Some views on the tariff question

' — ^> HP SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION BY AN OLD BUSINESS MAN THE AMERICAN MARKET FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE No. 23 WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET NEW YORK SOME VIEWS THE TARIFF QUESTION BY AN OLD BUSINESS MAN THE AMERICAN MARKET FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE No. 23 WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET NEW YORK FLEMING- BREWLTTER- & ALLEY e^iPP R, IIS T £ R 31-33 ^^est 23r-d J"treeb ^ ISEV/ YORK, PREFACE THE writer of nearly all the following letters has consented to their publication in this form in deference to the solicitation of those who are interested in protecting the American market, and whose judgment in the matter he deems better than his own. The writer formed his opinions on the tariff question while a youth at work in a cotton mill, commencing in the year 1832. At that time the whole country was profoundly excited by nullification in South Carolina ; and the attention of all intelligent persons was challenged by the acls of South Carolina and the earnest debates on the tariff question by Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and many other great men on both sides of the question. The passage of the compromise measures, which provided for a gradual reduction of the tariff year after year, in connection with currency troubles caused largely by the effect of the reduction of the tariff, reduced the busi- ness of the country and the employment of laboring men to the lowest terms ; so that in 1 840, after the most exciting canvass I have ever seen, the Democratic party was thoroughly defeated, largely on the issue of a tariff for the protection of the home market. Horace Greeley became the champion of protection, and for long years afterward maintained that position with the greatest ability, as the files of The New York Tribune will abundantly show. The writer has read, from 1832 to the present time, most of the important speeches and newspaper articles on both sides of the question ; and he was never stronger in his con- viction than he is to-day that the home market is the best market, and that it should be controlled and mainly supplied by our own people before making serious attempts to secure and control markets outside our own country and its jurisdiction. GEORGE DRAPER. HOPEDALE, MASS., August, 1886. CONTENTS FACE A NEW OUTLET FOR OUR SURPLUS PRODUCTIONS, ... 7 INDUSTRIES PROTECTED BY NATURE, . . . . .8 REPLY TO A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, ETC 9 PLEASE READ AND CONSIDER 9 AMERICAN MARKET FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, . .10 SUGGESTIVE FACTS 12 WAGES IN AMERICAN AND ENGLISH COTTON FACTORIES, . .15 SUGGESTIVE COMPARISONS, 17 AGAINST THE INTERNAL REVENUE SYSTEM, 19 LETTER TO A SOUTHERN GENTLEMAN IN 1881, . . . .19 THE TARIFF QUESTION 21 OUR WESTERN FARMERS, ETC., . . 22 A TRUE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ACTUAL FOREIGN TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 23 TARIFF AND WAGES 26 THE "HERALD'S" FALLACIES, 26 THE TARIFF QUESTION, '. . 27 SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. A NEW OUTLET FOR OUR SURPLUS PRODUCTIONS. [From the Boston Commercial Bulletin.] CONGRESS is to be petitioned to subsidize railway, steamship, or some other mode of transportation, to the moon or some other heavenly body. The fact is, the earth is producing so much more than is needed for its consumption that the markets of the universe must be secured for our trade : we must get raw material from them, and sell them our manufactured goods. To prepare for this we must open our markets to the markets of the universe, and be prepared to undersell the cheapest of them. If we cannot reach the moon, some method of doing so must be discov- ered, because we are perishing for the want of commerce with the distant planets, if not the fixed stars. This matter should be seriously considered, and a commercial treaty negotiated with the nearest planets at once. The above is not more foolish than a large part of the talk about the dis- tant markets on this planet. Are not the markets of this world already sup- plied with all the people who compose them are willing to buy and pay for ? Where is there a better market than our own that we can obtain control of — unless we do it by force of arms, as Great Britain has done and is doing, as well as France, Germany, Russia, Holland and various other gov- ernments ? I read when a boy, "Alexander sighed for more worlds to conquer." I did not so well understand then as now that when all the worlds he knew of were conquered, those already conquered must live on their own produc- tions. I have seen on heights in Great Britain and Germany strong castles, built long ago. I was told that these castles were built and inhabited by old baronial robbers, who sallied forth occasionally to rob and put under tribute the inhabitants of the surrounding country. Are not the Government and the people of Great Britain doing to-day on a gigantic scale the same thing in substance