Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 34, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 September 1888 — THE REPUBLICAN LEADERS [ARTICLE]

THE REPUBLICAN LEADERS

How the Grand Old Party Has Changed Its Policy for the Benefit of the Plutocrats. Henry Wilson. “Men who have looked with hungry eye upon a treasury overflowing with surplus millions do not wish to see the source from which those coveted millions are derived dried up. Now, as in times past, political ambition is not unwilling to sacrifice the business interests of the country in the hope to win

political power. * * * J think American labor will be best protected by taxing all necessaries of life lightly; placing the raw materials which enter into our manufactures on the free list; raising revenue to support the government upon articles that come in competition with our manufactures and upon the luxuries of life, which are consumed by the more wealthy classes of society. * * * “We want all those articles that enter as raw materials in the manufactures of the country free of duty, so that the country can stand on an equality in the markets of ;he world. * * * Depend upon it, the country will not stand still or consent to keep pace with ;he growth of Pennsylvania railroad iron establishments. This •»U about protection, the history of the past twenty-five years shows las been mainly Tor political effect. Svery public man knows that it las been so. I think the interests of the labor of this c untry will ie best promoted by living as near as we can practically to the declines of sound political economy.” « * *

James A. Garfield. “I am for a. protection which leads to ultimate free trade. * * * Modern scholarship is on the side of free trade.” 1870. Chebteb A. Arthub. “The present \triff system is, in many respects, unjust. It makes unequal distributions both of its burdens and its benefits. * * * Without entering into minute details, which, under present circumstances, is quite unnecessary, I recommen I an enlargement of the free list, so as to include within it the numerous articl s which yield inconsiderable revenue, a simplification of the complex and inconsistent schedule < f duties upon certain manufactures, particularly those of cotton, iron and steel, and a substantial reduction of the duties upon those articles, and upon sugar, molasses, silk, wool and woolen goods.”

Hugh McColloch “The present tariff was created when the government was engaged in a war of unparalleled magnitude for the maintenance of the rightful authority, it has accomplished the object for which it was created, and now needs careful revision to accommodate it to the present condition of the coilntry. The surplus which it produces and locks up in the treasury to the detriment of business is only one of tke many serious objections to it It is greatly ire judicial to our great farming interests by gradually but effectively diminishing the foreign demand for our agricultural productions at remunerative prices. It stands in the way of the restoration of our shipping interests by duties upon many articles which are needed in ship building. It is anti-republican in its character and its influences; it fosters monopolies; it enriches the few at the ex[ ense of the many. It violates the constitution of the United States, inasmuch as upon many articles duties **re imposed for protection, not for revenue.” Justin S. Morrill. “The tariff was intended to be revised, so that there should be some reduction in the cost of living. It was obvious from the first

that woolens and wools would have have t j submit to thsir fair, equitable and just share.” John Sherman. “We agree that the tariff should be revised and the taxes reduced. That under existing law we are collecting from the people of the United States is national taxes the sum of fifty to one hundred millions of dollars more than is requisite to meet all the proper current expenditure of the government and all our obligations to the public creditors and to comply with the sinking fund act for the gradual reduction of the public debt.” Joseph R. Hawlet. “I will vote in any direction to bring about a resolute attempt to give us a revision of the tariff. I Say that as representing a protectionist constituency.”

Benjamin Butterworth. “Ever / nation that is worthy the name is seeking to enlarge the area of its trade and commerce, to enlarge the opportunity to buy and find new markets in which t o sell.’’ John D. Long. “There are only two ways to reduce the suiplus revenue: one, by raising the tariff to a prohibitory hight, which nobody advocates; the other, the free list. The free list is the Honest revenue reformer’s hope.”

Senator Allisof. “I will say with regard to the duty on wool and woolens, that I regard it not as an intentional fraud, but as operating as though it were a fraud, upon the great body of the people of the United States. I allude to the woolen tariff, a law, the effect of whieh has been to materially injure the sheep husbandry of this country. In a single county in the State of lowa, between 1867 and 1869, the number of sheep was reduced from 22,000 to about 18,000 in two years, and what is true of this county is true to a greater or less extent in other counties m lowa, and during this time the price of wool has been constamly|depreciated. Mr. Lawrence—l should like the gentleman to inform me how a reduction of the duty on wool and woolen goods would inure to the advantage of the wool grower? Mr. Allison—l will tell the gentleman how, in my judgment, the wool grower will be benefited. As the law now is the tariff ui>uu fine wools of a character not produced in this country is 100 per cent, upon their cost. The uuon woolens of the same class is only about 50 per cent., so that the finer woolen goods are imported, and not the coarser fabrics. Before the tariff of 1867 our manufacturers of fine goods mixed foreign fine wools with our domestic product, and were thus able to compete successfully with the foreign manufacture of similar wools. But being prohibited from importing this cl»ss of woo a, these fine g ?ods cannot now be produced in this country as cheaply as they can be imported. Consequently, mills that were formerly engaged in producing these goods have been compelled to abandon business or manufacture the coarser fabrics. If they could afford to manufacture those fine goods, they would make a market which we do not now have, for our fine wools to be mixed with other fine wools of a different character from abroad. This want of a market as I understand it, is the reason why our fine wools now command so low a price. There is no demand for them at home, and we cannot export them in competition with fine wools gro <n in other countries. Warner Miller. “The sooner we have that [tariff ] revision, the better it will be for all industries.”