellow countrymen, therefore, can it be truthfully Baid that these high tuxes are laid for the benefit: of labor? There was a recent investigation by a committee of the Senate of the United States, to ascertain what effect the McKinley bill had had upon the wages of labor. They took fifteen protected industries, which in. dus tries were supposed to be directly euced by the passage of the McKinley bill They were the industries invol vtdin making boiler iron, boots and shoes, cotton goods, cotton and woolen goods, crucible steel, flint glass, green jflass, lumbar, machinery, pig iron, steel ingots, steel blowers, steel rails, window glass. The committee found, or at least the facts set forth ia the report BIIOW, that in these employments the wages paid laborers have deceased since the passage of the MeKinley bill. Then they took fifteen unprotected industries, supposed not to be effected directly by the passage of the MeKinley bill—cabinet makers, carponters, farm laborers, machinists, masons, etc., and in these unprotected employments the report showed that there had been a rise in wages since the passage of the McKinley bill. Therefore, do not these facts show tha the real profits due to protection do notgo to laboring people even in these protected establishments but rather to the manufacturers themselves, who control and own these protected establishments. If you want further information on thi« point read the late tariff speech of Mr. Carlisle who was a member of the committee. My fellow countrymen, this much I have ventured to say generally upon tfie subject of tariff taxation but now I propose to discuss specifically some of the legislative acts of the present House of Representatives at its last session.
The most important question, no doubt, that now concerns the people, and which is worthy of a just and speedy solution, is the one to which I have generally alluded. There was passed through the Democratic House of Representatives at the last session of Congress six tariff bills and I think I will be able to show that these tariff bills we^e.very important because they were directed against some of the most indefensible and intolerable provisions of the McKinley tariff law, which met withBUcb marked disproval and condemnation at the last general election. THE BILL PLACING WOOL FLJPON THE FREE
Livr AND GREATLY REDUCING THE TAX UPON IMPORTED WOOLENS. The first bill to which I desire to call your attention is the one which passef1 the House which provided that the wocJ should be placed upon the free list anc that a very large reduction indeed should be made in the tax^ npor imported woolens. In oraei? that we may comprehend the importance of this measure, I will stiate that in the year 1891 our custom revenue amounted to about 3220,000,000 am' that nearly one-llfth of that sum, on dollar in five of that amount, was col-
4 r.
sisnippiand Missouri rivers, and in 1891 there were nearly 25,000,000. In the state of Texas there were but 753,000 sheep in 1860, and in 1891, nearly 5,000,000. In New Mexico there were but 830,000 sheep in 1860, and in 1891 there were over 3,000,000. If there were as many sheep in the United States today according to the population, as there were in 1868, there would be more than 65,000,000 sheep in the United States, instead of 44,000,000, as the census shows. Therefore, I contend that the number of sheep and the prioe of wool is controlled by physical conditions rathar than by the tariff.
THB DIFFERENT GRADES OF WOOL. My fellow citizens, we produce in the Uaited States less than 300,000,000 poundB of wool annually on the average. In 3891 we produced 285,000,000 po unds, and yet it would take 600,000, 000 pounds of wool annually in order to make the neccessary woolens of our people. Imported wools are divided into three classes—fine marino wool neccessary for the making of very finecloths the middle grade of wool, known as combing wool, and very coarse, hairy wool, familiarly known as carpet wools. Our importations of wool in the main consists of the finer and coarser grades, so but little of the middle grade of wool, such as we produce in theU. S. is imported. The carpet wools cannot be produced in this country profitably. The breed of sheep which we do produce generally and which can De produoed with the greatest profit are of the blood producing, the middle grade of wool Bhorn from the back of the mutton sheep. Therefore, in order to find a market for our own wool, it is neccessary to have foreign wools imported for the purpose of admixtures for as I before remarked we do not produce half enough wool to supply our people with needed and neccessary woolens. France, England and Germany import into our
country
from #35,000,000 to $40,000,000 worth of manufactured woolen goods annually. These are in the main fine goods, consisting of fine cloths for men's suits and Henriettas women's and children's dress goods, and the reason that theae goods are not manufactured is our country, is because we do not have the fine soft wools necessary to their construction. These countries admit wool free. Consequeotlv they enjoy tha advantage of having every variety of wool necessary to the fabrication of woolens of every character. The countries abroad producing the middle grade of wool such as we produce are those on the continent of Europe, Great Britain amdCanada.In the ear 1887 there were produced 860,000,000 pounds of wool on the continent of Europe, and in Great Britian, and yet it ssaid that those countries manufactured md consumed over 1,700,000,000 pounds of wool—100,000,000 pounds •nore than twic« as muoh as they oroduoed. Canada consumes more wool than she produces by 100,000,000 pounds annually. therefore the only .•ouatries of which I have any knowledge that produce wool in excess of
be woolen. How much do you suppose this high taxation increased annually the price of woolens produced in the United States? I candidly believe that it increased their cost teus of millions of dollars to the people annually. Not only does the McKinley law lay the highest taxes upon woolens ever laid by any tariff bill, but it also discriminates against the poorer people in a manner most provoking and indefensible. Senator Plumb, in addressing the Senate, with reference to the McKinley bill, in August, 1890, as I now remember, among other things said: "The cheaper the goods the higher the rate duty in this bill." Now the deceased Senator voted asrainst this bill because he said its heaviest burdens were laid upon the poor people. I wonder if he was right in his criticism. The coarsest wool blankets are taxed, in the McKinley bill, 106 per cent. the finer, softer ones, 72 per cent. the coarsest shoddy wool hats are taxed 111 per cent. the finer ones 06 per cent. women's and children's dress goods, Henriettas, suDpoBed to be all wool and of the coarsest kind, taxed 125 percent. the finer and more elegant Henriettas taxed 86 per cent. The coarsest underwear is taxed 112 per cent, and the finer underwear 78 per cent.
