Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 15, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 May 1888 — HOW THE TAX FALLS ON THE POOR. [ARTICLE]

HOW THE TAX FALLS ON THE POOR.

This is one of the vicious results of the war tariff. The taxes, both for public and private purposes, are paid by labor. They are assessed on labor. Now, let us see how it benefits labor, as it is claimed to do. Suppose a laborer who is earning $1 a day by his work finds a suit of woolen clothes that he can buy for $lO without the tariff tax, then the suit of clothes can be procured for ten days’ work; but the manufacturer comes to congress and says: “I must be protected against the man buying this cheap suit of clothes,” and congress protects him by putting a duty of 100 per cent., or $lO more. Now it will require the laborer to work twenty days to get his suit of clothes. Now tell me if ten days of his labor have not been annihilated? Has he not been required to work twice as long under the tariff as he would have done without to obtain his suit of clothes?

But it is said that the tariff helps the laborer by doubling his pay, because it builds up manufactures everywhere. But if that is true, the tariff at the same time that it doubles the value of the manufacturer’s product ought to double the value of the laborer’s pay; but the tariff takes his money and puts it in the pockets of the manufacturer and pays him in promises which he never redeems.

There are woolen goods, as we have shown in the report of the committee, bearing duties from 100 to 180 per cent., but I have taken 100 per cent, for the greater ease of illustrating the effect. The benefits of the tariff all go one way. They go from the consumer manufacturer, but not from the manufacturer to the consumer. Suppose that the tax on the 60,000,000 of consumers amounts to $lO per head, then it is a tax of $600,000,000; if it is only $5 per head, it is $300,000,000 taken out of the pockets of the consumer and put into the pockets of the manufacturer. The tax on the $400,000,000 of goods imported goes into the public treasury ; the tax levied on domestic manufactures, by raising their price, goes into the pockets of the manufacturers.

The greatest evil that is inflicted by it is in the destruction of the values of our exports. Remember that the great body of our exports are agricultural products. It has been so through our whole history. From 75 to over 80 per cent, of the exports of this country year by year are agricultural products. Cotton is first, then breadstuffs, pork, beef, butter, cheese, lard. These are the things that keep up our foreign trade, and when you put on or keep on such duties as we have now —war duties which were regarded as so enormous even in the very midst of hostilities that they were declared to be temporary—when you put on or retain those duties, they limit and prohibit importation, and that limits or prohibits exportation. It takes two to make a trade.

We are the great agricultural country of the world, and we havfi been feeding the people of Europe, and the people of Europe have got to give us in exchange the products of their labor in their shops; and when we put on excessive duties for the purpose of prohibiting the importation of their goods, as a necessary result we put an excessive duty upon the exportation of our own agricultural products. And what does that do? It throws our surplus products upon our own markets at home, which become glutted and over supplied, and prices go down. So it is with the people of Europe who are manufacturing and producing things that we can not produce, but which we want. Their products are thrown upon their home markets, which are glutted and over supplied, and their prices likewise go down. And whenever, from any cause, prices start up in Europe, our tariff being levied mainly by specific duties upon quantity, not upon value, the tariff goes down, and then we see large importation and, as a result, large exportation.

Then we see a rise in agricultural products; then we see the circulation of money all through the whole of our industrial system; we see our people going to work, our manufactories starting up, and prosperity in every part of the land. Witness the history of 1880. After the long depression, lasting from 1873 to 1880, prices suddenly rose in Europe. The prices of all the products which they export to us began to rise in the latter part of the year. What xfas the result? As prices rose there the tariff went down, the obstructions became lower, and the imports came in.

Our imports increased about $200,000,000 in one year. What was the result of that? Our exports increased largely. The prices of wheat, of cotton, of corn, of all the products that we export went up; not only the prices of that which was exported, but also the prices of that which was consumed at home. We exported in 1880 $685,000,000 worth of agricultural products, and in 1881 $73,000,000. During last year we exported only $523,000,000 worth of agricultural products. About 15 per cent of our agricultural products have to seek a foreign market, and in 1881 the proportion rose to 20 per cent.

