PROTECTION AND ITS OPPONENTS.

From an Article by Robert Ellis Thompson in the Irish World.

What our country is in its prosperity, and in its high standard of living, is due to the policy of Protection to Home Industry. This statement is always met by reference to the abundant supply of land, minerals and other natural resources, with which America is endowed, and to the enterprising and industrious character of its inhabitants. We had all these things in 1787, when the Constitution was adopted for the sake of taking care of American industries more than for any other reason, and when the prostration of every American interest was so profound as to seem hopeless to good judges. Well-informed Englishmen predicted that as Americans had brought on their ruin by cutting loose from the British Empire, they would soon find their way back to it, state by state, and the breaches with the old country would be healed. It was by the policy of protection to our own industries, avowed in the title of the first Tariff, that American shipping was restored to prosperity, American manufactures made their beginnings, American defences against invasion were made possible, and the country rallied from its depression and almost despair. Under the influence of our theorists, we have made more than one attempt to dispense with that Washingtonian policy, and to court foreign commerce at the expense of domestic. But in every case, notably in 1824, in 1840, in 1860, and 1896, we have been driven back to it by the general distress of the country.

It is due to the protective policy that we have attained the high standard of living, which distinguishes this country from every other, in the case of the great body of the people. I find some of our theorists are hardy enough to deny this difference, and to make their appeal to some isolated fact which seems to disprove it. But every comprehensive study of the facts, and there have been several in our time, brings out this difference. Mr. Gompers is said to have reached the conclusion, from his recent visit to European workingmen, that ours are twice as well off as they are. Tried by the test of consumption of such articles as cotton, wool, steel, iron, shoes, and oil, we have reached the highest level ever reached by any country in the world. Trying us by the test of savings of the working people, a Dutch critic pronounces the same verdict. And the great fact of emigration from Europe to America bears indubitable testimony to the vast superiority of American conditions.

I have been reading some Scandinavian newspapers, and find the situation in Norway and Sweden extremely instructive on this head. These people are intensely patriotic. Their countries are full of precious memories, which go back to the days when Christianity was first preached to their people. Their museums abound in treasures of that heroic past. Their literatures are flourishing and popular. But the magnet of American prosperity draws them away from all this, to cross the perilous seas to find a new home, where the struggle for life will be less severe, and the prospects of their children brighter. Associations

are

formed to check this emigration. Everything that indicates that America is not all that fancy has painted it, is welcomed and published. But all in vain, for the letters from America and the reports of returned immigrants on a visit to their friends, make the truth known to the people, and the flood pours en. They come from a low-tariff country, which was free-trade country until within a few years past, to the conditions created by adequate protection; and many of them in their voting are as wise as were those Irish immigrants who crossed the Atlantic to vote for the Free Trade policy which had ruined

Ireland.

a

Some say we are not going to risk these things by any change of Tariff policy, as nobody wants Free Trade, but only a reduced Tariff on the necessaries of life. But they are visibly heading towards Free Trade. Their complaints are not directed against a Tariff of excessively high duties, but against one which has stimulated our imports to the point that we no longer can balance them by exports, but must export gold to pay the difference. At what point do they mean to stop? To what lower level do they mean to bring our duties?

The newspaper men still seem to be content with nothing but what will secure them an abundant supply of wood-pulp free of duty. They made a fight for Reciprocity with Canada for that, and we were informed by the Dominion govern

ment that it has no control of the

matter, as the forests belong to the provinces and not to the Dominion. So we threw away our clear rights, and got a reciprocity with Canada, of

the most jug-handled sort. Already Ottawa had decreed the prohibition of the export of wood-pulp; and since this surrender was made on our side, Quebec has announced that after May Ist no wood pulp from that province is to go across the American line. No doubt the small provinces will follow the bigger, in this case as usually, and shut off such exports. As we draw 61 per cent. of our imports of wood pulp from Canada, what is to become of the American newspaper? Will it stil! go on with its "Carthago delenda est!"-the Tariff must be destroyed! What else than Free Trade is it fighting for?

