Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 37, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 October 1890 — Untitled [ARTICLE]

THE M’KINLEY BILL SERVES ENGLISH INTERESTS.

Some of the Republio&n papers seem to be very much surprised that the Rt. Hon. Joseph'Chamberlain, of England, should regfcrd the McKinley bill as in the Interest of England, bnt there is no reason why they should be. Mr. Chamberlain has expressed the same sentiments before and he is far from being the only Englishman who entertains thatjview. Of oourse an individual English manufacturer, who has been shipping goods to this country, finds his business injured by an increase of dpty on his wares. Bat a good many Englishmen, looking at the matter, not from the point of view of self-interest, bnt from that of the general commercial intorests of the nation, are more than satisfied to have us continue and re-enforce onr barriers to commerce, whioh keep onr goods in, just as much as they keep foreign goods ont. At the annual dinner of the Cobden Club, in 1881, Mr. Chamberlain said: “For myself, speaking only as an Englishman, I look forward with anxiety, not unmixed with alarm, to the time when onr merchants and mannfaoturere will have to face the free and nnrestxioted competition of the great repoblio of the west, and when the enterprise of its citizens and the unparalleled resources of its soil will no longer be shackled and handicapped by the artificial restrictions whioh have heretofore impeded the full development of its external commerce."

Looking at the question in the same broad, thorough way, quite unlike that of an English shop-keeper, or an American Republican politician, Mr. Chamberlain said very recently in New York: “As an Englishman, I am glad to see the United States adopt the McKinley or any other bill that will serve to maintain the Bulwark of proteotion that has been erected around this country. The high tariffs which the United States has exacted for years have served to inorease England’s trade and enrioh her merchants.— I have repeatedly said in public at home what I now say to you, that England wo’d suffer great loss if the protective system should be abolished in the United States. We have built up an enormous trade with the countries of South Amerioa, with Australia and other countries which we could not hold if free trade were adopted here. You have enormous resources in raw materials, in workmanship and in machinery against whioh England would out a sorry figure if both countries were placed on an equal footing in the race for commercial supremacy. I will not say that Eugiand would be totally vanquished, but she would bo greatly injured in the competition. In a few years tne United States would mb the commercial world beyond tho si adov of a doubt. Those people in England who have expressed themselves in opposition to the measure evidently have not studied the question as they should. They noedto examine America’s resources. As an Englishman, therefore, I hope your policy of proteotion will be kept up indefinitely. Tne higher the tariffs the better will I be satisfied, for i cannot imagine a severer blow to my country than the United States could deal by declaring for free trade.”

Very similar sentiments were expressed in 1882 by Mr. William Itathbone, member of Parliament; Lord Brassey, an extensive traveler and a close observer of industrial affairs; Mr. Daniel Pidgeon, a machinist and manufacturer; Mr. James Thornly, who came to this oountry to study our cotton manufactures as the agent of the Manchester manufacturers; Prof.Cairnes, the political economist, and to go over on to the Continent, the Leipsio Monthly for Textile Industry, two years ago. The Birmingham, England Post, of July 28, 1888, said of the Mills bill: “The main object of the measure is * * * to lessen the cost of the production of American manufacturers, and of course every step in that direction will make the United States a more dangerous competitor of Fngland.” Mr. Daniel Adamson, presidenl of the British Iron and Steel Institute, said: “In fact, owing to the short-sightedness of foreigners imposing high tariffs, we are now oarrying 90 per cent, of tho whole ooean traffic of the world, and if this were continued, in three or four years we should have from 95 to 98 per cent, of the shipping under the British flag." The Birmingham Gazette, a couple of years azo remarked that American competition would never be formidable “until the Republic adopts free imports or Great Britain reverts to protection,” and says: “We cannot afford tojpit onr resources against those of Connecticut and Pennsylvania on equal terms.” And finally, Mr. Gladstone, speaking at Leeds, in 1881, said; “I will say this: That as long as America adheres to the protective system, your commercial primacy is secure. Nothing in the world can wrest it from you while America continues'to fetter her own strong hands and arms, and with these fettered arms is content to compete with you, who are free, in neutral markets/ 1