{"newspaper_name": "The daily union.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 7760, "word_count": 1327, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9488999843597412], "ccnet_perplexity": [1182.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
"a cSS55&S EE SS q


The data here presented, sir, was extracted from
the table he held in his hand. The first column
shows the class of articles manufactured the second
column shows the capital invested; the third, the
annual productions; and the fourth, the number Of
hands employed


Was anything ever like IL Compare these pro-
ducts, in reference TO the capital invested, with any
other business, and then say whether modification
Of the tariff would work injury or injustice to any
other interest


Mr.. p. next said the bill before the House was
a revenue measure, and that the revenue would be
increased by the passage of the bill. He said
the doctrine was true, and sustained by facts and
figures, that an increase of duty, above certain
point diminished the revenue, and presented table,
showing the average revenues per annum for seven
years, beginning at 1900, and ending in 1907, to be
sl4 900, with population Of only $500 900,
and amounted to 81 6S per head.


He then referred to a table for seven years under
the high protective tariff OF 1924, and showed, with
population Of l2,560,000, we only collected
s22 1863 900 OF revenue, averaging only 81 IS cents
per head.


Referring to similar table under this tariff bill Of
l542, our population swelled TO lS5OO,0OO, he
showed that our revenue for three years ending
June 1886, the revenue collected, amounted to S29
l43 635 per annum; and had sunk TO 81 81 per head
Thus proving, upon every increase Of duty, there
had been decline OF revenue, per head taking the
population as the basis Of the estimate.


He then demanded the passage Of the present bill
as a revenue measure.


Mr. p continued. He was informed but twen-
ty minutes of his time remained He should, there
FORE state the remaining heads Of his argument, and
write them out, as he was not allowed the time TO
argue them to the committee.


He turned to the tariff bill Of 1912:


|. II was false upon its face.


2. Unjust in its operation upon classes.


z IL ia decpDtlOus and IncOmDrehenAibla IN the
people in it's specific and minimum duties.


4. Ii is a protective and not a revenue tariff.


5. The protective policy involved distribution Of
wealth, and was therefore the basest agrariansm-
not of taking from the rich to give the poor-bnt
the reverse taking from the poor for the benefit OF
the rich.


Another objection which he entertained to the
protective policy is founded in the short-sighted po-
liucal economy upon which it is established. In
what does the wealth of nation consist In money
alone2 Far from it, that article is valuable and en-
hances the wealth of a nation far only as it is a
means Of acquiring those articles Of consumption
which supply the necessities and add to the comfort
Of the citizen. Money possesses an exchangeable
value only; and a man possessing millions might
starve, and die in magnificent poverty, if he could
not exchange it for bushel Of -four or pound of
butter. He might also perish from cold if he could
not exchange his money for blanket to shield him
from the incemency of the weather. Ii is then
pretty evident that the real wealth of nation consists
in the possession Of gold but in the possession
Of the greatest amount of those articles for which
gold is exchanged, and which, when obtained enter
into the consumption Of man, supply his necessities
and add to his comforts.


II this be true, that system Of political economy
is best which refuses to check enterprise and leaves
labor unshacked in the pursuit of that employment
which will procure the greatest amount of those ar
cles. If that end can be attained by raising wheat,
tobacco, corn, pork, beef, cotton, potatoes to
be exchanged for other articles of comfort and ne
cessity not raised by us, true economy requires
that labor should take that direction He need
scarcely add, that 1t is the voice of all history and
experience when enterprise is left unrestricted and
labor unregu'ated by legislative enactment, trade
and commerce have been most prosperous and the
nations most Independent and happy are those which
participate in that commerce. But when industry
is crippled and parayzed by legislative restrictions,
we have seen trade and commerce quit the most fer
tile and best situated countries and flee to others of
less fertility and more disadvantageously situated.


at was free-trade and unrestricted industry that
reared the splendors Of Tyre upon miserable
slet" it added to the glory and renown of Pal
myra upon arid desert; erected the mausoleums,
churches, and temples Of Venice upon the shores of
the Adrlatic; and so crowded the marshes of Ho
land with wealth and population that they built
their cities upon piles, and encroached upon the do
minion Of the sea. But, upon the other hand it
was the restrictions upon trade and commerce which
reduced Spain from her once powerful, to her pres
ent imbece condition. 1t retains Mexico in a state
of semi-barbarism, and locks up from themselves
and from Christendom, the now boundless resources
Of the Chinese empire.


Sir, should we not profit by the wisdom these
examples teach us1 Should we not leave trade un-
restricted, enterprise unchecked, and industry free
in the pursuit of that employment which will
produce the largest amount Of those articles which
constitute the real wealth Of naton'


The protective policy, if the statements of those
who advocate 1t be true, defeats this wise and sau-
tary end. 1t is said that certain manufacturing in
terests must be protected Why Because those in
terests cannot live without it, Similar articles man.
uactured in foreign countries at cheaper cost would
seek our markets, undersell the home producer and
thereby ruin our own manufactures


IL this be true it proves that the manufacturing
business is not the legitimate business of this coun
try; because, ifby any device you force the produc
ton Of an article, constituting part of the wealth
Of nation, at cost greater than similar articles
can be obtained from abroad labor is not left in pur-
suit of that employment which will produce the
greatest amount of those articles which constitute
the wealth of nation. But vice versa; and no one
apprehend, will contend for a system of economy so
absurd


But, sir, object to the protective policy upon
another ground 1t destroys national wealth. Eyery
manufactured article, foreign or domestic requires
given amount Of capital to produce it, and that CAPT.
tai consists of labor provisions and materal-valued
in dollars and cents-used in its production. When
the article Is produced, the capital ls sunk and the
producer only look TO the article produced IN re
mburse him for the outlay of production.


Suppose bale ofcloth which can be manufactured
in Europe for fifty dollars is introduced into the U
States and sold for Sepentyfue dollars; the bale of
cloth becomes article Of national wealth in this
country, representing the sum paid by US for the la
Dor, provisions, and materials sunk in its production
Now, suppose the labor, provisions, and materials
used in producing bale of domestic cloth of sim.
'r quality costs one hundred dollars /: the cloth,
when manufactured, becomes an article of national
wealth. representing in this case, as in the other, the
cost OF producton-whch is one hundred dol
lars.


Here we have two articles of national wealth, in
trinscaliy OF equal value. The one obtained from
abroad, costing us seventy-fve dollars only; and
the other, manufactured at home, costing us one
hundred dollars Is it not evident, if by any art-
hce the government forces the production of the do
mestc cloth at an increased cost Of twenty-five dol
ars that sum is effectually destroyed as if sunk
IN the depths of the sea, and is reckless destruc.
ton Of national wealth.


