Rensselaer Republican, Volume 27, Number 47, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 July 1895 — FAVOR PROTECTION. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

FAVOR PROTECTION.

THE TRUE' POLICY OF EARLY DEMOCRATIC LEADERS. ! »• • Politicians Have Now Drafted Away from the Belief -of Their Fathers— The Democrat of To-day Greater than His Party History. Page from the Past. During the debate on the tariff bill of 1824, Mr. Buchanan said: “If I understand the principle of this bill, It Is that a additional protection shall be afforded to those manufacturers, the raw material of which either is or made be made abundant in this country. When this raw material is a product of agriculture it has a peculiar claim to our favor, because by that means the agricultural Interest wiH-Ise promoted.” (Annals Congress, ISth, Ist, Ybt 2, p. 1890.) There is no equivocation, no sliding away from, no evasion in that sentiment; a great agricultural feature underlying the true policy of this country. It was wise, paternal and economic. And it was in 1824, pending the debate on the tariff bill, that Mr. Van Rensselaer of New York, as chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, made a report from that committee pursuant to instructions of the House as to whether 11 “would be to the interests of the agriculturalists to increase the duties then in force on articles of foreign growth and manufacture.” Free raw material might have a more alluring sound to ihe average manufacturer if he could have with it, as an accompaniment, a good, stiff duty on the fabrics he makes from such free raw material, and a promise that such a tariff on his goods would be maintained, but he knows that the hook baited with free raw material conceals the barb of free trade in his manufactured products, and he should honorably and wisely refuse to even nibble at the bait. He knows that a policy which would give protection to him on the basis of free raw material would have no consideration for tbe farmer and that it could not stand. He knows that while the protection desired by all classes toward establishing industries need not be radical, it must be adequate and not accidental; and it must be broad enough to include all sections of our country and the varied products thereof, regard being had for the kind of product, climate and soil and any obstacles to be overcome.

This will appear also from the speech of Hon. Silas Wright, that distinguished Democrat of New York, who, In speaking on the tariff of 1828, and as a member of the committee who reported that bill, stated this to be his position: - ■ “It has been my object,»and I believe it to have been the object of the majority of the committee, to frame a bill which should have in view the protection of the leading interests of the country. I have supposed that in all the laws having a reference to the protection of the domestic industry of the country, agriculture should be considered the prominent and leading interest. This I have considered the basis upon which the other great interests rest and to which they are to be considered as subservient. Still, this is not to be considered as entitled to protection exclusive of the manufacturing interests. I do not believe that a law which would be injurious to manufacturers would be beneficial to agriculture.”

He did not believe a bill could be framed, intended to furnish general protection, which would not operate Injuriously upon some one of the Interests concerned and to some sections. “One leading principle which operated upon my mind in the formation of tho present bill is that it is not and cannot be the policy of this government or of Congress to turn the manufacturing capital of the country to the manufacture of raw material of a foreign country, while we do or can produce the same material in sufficient quantities ourselves. I cannot suppose this rule should ever be lost sight of.” (Cong. Debates 20th, Ist, p. 183 G.) Democratic .Congressmen should remember this.

The “Free” Cry a Fraud. According to a statement made by the bureau of statistics of tbe Treasury Department, the amount of revenue derived during the eleven months ending May 31, 1895, from our imports of sugar, iron ore and bituminous coal was as follows: Coal, bituminous, $537,880; iron ore, $102,308; sugar, $15,642,648. Total, $16,282,836. Had these three articles been placed upon the free list the deficiency of the Treasury Department for the fiscal year just ended would have been increased by nearly $18,000,000. This additional deficiency the people would have paid now, or later on, in the shape of an additional increase in the national debt. There would have been nothing free to jjie people, excepting the mere cry of free raw material. If the people do not corurLbute to the revenue of the country in one way they do so in another. The “five" ’cry Is humbug. The Cost of Milk Making. An Industry that has been established In this country directly through the enactment of the McKinley tariff Is that of making condensed milk. The Anglo-Swiss Company, for Instance, tfhas Its factories in Switzerland, In and In the United States, employing some 1,300 wprkmen in all taree countries. For labor of similar quality the American receives 111 per cent more money than the average rate of wages paid to the Swiss worker, and 134 per cent more than the average paid

to the Englishman. Without protection to the American condensed milk business tbe American wage-earner will be likely to have a reduction of about 100 per cent in his earnings, or the factories would be closed and the entire Work be conducted again in Europe.