HOW THE FARMERS ARE WRONGED. But when we see the prices of agricultural products in 1881, when we exported $730,000,000 worth of agricultural products, and then compare them with 1887, when the export of agricultural products fell to $523,000,000, we can form some estimate of the great loss to our farmers by stopping exportation. In 1881 wheat was worth $1.19 per bushel; it is now sixty-eight cents. In 1881 corn was worth sixty-three cents per bushel; itisnow worth forty-four cents. The exports of our agricultural products have fallen during the last year far below those of 1881, and the prices have correspondingly fallen. If the prices of 1881 obtained today the wheat crop of 1887 would be increased over its present value $232,009,000, and if by exportation to foreign markets we could have each year since 1881 realized the price of that year, the wheat growers would have realized on their annual crop since then $1,000,000,000 more than they did. In the low prices of corn since then they have lost double that. Some part of the low prices is to be attributed

to large crops, out oy rar tne greater cause is the restriction of the market for the sale of farm products. The tariff robs the farmer on one side by increasing the price of what he buys; it robs him on the other by decreasing the price of what he sells. But it is insisted that if we lower the duties and let foreign goods be imported, it will stop our manufactories—that it will turn our people out of employment or reduce their wages. It will do nothing of the sort What will we import and what did we import when prices rose and the duties fell in 18S0? We imported more of the same articles which we were importing before the prices rose. We will import more of the things we cannot produce or which can be produced cheaper in other countries than at heftne. If we look to our table of imports in 1880, wo will see that over $60,000,000 of the increase was of articles in the free list and about $125,000,000 in the dutiable list. The increase of imports free of duty will not hurt the manufacturer or the laborer.

Our manufactures do not then stop. They go on with increased activity. They did not stop in 1880 when the large importation set in. It gave them renewed life; their wheels flew faster, their machinery worked more constantly, and their operatives were all employed. Why is this? Why, Mr. Chairman, we «an produce at least 90 per cent, of all the manufactures consumed in this country more cheaply at home than can be produced anywhere in the world and delivered here. This 90 per cent, which we can produce at a lower cost than any other people can will not be hurt by importation. I have here a letter from the chief of the bureau of statistics, which shows that in 1850, with a low tariff, the c ,sumption of domestic manufactures in the United states was 88.39 per cent, of the whole, and of imports 11.61 per cent. In 1860, with a still lower tariff, our home manufactures constituted 87.57 per cent., and the consumption of imports was 12.43 per cent. In 1870 the consumption of domestic manufactures was 93.14 per cent., and 6.86 per cent, of imports, and in 1880 were consumed 92.58 per cent, of home manufactures and 7.42 per cent, of foreign manufactures. Now, it is evident from these figures that under any circumstances we can hold 90 per cent, of the market against the world. If we had no tariff, if all the custom houses were torn down and the government was supported by direct taxation, not more than 10 per cent, of all the manufactured products consumed by the people would be imported into the country. Senator Sherman, in a speech delivered three months ago, quoted a statement of ex-Consul Dudley, that nine-tenths of all the articles of manufacture consumed by the people could be procured as cheaply here as in England. He indorsed the statement as correct. I deny the accuracy of the statement. If he had said that nine-tenths of all the manufactures consumed in the United States could be produced more cheaply here than in England he would have been nearer the truth. If ninetenths of all the manufactures consumed here are cheaper here than in England it is because they are produced at a lower cost. Then what objection does he see to reducing the tariff?

.The manufacturer is not so much interested now in the foreign market as the farmer. Less than 2 per cent, of the $7,000,000,000 of his annual produce goes to the foreign market, but the farmer sends 15 per cent, of his products there, and would send a larger per cent, if the way was open. .

