MWarMiPii'i'j -qj
The Commoner.
AUGUST' 21, 1101
As a tariff law interfere with, the natural laws of trade, one who
propose a protective tariff, takes upon himself the burden of proof
to show, first, that a protective tariff is right in principle; second,
that it is wise as a public policy, and, third, that it is necessary.
And, yet, what protectionist attempts to present an argument in
support of any one of these propositions?
i it right to tax all of the people for the benefit of a few? Where
a community has attempted to collect taxes for the aid of an indus
try, even when the industry was to be located in the community, the
highest court in the land has declared such a tax to be larceny in
the form of law. If a city government cannot rightfully tax all the
people to bring an industry into the city, where such benefits as are
conferred are more easily seen and more universally enjoyed, who
will say that a farmer in the Missouri Valley can be rightfully taxed
to support an industry in a distant state?
As a matter of public policy, is it wise that the industries that do
pay should be compelled to carry upon their backs industries which,
according to the arguments made by their representatives, could not
live without aid? Have we not seen this system introducing cor
ruption into politics, and is it not building business upon an unsub
stantial basis? Having secured a tariff from one party, the bene
ficiaries loudly declare that the country will be ruined if any other
party obtains control of the government. Manufacturers have in
timidated their employes and threatened them with a reduction in
Wages unless a party favorable to the system was continued in power.
This is an old device, and there are indications that it is being re
sorted to again. The New York Leather Belting Company has sent
out a number of letters to companies with which it has business
dealings, asking them to post in their factories a notice saying:
"Believing that the election of Taft and Sherman means a safe
and conservative administration, the day following the election we
shall start this plant on full time and keep going."
Here is a direct attempt to influence the election by a bribe. It is
virtually a promise of wages if the Republican ticket is successful
and an implied threat in case of Democratic success ; but the offer
is so made that it gives the employes no guaranty of its fulfilment.
The same kind of promises were made in 1896, and yet for six
months after the election tames were worse than they were before.
There were business failures and bankruptcies, and many institu
tions that promised their employes steady work and good wages,
shut down or reduced wages. If any factory posts up the sign which
the Leather Belting company is sending out, the employes ought to
get together and ask for a guaranty as to the amount of the wages
they are to receive and as to the length or time during whtii the
guaranty is to extend. If the votes are to be bought, the purchase
price, at least, should be made secure. If the employes' heritage
citizenship is to be sold, he ought, at least, to be sure of his mess
of pottage.
But the whole system is vicious. Business should not be built
upon legislation; it should stand upon its own merit, and when it
does stand upon its. own merit we shall not only have purer politics,
but we shall have less fluctuation in business conditions and a more
equitable distribution of the proceeds of toil.
I cannot pass from this part of my subject, without calling atten
tion to the fact that Secretary Taft has allowed himself to be drawn
into the use of an argument which the beneficiaries of protection
have been employing for a generation. Speaking of the gradual
substitution of a revenue tariff for the protective system, he says in
his notification speech:
"The introduction in power of a party with this avowed purpose
cannot but halt the gradual recovery from our recent financial de
pression and produce business disaster, compared with which our
recent panic and depression will seem small indeed.
Here is a threat of a panic if the Republican party is not retained
in power. This panic argument was worked overtime in 1896, but I
am surprised that a Republican refers to it in the present campaign.
We have had three panics since the Republican .party was born:
the panic of 1873, the panic of 1893 and the panic of 1907. The panic
of 1873 came after the Republican party had been in complete con
trol of the federal government for twelve years, and eleven years
before our party succeeded in securing control of the executive
branch of the government. The startling "panic and depression
of 1873 occurred in the very midst of Repubhcan rule, just ; aft er a
Republican victory, and under a high tariff. Is it not strange that
Secretary Taft should forget this panic, when he warns us to beware
of any departure from the protective system?
The panic of 1907 came after the Republicans had been in com
plete control of the federal government for more than ten years
They had had an opportunity to do everything that they wanted to
do and to undo everything that needed to be Z"
under such a high tariff that even Secretary Taft admitted the neces
sity of revisio This panic was so bad that banks felt it necessary
to do something that they had never done before namely, arbitranty
limit the amount of money that depositors could draw on their own
accounts. Ex-Secretary Shaw says that the stringency of 1907 was
"the severest the world has ever witnessed." With this panic freslv
in his mind, is it not strange that he should argue that his election
is necessary to prevent a panic?
