Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 16, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 May 1884 — Page 3

TARIFF REFORM.

Breech of Hon. George L. Yaple, of 9H Michigan, in the House of Rep- ■ resentatives, Wednesday, ■ April 23, 1884. Suae being In committee of the whole the state of the Union, and having BBtder consideration the bill (H. R 5893) to re■Brce import duties and war-tariff taxes, Mr. said: BHkb. Chairman: I am opposed to protective Hand because it protects the wrong man. It is qHA obstacle in the path of natural progress. It HH a process of transferring wealth from the Brackets of one man into the pockets of another, HHthout returning any equivalent, and that is HHbbery. It breeds antagonisms of interests BSmd engenders a war or classes. It builds up RHonopolies, and every monopoly is an in fringeJBSent of some right of Industry. It is the folly SH trying to get rich by increasing the cost of lowing, of trying to encourage industry by bur||B>ning it with taxes, of trying to build up comHferce by prohibiting trade. is a tariff? It is simply a tax on the exRfl'ange of goods. For whatever purpose imHftsed, whether for the sake of profccHfm. so called, or for revenue only, it is always Hd simply a tax which the Government levies goods brought to our shores from other HHantries. Exchange is the source of all life and Health. The value of every day's work is its value HI exchange. Exchange is a benefit to all parties Hlncerned. Protection, however, denies tlus Hlndamental fact of political economy, and atHfms that commerce is not a mutual benefit but BMlwindle; that in every trade one side or the must lose. HRChe protective party in this country has, by |He voice of its orators, declared that it would |Hb better if the shores of this nation were surHlunded by oceans of fire instead of water: that Hu Almighty, who is a free-trader, made an HHonomic blunder in connecting England and by a great highway of commerce. The ■Hotective policy is to-day advocated by one HLrty in this country as the i>ermanent, settled of the nation. Now, the perfection of is prohibition. Its object, then, canHht be to secure a revenue to the Government, without commerce there would be no of* revenue. Revenue is derived on the Hfreign goods that come to our shores. ProtecHpn is secured only as foreign goods are kept Hilt. Protection, therefore, begins just where ends, Government gains only as it secures a venue; now, the question is, who gains by proSomebody gains something, but not |Bfoverament. It is legislation in the interest of Hbticular classes, and class legislation has ever a blighting curse on human society, the obstacle to the growth and prosperity Ht the common people. It is wrong in principle, Hud what is wrong in principle cannot be right |H practice. Hit is claimed for this protective policy that in Hte end it secures industrial autonomy and commercial independence; that it develops and mulhome industries by compelling the nation produce everything it wants within its own i hat Is the philosophy of compelling Hrery man to produce everything he wants and make him commercially independent. "ln|Hnpendence of commerce is the independence of He savage.” The richest nation is really the Hiost independent nation, because it is the bet|B r able to command the fruits of the soil and H ie products of the industries of other lands, Hid riches are the fruit of free thought, free Hjbor, and free trade. HfFreedom is a necessary condition of wealth Hjid independence. To blockade commerce is to off one of the greatest sources of wealth and of support. Trade is simply trade, Hjhether between nations or individual men. Hfl a certain sense there is no such tiling as trade Hb tween nations; it is all trade between individHil men. Foreign commerce rests upon preciseH v ; the same grounds as domestic commerce. [Hihere is just the same reason for one as for other. All commerce rests upon the inHjrualities existing among men and nations. ■{There is endless variety in nature; diversity Hf zones, soils, climate, geographical position, lHhd natural productions, and it Is on this diver|Hty that international commerce depends, the [Hjime as domestic commerce depends on the diof tastes, habits, and aptitudes among jHjien. Nature rebukes the doctrine that one naH : on should be independent of commerce with Hpher nations. In the configuration of the continents God has made the different nations of earth mutually dependent, and it is just as gHbod political economy to compel each man to Hjrodwce everything he wants, as to compel each {Hation to produce everything it wants. |B This country is nothing if not commercial. Hiestrict onr commerce and you smite to that the soil with blight and chain the wheels Hi progress. The channels of commerce are the {Hutlets for the fruits of our labor and genius, the means of securing for our own benefit [Hie arts, literature, science, and natural produc|Kons of other lands. Deprive a man of the of commerce with other men and you