THE TARIFF AND WAGES. But, Mi'. Chairman, it is said that if we reduce the tariff wages must be reduced. How is it high tariff makes high wag'es for labor? How can it be explained? Why, they say, as a matter of course, if you increase the value of “the domestic product, the manufacturer is able to pay higher wages. Unquestionably he is; but does he do it? No. Mr. Jay Gould, with his immense income from his railroad property, is able to pay his bootblack $540 a day, but does do it? Oh, no; he pays the market price of the street. He gets his boots blackened and pays his nickel like a little man. [Laughter.] Mr. Vanderbilt, from the income arising from the interest on the immense amount of bonds he has can afford to pay his hostler SIO,OOO a year, but does he do it? Oh, no; he goes out into the market and employs his labor at the market value, and pays the same price that the humblest citizen in New York does. Wages are regulated by demand and supply, and the capacity of the laborer to do the work for which he is employed. If high tariff regulated wages, how is it the wages in the different states of the Union are different, while the tariff is all the same from Maine to California? In every part of the territory of the United States thetariff is the same. How is it the wages are not the same? How is it that wages in the different localities in the different states are different? What is the cause? What is it which disturbs the tariff and prevents it from fixing a high rate of wages all over the country for labor? We find by the census the rate of wages in the cotton industry is lower in Rhode Island than Pennsylvania, and we find the wages in the iron business are higher in Rhode Island than in Pennsylvania. It is admitted by all who are well informed on this subject that our rate of wages is higher than anywhere else in the world, that England is higher than France, and that the rate of wages is higher in France than in Germany. Why is this ? Germany and France both have a protective tariff to guard against the free trade labor of England. What then is it that makes higher wages ? It is coal and steam and machinery. It is these three powerful agents that multiply the product of labor and make it more valuable, and high rate of wages means low cost of product. A high rate of wages means that cheap labor has got to go; and the history of our country in the last fifty years demonstrates that as clearly and as conclusively as any mathemathical problem can be demonstrated. »

Fifty years ago, Mr. Edward Atkinson shows, it required five persons, two carders, two spmaers, and one weaver, working by the old methods, to make eight yards of doth in one day. They got 20 cents a day; a dollar’ .or the whole five. The labor cost of the eloeb was 12’;cents a yard, an.l, calculating UX) working days in a year, the whole product or these five cheap laborers was 2 400 yards of cloth; but whei. >:.l and steam and inacmnei y were harness. to produce doth, five persons today ia New Ln~laud produce 140,000 yards of doth. The wages of labor, instead of being fGO a year, or -0 cents u uay, is $207 per unuum for each.

The result of the labor saving machinery used was an enormous increase in productive capacity. The result of that was a great increase in the rate of wages, and the further result was a great decrease in the cost of production. The old hand wheel and the old methods of labor have had to depart before the all conquering inarch of coal and steam and machinery. They had to go because the small amount of product of the article drove them out of the field. It is not the rate of wages, it is the article which the lalxir makes and the costat which that article can lie produced— the lower cost—which drives the rival article out of the market. Such is the history which has been written in our country in the last half century. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Edward Atkinson, one of the clearest thinkers and writers on political economy of the present day, in his little book on “The Distribution of Products,” lays down the principle that high rate of wages means low cost of product and low rate of wages means high cost of product. He says that “the cheapest man is the one who works the greatest amount of machinery with the least stops.” I read a paragraph from his book on page 44: , ’

In any given country like the United States, where the people are substantially homogeneous, where the means of intercommunication are ample, where there are no hereditary or class distinctions, aud where there is no artificial obstruction to prevent commerce, high rates of wages in money will lie the natural aud therefore necessary result of low cost of production in labor.

Now, then, it follows, he says, on page 56: That the nation which has diminished the quantity of human labor In greatest measure by the application of machinery produces goods at the lowest cost, and by exchange with the hand working nations, who still constitute the majority of the people of the world, is, by way of such exchange, enabled to pay the highest rate of wages in money, because their goods are made at the lowest labor cost.

In order to prove that fact Mr. Atkinson made an investigation into the condition of two old manufacturing houses in the state of New Hampshire; he compared two periods 1830 with the year 1884. He found that in 1830 the wages per annum were sl6-1 in gold to each operative. This.increased until 1884, when it amounted to $290 in gold. Now as to the efficiency of the labor employed. In 1830 the total number of yards of cloth produced by each operative was 4,321 per annum, while ft'i 1884, mainly by the aid of improved macinery, it had been increased to 28,032 yards. The cost of the labor per yard was 1.09 cents in 1830, and but l.Of cents in 1884.

