Rensselaer Republican, Volume 20, Number 19, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 12 January 1888 — SHERMAN’S MANIFESTO. [ARTICLE]

SHERMAN’S MANIFESTO.

The Able Senator Makes an Unan■weraole Reply To the Free Trade Metaage of President Cleveland—The Farmer Should be Protected as Iftll aa the Arnun-A Clear and Logical Statement of the Republican Position. Mr. Sherman’s resolution to refer President Cleveland’s message to the finance committee came up in the Benate, Wednesday, and the author spoke at length qpon it. His effort was the Republioah answer to the message. After referring to its extraordinary character and the dealings hitherto with the Treasury surplus, by the reduction or repeal of taxes without any cry of alarm being raised, he criticised the President and party for failing to do anything to relieve the country of the burden inveighed against it- They had the power now, and a power neglected was often as great a crime as a power usurped. An artificial scare could not be made to cover faults and defects of the administration. He denounced the administration for not reducing the surplus by purchasing bonds. Conjmning he said: The country had two distinct systems of taxation, one upon the American production of spirits, tobarco and beer, and the other upon Imported goods, the products of foreign nations. If the object sought was only to avoid the accumulation of surplua, the easy, natural and logical course was to repeal, or largely to reduce Internal revenue. But the President proposed to continue these taxes, without dimunltion.so that he might strike a more effective blow at the taxes now resting upon foreign productions. It was of these latter that he had used the epithets "vicious, inequitable and illogical.'’ It was at the tariff laws that the President aud Secretary of the Treasury aimed their epithets and arguments—the surplus revenue being the mere pretext or occasion. It was the protective industrial policy builtUp by the Republican p-.rty that they would break down. The President’s mes-age,fairly construed, was a severe indictment of all engaged in manufactures—a sweeping accusation against the policy of proieetiou as supported by the great mass of his countrymen and recommended by his most illustrious predecessor®. 11 showed that he favored a public policy which would leave American manufac'urer and workman to the hard, sharp and grinding competition of the capital and labor of the world. Proceeding to details, Mr Sheiman said that during the fiscal year ending June 31, 18-7, the tota. value of foreign importations was $683,000,-000-$-38,000,000 of that amount being free of duty; so. that, as to over one-third of all articles of foreign production consumed in this country there was absolute free trade. They were mainly such articl-s as, by reason of climate, oould not be produced here, and did not come into competiton with domestic industry. With that kind of free trade he was in hearty sympathy. He would extend it to every article oi common use, the growth or pr<>dnction of which in the United States was not profitable. It was exactly the opposite policy that was proposed by the President and by the school to which the President belonged. They sought to place taxes upon articles now free, such as coffee, in order that a greater reduction might be made on articles that did not come into competition with home industry. After deducting the free list the value of imported goods last year was $150,000.000, on which duties were levied. Should there be a uniform rate of duty on the goods? No; but there should be a careful discrimination and classification of rates, depending upon the nature snd quality of the goods, upon who were to be the consumers, and upon the effect which the rates proposed would have UDon domestic' industries Therefore, articles of voluntary use, luxury and ornament, or appetite not in common use among the people and which are purchased almost exclusively by the wealthy,, should bear a higher rate of taxation—the highest rate collectible without excluding them ,»r inducing smuggling. This was foundeji upon the admitted maxim of politick! economy, that taxes should be assess* d upon those best able to pay. ’ This applies to wines. >liquors and cigars (supposed to he superior in flavor to the domestic articles), and to silks satins broadcloths, innumerable articles oi,dress ornament, ;to porcelain, Btatuary, paintings, glassware and the like. As to all these arflclks, the price was a matter of ihdiffeience to ttye consumer, and the, rate of duty wa&yery much like.tbeepriee fixed toy the manufacturer—that is n* as inuch as coulib be got. This was the policy of the present tariff, and it had operated even better than had been hoped. The value of such articles.imported was not less than $1 .f),000,000, and du(h» conee_t&l Dat less than $60,000,00j, nearly oup~l»alt a; the.