Rensselaer Republican, Volume 20, Number 46, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 July 1888 — FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE. [ARTICLE]

FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.

Talk* on the Tariff. N«w York Prea*. " A Press representative had the following tariff talk with a member of the firm ofEdward P. Allis & Co., manufacturers and foundry men of Milwaukee, AVIs.: “Recently,” said Mr. Allis, “we made an estimate of $45,006 for .the construction of some mining machinery, which was a very low We are cei>_ tainlv turning out work as cheaply as any establishment in the United States, as onr work goes all Ovet the country, even to other cities where extensive.establishments turn out comjK'ting work. The manager of the mining company went to Kngland and obtained a proposal of $15,000 lor the same, appliances, lie took our agent with him as an „expert, who, knowing from practical experience that very little of the $45,000 would %e I left to our company for profit, undertook to find out where the difference in cost came in. He obtained access to the 'Hhjrks'of the English tompiany, and ascertained that the employes were getting only one fourth to one third the wages paid bv our company in Milwaukee. He found women and children doing much of the work in Kngland which is done by men in this country, such as handling ore, coal and iron casts and other like work. In estimating the cost - of the two outfits it appeared that at the respective prices of and SIS,(XX) the English manufacturers would make more profit than we would, the difference being made up almost entirely in wages, and the only factor in turning the work into our shops was the duty or tariff upon this class of machinery.” The tariff talk this morning is with a representative of the Chelsea jute mills of this city. He said: - “If there is any infant industry that deserves to lie fostered, it is the jute industry. There are now eleven jute mills m the .United States, employing nearly 4,000 hands and representing a capital pi nearly $5,000,000. The jute plant is grown almost exclusively in India. The great bulk of jute goods imported in this country —about 80 per cent. —is called burlaps, an uncolored jute cloth. Burlaps are sold entirely by weight; that is, they are always quoted as 10 ounces, 101 ounces, and so forth, signifving the weight of a yard 40 inches in width. In the main the price varies a quarter of a eent for each half ounce, the heavier goods bringing the higher price. This little shade of difference in weight is oftentimes the manufacturer’s only profit, so that it becomes a matter of prime importance, not only with the government, it would collect full duties, ut to all American jute mills that duties be paid on actual weights and goods be not entered under false certificates showing them to be one ounce or even a half ounce lighter than they really are. “America consumes more jute goods than any country in the world, and yet makes lout one forty-second of the production of Great Britain and her provinces. The jute crop of the half that of cotton, and yet tins great industry is so restricted *in the United Rates that all the manufactories here are not sufficient to supply .State with its cheapest and most economical fabric.

“The wages of mill hands in the jute ; mills of the United States are just twice what what they are in Great Britain. * “The Mills bill proposes to admit burlaps free. If that is done the 300 looms in the United States that are how in operation will have to stop. It will throw out of employment all the hands employed on these looms and threatens with total destruction the carpet, twine and yarn departments of the American ■ mills. All jute products are sold on the verv closest margin of profit, so t hat the slightest reduction has a material effect upon their manufacture.” This talk is given by a workingman of New York city: “I wish to give a little of my experience as a workingman from a free trade country, England, trusting that it will open the eyes of my fellow workingmen here in America, especially those who are foolish enough to vote for free trade. lam a printer, or rather a pressman. I served seven years to learn my trade in ‘London: When I became a journeyman, mv wages when on piece work averaged not more than £l, or $5 per week, and when I was lucky enough to get work by the week,- my wages were thirty-three shillings, or $8 per week. “I would have been glad to have had £1 per week all the year around, but I could not even make that much. My living was next to starvation. “1 was obliged to leave England to come to this country to look for a living, and I thank God that 1 came liert 1 . I arrived here in 1575 and at once obtained work at SIS per week, nearly four times the amount I could make in free trade England, and I have never got less than SIS per week. My last employer was Mr. Benjamin W. Hitchcock, music publisher. “In England I could not afford to get a decent piece of meat for my dinner except on Sunday. My family was obliged

