Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 March 1894 — Untitled [ARTICLE]

Hon. Tom. L. Johnson, member of Congress from the Cleveland, Ohio, district, recently addressed the following letter to a his constituency, in response to a request from them that he vote against the Wilson tariff bill: Ladies and Gentlemen: 1 have received your communication and that frem Messrs. Landesman, Hirscheimer &Co., to which you refer, asking me to vote against ths Wilson tariff bill, unless it is ameiiued by adding to the duty of 45 per cent ad valorem, which it pioposes, an additional duty of 49| cents per pound.

1 shall do nothing of the kind. My objection to the Wilson bill is not tha' its duties are too low, but that they are too high. 1 will do all 1 can to cut its duties down, hut 1 will strenuously opp ,se putting them up. You ask me to vo eto make clcaks artificially dear. How can 1 do that without making it harder tor those who need cloaks to get cloaks? Even if this wo’d benefit you would it not injure others? There are many cloa\ makers in Clevel nd, it is true, but t'ley are few as compared with the cloak users Would you consider me an honest Representative if 1 would thus co-.sent to injure the many for the benefit of the few, even though the few in this case were yourselves? And you ask me to demand in addition to a monstrous ad valorem duty us 45 per cent a still more monstrous weight duty of 49| cts. a pound—a weight duty that wib make the poorest sewing girl pay as much tax onjher cheap shoddy cloak as Mrs. Astor or Mrs. Vanderbilt would be called on to pay on a cloak of the finest velvets and embroideries! Do vou really want me to vote to thus put the burden of taxation on the poor while letting the rich escape? Whether you want me to or not, I will not do it.

Tliat, as vour employers say, a serviceable cloak can be bough' in Berlin a‘ $1.20 affords no reason in my mind for keeping up the tariff. Jn the contra y, it is the strongest reason for abolishing it altogether. There are lots or women in this country who would be rejoiced to get cloaks so cheaply; lots of women who must now pinch and strain to get a cloak; lots of women who can not now afford to buy cloaks, and must wear old or cast-off garments or shiver with cold. It is not common justice that we should abolish every tax that makes it harder for them to clothe themselves?

No; I will do nothing to keep up duties. 1 will do everything lean to cut them down. Ido not believe in taxing one citizen for the purpose of enriching another citizen. You elected me on my declaration that 1 was opposed to pr - tection, believing it but a scheme for enabling the few to rob the ma y and that 1 was opposed evi n to a for reven ai, believing that the only jn.-t way of raising revenues is by the single tax noon land values. So long, as 1 continue to represent you in Congress 1 shall act on the principle of eqnai rights to all and special privileges to none, and whenever 1 can abolish any of the texes that are now levied on labor or the products of labor 1 will do it, and where 1 can not abolish 1 v ill do my best to reduce. When you get tired of that* you can elect sc me one in ray place who suits you better. If you want duties kept up. you may get an honest protectionist tnat will serve von; you can not get an honest free trader. • But 1 believe that you haveonly to think of the matter to see that in adhering to principle 1 will be acting for the best interests of all working men and women, yourselv's among the number. This demand for protective duties for the protection of the American workingman is the veriest sham. You can not protect labor by nutting import duties on goods. Protection makes it h irder for the i masses of our people to live. It I may increase the profits of favored capitalists; it maj r build up trusts and create great fortune-', but it can not raise Wages. You know for yourselves th t what your employ! rs pay you in wages does not depend on what any tariff may enable them to make, but on what I they can get others to take your I p'aces^for. I You have to stand the competi

tion of the labor market. Why, then, should you try to shut yours selves out from the advantages that the competition of the goods market should give to you? It is not protection that makes wages higher than in Germany They we’e higher here before we had any protection, and in the saturnalia of protection that luis reigned here for some years past you have seen wages go down, until the country is now crowded with tramps and hundreds of thousands of men are now supported by charity. What made wages higher than in Germany is the freer access to land, the natural means of all production, and as that is closed up and monopoly sets in wages must decline. What labor needs is not p '(Mention, but justice; not legalized restrictions which permit one set of men to tax their fellows, out the free opportunity to all for the exertion of theirown powers. T u erea! struggle for the rights f labor and for those fair wages that consist in the full earnings of the laborer is the strr.; ;;1 • for freedom and against monopolies and restrictions; and in the effort to cut down protection it s timidly beginning. I shall suppoit the Wjlson bill with Hi my ability and al’ nr, strei gth. Yours, very respectfully, Tom L. Johnson. To Joseph Lachuect, Emil Weisels, Joseph Frankel, a:.d others, tailors and tailoresses in .the employ of Messrs. Landesman, Hirscheimer & Co., -cloak manufacturers.