-whole amount collected r !rJA It certainly could not be .raid of these duties that they "imposed a burden upon those who consumed domestic products as Wall as upon those who consumed imported' arfßßetjpj {usfqKj the President’s language), On the Contrary,theke duties had imposed the chief burdehs of the taxation upon articles of voluntary luxury, and still incited American artists and mechanics to compete in those branches of industry with the skilled artists of Europe and Asia. In this way remarkable progress had been made in these expensive productions: and porcelain, tableware ornaments, decorative furniture and a multitude of other articles of taste and luxury, the work of American mechanics, had been brought with in the means of great masses of the American people To reduce the duty on these foreign luxuries would be to trausmit the burden of taxation from those who now bore it willingly to the shoulders of the people. Another class of duties was on articles of fowl and animals. Of these the valne imported the last fiscal year was 5U2.000.01X) and the duty paid On them ‘568,000.000, Of those urns the sugar, rice and fruit im. ported were valued at $9 ,000.000 and paid a duty of .6 .000,000. or more than nine-tenths of all the taxes levied on food and animals. Tnese articles entered into the consumption of every family in the United Sfates. If the object was to reduce surplus revenue, what better mode, he asked, could be suggested than to repeal one half of t-'e duty on suga- and thus directly relieve the people from ¥a5,25:i,000 of taxes on articles in most general use and now bearing a tax of 82 per cent.? No such suggestion was made by the President or the Seer, tary of the Treasury, and he (Mr. Sherman) did not care to’ explore the reasons-TorTheir silence. He be lieved in prutectingall home industries,without respect to section or to the place or manner of on the farm or in the workshop; but if protection was not the object of the law, and if surplus revenue was the great evil to he dealt with, why not give relief to the people by a reduction of the tax on sugar? The effort to produce sugar in the United States in quantities at ah approaching the demand had failed, though prot-eted by the highest tariff rat-s. Still, in view of the hopeful prosper sol producing sugar from beets and sorghum cane, as well as from sugar eane, he would not eripole that industry by reducing p otective duties, except oy giving the producers of domestic sugar a bounty equal to the reduction of duty on the Imported article But it was not of thg duties on food that the President complained aa "vicious, inequitable and illogical source of taxation,” The duties of which he cc mplaiued were those for the benefit of manufacturers; and be urged an especially "radical reduction of the duties imposed on raw materials used in manufactures, or their free importation.” The great body of erode articles imported which entered into the processes of domestic indue trv, to the value of $lO6, 00,000. were now free of duty. Every imported article of that class was so unless it competed directly with the development of American resources. Duties averaging 32 per cent were now levied upon such imported articles, valued at $9,000,100, and which yielded a revenue of $19,500,000. The chief of them were agricultural products—wool, flax, hemp and other textile fabrics; hops, bristles and seeds, valued at $35,003,000 and yielding a revenue of $10,000,000 or less than 33 per cent. The remainier was chiefly metals, on ore in pigs, coai and marble, of valneofs2J.sOO,OOo and yielding $9.250.009. These imports come into 'direct c mpet'tion with the prodnetionsof nearly t»o million American farmers and of hundreds of thousands of laboring men. This moderate protection grren to the labor and capital employed In min ing and agricultural industries was the favorite point of assault by the President and all freetraders, upon the protective policy. It was the citadel of the system. The whole depended upon the principle that it was wise to live by tariff laws.- to all forms of American labor, the degree of protection or advantage wbicn the imposition oi duties on similar foreign productions necessarily gave. That had been true in the beginning of the Government and had been recommended by every President from Wasnington to Polk, The same role had been applied for the farmer, the miner and furnace owner as well as the manufacturer; and whenever die rule was departed from, the whole system would fall,and properly so. The principle of protection demanded equality of benefits and burdens. The object ta, protection to labor, not to capital. No reason could be given why wool should be made free, and woolen goods protected. If there

must be cheap wool there moat' be cheap woolens; and If the labor of the farmer inprodueiug the wool was not protected against undue competition with Australia or Bueno* Ayres, then that of the cloth maker should not be protected against cdtapetition with the looms of Manchester or Lyon*. If there were low dutle* on iron ore there would have to be low duties on iron and steel in all its forms. The farmer performed as valuable labor as the artisan, add the rights of every producer should have equal and Just consideration without fear or favor. And yet the President had selected that class of