his life into a barren desert. Deprive [Hpis nation of the benefits of commerce with IHther nations, and you stop the flying train and Hailing ship, close the doors of our factories, put JHut the fires in our furnaces, and cover with our opulent fields. A protective tariff is Hfmply an act of Congress to amend an act of Hue Almighty. It does not and cannot augment ■ie industries of a country. Wm A tax has no productive power; it is not a fHieans of development; it is not a source of Health. It always takes something, but never [Hives anything. The natural and practical jHffect of a protective tariff is to redistribute the of industry, prevent the natural disHosion of wealth among those who create it. Hid center it in fewer hands. It is a tax on Hhe whole people for the benefit of a few. H’o impose a tariff on a foreign-made article Hi to increase the price of it, and if the tariff He at all protective it raises the price of it to a Height sufficient to make it dearer than the Home-made article, or to exclude it from the Home market altogether. The home commodity, H'hich was naturally of higher price, is thus by Hhe intervention of law made the cheaper of the Hwo, and In consequence commands the home Hiarket. The home manufacturer is thus given ■ complete monopoly of the home market. ;!■ Who pays this duty, or the excess in price of Hhe domestic above that of the foreign article? Hre eay the home buyer—that is, the people of Hhe country which imposes the tariff. Who Hains this excess? The home manufacturer. H’he protectionist claim that the duty is paid by Hhe seller, not the b...i or, and is in fact a tax on Horcign industry. In 1880 we imported pig-iron Ho the value of $11,619,000 on which the customs Hlnties amounted to $4,318,000, equivalent to a H.uty of 3616 per cent, ad valorem. Who paid that Hluty of $4,318,000? If the foreign seller paid It, ■hen for every one hundred dollars’ worth of H>ig-iron he received only $63.50. H The world Is one vast field of Industry. H3ach nation is a market for Hvhose trade every other nation Is striving. The ■treasure of universal competition reduces the Htrices of the products of other countries to a Boint so low that a further reduction of profits Hty the payment of duties to ns would Induce Hhem to withdraw their trade rather than conBinue it with ns. Gain is the only inducement Ho trade. Is it reasonable to suppose that EngHand, or any nation, would continue to send Htroducts to onr market unless the prices ruling Biere wore sufficiently high to cover the cost of Broduction there, the cost of transportation, Hhe duty imposed, and leave a margin of profit? ■England sends her products here to make profits, not losses. Prices rule high here in conseBuence of the tariff. H The effect of the tariff is to prevent the conHumer from purchasing at lower prices than the Brices fixed by the home manufacturer. It preHents foreign competition from reducing prices ■bt home, and thns enables the home manufactBrers by combinations to maintain prices at a High standard. It makes possible the system of ■confederated monopolies which to-day crushes ■rat home competition, and curses as with blight ■be wliolo land. Suppose that England should ■mpose an Import duty of 5 cents a bushel on ■vheat, would the price of wheat fall 5 cents a ■rashel in the United States? Would the Aineri■san, shipping wheat to England,.pay that duty ■k> that the price of wheat to the English con■ramer would be no more in consequence of it? ■ If it be true that the imposition of a duty on ■articles imported from England makes no dif■erence to the American consumer, then the ■jouverse of this proposition must also be true, ■bat removing the duty would make no differ■race to him. Or if it be true, as is now claimed, ■bat the effect of a protective tariff is to de- ■ Tease prices of home commodities, then the ■inverse of this proposition must also be true, ■bat the effeot of removing the tariff would bo ■» increase prices of home commodities. Is it ■possible to tax foreign industry? If so, every ■;onsideration of economy and patriotism should ■prompt ns to raise the entire revenue of the ■xrantry m that way, and lift every burden from ■be shoulders of American labor. If that is possible, I would be most heartily in favor of it. ■Why not in that way compel England, and ■ (Trance, and other nations to pay our debt? It ■ s a cruel despotism that refuses such a relief to ■>nr labor, especially when it costs nothing. 9 But, Mr. Chairman, a tariff from its very na■fitro does affect prices, does increase prices, and ■are have a confession of this fact in the records ■)f Congress, from the proteotlonists them■telves. In 1872 a bill was passed which exempted ■from duty, for the period of one vear, all buildling material except lumber, for the benefit of tho ■oiti/.ons of Chicago, which in the fail of 11871 was laid in ashes by the great ■fire. How was Chicago bonoflted by that ■net? It fur .ishod to her cltizeus for a ■time a cheaper market in which to buy the rna-