The pound of material turned out by each spindle or operative was taken as a unit of measurement, and Mr. Atkinson’s table shows that the pounds that each spindle turned out was increased 22 per cent., and the pound that each operative turned out in a day had increased 190 per cent.; the pounds that each operative turned out per hour increased 240 per cent. The increase of wages of operatives per hour (for the number of hours was made less) increased 240 per cent. The wages of the operative per annum had increased 64 per cent, and per hour 94 per cent., while the labor cost per yard had decreased 41 per cent. The other house showed the same condition. It showed that productive efficiency had increased in spindles 276 per cent., in pounds per operative 214 per cent., while wages increased 77 per cent, and labor cost per yard decreased 44 per cent. This great revolution in production, wages and cost is not the work of the but of coal, steam and machinery. Thes» three powerful agents have produced these marvelous results. The effects inevitably follow the cause—high rate of wages because so much more service is rendered the employer, low cost of product because so much more is done in a given time. I repeat it, the tariff has hail nothing to do with bringing about the great change, and it is impotent, utterly impotent, to increase the rate of wages. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to call the attention of the committee to a statement found in the report of the United States census. This is the report in reference to the wages in the manufacturing industries of the country, and I call special attention to a report of an ax manufacturing establishment in Connecticut, on page 158. This gentleman who makes the report compares the operations of his house from his books in 1840 with 1880. In steel fitting, in ax making, each operative turned out 600 pieces per day in 1840. In 1880 each operative turned out 1,250 pieces per day. Each operative received in 1840 24 cents per 100 pieces. He earned in 1840 $1.44 per day, and in 1880, though he received less for each piece, he earned $2.50 per day. Now, was the increase of the daily wages of these ojieratives due to the tariff? Let the manufacturer answer. He says: “The following table shows the results of labor saving machinery, together with the increase in the efficiency of labor in the manufacture of axes, from 1840 to 1880.” Now, when I saw these tables, proving the principle so clearly presented and so strongly enforced by Mr.. Atkinson, I went to our very able and efficient chief of labor, the Hon. Carroll D. Wright, and asked him to have a table like this in the census rejxirt prepared, and to send an intelligent agent into some of the oldest houses in the country and get a statement from their books and send it to me, that I might see if there was a different result in other establishments. I now give you the testimony of those houses to add to the others.