to live most of the time on bullock "heart, like thousands of other poor workingmen in England. Four years ago I visited England. 1 found that the wages were still as low as they were twenty years ago, and living much dearer than here. Meat is twice as dear there as here; other living in proportion. So you can imagine how the poor workingmen have to suffer in a free trade (Country. “Now, I would like to ask my fellow workingmen whether they are going to l>e so crazy as to vote for tree. trade. amt ruin themselves and their families, besides ruining others and this country at large. Are the working people of this country really willing to become pauE ere and end their lives in the poorouse, and be buried like dogs, as the poor-workman is buried from the poorhouse in free trade England? “Ponder over these few humble words of mine if you love yourself, your family, your fellow workingmen, above all your couatry, where you get vour bread and, butter for yourself and your family, and vour old parents, then vote for protection, which will bring a blessing to all men and to the country at large. As for my own..part I will vote for protection at all times.'’ The Press takes its tariff talk to-day rom the concluding paragraph of Hon. Richard W. Thompson’s work on “The History of Protective Tariff Laws,” just published by Peale &Co„ of Chicago: “Free trade meana lhet erection of commercial barriers which, with all our energies' and vast resources, we cannot overfeapr Rithfifto, uader the- principle of protection, we have progressed in the march of material wealth and prosperity until new fields of enterprise are

yentions and forms of machinery are constantly required to keep pace u ith our progressive developement. But,- if from any false conceptions of duty toward ourselves or others we should be persuaded to abandon this great, principle and leave our national resources to waste before our eyes, we should not escape the humiliating condition of seeing onr bams crowded with surplus productievns. rotting for Jrapt of markets; our manufacturing establish inehui sinking into <Wny; onr laboring population without employment; our commerce reduved to comparatively nothing, and a nation which has thus far attracted the admiration and excited the Wonder of the world, slowly, perhaps, hijt surety sinking into inferiority. And, to add to our humiliation, we would tlieh see England, from-whom we have hitlieto received nothing but hostility, reaping reward produced by our _ own folly, replenishing her cotters with our wealth, increasing her commerce at our expense, and removing,..with our assistance, every® impediment now standing in the way of her commercial supremacy.” The Press tariff talk to-day comes from Mr. J. H. Flagler of the National Tube Works* Company of McKeesport, Pa. Mr. Flagler spoke as follows in a recent interview:

“The tube manufacturing business is exceedingly dull and is growing worse. The fact of the matter is we are no longr er able to compete with foreign manufacturers’and we will have to close down our works. The Germans are to-day delivering tubes in this country at a much lower rate than we can manufacture them. Yet the Mills hill wants to cut down the duty one cent it pound. There are some five or six pipe manufactories in this country, and tliev will all have to shut down/ They can’t help themselves, because the importations of pipe are weekly on the increase, and we will be driven out of the business by foreign competition.” ‘I)o vou anticipate that the general shut down will take place immediately?” .. “We have some few contracts to till vet; when they are completed there will be nothing else left for us to do but to shut down, I cannot speak for the other mills, but they are in no better position to compete with the Germans than We are, and that is the reason I say a general suspension of the pipe manufacturing business must take place. I also anticipate that other branches of the iron and steel business will have to do likewise, because foreign manufacturers arc underselling the home people. This is the case m steel blooms, which jrfe being delivered in this country from Germany and England at *2(5 per ton. The Mills bill, instead of decreasing the duty on pipe, should increase it, so that we would have some show r to keep our works running and our men employed.” In answer to another question lie said: “The tube workers’ wage®, scale is not fixed at this time. We fix the wages of our men_with them direct and not through the Amalgamated Association. It is not the wages that causes the depression 1 , hut the low duty on imported tubes. I cannot fix the date to (Jose down, hut at the present rate of tariff it is bound to take place soon!”

Tin Temperance (Juestio*. Hen. Harrisju at Danville. *There is another question that I want to talk about for a little while, and that is what I will still call the temperance question, though I notice that a'distinguished Bishop of the Methodist Church South said the other day that down his way fhey had got past temperance. When you get past temperance, beware of intemperance yourself. I believe there is an authority which all our Methodist brethren recognize, as well as we Presbyterians, to the effect that we should be “temperate in all things.” The apostle had not got past temperance. Now what is this temperance or liquor question? Primarily, to me, it is a question that takes on a broad aspeet. It is the question of absolute, universal obedience to law as law by everybody. [Great applause.] That is the first and broadest statement of it. 1 say, absolute, universal obedience to law asTaw, .without am reference to what I think, or you think about the few s .- And yet, when that very issue is made, as it was made iu our last Indianapolis city campaign, when good citizens were standing for law and order, irrespective of party; were combining to defeat the insolent attempt of the Liquor Leagffi? to dominate our city politics, and to re-elect a man as Mayor who had had the courage to-put work-house sentences upon these liquor-sellers when they presistently violated the law, we found some gentlemen of the sort who had got past temperance voting an independent ticket, and so helping indirectly to elect a man who would give, loose rein to lawlessness. Thank God there was not enough of them to give the Liquor ‘League success. I don't impute this as the purpose at all of any of them;, but nevertheless the effect? of withdrawing from this column of the law and ordCr people some yptes that might have been necessary to' prevent the triumph of lawlessness, was to put theca*ise of publie order in peril. My countrymen, I believe that the question of enforcing the laws is assuming an importance now that it has never had before in our country. We have been careless, thoughtless, as we saw violations of law going on from day to day, but the Nation has been startled into a realization of the fact that its only safety, the only anchor it bar out on the ridrof norinl order nnd domestic peace is the enforcement of the law. What wasit that cutminated at Chicago less than two years ago, on that day when the guardians of the law were butchered? Where did this red flower find its seed? It was, I believe, in that defiant, persistent violation of law upon which we have so long looked indifferently. The Nation is waking up. My first" proposition on the temperance question is that so long as the law is as it is, whether you like it, or I like it, We "shall stand, together and declare that the law*" shall be enforced. (Great applause.] Now, / I know there are some people —who seem to me. to be greatly nnsguidqd_— we don’t care about the law being enforced; we would -rather have free whisky than taxed whisky; we would rather the ’sale should* be open and unrestrained; would . rather that the violations of order might be increased and multiplied, because thereby we hope to awaken the people to a fuller realization of the evil of this thing, and thus secure State piohibitrou. l iiope gotrignd here takes that ground. If you do, you will findWmureeif in bad company and evil consequences following hard" after rnh. Standraiher as all-good men must

