Rensselaer Republican, Volume 23, Number 47, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 July 1891 — CURRENT COMMENT. [ARTICLE]

CURRENT COMMENT.

POINTS FOR PROTECT lON 18 TAP. Chicago later Ocean. “Jake," Port Washington, Wis., asks: “Was Prince Bismarck ever a Teal free-trader? When he changed to be a protectionist did he give any reason why he changed? If the lntor Ocean can give all the facts about 'this matter it will be a pleasure, because there are disputes here and no agreement on this jsubject. Please to answer as soon as can be and we shall be obliged for the same.” Bismarck’s reply to a deputation (from Dortmund, a manufacturing town, who presented him with the freedom of tneir city, is here given. .Of his reasons for ’abandoning free Trade he said: “Up to the seventies I was by conviction an adherent to free trade, and, so to speak, born and bred in. it. Until the year 1870 I was so much occupied by foreign affairs that I was not able to devote myself with energy to economic questions. Aher 1870 foreign affairs became quieter, and when in the course of time I saw one blast furnace after another being put oiit and the national industry retrograding more and more, I became convinced that some change was necessary.” Bismarck, as soon as he became convinced that free trade was wrong and protection right, denounced free traders who pursued free trade as a “theory"merely as “closetmen.” He said they were doctrinaires, clergymen and lawyers, but few of whom know anything whatever of the details of public affairs, who are generally on that side (free trade), and they are led by those who know nothing on the question but what they have learned from the books of men who have plausibly formulated impracticable nonsense. I have had much annoyance from blockheads who ask impossible answers to irrelevant questions, and, as the French proverb says, ‘Go about seeking for noon at 2 o’clock.’”

When about to become Prime Minister of Prussia, ho expressed himself to Benjamin Disraeli, who became Prime Minister of Great Britain, thus: “Mr. Disraeli, what I want to do particularly is to get rid of those professors in my country. I want to save Prussia from the professors.” That Bismarck was actuated by watching the progress of the United States and her marvelous prosperity under her protective tariff system is not to be doubted. He admitted the fact and gave it as his reasons for urging the adoption of protective tariff for Germany. Here is what he said in a speech made in the Reichstag May 14, 1882: “THE SUCCESS OF THE UNITED STATES in material development is the most illustrious of modern times; the American nation not only having successfully borne and suppressed the most gigantic and expensive war of all history, but having immedi-' ately afterward disbanded its army, found employment for all its soldiers and marines, paid off most of Its debt, given labor and homes to all the unemployed of Europe as fast as they could, arrive within its territory, 1 and'still by a system of-taxa-tion so indirect as not to be perceived, much less felt. The United States found every year a great and growing surplus in its treasury, which it could expend upon .mtional defenses or national improvements.’’ Every reader of the German press knows that Bismarck's statesmanship was never made mo:s manifest; and his prophecies were fulfilled in the marked improvement that followed in tho condition of Germany after the enactment of her protective tariff. In the summer 1883= several "prominent members of the British Parliament visited Chicago. One of them, Lord Stavely Hill, interviewed, said:

‘ KNGLAND lIAB HAD THE WORST OF IT aver since she adopted the policy of free trade. Imports from other countries have been admitted free, while >ur exports to the United States and other places have been subjected to onerous duties, sometimes so high as to be actually prohibitory. There is a grow .ng sentiment in England now in favor of taxing imported manufactured articles instead of admittiii£ them free to compete with the products of our home manufacturers. Why. you can now buy a shawl at Glasgow, which is only a short distance frpm Paisley, the great shawl manufacturing place of the world, to Vies b money than you can buy dthg at Paisley. Germany is actually exporting shawls to Scotland,'and these being admitted free of duty the Germans can, of course, undersell in our home products.” He further said of our prosperity owing to our tariff, and contrasted it with the want of prosperity in other "'countries: While the American Republic was enjoying this peculiar prosperity, the countries of Europe, which America' most relieved by,absorbing their unemployed popula> lion, were apparently continually getting worse off- Why was it?” He next stated that it was his de. liberate judgment that the prosperity of America was mainly due to ita system of protective laws, and Germany had now reached that point where it was necessary to imitate the tariff system of the United State®. A prominent English shipbuilder, Sir Thomas Browne, who used imrr.cnso quantities of steel plates, complained bitterly that they weiis so largely imported from Germany as to seriously endanger the steel plate industfP abtoEngland. W shut© complaint wasmade about tho great impoi ttotwire and wire rods from —i '• A-. ---- •-*- r*--« -•-r -4 ,'1 /, S.M G

Belgium and other parts of Europe into England. As a result of motective tariff in Germany her condition was visibly improved in the extension of her manufactures and the increased wages paid to the skilled and unskilled labor. This resulted from the advice of her great Chancellor “to imitate the great tariff system of the United States.” Such are the facts about the change of views of Prince Bismarck and his conversion to protection from free trade ideas and with the results stated. Bismarck was far-seeing as a statesman; he was an advocate of government aid to the German merchant marine and presented a memorial to to the Reichstag which includes: “If the German freight Trade is given over to foreigners, it is deserving of serious consideration whether under the circumstances a mortal blow will be dealt to all the industries of the country. It would be an anomaly from a national standpoint to cede the transport trade to industrial rivals. It is no exaggeration to assert that before the expiration of the promulgation of the French bounties bill the French service will receive a considerable augmentation, and that it will share with England the transport trade of the Atlantic, as also the trade with South America, East India, Australia and other colonies. ” It is only fair to say that it is largely owing to the sound views of Bismarck on protection to home industries and encouragement of homebuilt shipping that enabled Germany to -construct the Fuerst Bismarck that recently inspired the world with one of the quickest passages ever made.