There are here seven establishments. The first one is in Massachusetts. A comparison is instituted between 1849 and 1884, and the industry is cotton print cloth. Each operative made in 1849 in his factory yards per day; in 1884 he made 98.2 yards, an increase of productive power of 120 per cent. What wages did he get? The average daily earnings of the laborer in 1849 were 66 cents, and in 1884 sl. His wages increased 50 per cent. The labor cost of the product decreased 32 per cent. In that same establishment in 1849 the wages of weavers were G 5 cents a day, and each man turned out 113 yards of cloth. In 1884 the wages had risen to 81.06, and each weaver turned out 273 yards of cloth. During this time we had high tariff and low tariff, but whether high tariff or low tariff, or no tariff, the productive efficiency continued to increase, the multiplication of production by the power of machinery continued to increase, and wages rose with it, and the cost of the product sunk. So that the tariff conferred no benefit on the laborer; none whatever. Mr. Wright, chief of the labor bureau, instituted a most painstaking examination into the rates of labor in England and Massachusetts a few years ago, and showed the rates of labor are higher in this country than in England; 12 per cent, higher in cotton manufacture, 25 per cent, in the manufacture bf woolens, 26 per cent in iron and steel, 128 per cent in boots and shoes. That would seem to indicate, according to the protectionists, that we are on the road to ruin because our rate of labor is higher than England and other countries. But the reverse of that proposition is true. Now let me give you an instance here in boots and shoes. If we pay so much higher wages in producing boots and shoes, if the proposition we hear on the other side be true, we cannot enter into any contest with Great Britain when we pay 128 per cent, higher wages than she does. Yet we import no boots and shoes at 30 per cent, duty from England. We make the cheapest boots and shoes and the finest made in the world. PRODUCTIVENESS OF AMERICAN LABOR. In Massachusetts wages are higher than in Great Britain, but the labor cost of a pair of ladies’ shoes in Massachusetts is less than the labor cost of a like pair of shoes in Great Britain. The cost is 25 cents in Massachusetts against 34 cents in England. The labor cost of men’s shoes in Massachusetts is 33 cents per pair; the labor cost of men's shoes in England is 50 cents. If our people re to be injured by the importation of Eng .sh shoes into this country, the English shoe must be produced at a lower cost than the American shoe; otherwise it cannot take the market. It is not the rate of wages in England and in America that we have to consider, but the labor cost of a pair of shoes. In order for the American to earn his 811.63 a week he makes 35 pairs of men’s shoes a week; the Englishman, to earn his $5.08 cents a week, makes 10 pairs of men’s shoes. In order for the American workman to earn his $11.63 per week he makes 46 pairs of ladies’ shoes; in order for the Englishman to earn his $5.08 per week he makes 15 pairs of ladies’ shoes. Mr. Herbert—Free hides also help you out on that point. Mr. Mills—England also has free hides. A few years ago, in 1879, our English friends across the water took alarm about the growth and development of our cotton industry in the United States, and they sent an expert a gentleman thoroughly conversant with the cotton business of England—to the United States to make a thorough and searching investigation into the whole business of cotton manufacture in this country, and to report to them whether their industry was imperiled by that of the United States. That gentleman made a thorough and searching investigation, and in every instance he showed that we could produce cotton goods at a lower labor cost than they could be produced at any point in Great Britain. The following are the rates of wages for weaving and spinning cloths in some of the principal districts of England and America, as shown by his report: A piece of 28 inches, 56 reeds, 14 picks (?), 60 by 56, 58 yards, costs at Ashton-under-Lync, in England, 24.68 cents to weave; in Rhode Island it costs 16.82 cents. At Blackburn, in England, it costs 25.4 cents; at Providence, R. 1., it costs 17.26 cents; at Stockport, England, 25.4 cents; at Fall River, 19.96 cents; at Hyde, England, 25.28 cents; at Lowell, 19.96 cents. In every instance the labor cost of the production of the cotton goods is lower here than in England. Now let us turn to the summary. At Fall River the wages in a pound of print cloth, about 7 yards, is 6.907 cents; at Lowell it is 6.882 cents; in Rhode Island it is 6.422; in Pennsylvania, 6.44; in England, 6.96 cents. In every place in the United States, in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the labor cost of producing a pound of print cloth was lower than at any point in England. W hile the labor cost is lowest in the United States, where the rate of wages is highest, y<£ when we come to examine the cost of the material, England beats us, because she produces the goods at a total cost lower than ours. It is not the labor that causes this difference; it is the cost of the material. The machinery by which you run your establishments costs you 45 per cent.; your dve stuffs are more costly than in England; all these

things which enter into the manufacture of goods here cost more than on the other side. But do not charge this increased cost to labor. You are not paying the laborer, in proportion to the work that he does, as much as he receives in England. Mr. Brumm—Did I understand the gentleman to say that the cost of cotton in England was less than the cost of cotton in this country 1 Mr. Mills—You understood me to say that the labor cost of producing a pound of print cloth was lower in this country than in England. You understood me further to say that the total cost, including materials and everything else, is lower in England than in the United States. Mr. Brumm—Therefore, does not that say that cotton, being the raw material out of which the cotton goods are made, must be lower in England than in this country ? Mr. Mills—Oh, no; not at all; of course not. Mr. Kelley—Mr. Chairman Mr. Mills—lt means that England procures her machinery at less cost than we do ours. It means that England produbes the dyes which enter into the manufacture of these goods cheaper because untaxed. That is what it means. Mr. Kelley—l protest against these interruptions of the gentleman’s speech. Mr. Mills—l do not. [Applause on the Democratic side.] Mr. K. The gentleman, as the organ of his p.,4 .y, is expounding its doctrine, and laesc mu.ruptions are, in my judgment, im-

Mr. Mills— NowTmt. Chairman, when we come to look at the total cost of this pound of calico cloth we find that at Fall River it is 14 cents (leaving off fractions); at Lowell, 13 cents; in Rhode Island, 11 cents; in Pennsylvania, 15 cents; in England, 12 cents. England produces the goods at a total cost less than ours, and that gives her the market; but while the goods cost more here, she pays more in the form of wages. Now, when this gentleman goes back home he reports to his people elaborately. I refer to this little book published in England, given to me by my friend, the Hon. Carroll D. Wright, the chief of the bureau of labor. Hesavs:

The United States, while they beat us in labor, while they can produce anything in the cotton business at a labor cost cheaper than we can, are, like Ephraim, “wedded to their idols.’’ They maintain high tariff on raw materials, and therefore the cost of materials entering into their manufactures is higher than with us. It will take a great revolution to change their minds on this subject, and as long as they h> id to the policy of high tariff on materials which enter into manufactures, you may go to sleep ia security, for England holds the markets of the world.