tertal, except lumber, for rebuilding the city. It was an act designed for the relief oi the Chicago buyer, not the foreign seller; bnt if tariff taxes are paid by the seller all the benefits resulting from a remission of those duties flowed into the pockets of the foreign seller. This was probably the view which the lumber lords of Michigan and Wisconsin took of the matter, and so, wi.h their great, warm hearts overflowing with the milk of human kindness, they came to Washington, and, at great cost and effort to themselves, succeeded in depriving the ioielgn s lier or any benefits from a repeal of the duty on lumber. That act is a public confession that tariff taxes increase prices to the consumer, and that duties are paid by the buyer. Now the working classes are the greatest buyers and largest consume; sin any nation, and the burdens of this tariff system fail heaviest npon them. It increases the cost ot everything they have to buy, and thus reduces the purchasing power of their labor. It is frequently said that the workingmen of this country pay no taxes; that the rich men, the men whose wealth is evidenced by non-tax-able greenbacks, national-bank notes, and Government bonds, support the Government. It would be nearer the truth to say that tha Govi rnment supports the rich on protection pap, and that the workingmen support both the Government and the rich. The industry of this country pays all iis taxes and debts of every kind and nature. To say that the workingmen pay no taxes is simply to say that they have nothing to eat, nothing to wear, and no homes to live in. Labor pay no taxes? What does labor have to buy that is not taxed? There is a tax on almost everything that is raiment, shelter, or implement of toil. Who pays the tax of 214 cents per ponnd on the blacksmith’s hammers and of 4 cents per ponnd on horseshoe nails? Who pays the tax of nearly 50 per cent, on salt? Who pays the tax on lumber, on Iron, on woolen goods, on paper, on books, on all the means of living, of education, and of grace (for even the Holy Bible is taxed)? Has the great “God-and-mo-rality" party utterly abandoned missionary work, that it refuses even a free Bible? These taxes are paid by the buyer, and the working classes are the largest buyers in any nation. They consume the largest amount of the necessaries of life, and the taxes on necessaries are higher in proportion than the taxes on luxuries. Mahogany, rosewood, and satinwood, nnmanufacured, are exempt from duty. Pine, unmanufactured, the material out of which the homes pf labor are built. Is taxed $2 per thousand feet. Matches are taxed 35 per cent, ad valorem; precious stones, 10 per cent, ad valorem. Woolen blankets are made dear to the suffering poor; cosmetics are made cheap for the false faces of a useless and shoddy aristocracy. One only has to read onr infamous tariff laws to see how at every point the burdens of taxation fall heaviest upon the consumers of the necessaries of life. The manufacturer in the end pays no part of these taxes, not even on the raw material which he uses. His taxes do not come out ot his income. They are put as an increased price on his commodities, and whoever buys his goods pays his taxes. The importer, the jobber, the retailer, all add their taxes to the selling price ot their goods, and the buyer pays the whole shot. Now, the protection that does not protect the consumer is a cheat and a fraud. But the protectionist asks, “If protection tends to increase the price of protected goods', how do you account for the fact that during the twenty years of our protective policy the average of prices in this country has cheapened?” He says: “We have a protective tariff and the average of prices has cheapened; therefore the tariff has catsed lower prices.” It might bo answered that England lias had free trade, and that the average of prices in that country has cheapened, and that therefore free trade has caused lower prices there. There is no relation whatever of cause and effect between the tariff and lower prices. That which in its very nature tends to increase prices cannot at the same time tend to decrease them. Art and science and inventive genius have been at work, blessing and enriching the world, while most legislation has cursed it. Art and science are democratic and work for the good of all mankind. Art and science are builders of democracies, the grandest temples beneath the skies. What we owe to material progress, which has showered its blessings upon the whole earth and tended to bring about political and social equality among men, the protectionist claims for his tariff policy. He forgets the beneficent law, enacted by the Almighty, that underlies all production; that in a natural, normal development of human society labor tends constantly to rise in value, and capital and the products of labor tend as constantly to decline In value; that the products of the farm tend to increase in value relatively to the products of the factory, and labor to increase in value over all. Every reaper and mower, every useful Invention tends to increase the purchasing power of labor and cheapen all the products of labor. The natural effect of every useful invention is, first, to increase the productive power of labor; second, to cheapen the cost of production; and, third, to increase the facilities for exchaiKing the products of labor. Art and science have been at work cheapening the cost of production, manufacturing, and transportation, and cheapening the cost of living to all classes. They have brought us many blessings during the last twenty years—the richest in the world’s history —in spite of the hostility of Congress. Our protective tariff has been an obstacle to cheaper production and manufacturing, and has thereby increased the cost of living and reduced the purchasing power of labor. Prices in this country would be still cheaper if the work of the inventor was supplemented with the work of a better political economy. Robert Fulton, before whose statue in yonder hall I have stood in silent admiration for hours, did more for the freedom of trade, for the emancipation of commerce from the slavery ot protection, than all the acts of Congress from the beginning of this Government to the 23d day of April, A. D., 1884. But it is claimed that to do away with our protective policy would bring our own labor In competition with the pauper labor of Europe, and reduce our labor to starvation wages, or force it out of employment altogether; that free trade means the employment of foreign labor and the discharge of our own. This is only another form of the old argument that commerce is a swindle. Sir, we are a commercial nation, and a commercial nation as suoh does not and can not employ foreign labor. We cannot buy unless we sell; we can not sell unless we produce something to sell. Our own labor is our purchasing power, and the more we buy the more It must be employed toproduce something to pay for what we buy. The way to stimulate and multiply industries at home is not by restricting or destroying commerce, but by extending Its lines in all directions around the circle of the earth. Commerce secures to our labor the benefits of the best skill and highest art of other countries, and brings it into competition with the best—not the poorest—thought and labor of the world. The way to starve labor is to force it to sell in the cheapest, a free market, and buy in a restricted, the dearest market. Commerce of Ideas brings mental wealth. Commerce of physical labor brings material wealth. The question of highest concern to the laborer is how he can get the largest returns for his work. It is not more sweat, but more food, better clothes, and better homes that labor wants. Labor is the builder and supporter of the state, and the greatest problem for the state should be how to increase the purchasing power of labor. Labor is the nation's right arm of power and of glory, and whatever paralyzes its arm or deprives it of strength or reduoes its purchasing power is a blow at the nation’s life. Mr. Chairman, why prohibit the importation of the products of foreign labor and yet allow the foreign laborer to come here duty free? Why let him come by the thousands and millions to compete with our labor on onr own soil, and lower its wages in every field and factory and mine, and yet deprive our labor of the benefits of cheaper living and lower prioes, which would result from opening to it the markets of the world? The labor of this country has no protection, even under our protective tariff, against the competition of the cheap pauper labor of all the world. It must meet that at the very threshold of its own home. The tariff protects home commodities, but not home men. Which is of the greatest valne to the state, pig-iron or man? What labor wants is a protection against the iron-fingered, vulturehearted monopoly of the home manufacturer. What labor wants Is a competition that reduces the cost of living, not a combination that reduces wages. We have free trade in labor, and now let us have competition in woolen blankets and the necessaries of life. * One of the greatest benefits claimed for the protective policy is that It appreciates the wages of labor in the protected country, but Just' the opposite of this is the fact. I believe it is agreed among all political economists, and affirmed by all experience, that wages depend npon the productiveness of labor, upon the wage fund, or the amount of capital available for the employment of labor, and upon the amount of labor in the market. Now, if protection Increases wages it must either increase the productive power of labor, the fund out of which it is p .id —that is, the capital of the country—or reduce the number of laborers competing for work. A tariff, I repeat, Is a tax, and a tax can not be a productive force; It cannot increase the supBly8 ly of capital or diminish the supply pf labor. r you can Increase the capital of this country by any system of taxes, I say pile the taxes on. lam willing to be made richer that way even. If wealth is the product of law, then what need Is there pf work? Why not exempt labor from taxation? A protective tariff was never designed to increase the wages of labor. With onr scarce population, with onr abundance of cheap lands and raw material, the wages of labor were always high in this country The manufacturers said they could not compete with foreign countries and pay the high wages of labor bore. They most have & dearer