Barley and the Tariff, Under the McKinley tariff our duty upon 'foreign barley was equivalent to nearly 65 per cent, ad valorem. The rate under the Gorman tariff is 30 per cent ad valorem. The rate of duty, lower by 35 per cent., in favor of the foreign barley grower was made by the tariff reformers in order to enable the American farmers to sell their barley In the markets of the world. Taking our exports of barley during the first eight months of the McKinley and the Gorman tariff periods we have the following: Value of exports of barley for eightmouths: Oct. 1, 1890, Sept. 1, 1894. to May 31, 1891. to Apr. 30,1895. McKinley Gonnau Tariff. Tariff. Barley ..... .$518,700 $549,784 Quantities of-exports of barley for eight mouths: Oct. 1, 1890, Sept. 1, 1891. to May 31, 1891. to Apr. 30,1895. McKinley Gormaa Tariff. Tariff. Barley, bush. .745,959- 1,090,150 It is true that we have sold more barley during the Gorman taTiff period, our total exports during the eight months to April 30, 1895, being 350,000 bushels greater than during the first eight months under the McKinley tariff. So far the free-trade theory has worked out correctly, but looking at the question of value we find that only $31,000 more money was paid for the 350,000 bushels barley exported during the Gorman tariff times. Our farmers, while selling 350,000 bushels more barley in the markets of tlio world, did so at an average export price of 9 cents per bushel. Another way of comparing the two tariff periods -hr fry noting the average export price of the barley, and we find that" where barley was worth 70 cents a bushel for export in the McKinley tariff times it was worth only 50 cents a bushel for export in the Gorman times. Labor and Capital Compared. Free traders are rarely so happy as when they are endeavoring to create strife or start up ill feeling between labor and capital, employer and employ*. In doing this they are ably assisted by labor agitators—men who seem born to make trouble and who will do so with or without reason. From the President downward the free tradel's are against those whose energy and enterprise have made them wealthy today. Their efforts to enact class legislation showed this, and that the wealth of the capitalists must be taxed is a favorite ante-election cry of such demagogues.

It is interesting to study the decline in the earning capacity of capital which is shown by a report of the Comptroller of the Currency, in an exhibit giving the ratio of dividend to capital and surplus in the national banks in the United States. It was, for the year IS7O, 8.8 per cent, but fell to exactly 5 per cent in 1894. Thus, during a quarter of a century of protection, the ratio of dividend to capital and surplus in the national banks has decreased by 3.8 per cent. Let the wage-earners compare this with the appreciation in the value of their labor that has taken place during the same period, and they will readily see that labor has been the greater gainer. Another Theory Exploded. The Pittsburg Gazette announced an increase in the wages of several thousand mechanics and laborers employed in the great iron and steel works at Bethlehem, in this State This is one of the protected Industries, and if our information is correct the increase is under the Wilson tariff law.—Pittsburg Post (Dcm.). Oh, then, protective tariff “taxes" do increase wages, do they? We have always been under the Impression that our Democratic friends held that free trade was necessary to benefit the wage workers, and that a protective tariff only made “the rich richer and the poor poorer.”

It is, !>y the way,’ a notable fact that the Industries that are reviving from the depression, and in which the wage workers are enjoying an increase of pay, are those affected by the portions of the so-cniled Wilson bill in which the policy of protection was recognized, in violation of the Democratic platform declaration that protection is a “fraud and unconstitutional.” These were, in some eases, the features of the Wilson bill included In the Senate compromise bill, which Mr. Wilson didn’t want to accept, and on which the free traders said the war had only begun.—Wheeling, W. Vn., Intelligencer. The hedgehog, badger, squirrel and some kinds of mice lay up a regular store of provisions for the winter. It Is said that they eat only during mild weather, and in extreme cold remain torpid. That Breach In the Wall.