Others say that it is time that our manufacturers should do without Protection, as they have enjoyed it long enough to get on their feet, and are no longer "infant industries." When is an industry "of age," and able to take care of itself? England maintained a protective Tariff for 510 years-from the reign of Edward I to that of the mother of Edward VII. Yet in England they are fighting for Protection, with every chance of success. The present House of Commons has a Protectionist majority, and nothing but the temporary alliance between the Irish Nationalists and the Liberals prevented the passage of a resolution in favor of a reverse of the policy of Cobden and Bright, as the former refrained from voting, and the latter had a majority of but fifty.

Irish industries had Protection

from 1783 to 1820, and were wiped out under the Free Trade then going into force under the infamous Treaty of Union. It would have been impossible to have carried the Union through even that shameless Parlia

ment, if it could have foreseen this result, for it rejected the plan for a Union in 1798 on this very ground. But they thought that by 1826 Irish industries would be on their feet, and could defy English competition. So it left them to their fate and ruined the country. Are Irish voters in a hurry to repeat that experiment?

The results of the protective policy

are not in the air. They are visible and concrete. They challenge exam. ination, but it is now refused them. This is no longer a subject of inquiry, but of sneers and scorn and abuse. We have got beyond reasoning about what Gladstone called "industrial folly," and which has made our country more wealthy and successful than his own.

Tariff debate was opened in the House of Representatives, May 12, when Mr. Payne, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, made a long speech in defence of the existing tariff. We have space for only a few extracts:

From Mr Payne's Speech.

In

"Misrepresentation began," declared Mr. Payne in his speech, "when the conference report came in. Now and then it started from the tradesman who wanted to increase the price of his goods and give the tariff as the reason. ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the assertion was false, as the tariff had reduced the duty on the goods he was selling. Before the bill was passed retailers of woolen goods started the story that an increase in the tariff had increased the price of their goods. Not a single increase was made in a single rate of duty in the whole woolen schedule.

"The first requisite of a good tariff," he continued, "is that it must meet the expenditures of the Government. From the day this bill went into effect it has accomplished all that was predicted for it.

"The prices of commodities have

been increasing for ten years the world over. One reason for the advance is not only the great increase in the production of gold, but the cheaper methods of producing it. The supply is greater than the demand and is obtained with less cost. As gold is the measure of all values, the commodities are higher because of its decrease in value. This accounts, in part, for the general increase in prices.

"The increases in price are upon articles on which the duty has been lowered by the present law or else remain where they were under the Dingley law. All kinds of farm products, meats, butter, eggs, poultry, all foods, hides, leathers, shoes and raw cotton show reductions in duty and increases in price.

"It is hardly possible to take a single item in the tariff and show a direct increase from the rates of duty. Investigations into food prices show this conclusively. The increase in prices are fully paralleled by increases in the same articles abroad. If the tariff has increased the cost of living, how is it that on April 21 newspapers from Maine to California published tables showing that the cost of living is decreasing all along the line?"

Then Mr. Paine presented a series of figures and tables showing the specific deductions made from the rates of the Dingley law. He then went on to show the increases in imports under the new tariff, comparing its first six months' results with the corresponding six months under the Dingley law. He presented a table showing increases in imports ranging from 10 to 100 per cent. in hides, iron ore, pig iron, tin plate, machinery, leather and lumber.

The press of the country Mr. Payne criticised for its attitude on the pulp paper situation with Canada. He referred to the duty of $3.75 a ton imposed by the new law on print paper and declared:

"We are criticised because we did not fix the duty at $2 a ton and close our paper mills in the vain hope that Canada might remove her embargoes on exports of wood pulp. Now she is extending her embargo and with a great many of our mills closed by strikes there is a scarcity of paper. It is evident that the situation can be relieved only by some agreement made between the Executive and the Canadian authorities to be ratified by Congress.

From Speech of Representative Fordney.

The rebate was continued May 13 by Mr. Fordney, of Michigan, a member of the Ways and Means Committee. His speech was intended as a reply to Senator Beveridge's Indiana speech against the tariff. Declaring that Senator Beveridge's given reason for voting against the tariff bill was frivolous, unfounded and in no way justifiable, Mr. Fordney declared the Senator from In

diana had assaulted the Republican party and held himself up to his constituents as a martyr, representing himself as the savior of his people demanding justice from his party and not getting it, and wishing to make people believe that in order to be saved they must go to him.