A few years ago, while he was secretary of state, James G. Blaino said in las report, in speaking of the cotton industry: Undoubtedly the inequalities in the wages of English and American operatives are more than equalized by the greater efficiency of the latter and their longer hours of labor. Mr. Charles 8. Hill, statistician of the state department, makes a statement that I think is extravagant, and I would not quote it but he is a pronounced protectionist. I would not quote it if he were a revenue reformer, because I think it is too strong. He says: Here is the positive proof that American mechanics in the aggregate accomplish exactly double the result of the same number of British mechanics; they are therefore very justly paid double in wages. Our consul at Tunstall, England, makes this report: That in cotton manufactures our productive capacity is 33 per cent, greater than England ana 72 per cent, greater than Germany. In woolen manufactures our productive capacity is 23 per cent, greater than England and 40 per cent, greater than Germany. In silk manufacture our productive capacity is 18 per cent greater than England and 32 per cent, greater than Germany. Mr. Ford—That is the product per man? Mr. Mills—Yes, that is the product per man. Taking that as the average, how is it possible for these countries, where the rate of wages is low and the labor cost is high, how is it possible for those people to bring their product into our markets and drive ours out? I will refer to another instance before I close, and that is to a table which is to be found in the first annual report of the bureau of statistics, pages 132 and 133, which gives the cost of spinning one pound of cotton yarn in England and in Germany. Germany has a protective duty on cotton yarn, while England welcomes the whole world to contest with her. ENGLAND AND GERMANY COMPARED. Is it the tariff that makes English wages higher than German? Germany has the tariff, but England has the trade. If these statements are true, what is there to prevent us from being the greatest manufacturing and exporting country of the world? We are the greatest agricultural people in the world. We exceed all others in the products of manufacture, but we export next to nothing of our product. There is no reason except that high tariffs and trusts and combinations are in our way, and they muster all their forces to prevent us from taking the place which our advantages entitle us to take. We must make a departure. Instead of laying on the burdens of taxation upon the necessaries of life, instead of destroying our foreign commerce, we should encourage it as we would encourage our home commerce. A gentleman said here the other day, on the other side of the house, that our prosperity in this country was due to the tariff. I deny it. Our prosperity in this country is due to the intelligence of our labor and to the unrestricted movements of our exchanges among sixty millions of people at home. [Applause.] Our wealth would have been greater as a people if we had none of these restrictions upon our commerce. We will increase wealth if we lower the duties and let importations come in of those things which can be produced cheaper in other countries than in our own.

We will increase the value of all of the agricultural products by such methods. They will diffuse and scatter money among the laboring people throughout the country. It will set the wheels of machinery in motion, lay the foundation of happy homes, and a glad smile will light up the faces of the people in all sections of the country at the returning and increased prosperity of the nation. [Applause.] This policy which is being pursued now may for awhile satisfy the demands of the capitalist who has money invested in the various factories and enterprises of that kind throughout the country. They may be able ' by the aid of these pools and trusts and combinations which seem to be springing out of the earth all around us to secure for a time the capital invested; but what, I ask you, is to become in the meantime of the poor laborer when they shut off their fires, when they turn him into the streets and determine that they will limit the product of their establishments in order to keep up prices so as to save the profits on their investments? What is to become of the cotton and the iron and the wool and all of the other interests that depend upon capital invested in manufacturing enterprises? Where are our markets when our factories are closed, when the wheels are still, when the fires are banked and their laborers wandering as paupers around the streets seeking employment which is not to be found anywhere in the land? And yet they call this the American policy 1 I repel it, sir ;it is not American. It is the reverse of American. That policy is American which clings most closely to the fundamental idea that underlies our institutions and upon which the whole superstructure of our government is erected, and that idea is freedom—freedom secured by the guarantees of government; freedom to think, to speak, to write; freedom to go where we please, select our own occupations; freedom to labor when we please, and where we please; freedom to receive and enjoy all the results of our labor; freedom to sell our products, and freedom to buy the products of others, and freedom to markets for the products of our labor, without which the freedom of labor is restricted and denied. Freedom from restraints in working and marketing the products of our toil, except such as may be necessary in the interest of the "government. Freedom from all unnecessary burdens: freedom from all exactions upon the citizens except such as may be necessary to sup; >ort an honest, efficient and economical administration of the government that guarantees him protection to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;” freedom front all taxation except that which is levied for the support of the government; freedom from taxation levied for the .purpose of. enriching favored classes by the spoliation and plunder of the people; freedom from all systems of taxation that do not fall with “equal and exact justice upon all”—that do not raise the revenues of government in the way that is least burdensome to the people, and with the least possible disturbance to their business. That, sir, is the American policy.