< market for their goods, and the protective tariff ! system was inaugurated to protect onr manu- ; facturere against the high wages of labor in onr i own country. They paid tfietr labor with the ! products of their factories. The higher the j wages of labor, the more of their produets it required to pay for a day’s work. To Increase the | prices of their products was to increase their i paying power, to buy more labor with a yard of i cloth, or, in other words, to reduce tae purchasI lag power of a day’s work. The value of a day’s | work is determined not by the greenback, silver, or gold dollar which it receives in payment—that is a mere incident —but by its purchasing power, what it will bay of the n joessaries and comforts ot life. ’i he protective policy is the policy of wrapping up more days’ work in a woolen blanket, not of putting more blankets into a day’s work. It works just the wrong way. The manufacturers say now Just what they said in the beginning, that labor is cheap in England and high In tue United States from natural causes, and we must neutralize the effect of high wages here by increasing the paying power of the products of our factories—wrapping up more labor in a woolen blanket. I am glad that the wages of labor are high in this country, and I wish they were higher, as they ought to be. lam opposed to any system that neutralizes the effects of high wages and lowers the compensation of the American laborer. I want to see this Government legislate just a little in the interest of the men who work and support it, and not altogether in the interest of unproductive capital. Protection protects the capital employed in the protected industries, but leaves the laborer exposed to every danger. It is capital’s gain and lahor'B loss. If protection Increases wages, then wages should be higher in Germany than in England. Dear land and pressure of population are the conditions of both countries, and Germany is protected by tariff laws. Yet labor In England has nearly doable the purchasing power of labor in Germany. Protection asks an exclusive market for certain commodities. What does that mean? It means to narrow the markets to the toilers in the field and factory and mine, and thus lower the profits of their labor. The farmer living near Detroit may be able to obtain more of the articles of living and implements of husbandry for his wheat and corn just across the line in Canada than he can in his own city, but the Government compels him to pay a penalty for doing so, and thns reduoes the purchasing power of his wheat and corn. The Government makes it at prices fixed by the home manufacturer. The wheat he sells, however, mast meet in competition rival wheat from all the nations In the open markets of the world. The farmer enjoys all the benefits of competition when he has anything to sell, but when he wants to buy competition is stt angled by law. If Liverpool fixes the price of every bushel of wheat he sells, why should not Liverpool fix the price of his clothes, building material, farm machinery—of what he buys? Protection promised the farmer a home market and increased prices for his products, but it has not furnished either. When it made that promise it probably meant the manufacturer. A market is made up of consumers who have something to buy with. Protection oannot increase the number of consumers, but it can and does decrease consumption by stealing from labor its means of buying. Every farmer knows that the home market has not kept pace with the productions of the soil, and that the prices of his products are fixed in foreign markets. All improvements in the processes of production, manufacturing, and transportation should yield continually increasing harvests of wealth to the farmer; raise the price of things at their place in production more nearly to the price of things at their place in consumption; enable him to buy a larger quantity of flour with his bushel of wheat, and with a pound of wool to purchase a greater quantity of cloth manufactured from it. Under the operation of natural laws the pound of wool (raw material) Increases in value relatively to the cloth (finished product) made from it. Under the operation of our protective tariff it declines in value. The race after cheapness, which the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KelleyJ, with his usual elegance, characterizes as “nasty,” is the straggle of man for comfort, enjoyment, wealth, and better civilization. To cheapen products, to bring increased comforts and better living to labor, and thus increase Its rewards. Is the triumph of science, and I trust will be the glory of Democratic legislation. I voted against the restoration of the old tariff on wool because I am opposed to increasing the tariff on any article. Whatever inequalities there may be under onr present law between the tariff on the raw material and on the manufactured article I would equalize by a further reduction of the tariff onthe manufactured article. Instead of increasing the tariff on wool, decrease it on woolen goods. To compel the farm to pay tribute to the factory is an industrial and political abomination. Protection further diminishes the profits of the farmer by increasing the cost of transporting his products from the field to the market.