stand for the rigid enforcement, without, fear or favor, of every statute upon the statute books. That is a good start. And when this principle ie well established, and you stand with us now 1 for it, we will stand with you when you get a law that suits you better; you will have a sentiment that will back it up; but if you don’t stand with us now, but en<•011 rage in anv way,directly or indirectly the jspirit of lawlessness, to what will you ajqwal when you get the law you want? ... _c_ I wanttd say this, further There may have been a time in the past when the Reputnican party of Indiana had dalliance with t lie liquor interests; hut I beg to say to all who hear me to-day that when the platform of the last State convention was read and received with

cheers by the great masses who heard it, any dalliance between the Republican party aiid the Liquor League was severed once and forever. [Great applause.] When the resolution, fell from the lips of niy friend who sits vdnder, Mr. Halford, of the Journal, as chairman of the Committee on Resolutions, a trumpet was sounded that will never call retreat. [Applause.] Why? Simply for the reason I have already given; the Liquor league is an organization framed to defy the law, and, therefore, we are against it and it is against us. [Applause.] And yet, notwithstanding this, and notwithstanding the fact that whenever you open the robe in which the Democratic prrty masquerades, you see some Liquor League boodle sticking out, there art those who, like my friend, the Methodist Bishop South, have got “past tem-, perance,” and are third-party men, who make the welkin ring with the cry, “Smash the Republican party.” Well, that is 1 not a cry likely to draw Republicans into your, party. Before me to-day is a great body of Republicans, you ng and old, full of pride in the old party; who believe that it has, under God, wrought out the best things that were ever achieved by any political organization; who believe that it has in it yet high capacities, and who are not amiably when anybody says, “Smash the Republican party.” [Applause.] If you want to persuade us, you will have to change that cry. Why do you want to smash the Republican party? Does the shield it carries cover the Liquor League? No, my countrymen; now, henceforth, if not before, the shield it carries fronts the Liquor League, and the point of its spier is towards that enemy of law and order. Why is it that we do not hear from our Prohibition friends the cry, “Smash the Democratic party?” Why is it, when the campaign is on, that the Democratic party newspaper becomes at the same time a Liquor League and a third-party organ? Simply because they hope thus to withdraw from the Republican party, by this third-party movement, enough votes to continue the Liquor League and the Democratic party in power; they will have the spoils of office, and their shield will faithfully cover these violators of the law. I have said before, and I say now, that among this band of zealous third-party workers for prohibition there are devoted, faithful, earnest men and women. But, my friends, is it not a little hard, when the Republican party has sounded this note of defiance, and boldly confronts this organized traffic that you effect so much to reprobate, and the Democratic party is allied with It, that we should4*ear the hoarse cry of the Liquor League in our front. “Smash the Republican party,” and from the rear should come also the pilling cry of the third-party Prohibitionists, answering like an echo to the hoarse erv in our front, “Smash the Republican party?” [Applause.]