productions under the name of "raw materials” for destruction, and had especially selected wool as an article not to be protected. His whole *r gument rested upon the allegation that the price of wool was increased to the extent of the duty, and that, but for the duty, the merchant could buy this wool cheaper In South America and Australia. This argument was fallacious because the destruction of the wool industry in the United States would at ones advanee the priee of wool In foreign markers. But even If the argument were true, it would apply to all domestic productions and to all manufactures. Wool was the completed art cle of the farmer, just aa cloth was of the manufacturer, and as the coat was of the tailor,and the objection that the duty on wool raised the price to the consumer applied as well (If true) to the duty on cloth and onevery article on the tariff list. The all-sufficient answer was that the duty encouraged the pro duetlon of wool, the manufacture of cloth int o) the infinite variety of articles produced by American labor competing with foreign labor. Tnfs diversity of production inured to the benefit of all classes'of the people alike, and was the secret of the enormous growth, power and wealth of the Republic. It had always seemed to him that the most narrow and selfish notion advanced In respect to tariff laws (aud to which the President now lent his name) was that made on behalf of advanced industries, now supported by duties greater than those on raw materials, that they must be allowed to purchase thefr raw materials In the cheapest markets of the world; that the mineral treasures of every State and Territory mflst be left undeveloped In order that these advanced Industries may have cheap raw materials. He regarded the home production of raw materials es of even more importance than manufactures. There was but one rule which had to be applied to all industries impar tially: and that whs to givete all forms of American labor which have to compete with such foreign labor that fair and reasonable advantage and protection which would give the American producer the home market for home products. Turning from raw materials to manufactured, Mr Sherman said that the imports not on the free list and not classed by him as luxuries or raw materials, amounted in value to $ >18,000,000, and paid $84,000,000 in duties. These importations came into direct competition with domestic manufactures,which bad been mainly built up by the encouragement of tariff laws. Scarcely any of them had existed in the United States when the Constitution was framed. Since then they had flourished or foundered by the changing rates of the revenue laws. A careful revision of rates was made by the Tariff Commission of 1882. All | branches of domestic industry had become adapted to these rates. It wss this system which was denounced by the President as ‘ ‘vicious, inequitable and illogical.” That denunciation was aimed at the principle of protection. All the industrial classes of the population were directly interested In that principle. The farmers and mechanics had long since learned to look beyond the uarrow view taken Of their interests by the President. They looked at It from a higher plane. The benefits of the protection permeated hrough the whole eommunity and extended to the remotest parts of the country, but were most apparent in the immediate neighborhood of manufacturing Industries. T"e President assumed that the duty on imported articles was added to the price of similar articles of home production: but such was not the faet. In the absence of domestic competition. the importer fixed his Own price and added the duty and expenses to the cost; but, at the first sign of American competition, the price was reduced; gnd often ip a stagnant market, goods were sold at far less than the original cost and duty. As a rule, imported goods competing with American goods were sold In the American market cheaner than in the Euronean market (duties added.) In the great body of articles fermerly imported, the manufacturer was well established, and Under domestic competition, the price was.reduced to figures approaching European rates. In some articles America comreted with Europe in the markets of the world. And this process was now going on. Home competition wherever it got a foothold reduced prices and lessened importation. One most remarkable example of that was in the prodnc'ion of glassware., pottery and China-ware which had become established industries in this country. He quoted Mr. Dudley. lHte consul General at Liver- ; pool, to the effect that there is not a single man- : ufactured commodity that is not cheaper to-day •iu the United states under the protective system than it was in 1860 under free trade, and that nine-tfnthß of the manufactured commodities used by American farmers (including clothing, household goods, furniture, implements of husbandry, tools, etc.) are ns cheap in this country a» they are in England arid, in some instance* 1 cheaper. The fact that the large, importations ( were now made of manufactures Of iron, steel, cotton, wool, wood, leather, china aud glasswaVe was evidenoe that the duty on certain grades of these goods was not beyond the revenue standard,; If/the present systems Were maintained, i American home industries could;, and would, compote with European productions, in articles essenflal to human life and comfort. As to the mm fieut’s assertion that, moriethan 4 003 articles Weyti-subject to tariff duties, that Mr. Sherman anWt, -was a gross, but common exaggeration. CHC would agree with the President, however, in saving that if pit a careful examination, it should appear thatany dutv oh any article could, ,mdi?pensed wifli. without detriment to American industry.if should be done;' and that if any article now payljiW'twxes