A SPECIES OF CLASS LEGISLATION. Right here let me remark that woolen goods at the custom house are largely taxed by weight, the coarser the good the heavier they are. Again takekoit fabrics of wool valued at not over $0.30 per lb., taxed at 323 per cent, and a finer grade valued at over $0.40 per lb taxed 76 per cent coarse wool shawls valued at not more than .30 per lb., taxed 155 per cent those valued at over .40 per lb., taxed 79 per cent woolen and worsted yarns, valued at .30 per lb. taxed 184 per cent, the highest quality valued at about .40 per lb., taxed 96 psr cent. My fellow countrymen, can any fair minded man contemplate these rates of taxation without feeling just spirit of resentment? This is certainly the worst sort of class legislation. A species of class legislation that discriminates against the poor and those who are least able to help themselves. Therefore we think Senator Plum was correct in his cirticism,
A WOOL ILLUSTRATION HERE AT HOME. But since there has been BO very much said with reference to the placing of wool upon the free list let us take the most unhappy view of this proposition that we can. Let us suppose that taxing the tax off of wool will actually reduce the price of wool to the farmer. Let us bring this illustration nearer home. There are in Indiana about 220.000 farmers and but little 'over 1,100,000 sheep, and let us not forget in this connection that in 1868, when these high taxes were first being laid on wool,there were in Indiana over 2,800,000 sheep, I think it is safe to say that there is not today in the State of Indiana more than five t-hesp to farmer in he state. iSuuuutte each.
made by an officer of the government that there was only manufactured in the United States in the nine months immediately preceding the 31st day of lust March, 5,240,000 pounds of tin and terne plate. And only enough of tin and terne plate has in fact been manufactured it would seem to supply the demand in the United States for this article of merchandise for about one day, as I will presently Bhow. So the tin plate prophets have only been able to redeem about the 365th part of their promise in eighteen months, if we believe the report ol Col. Ayer. Think how ridiculous and indefensible this tax is. In the light of the report of the Tin Plate Consumers' Association, which was issued on the 10th of December, 1891, in which it is stated: "It is a matter of business that since the McKinley bill was passed we havo had to pay over $10,000,000 more for the tin plate we use in our factories and workshops and that the present duty will add every year over $15,000,000 to the cost of our raw material."
TIIE BURDENSOME TIN PLATE TAX.) Fellow citizens, this is an organization of men of all political faiths—business men. If their statement be correct, in the year and a half that the McKinley bill has been in force up to the 31st day of last March, the people have had to pay increased in prices on tin plate to the amount of over $22,000,000. Think of the American people paying out nearly $1,000,000 for every hour's consumption of tin plate furnished bv these so-called tin plate establishments in the United States! For the three months immediately preceding March 31st, 3,600,000 pounds of black sheets were imported.. Therefore it would seem that these black sheets of steel were brought into the United States and just dipped in tin so that after all such tin plate as has been manufactured in the United States has not been wholly made in the United States, but in the main, black plates have been imported and the pig tin imported and the sheets have simply been dipped. Therefore, no substantial employment has been given to lubor, notwithstanding this enormous and burdensome tax on all our people.
FIGURES THAT CALL FOR REFLECTION. Of course we read extravagant newspaper statements about the manufacture of tin plate, but it is quite evident that the official facts utterly put to flight the argument that there has been any substantial progress made in the manufacture of tin plate in the United States, prior to the 31st of last March, and the reasonfor this is quito apparent. Much of the worfc necessary to make tin plate requires peculiar information, and is not regarded by workingmen as a desirable sort of employment. You will all remember that immediately after the McKinley law went into force, Mr. Niedringhaus, a Republican and an ex-member of Congress, living in St. Lonis, asked for the privilege of importing laborers into tho United States, under contract. Ho thus asked to have