A voice from a Methodist minister— They won’t smash it worth a cent. Senator H&rrison - No, they won’t. [Applause.] , Because, for one reason, the great bodv of that great pioneer church of the West, that paved the way for civilization and God in our woods, are unlike the bishop down South, and have not “got past temperance.” [Applause.] Now, what are we going to do about it? Well, let us see. We said in our State platform that we were in favor of clothing local communities with sower to act upon this question: There standior one to-day. [Applause.] I do not belive in State prohibition as the best method of dealing with this question in Indiana. If you do there is no reason why we should part to-day. There is good work that we can do .together. [>Ppl ause ] The Republican party in the Indiana House of Representatives, so faras it could, kept the pledge of the platform. [Applause ] If you had helped us, my prohibition friends, to make the Senate Republican, that law would have been on the statute books to-day. [Applause.] 1 believe it is true, and can b demonstrated to be true, that if you had thrown your votes with us in the last campaign such a result could have been accomplished. Is it not worth while to work together? I believe that much depends upon the wise aud thoughtml reconsideration of all these questions by the temperance people of Indiana, and if they wisely think upon them and wisely'givbßheir vote and influence to the party that has started boldly in the direction oi temperance reform, we shall certainly carry Indiana next year [great applause], and greatly advance the good cause of temperance reform.

Tli« Indiana Democracy and the Laboring Men.—Broken Promises. * Speech by W. D. Foulke. I have in my hands the Democratic State platform adopted at Indianapolis June 24, 1884. In it I find that the Democratic party “favors a reduction of the number of hours in a day’s labor upon all .public work, State and municipal.’,’ I also hold in my hand the statutes of Indiana, passed at the General Assembly of 1885, where the Democratic party had a majority of two-thirds in both houses, together with a Democratic Governor, where it was omnipotent, whe*e it had absolute power to enact any legislation it desired. Will any Democrat in this audience point out to me in that little volume any measure passed by this Democratic body reducing the number of hours in a day’s labor upon any publie work, State or municipal? There is ho mention of the eighthour law anywhere in the legislation of that session. Why were’those words put in the platform? To secure for the Democratic party the votes of the laboring men, under the belief that the Democratic party was the friend which it professed to be. What excuse have they to give for this shameless violation of promise? Have you ever heard of any? Again I read froih the platform: “It favors the establishment of a Bureau of Labor Statistics, State and aNtional.” In I the great problem which is rising before j 'a&pwhiehiAdestmed, asl beliefe,before

many vears to absorb all others —the problem, how to secure for labor an adequate and just remuneration, how to make each man’s reward;’ as nearly as possible, proportionate to his deserts the collection of necessary statistics for reliable information, was considered by the Democratic party as a desirable anil necessary thing. jMany laboring men voted for the Democracy because thev believed the professions of friendship of which this plank was one. I call your attention again to this telltale book, the statffifi’s of the last session. Where is the law which has created a hoard of labor statistics, or has enlarged the power of the present board? It cannot be found. ~ , • Again I quote; “It favors, as far as practicable to use of prison and reformitorv Ikbor, so as not to compete with the labor of the honest citizens outside.” Ix>ok at the statutes attain, my Democratic friend. Look at it carefully, you workmen that have trusted to Democratic faith. Tell me in what way the party which had absolute power, lias prevented the use of prison and reformatory labor from competing with the labor of the honest citizens outside? The only law which has passed at the last session which had any reference to that subject reads as follows:

“That hereafter the exclusive right to maufacture any specific article, or carry on a definite line of manufacturing within the prisons of this State, shall not be given as a part of the conditions of any contract for less than fifty* men, and when any contract is in force in which the exclusive right to manufacture is a part of the conditions of such contract, if other contracts are made for additional numbers of men for the same line of work, the exclusive right in such new contracts for additional men shall not extend beyond the time of the expiration of the first of such pending contracts.”

Will my laboring friend tell me whether that act prevents the use of prison labor from competing with honest labor on the outside? The last General As.sembly did indeed pass a resolution favoring the non-competition of prison labor with free labor, but that resolution shows only the more clearly the depths of hypocrisy to which that party resorted in the betrayal of the laborer. Playing power to relieve him, having made the promise to relieve him, it resolves that he ought to be relieved, and does nothing. I suspect that, in some of these labor promises, the Democratic party simply forgot about it; that there was not a man in the Legislature who remembered what the party had said inks platform, or cared enough to draw up the bill and introduce it. But in the matter of convict labor they have not even this excuse; for the matter was repeatedly called to their attention. Can it be, then, that the direct, personal, influential Democratic contractors for prison labor worked unseen amid their counsels.