It is estimated that the cost of the construction of railroads in this country has been increased by the tariff on lumber, iron, steel, and other mater.al used in their construction $3,000 per mile. Does this Increased cost come out of the pockets of the railroad companies? Not at all. They get it back from the people in increased freight and passenger charges. The farmers of this country have paid a tribute of nearly 10 cents on every bushel of wheat exported during the last twenty years in increased transportation charges caused by this tariff system. The transportation companies shift the burdens of taxation on the farm, and when you reach the farm you reach bottom. The only way the farmer can get rid of taxes is to pay them. He can prey upon nobody and Is therefore preyed upon by everybody. The farmer plows his field with a protected plow, sows his wheat with a protected drill, harvests and threshes it wi.-h protected reapers and threshers, hauls it to the railroad in a protected wagon, loads it into a protected car, and sends it over protected rails to an unprotected market. When he comes to count his returns he finds that It has oost him abont two bushels of wheat to get one to market. He works his own land on shares, keeping one-third himself, and giving two-thirds to support the patriotic policy of protection to home industries. Protection is an Obstacle to cheap transportation. Every swamp is a protectionist. Every sand-bar in our rivers is a protectionist. Every corduroy road in our woods is a protectionist. We spend millions of dollars annually to remove obstructions to navigation tn our rivers and harbors. Every dollar Is invested in the interest of cheaper transportation and freer trade. We bridge rivers and tunnel mountains; we girdle the earth with lines of railroads and steamships to facilitate exchanges. Every locomotive and steamboat 1b a free-trader. What is the object of all this expenditure of labor and money—of these inventions to sail the waters and fly over the land? Lower freights, and consequently cheaper prices ot goods. Bnt what is gained if, when we exchange our*' productions for the products of other lands and bring them home, the Government bnilds across our pathway the sand-bar of a protective tariff which we must first remove bv the payment of duties. A protective tariff is simply a sand-bar in the channels of commerce, and its removal would )e in blessings to every home of labor and not cost the Government a penny. Another reason given by all industries which ask for protection why they should have it Is that they cannot live without it. That is an admission that they are not naturally productive. An unproductive industry Is an unprofitable one. The labor and capital employed mit yield no benefits. The aggregate of wealth produced In the country is to that extent diminished and an injury done the whole people. If a man’s business does not pay, the only privilege the Government ougnt to give him is the simple privilege of changing his business. If the farmer meets with reverses and losses he must stand It. He is obliged to protect himself by his industry and intelligence. If one of these protected interests meets with a reverse of fortune it at once appeals to the Government for more protection. To grant it is to tax the whole people for the benefit of private individuals. This, however, the protectionist denies. He says that to maintain it at any odfet, or by any means, ie a public benefit; that the compensations are furnished in the diversity of industries created; that without a protective policy our people would cease manufacturing and become wholly an agricultural people. A tariff is neoessary, therefore, to compel the people to engage in different kinds of work. Now, a factory is no more the product of law than a store is. Manufacturing is Just as natural to man as agriculture and commerce. Diversity of Industries springs from diversity of talents, aptitudes, and circumstances. It comes of itself in the natural order of social and national development. The Almighty made provision for it in the constitution of man. Tariff laws cannot create diversity of industries unless they'have power to create diversity of talents. A factoay Is the fruit of man’s capacity and oomes In answer to his wants. Law may by conferring npon some particular industry artificial privileges lnduoe a greater amount of labor ana capital to engage In It, but that, instead of creating, prevents a natural diversification of Industries. Tnat is precisely the effect of a protective tariff. One of the greatest of statesmen and political economists. Hon. 8. 8. Cox, says “capital is more widely diffused, intelligence is more general, the people higher In the scale ot life where there is a multitude of small Industries,” but the effect of a protective tariff is to draw labor and capital, for labor always follows capital, away from the numerous smaller Industries and create in both a tendency to a few groat ones. Its tendency Is to centralization, and centralization tends to unity, not diversity. We must have agriculture and commerce as well as manufactures. Laws which discriminate in favor of either and against tha others are injurious to the oountry. When the protectionist says we mast build up our manufactures, I answer, not only that, but