1 TSow, another thing. I want to show that the tariff is not for the benefit of the workingman. We will have many appeals made to us for sympathy on account of the workingman. I have taken from the first annual report of the commissioner of labor and the report of the census on wages some figures given by manufacturers themselves of the total cost of the product and the labor cost of the articles they are making I find in this report one pair of five-pound ' blankets. The whole cost, as stated by the ’ manufacturer, is *2.51. The labor cost he | paid for making them is thirty-five cents. The present tariff is $1.90. Now, hero is $1.55 in this tariff over and above the entire 1 cost of these blankets. Why did not that , manufacturer go and give that money to the laborer? lie is able to do it. Here is a tariff that gives him SI.IJ c i that pair of blankets for the benefit of his Lbor, but, notwithstanding that the tariff was i.aposed for I American labor and to preserve high wages, every dollar of that tai iff went into tae manufacturer's ’ pocket. The poor fellow who i.'odethe blanket gst 35 cents and the manufacturer kept the $1.90. Mr. Crain—Will the gentleman , .".se state how much the committee has reduced taut duty? Mr. Mills— i‘o <1 from $L9u. Take another pair of five-pound blankets. The total co v is The laix>r cart ij 70 cents. Taeta:..i i.i i1.1.J. Now, uow strange it is that none of these sums that were intended for the laborer ever get beyond the pocket of the m„a,_„c._;’er. L’ky l> 1., i.aeu the American congre._> enacted this legislation for the benefit of our labor t„at every dollar of this aid intended for labor, stops iu the pockets of the manufacturer, who goes into the highways and hedges and hires his laborer at the lowest price for which he can get him in the markets and then pockets the tariff benefits that we are told every day is intended for the laborer alone—for the benefit of labor? Here is another pair of five pound blankets. The cost is $3.39. The labor cost paid by this manufacturer, he says himself, is 61 cents. The tariff is §2.55. In the pending bill we have left him $1.35, and we have left the other man §I.OB. And we have left all along not onlj r enough to cover the difference, if there was any difference, between the labor cost of production in Europe and the labor cost of production hi this country, but we have left enough to pay for all the labor and a bonus besides. Let us go on a little further. Here is 1 yard of flannel, weighing 4 ounces; it cost 18 cents, of which the laborer got 3 cents; the tariff on it is 8 cents. How is it that the whole 8 cents did not get into the pockets of the laborer? Is it not strange that those who made the tariff and fastened upon the people these war rates in a time of profound peace, and who are now constantly assailing the Democratic party because it is untrue to the ■.. , ..lagman, some provision by wh.e’i the generous b- nty they'gave should rent-’i th: pocket of him L.rwliom they said it was intended? They charge that we are trying to strike down the labor cf the country, t.by.do they not see that the money they are tak.ng out of the hard earnings of the people is delivered in good faith to the workman? One yard of cashmere weighing 16 ounces costs $1.38; the labor cost is 29 cents; thetariff duty is 80 cents. One pound of sewing silk costs §5.63; the cost for labor is 85 cents; the tariff is §1.69. One gallon of linseed oil costs 46 cents; the labor cost is 2 cents; the tariff cost is 25 cents. One ton of bar iron costs §3l; the labor cost is §10; the tariff fixes several rates for bar iron. I give the lowest rate, $17.92. One ton of foundry pig iron costs §11; the labor costs §1.64; the tariff is $6.72. None of these tariff rates go to the laborer. The road is blocked up. They cannot pass the pocket of the manufacturer. This “great American system” that is intended to secure high wages for our laborers Is so perverted that all its beneficence intended for the poor worknian stops in the pocket of his employer, and the laborer only gets-wliat he can command m the open market for his work. Let us take Bessemer steel