The last Democratic platform used the following language: The Democratic party favors the enactment pf such laws as will prohibit the employment of children under fourteen years of age in our manufactories, Inines and workshops. This does not limit it to certain kinds of mines or manufactories, and does not place the limitation at ten years or twelve years or any other period short of fourteen years. „ The bill passed, as shown by the acts of the last session, p. 219, provides that it shall be unlawful for any person or association engaged in manufacturing iron, steel, nails, machinery or tobacco to employ any child under twelve years of age; or for any person or association to employ child labor for more than eight hours a day. In every mine in the State of Indiana and in every kind of manufactory or milling except in metals, machinery and tobacco a child may be employed the same as, formerly. And the Democratic party calls this a performance of its promise to prohibit all child labor. But let us see how the act was passed. A bill for the prohibition of child labor was introduced by Senator Bailey, and was referred to the" committee on labor, of which he was chairman. His own Democratic committee was unwilling to support the bill, but reported it -back to the Senate, with a recommendation that twelve years was to be substituted for fourteen years. When it came back, Senator Bailey moved that the report be amended so as to read fourteen years, as the bill was originally introduced. Then followed an amimated discussion. Senators Hilligass, May, Sellers, McClure, Faulkner and Brown, all Democrats, opposed the fourteen year limitation. Senator Faulkner was opposed to the bill on general principles, and said he would rather have to vote for' a bill to make boys work, and the men, too Senatoi Eli Brown, of Allen county, was also opposed to the bill on general principles. Mr. Bailey called the attention oi the Democratic Senators to the plank in their platform. He read it in their presence and said, “That is one of the things we promised to do. I believe we ought to keep these promises. If we change the age from fourteen to twelve years the efficiency of the bill is greatly destroyed.”

“Senator Willard said: “I am not one of those who believe the party should get into power upon certain pledges,and once in power disregard those pledges.” Mr, Bailey remarked: “I have been somewhat surprised to learn’ from a number of Senators of their absolute disregard of the platform upon which they run and have been elected. But with reference to the merits of the bill, in view Ot the fact that we have in all large cities in this State from 5,000 to 8,000 men out of employment, and in whose places boys from twelve to fourteen l years are placed, at wages from 30 to 40 cents a day, there should be some legislation viewing it from that point that should put them back into schools and thus give opportunities for employment to men who need money for themselves and for their families. (See JJrevier Reports, pp. 168 and 169) Senator Bailey’s amendment failed by a vote of 16 to 26. He then moved to make the limit thirteen years instead of twelve, and this, too, failed by a vote of twenty to twenty-five. I remember voting with Bailey upon this amendment, and stated in explanation that 1 thought the Demo-' cratic majority of two-thirds upon the floor of this Senate is entiled to the .assistance of at least one or two Republicans in its btfiiftwrucst ami disinterested efforts to prove to the people of Indiana that it meant wlutt it said in its State platform. • r; Senator Willard again read the platform. (See Brevierßeports, p. 210.) On the final passage of the bill,in its mutilatJ ed condition, seven men oat of the eleven I who opposed it were Democrats, name- , ly,Sefnators^rown,Faulkner,Hffl,MaK

McClure, Null and Sellers. When the bill went to the House it failed to passyeas, 42; nays, 42. Leading Republicans of the House,such as Messrs. Adams and Sayre, voted for the bill. But even with the aid of the two-thirds Democratic majority they could not pass it. Mr. Gordon, a Democratic member, moved to refer it to a* special committee to amend the bill so as to prohibit the child-labor in mines and steel manufactories, gasworks and tobacco manufactories, and such other manufactories as required heavy (manual labor, and to prohibit the employment in other labor more than eight hours a day, and it was so referred. But in the bill as it passed there is no prohibition whatever for the employment of child-labor in mines. Not" iff there any limitation of eight hours or any other time. If the Democratic party believes that the laboring men of Indiana, to whom that promise was made are going to accept such a performance as a liquidation in full, they are entitled to all the consolation which such hopes are calculated to afford. 1 r

Here is another thing that the democratic party say: “We deem it of vital importance that private corporations should be prohibited by law from watering their corporate stock,” and furthermore, “Laws should be passed to prevent the ownership of large tracts of land by corporations/’ Why did you not pass these laws if you thought they” should be passed? Why did you not prohibit corporations from watering their corporate stock if you insist that they ought to be prohibited? Laborers of Indiana, do you believe that you can trust the party which has thus played false with you? What sort of credit has that party to ask your suffrages to-day? But, although the Democratic party haS shown its friendship for labor in this left handed fashion, it has not been slow to show its sympathy with the Socialist and the dynamiter. When the attempt was made to blow up the. houses of Parliament in England, I introduced a bill making it a grave crime to manufacture, use or transport dynamite and other explosives for the purpose of injuring persons or property. The bill passed the Senate by a considerable majority, but it was defeated in the House. What possible excuse the Democratic party can have for protecting the miscreants who would inaugurate a reign of anarchy by k wholesale destruction, surpassingin Rorror the Reign of Terror in France,f I shall leave for them to explain. 1