Mr. Fordney quoted the Sanator as having said President Taft wanted free lumber. This Mr. Fordney denied. Mr. Beveridge's statement that the woolen schedule had remained the same for more than forty years he also denied, saying it was changed by the Wilson bill with disastrous effects to the industry of the nation.

"The gentleman from Indiana would lead the people of this country to believe the President's position on the new tariff bill has been inconsistent; that he has changed his position since the passage of the new law. President Taft stood for the rates fixed in the Payne bill when it became a law and he stands for them now. His signing the bill is the best evidence that he stood for it then, and he now states it is the best tariff bill ever placed on our statute books. That is the best evidence that he stands for it now."

When he came to the duties on sugar, Mr. Fordney declared he was unalterably opposed to any reduction of the duty on sugar, declaring such a thing would destroy a magnificent industry. He continued:

To write a tariff law that will increase the wages of the laborers in the rolling mills, the cotton mills, the woolen mills or any other mills, and reduce to the consumer the price of this labor's product would be a conundrum. Again, a law that will increase the farmer's income, his profits, and reduce the price of farm products-flour, meat and butter, and all such things that go upon every man's table is a second conundrum. The man who could do it would be the wonder of the world. He would be a curiosity. Such, however, may be found in the State of Indiana. Thomas B. Reed said: "This is what I call arranging a perfect tariff in your mind; but, unfortunately, a tariff so arranged has no extraterritorial jurisdiction."

If the gentleman believes that a law could be made putting raw materials on the free list, and putting them there in an equitable manner to all concerned, why did he not propose such an amendment to the bill when it was before the Senate? I challenge the gentleman from Indiana to present such bill. His theory is not among the possibilities. He would rob Peter to pay Paul, and he seems to think such action would be just and equitable.

a

On the tariff commission scheme he said:

On the question of a tariff commission, I would say I am now, and always have been, unalterably opposed to a tariff commission. I believe the 485 members of both Houses of Congress are much more competent to judge of the pulse of the people and industrial conditions throughout the country, coming as they do from every nook and corner of the United States and its insular possessions, than a commission of five men possibly could be.

For instance, it has been suggested that a nonpartisan commission be appointed. Such a thing is impossible. A man is either a Protectionist or he is not a Protectionist. There are but few men who are neither. Perhaps some such men could be found in the State of Indiana. So that the board, if authorized by law, would be constituted of men believing in the protective tariff policies, or in free trade, or tariff for revenue only. But what would be the result? A tariff commission constantly agitating changing of existing laws, one member of the commission contending that this or that or the other rate of duty is too high or too low, and his colleagues, who may differ with him in opinion, taking another position. The result would be that the business world

would be kept in constant fear and dread of changes in our tariff laws, which, when agitated, always cause business disturbance and curtailment of employment of employees, a reduction of wages, and constant unsettled conditions.

While the matter is in the hands of Congress, especially when Republicans are in control, manufacturers feel a certain security, because they are certain to have some notice of contemplated changes and realize that these changes can only take place while Congress is in session. While a commission, if created, would have to be doing something every day to prove its existence, and they would be recommending changes and adjustments sufficient to keep the thing agitated, to make sure that the pot would be boiling all the time, to the eternal damnation of business interests. Congress is not composed entirely of political tricksters, thank fortune, fact, the majority are business men, elected because of that fact, and owing to their experience, and coming as they do from every nook and corner of the land, they are certainly better qualified to work out the tariff and every vital question than five men, selected, perhaps, from five different States, could be.

In

If the tariff is not to be intrusted to the men whom the common people select, it will not be long before the common people will have nothing to do with the affairs of the Government, and if the tariff is to be eliminated from the consideration of Congress, why trust Congress with the solution of any important problem? If the common people are not getting all they deserve now, I would truly feel sorry for them when they are removed to a degree further from their interests by taking the all-important tariff question out of the hands of men they elect to attend to their affairs, and putting it in the hands of an appointive commission, who would constantly agitate because of agitators.

I would feel exceedingly unsafe as a Protectionist if men were placed on a commisssion, with power to act, entertaining such ideas as does the gentleman from Indiana.