rails. We are told that the steel ii.il industry is in great danger of utterly peri king away and departing from this continent, l. ?ea;aso we propose to reduce the duty from §l7 to §ll. The whole cost is put down at §3l, the Labor cost at §< .57; the tariff is §l7. The manufacturer has §1>.43 more for each ton than all the labor cost. The labor cost of this ton is exceptionally high. I have a statement of the labor cost of a ton of steel rails at Bethlehem, Pa., taken recently by Mr. Schaenof, and it shows labor cost there $3.85 per ton. The labor cost of a ton of steel rails in England is not $1 cheaper t ha:i here. Mr. Schaenof informs me that a ton of bar iron costs, for labor, in England about §7.75, and here about §B. But let us leave these and proceed with the official figures. A keg of steel nails costs $2.24; the labor cost is 67 cents, the tariff is $1.25. A ton of pipe iron costs $34.57; labor cost, $12.26; the tariff is §22.40. Here is a bar wheel weighing 500 pounds; cost, sl3; labor cost, 85 cents; tariff rate is 2J4 cents per pound, equivalent] to §12.50, to cover a labor cost of 85 cents! [Laughter.] Why, Mr. Chairman, these laborers of ours ought to get immensely rich if they could get all that congress votes to them, if the manufacturers did not stop the bounties intended by the government to reach the pockets of the workingmen. Here is a coarse wool suit of clothes such as our working people wear i.i their daily toil in the shop and field. The whole cost is sl2. The labor cost is $2. The tariff duty is 40 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem. As the weight of the suit is not given, we cannot get the exact tariff, but the duty on woolen clothes imported last year averaged 54 per cent., and at that rate the tariff stands $6.48 to cover §2 of labor cost. A cotton suit costs $10.50; the labor cost is $1.65; the tariff is §3.67. A dozen goblets cost 48 cents; labor cost, 15 cents; tariff, 19 cents. White lead, by the hundred weight, $9.50; labor cost, 50 cents; tariff, $3. A hundred weight of mixed paints, $8; labor cost, 41 cents; tariff, $2. APPEAL FOR RELIEF. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have gone through with a number of articles taken from these official reports made by the manufacturers themselves, and I have shown that the tariff was not framed for the benefit of the laborer, or that, if it was so intended by those who framed it, the benefit never reaches the laborer, not a dollar of it. The working people are. hired in the market at the lowest rates at which their services can be had, and all the “boodle” that has been granted by these tariff bills goes into the pockets of the manufacturers. It builds up palaces; it concentrates wealth; it makes great and powerful magnates; but it distributes none of its beneficence in the homes of our laboring poor. Now, gentlemen, the time has come, after all these taxes on wealth have been swept away, after the people of this country have been bearing for years these enormous burdens that have be.en levied on the necessaries of life; now, when “trusts” and “combinations” and “pools” are arising around all us to limit production, to increase prices, to make the laborer’s lot harder and darker—now the time has come for us to do something, not for the classes, but for the great masses of our people. I hope and trust that the bill which we have presented to you and which has met with favor throughout the whole country will receive a ma°f your votes, a majority of the votes of t fiv senate, and become a law. I earnestly hope, when the treasury is full to overflowing of the people’s hard earnings, you will lighten their burden and reduce the taxes on the necessarieß of life. Although the bilj we propose is not all that we could have asked, although it is a very moderate bill, yet it will send comfort and happiness into the homes and bosoms of the poor laboring people of this country, and I ask you now in behalf, of them to consider their claims and help to reduce the burdens that have so long been laid upon their shoulders. [Enthusiastic applause on the Democratic side, •and cries of “Vote!” “Votel”]