I we must build up agriculture and commerce. I The permanent suoeess of manufactures neoesI sarily depends on profitable farms and inoreas- ! tn? commerce. The industries of the oountry i are correlative, and the permanent suoeess of etch is to be found only in the success of all. A nation prospers when every class unites for common interests and common rights. Another reason continually urged during the last few years for maintain? our tariff system is that it Is neoessary in order to raise the revenue to pay off the debt entailed upon us bv the war. The objeot of protection, however. Is not to raise revenue. Its object is to secure to the home manufacturer au exclusive market for his goods. Revenue Is derived on the goods Imported; protection is secure I only by restrict! ig importations. In so far as a tariff is protective it prevents revenue. It is simply a tribute levied upon all the labor of the country for the benefit of some particular interests, and if all the money that has been paid by the people to the manufacturers under this system, aptly called the brigandage of a class, had been paid to the Government, the national debt could have been wiped out long ago; that is, unless It had been perpetuated in the Interests of the national banks and other monopolies. The philosophy of helping labor pay Its debts by stealing its e&rnings, of raising revenue by stopping trade —that is protection. Another argument constantly recurring in the writings and speeches of the advocates of protection is that it equalizes the unequal conditions of labor In this and foreign countries, and thus places our labor on an pqual footing with foreign labor. Can this difference be equalized by a protective tariff? To do this the tariff must have the effect of making labor dearer in foreign countries, or of making it cheaper here. Do our tariff laws have the effect to increase the wages of labor in England? Who asks for protection to increase the wages of foreign la bor? It is asked in the interest of American, not foreign, labor. How, then, can we oqualize the difference. which all admit is adifferenoe in wages, between labor In the United States and England? We can do so only by cheapening American labor. How can we do that? Ah. we have already learned how. Bv means of a protective tariff equalize the conditions of sale between the two countries, make it impossible for the labor of this country to buv in the cheaper markets of foreign countries, enhance the cost of its living, and reduce its purchasing power. Our tariff system is absolutely powerless to change or affect the oondinons.of production tn foreign countries. It cannot change the climate of England; it can not impoverish her soil; it can not increase the number of her births or decrease the number of her deaths; it can not limit her fields of coal or mines of iron; It can not destroy the energy or the genius of her people; It cannot make them more ignorant or less efficient in work. All these conditions remain tho same whether we have a tariff or not. It can not change our own climate; it can not augment our natural resonroes; it cannot make us wiser or more fruitful in inventions. All the conditions of production here remain the snmi whether we have a tariff or not. The only thing it can do is to change the conditions of salo It affects prices, and always to the detriment oi our own labor. I wish I had power to illustrate the thought like the clear and pellucid Bastiat, or like that wonderful word-painter, the author of “Free Land and Free Trade.” Mine, however, is no artist’s work. Suppose that Pennsylvania was the only State in the Union —and she thinks she is, but will find out that she is not—and suppose that Pennsylvania speculators should conclude to devote themselves to fig culture. They know that thd Almighty has so arranged things that figs can not be raised in Pennsylvania for less than SI(J apiece. They accordingly demand, and as a matter of course get, a duty of u&.i cents imposed npon foreign figs. With the help of this duty these Pennsylvania speculators say tliat the conditions of fig culture are now equalized between Pennsylvania and foreign countries. But every man of sense knows that the conditions of fig culture in Pennsylvania and in other climates are Just the same.and that it is only the price ot figs in Pennsylvania that is changed. Every man knows that, in that case, if he buys an imported fig he pays the Government $9.09 for the privilege, and that if he buys a Pennsylvania tig the increased price which he pays in cons iquance of the tariff goes Into the pockets of the Pennsylvania fig-raiser. He knows that If he buys a genuine native fig he mast pay a largo amount of extra labor for It, and he naturally wonders how It benefits him. He puts in more work and gets less figs. The only way possslble to equalize the difference in the wages of labor betwen England and America by a protective tariff is to reduoe tne purchasing power of labor here by increasing me cost of what it lives on, the prodoct out of which it Is paid. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of fostering every industry, because national industry produces national wealth; but let our Industrie ibe fostered for the common good, and not for the especial benefit of a few. Thi ss who create the wealth of the country ought to have a proprietary interest in it, and in a natural development of society wealth diffuses itself among the people and goes into the pockets of its rightful owners. Onr protective policy can not add a farthing to our national wealth; It only redistributes it—transfers it from the hands of honest toil into the coffers of Shylooks. Class legislation is the fruitful mother of all monopolies, and every monopoly created and sustained by law is a robber of labor. Botenco may furnish labor with arms of iron and fingers of steel; the good genius of Invention may lighten its hardens and increase its productiveness a million-fold; the canning of man may hitch to the wheels of industry every force of earth and sky; but if a fair and equitable distribution of products is prevented by class laws, labor is only the menial serf of its capital lord. With a varied and fertile soil, genial skies, a hard-working people, and the application of science to their work, there has been an enormous increase In production of wealth in this country- but who owns it? What Is labor’s share? How much more of the comforts and neoessaries of life will a day’s work purchase? Sir, this constant increase of wealth Is accompanied by an almost constant decline in the proportion of that wealth which goes to support productive industry. It will not do to answer that wages are high in this country. It will not do even to answer that the rate of wages Is increasing, becanse the cost of living is increasing in a greater ratio. You must go further and show that the purchasing power of labor is constantly Increasing or you do not show any real prosperity among the working classes. That you can not do until we repeal every law that neutralizes the effeot of high wages, every law that apprecates the value of salt, lumber, coal, iron, and clothes, and depreciates the value of the laboring man. There is nothing in all the earth so- sacred as man, not even pig-iron, and every law that depreciates the value of his labor lean infamous cheat and a damnable fraud. We often hear this protective svstem spoken of as the American system, and Its opponents as the supporters of the British system. We borrowed this system, wi h some other bad things, from England. It is not a native of this country. It is "grafted fruit." The American system—if 1 understand the genius of democracy—is a system of equal rights and equal privileges for all, and special favors to none. England tried this protective system, and it blighted her soil, closed her factories, and blockaded her commerce. It bred discontent among her people. Threats of revolution filled the kingdom with fear. Labor went hungry and clothed In rags. The people were pauperized and driven to madness. Read the history of England by Harriet Martineau, if you do not believe me when I say that protection brought England to the verge of penary and decay. Martineau says that—- . “A committee of inqntry into the canse of the distress of the people reported In 1842’ The time when the nruit of protection had fully ripened—“that a fourth of the population in Carlisle was In a state bordering on starvation, aotuaUy certain to die of famine Unless relieved by extra'ordinary exertion. In the woolen districts of Wiltshire the allowance to the independent laborer was not two-thirds of the minimum id the workhouse, and the large existing population consumed only a fourth of the bread and meat required by ti.e much smaller populatlor of 1820. In Stockport more than half of tht master spinners had failed before the close oi 1842; dwelUng-nonees to the number of 3,00‘. were shnt np, and the occupiers of many 1 hundreds more were nnable to pav rates at all; 5,000 persons were walking the streets in compulsory idleness; millwrights and other tradei were offering a premium on emigration to ln-\ duce their hands to go away. At Hinckley, onethird of the Inhabitants were paupers; more than one-fifth of the houses stood empty, and there was not work enough In the place to emSloy properly one-third of the weavers; In lamles where the father had hitherto received Z 1 per week and laid by a portion weekly, and when all was now gone bnt the sack of shavings they slept on, exertions were made to get ‘blue milk’ for children to luoisten their oatmeal with, bat soon they could have it only on alternate days, and soon water mast do." That, Mr. Chairman, was the fruitage of protection In England. It was not nntil she blotted from her statute-books her lniamous protective laws that England entered npon her career of industrial and commercial supremacy. It was not until she pnrened the path which Watt, and Crompton, and Cartwright pointed mankind, that England won her victories in the fields of Industry grander than any Waterloo. Prodnotive industry Is the only capital that enriches a people, and its burden should be made as light and Its yoke as easy as possible. We are not afraid of England’s cannon, and why should we be afraid of her workshops and her theories? With our boundless treasury of natural wealth, with onr splendid harbors and magnificent rivers, with the energy, viitue, skin, and inventive genius of our people, thii nation is a majority against the world U peace or in war.