could not be manufactured here, it shod d he placed on the free IfsU The object of the tariff-laws was to encourage; home matmfaelhjes fneompet'itioh with forekiSK rivals, aa Weil as-£o shpitre ft' leverifle, and fnre't bese laws should be as permanent as pojfflP ble. consistent with the needs of the Government. American citizens were emouraged to irivest their money in expensive machinery and buildings: buttbty had noespecialprivileges.no monopoly. All the world might, in thiscountry, enter into competition with them, The President. however, seemed to think that they were public enemies. To eha e awav a successful manufacturer by a change of duties was to legislate for the foreigner and against the American citizen. The most important benefits conferred by the tariffs was that they net -only diversifiedAmerican industries, but secured to the laborer employed in manufactures Higher wages and bettersurroundings and advanmges than were enjoyed by laborers in similar employments anvwhere in the world. The treatment of th s question by the Pr* sident was a delusion and a snare The President assumed that the cost of living(esuecially of food and clothing) was higher i" the United States than in Europe. That was not true. Food of every kiud (exce.pt sugar) was cheaper here than inanv market in Europe. The clothing worn by workingmen (including blankets) was sold here at as low prices as in London or Liverpool. The quantity and quality of food of laboring men were confessedly better and greater here than in Pnrone. and the' rate of wages was from 53 to 1< 0 per cent, higher here. The President did not dispute these points, but appealed to the manufacturer (who had been represented as a robber, a conspirator and extortioner) not to redtfee the workingmen's wages,, but to pay more out of surplus profits—profits very often found on the wrong side of the ledger. What workingcan did not feel that this was sheer evasion of the inevitable result of an effort to reduce his wages by inviting a close competition with pauper labor? The' Workingman would have to share the fate of his employer and divide with him the loss. The question was one purely of wages. If wages were not greater here than in England. France and Belgium (America’s chief competitors), this country could, no douht now compete with all the world in all metallic and textile fabrics. But would It be wise to pursue a policy that would aompel the reduction of wage* to the general standard in Europe? The Republican party had declared it to be the duty of the National government not only to levy enough duties on imported merchandise to support the Government but to levy those duties so as to secure to laboring men employed in manufactures such wages as would enable them to support, malatain and educate properly their wives and children. Whatever might be said of other rations, protection to home Industries (as embodied iq the tariff laws) was the best for this country, arid' lie (for one) proposed tc maintain it. even against the advice of the President. In eoDC’nsion. he said: “We do not appreciate as we ought the commanding position now held by the United States among the nations of the world. “Our fathers won the freedom of the ocean and proclaimed the doctrine of continental exemption from European aggressions. We in our day have tested the strength of the Union. We have abolished slavery; we have established the principles on which our currency and pubi: faith are founded, so as toconunand the respect and approval of the civilized world. We are now united in bonds growing strength, and I trust, in perpetual union. We have built up oar industries by a policy founded upon the highest patriotism. Its success is marked by the general wealth and prosperity of our people. By taxing them it seeks to benefit, and extends its benefits impartially to every industry and to every section It gives employment to the la-' borer in every field. It concentrates in our own land, and among onr own people, agriculture, eommerce and manufactures, making each support the other, and all contributing to the wealth and jrandenr of the Republic These great depths of industry are not now divided by section lines, bntaro interwoven like the veins, arteries and muscles of the human bodv. What we want now Is the cultivation of the sentiment of patriotism, in intense love of country, a feeling of national pride. Every American, whether

native or naturalised, ought to feel that this his country to wnish he owes allegiance, dutjfl and pride. Th# President (any President) in h*H elevated seeinaion, approached only by flattered and office-seekers, should regard the interest*and honor of his country, its development and proed perity, and the- employment and happinesa ofl his countryman, as higher far than the interest* of foreigners or the development of their prod ducts. It is to the Senate only that I have Id right to appeal The best we can do for ms ad kind la to do th# best for our country. ‘Ood country’s welfare is our first coneern, and Wh<d promotes that best, proves his duty.’ ■ “The Home Missionary is the best missionary! Th# light of our example w# give to foreign nad tfons; duty we owe to our own. What hlghed duty can there tie than to be watchful of the ltd terests, and to protect and fqster and diversifd the industries of the American people?" H