TARIFF IN ENGLAND.

“Collegiate,” Appleton, Wis.. writes: ‘T have seen it stated in the Milwaukee Sentinel, the date I can not remember, that England levies no tariff or import duty on any product or manufacture, the like of which she makes at home, and in the Chicago Tribune, June 8, 18511, it is there said in an editorial describing ‘What Democratic Tariff Reform Means:’ ‘lt demands ‘tariff reform,’ but what it means by the term is a for revenue only.’ and such a tariff and the English system can not be distinguished apart. A tariff like the British one imposes no duty or tax on a competing foreign article.” “Now, here are , two Republican papers that say that England does not impose any tariff or tax, on articles similar to those made or produced in England. “It was said in the debate with the Madison professor that England had in some ways the highest tariff in the world, and that she had in one year collected $5,000,000 more in tariff levied upon American products into England than the United States had collected on English products into the United States in the same year. Who am I to believe? There is in this mattqr a contradiction,one or the other must be wrong, lam not imputing intentional misstatement to either, but would like to be enlightened on this point. Am Ito believe the Republican papers, the Sentinel and the Chicago Tribune, or to believe the statement made in the Madison debate? This is the question I should be thankful to the Inter Ocean for answering: It England does not put a tariff on articles that compete with her manufactures, please to show the fact; if she does put a tariff on articles like what she makes herself, please show that fact and explain it in the Inter Ocean.” Reply: A question somewhat like Collegiate’s was answered in the Inter Ocean about three years since,

but not as fully as is now asked for. One of the papers referred to is not a Republican paper in the sense Collegiate means. Its whole aim, Bse and desire is to destroy the >lican party so as to place the Democratic party in power, and thus get fr£e trade, for wnich it is contending in obedience to the purposes of its masters and employers, the Cobaen Club of England.* The other paper was once, but has not for years been considered authority on tariff matters. When “Collegiate” wants the truth about the tariff he should, as he has done, write to the Inter Ocean. It will now be given time to prove beyond a doubt that both the papers referred to are wrong. As to whether England does or dees r.ot levy a tariff on articles of foreign make- similar to articles of her own make, is the question at issue. • f UEHF. 1:3 A LIST. of dutiablearticloscoKipiled from’the English tariff: Alcohol, ale, beer, brandy, playing cards, chicory,.chloroforii, chloral, hydrate, cigars and cigarettes, cocoa, coffee, coodlm, cologne water, cordials, currants In essence of spruce, ether, iodide of ethyl, figs, ng cake, preserved fruit (in spirits), naphtha, pickles, gold and silver plate, plums and prunes, raisitis, soap, gin, rum, whisky, and othfet* spirits, wine and varnish, and besides these there are about ninety or one hundred articles, chiefly from America, and principally patent mediwhich are held to be liable to, duty at the rate of 13.86 per gallon. (See “Dockery’s Summary of the Briti h tariff.*') England has in (Great. Britain and Ireland) 133 customs districts, each of has a collector and subordinate*. London has nearly l,6oocustomhofficers; Liverpool about 700— for the two ports nearly 2,800 custom officials- Does that look like Enelaftd having free trade? Ana does not show conclusively that the two papers reffered to are sbsowrong in their statement that England imposses no tariff on artioles imported similar to those ahh hw "“ T

Does England make io«p? Tears to the-writer sbe does. How about playing cards? Cross & Blackwell are suppose to make reasonably good pickles. Gold and silver plate are made in England, and so is varnish. Patent medicines are as common in Enland as sons of royal ts. But there is no need of numerating more articles. I once asked one of the editors of each of the papers mentioned, and admissions were made that they had not only never read the English tariff, but had never seen a copy of it. “Collegiate” has no doubt often heard the assertion made that England has “a tariff for revenue ouly.” and “imposes tariff duties on only seven or eight articles,” such assertions are often made by the free-trade teachers in colleges and other institutions of learning in, this country. They are, however, incorrect, and have often been exposed in the The Inter Ocean. T. O. P., Grinnel, Iowa; Mr. Grinnell, the founder of your town and a most worthy man, like many others, found it necessary to change his views, and did so as the two statements of his here given show. In 1879 he said in New York Gity: “Forced to ask for freights, we are met with the reply that steel rails have gone up 50 to 75 per cent. This adds to the real cost we admit, and he who bears so large a proportion of this burden is the farmer. ” But in February, 1882, before the American Agricultural Association, Mr. Grinnel said; ‘ ‘Let us not forget that the Bessemer steel rail has, enduring for ten years on trunk lines, saved the roads from bankruptcy, and given to the farmers ane freighters rates lower than those of ten and twenty years ago 50 to 200 per cent. ” The truth is no class of producers have been more benefited by steel rails than have the farmers. At one time they were the targets, with their manufactures, of the most venomous shafts of abuse most by farmers.

JOHN W. HINTON.