I have referred to two of the three panics, both of these coming
under conditions which compel the Republican party to accept the
responsibility for them. Now, let us consider the panic of 1893. If
that could bo properly charged to the Democratic party, it would
only be one Democratic panic to two Republican panics. But can it
be fairly charged to the Democrats? It came, it is true, a few months
after the inauguration of a Democratic president, but it came while
the McKinley high tariff was still in effeot and beforo a single Re
publican law had been repealed, and it came from causes that
were in operation before tho election. In fact, it was the failuro
of the Republican party to do its duty and satisfy tho people that
brought about a Democratic victory, and these causes would havo
brought on a panic, even if the Republican party had remained in
power. Now, this is the record, and yet, in spite of this record, the
Republican candidate presumes to threaten a panic in case of Demo
cratic success.
The third proposition which the protectionist must establish,
namely, that the tariff asked for is necessary, iB still less considered.
It is true that we pay higher wages per day than are paid elsewhere,
but that does not necessarily mean that the actual labor cost of an
article is higher here than abroad. On the contrary, the rule is that
high priced labor produces a cheaper article than low-priced labor.
Manufacturers of hardware will tell you that they can export hard
ware which contains a great deal of labor and a small amount of
raw material, but that they cannot export hardware in which the
raw material constitutes a large proportion of the value. We are
sending manufactures of steel all over the world. The steam en
gine, for instance, is made by skilled labor, and yet we can send it
abroad and defy competition. Our electrical machinery is made by
skilled labor, and yet we have no fear of foreign competition, even
in the foreign markets. Our agricultural machinery is made by
skilled labor, and yet we export it to all countries. Our sewing ma
chines are manufactured by skilled labor, but the American traveler
finds our sewing machines everywhere; and the list could be ex
tended indefinitely.
For twenty-five years the American working man has been told
that he receives higher wage than the English workman solely be
cause of protection, but our wage earners now know that this cannot
be due to protection, because the English workman receives higher
wages than the German workman, although the German tariff is
uiguer mem vuu && . ni "DfoJn
Protection does not make good wages. Our better wages are due
to the greater intelligence and skill of our workmen, to the greater
hope which free institutions give them, to improved machinery, to
the better conditions that surround them, and to the organizations
which have been formed among tho wage earners.
A revenue tariff will not bring a panic; it will not inaugurate in
dustrial depression; it will not reduce wages; on the contrary, it
will stimulate business and give more employment, and a larger de
mand for labor will be a guaranty against the reduction of wages.
A reduction of the tariff will reduce the extortion that is now prac
ticed because of the high schedules; a reduction in price will enable
more people to buy, and this larger demand for the goods will put
more people to work and increase the number of industries. A lower
price will greatly stimulate exportation, and manufacturers who are
now crippled by a tariff upon what they use will be better prepared
to enter the contest for supremacy in the world's trade.
We cannot hope to invade foreign markets to the extent w
should, until we relieve our manufacturers of the handicap that pro
tection places upon them in the purchase of materials they have to
use. Neither can we hope to continually increase our exports with
out increasing our imports. Trade must be mutual if it is to be per
manent. President McKinley recognized this, and in the last speech
that he made he pointed out that we must buy from other nations if
we expect to sell to other nations.
The Democratic plan does not contemplate an immediate change
from one system to the other; it expressly declares that the change
shall be gradual, and a gradual change is only possible where the
country is satisfied with the results of each step taken. We elect a
Congress every two years and a President every four years, and the
people can soon stop any policy if the results of that policy are not
satisfactory. But we believe that the experience the people have
had with "protection for protection's sake" has led them to favor a
restoration of the tariff by gradual steps to a revenue basis, and we
are convinced that the advantages following each step will be so
pronounced and that the benefits will be so universally enjoyed that
there will be no cessation in the progress toward a system under
which the tariff will be levied for the purpose of revenue Jjd lim
ited to the needs of the government. The low tariff law of 1846 did
not produce a panic; on the contrary, it was so satisfactory that
when the Republican party wrote its first platform ten years after
ward the protective principle was not endorsed.