THE BAD BOY.

“I am disgusted with you again,* said the grocery man to the bad boy, as he ma*ie his regular call one morning, with a scratch across his cheek and a strip of court plaster on his nose. “I heard you had got into a light with another j boy about one of these girls that graduated from the Industrial School, who was sent there for being incorrigible, and after yon had whipped the boy you walked home with the girl, in broad daylight, right before folks. Ain’t you ashamed to associate with such people? Bah, you are the most changeable boy I ever see; on© day you are a regular encyclopedia, and a Florence Nightingale and a philanthropist, aud the next day you are a John Sullivan, a regular tough. What would your Sunday school teacher have said if he had seen you lighting with that lioy, and going to her boarding place with that awful girl V” “O, that is all right. My Sunday school teacher ho heard about the row and he came down to our house and asked me about it, aud when I told him the particulars he said I ought to have knocked the neck all off the boy, aud that I did perfectly right, aud ho got the humane society to give me this letter of thanks,* and the boy pulled a letter out of bis pocket quite proudly and showed it to the grocery man. “The Sunday School teacher ain’t worrying about me half as much as you are. You see that little girl used to live near us, and she was such a sweet little thing that everybody loved her. Three years ago her mother died, and her pa was all broke up, and he drank a good deal, and then he got married again, and the woman he married was the meanest stepmother that ever was. O, you have no idea how mean she was to that little girl. She would maul the girl, and drive her outdoors, and the little one slept in alleys, and if her pa said anything about it his new wife would knock him silly. He didn’t have uo ‘sand’ at all, and didn’t dare stand up for liis own flesh and blood. The little girl got about one square meal in four days 1 guess, and she looked dirty, and her stepmother said she was a disgrace to the family, and she lied about the girl to her father, and one day when he was full they both went to a justice and swore that the girl was incorrigible, and she was sent to the girls’ reform school. Talk about justice, that was the greatest piece of injustice that ever was. The poor little thing found that the industrial school was a regular home, nearer to a home than anything slio had seen since her mother died, and she was happy, and a great favorite, and learned everything. ■ She was never bad at all, only in the way of the goldarned stepmother. No one but the stepmother ever said a word against her. The good ladies that manage the school got mashed on the little girl, and knew she Was a perfect little angel, and they got her a oliauce to knit silk socks and mittens for a fancy store, and got her a place to board, and made her father help pay her bo ml, but be had to do it unbeknown to his new wife, or she would have cut a gash in him with an ax. This boy that I had the fight with knew her as well as I did, when she lived at home, and knew she never did a wrong, but he protended to think that, because she had been an inmate of the industrial sohool, that she must be tuff, and he used to lay for her on the corner when she went out to walk for a rest, or when she went to carry her socks to tne store, and he would make fun of 4ier and call her names, and ask if he couldn’t go home with her, and he twitted her of being a reform school bird, and everything. She told me about it once, when mu and me met her on the street, and ma bent over her and hugged her and cried, ’cause her mother used to be ma’s chum when they attended a girls’ college years ago, afore the flood, pa says. Ma tofcl me I ought to see that boy and talk to him about it, and I asked ma what I would do if he wouldn’t stop bothering the girl, because he didn’t have any heart, and ma she was mad in a minute, and she said, ‘Hennery, do as you would if this little girl were your sister.’ Well, that settled his ha-h, and I told the little girl not to cry any more about it, and he wouldn’t bother her no more. So ’tother day I was coming along the street, and I saw that boy pioking on her, and she tried to get by him, and he got right in front of her, and just as I came up behind him he called her a name that no boy ought to ever call anybody’s sister. She looked by him, at me, and her face looked almost as pale and sorrowful as her dead mother’s face did the day of the funeral, when all us Sunday-sohool children saw her, before the coffin was closed, and the girl said, ’O, Hfennery, my friend, I do not deserve this, and it will kill me. ’ The boy looked around at me with a leer that reminded me of the villain in the play, and said, ‘Yon mind your own busines.’ I was so mad that -my knuckles cracked like when you twist yonr fingers out of joint, and I thought it was my business, ’canse ma set me up in the business herself, and before the girl could say anything, 1 began to mop the sidewalk with him, and break pickets off the fence with him, and I bumped his head on the enrb, and kicked liim in the watch pocket, and then he begged, bnt before I let him up he promised never to insult her or any other girl again, and he begged her pardon, and then I borrowed her handkerchief to wipe the blood off my nose,, and I walked home with her. That is all, only I went right home and told ma and pa, and they was glad, and the boy’s pa came over to onr house to complain of me, and pa was going to lick him, and the minister beard about it, and he came up to onr house and put bis hand ob my head and said he didn't believe in fighting, bnt there were times when nothing but a fight seemed to be appropriate for the occasion, and he put his arm around me and hugged me till he burst one of my ribs. And ever since that fight that poor little girl has gone about her work singing, and she goes to the store in safety, looking as iappy as a little queen, smiling and joyous, and Bhe says she knows her mother in heaven was looking down ind snw that fight, for she sees her in her dreams every night, and her mother’s face looks happier than it has auy time since she moved to heaven. Say,

do you believe people up in heaven have apy-glassea strong enough to look down here, through the clouds, and see a couple of boys scrapping on the sidewalk? Darned if I do.” “O, I don’t know," said the gTooery man, as he wiped a tear from his whiskers on his shirt-sleeve, “but I know one thing. lam the meanest fool in this town, to keep finding fault with you. You come out right every time, and I swow, if you hadn’t licked that boy I would have licked you," and the bad boy said something about these post mortem fighters, but are always talking about lighting the next woek, but who never get there at the right time, and he went out, whistling as usual, happy as a bad boy could be.— Peck’s Sun.

CURIOSITIES OF NATURE.

Th» Jumping Call, the AorobuUo Itean. Hn«f Seeds ih»t Kxplode. “Here is a curiosity,” said a botanist. It was a little ball of wood or fiber that when held in the palm seemed endowed with life, rolliug over and over an'd flying into the air. “I’ve had people come to me with these,” continued the speaker, “and say they were bewitched. Oue man believed he had discovered spontaneous generation; another wrote an exhaustive paper which he tried to read at all the learned societies, showing that here was the beginning of both animal and plant life. In fact, the little gall, for that in what it is, has attracted a good deal of attention.” “So it is only a plant," said a reporter. “Not exactly a plant., but the unnatural growth of vegetable matter on trees, bushes, or shrubs, oaused by the secretion in the bark of an insect egg that hatches opd causes the growth. In this case, the gall is little larger than a mustard seed. “The gall is produced in this way: The eggs of a very small dark-eolored inßeot, known as cynips, are deposited in the leaf, and, from Home soorotion introduced into the wound, the vegetable matter entombs the insect in a ball of fiber separate from the leaf, from which it finally dro]>s. The larva’s movements in restraint create the curious activity. “There are many kinds of galls, and though they aro injurious to trees they are invaluable to man, and are staple commodities. The ordinary oak galls of commerco are made by a oynips. When thoy are green, blue, or black, the insect is in thorn, but when white it has escaped. England is the center of the trade, and receives galls from Germany, Turkey, Egypt, China, and Bombay. The galls are used for a variety of purposes. One sort of blasting powder is made of powdered galls and ohlorate, but the most valuable product is ink. This is mude from them almost entirely. “Seeds often jump about in the same mysterious way. In Mexico strangers see a curious seed known as devil’s bean, or jumping seed. In appearance it is a small triangular body. The first time I saw these seeds I was sure that they were arranged with mechanical springs, as they not only rolled about, but jumped several inohos in the air. But open one of the seeds and the mystery is explained. The Bhell is hollowed out, containing nothing but a white larva, that has eaten out nearly all the interior and lined it with silk. Its motions occasion the strange movements. “Homo seeds move by an entirely different process—that of exploding. A friend of mine got some seeds in India once, and placed them’ on his cabin table. All at once came an explosion like that of a revolver, and he received a blow on the forehead that drew blood, while a looking glass opposite wns shattered. The seeds had become heated, and all at once the covering exploded, scattering the seeds in all directions. That is their manner of dispersal, and a large number of plants havo a similar method of scattering thoir seed.” —New York Sun.

Brignoli’s Explanation.

Sig. Brignoli tells that onoe while he was'singing in concert for a charitable object, tbp prima donna was suddenly attacked with singer’s sore throat, and it became necessary that some one should apologize to the audience. The manager declared he was suffering from nervousness and could not do it, and he begged Brignoli to make the explanation. Tbe tenor, going forward, said: “Ladies aud gentlemen, I regret to zay zat Mme. N eez a lee tie horse dis evening.” Peals of laughter greeted this announcement, and the tenor looked puzzled, thinking the audieuoe misunderstood him. He advanced once more, and with thundering emphasis roared out: “I zay zat Mme. N eez a leetle horse dis evening.* Another roar of laughter, amid which a voice in the gallery cried out: “Then, if she is a horse, why not trot her out?" Then the mistake was plain te him, and BrigDoli laughed as heartily as any one.—Boston Herald .

Scolding.

While visiting at a friend’s house once, said a lady in the New York Post , she asked me to go to her desk for something, and I saw there, on opening the lid, a motto written by herself and evidently intonded for no one else. It said: “Do not scold; do not fret!” ‘'Yes,” she said, in answer to an in* qniring look, “1 was obliged to pnt it there. I wasn’t very well, little things troubled me, and it is so natural to speak of them; but I noticed that, after a little while, that when iu the morning, early before school or breakfast, I began to speak of the wrong-doings of any member of the family, the wrongdoings and the tendency to speak of them increased alarmingly all through the day, and I discovered that if were silent the opposite were true; and I began to earnestly believe, as I never did before, that my own soft words turned away my own wrath; and isn’t that what it really means? for it frequently happens that other people’s wrath is increased by that very course.” It is expected that the Revised Old Testament will be ready for publication, before the close of the year.