that was done by the old robber barons ? We are now purchasing abroad about two hundred and fifty million dollars' worth per annum of cotton, woolen and other kinds of goods for 7 8 SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. consumption in this country that we might make here if we would raise the tariff on said articles. That would prevent surplus revenue for the present, and give us more business and more of our own market. What would it cost us to obtain a market, or markets, in other countries, and protect ourselves there, for two hundred and fifty million dollars' worth of goods per annum in addition to what we now export ? How large a navy would we need, and who would pay the expense of it ? We ought, as a precedent to engaging extensively in foreign trade in com- petition with Great Britain, to build a navy to fight her anywhere, otherwise we shall be snubbed and annoyed beyond endurance through her influence or that of her subjects. England will not see the trade of her subjects inter- fered with by any power not her equal in strength on the ocean. Any one who reads the daily papers must see this plainly in the light of the increasing jealousies between England, France and Germany, growing out of the sub- ject of commanding trade. GEORGE DRAPER. INDUSTRIES PROTECTED BY NATURE. EDITOR COMMERCIAL BULLETIN : WHAT do we mean when we say that the market and industries of one country are protected ? We mean that the people of that country prevent by legislation the free use of their market by the people of other countries. Legislation, however, is not the only mode of protection by any means. The industries and the markets of this country are in some cases wholly and in others partially protected by natural barriers. Some of your free-trade opponents are wisely or stupidly stating that the laborers in protected indus- tries do not receive as much for wages as those in unprotected industries. No sensible and truthful man will deny that an increased demand for labor for any great length of time will increase the price of labor generally. I will mention some wholly protected industries. For one, take a daily newspaper, say the Boston Herald. That is more completely protected against foreign competition than any article can be by any custom duties, as the laws are administered. The ocean is an insuperable barrier to printing a paper in any foreign country and sending it to Boston in time to give the earliest local as well as general news. Now, I claim that the publishing of that journal is a wholly protected industry, and that any industry which can be interfered with by importations from abroad, or which depends upon tariff duties to wholly or partially prevent such importations, is less protected than the Boston Herald establishment. Why should the wholly protected cry out against protection to others in the interests of common prosperity ? Let any one draw the line between the wholly and partially protected industries, and he will see that those who are not protected by law are better protected by natural causes. Yours truly. GEORGE DRAPER. SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. 9 x£S^ REPLY TO A MEMBER OF CONGRESS \VIiu ASKED ME THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: "WHAT DO YOU DEEM THE BEST WAY TO CUT DOWN OUR REVENUE?" THE fact that under the present laws and conditions we shall be likely to have an annual surplus revenue of about one hundred million dollars over our ordinary expenses ought to be considered and provided for. It is evident that the revenue must be in some way lessened, or we must pay off the pub- lic debt, or devise some useful way to expend it for the public. We cannot accumulate hundreds of millions in the treasury, for obvious reasons. In the first place, I believe in raising as much or more than we now raise by a judicious tariff. I also believe in spending a considerable sum of money annually to bring our illiterate up to a common-school standard. I also believe it would be wise and beneficial to spend considerable sums to improve rivers, harbors, and in similar works which benefit large sections of country and large numbers of people. I do not believe in the Pennsylvania idea of distribution. I am, as you are aware, in practice a total abstinence man, as far as the use of stimulants or tobacco is concerned, and always have been. In spite of this, I am in favor of repealing the internal revenue law, thus reducing at one stroke large receipts, and also large expenses. This plan would reduce to a large extent the number of office-holders and relieve American industries from heavy burdens. I think the manufacture and sale of whiskey and tobacco in time of peace should be left to local taxation and local control. As a temperance man, anxious to reduce the use of intoxicating drink to the lowest terms, I think the general government should not derive a large revenue from that source ; because the government always uses its influence to increase the sources of its principal revenue; and in extreme cases it is urged that it is patriotic to drink because it adds to the public revenue. 1 know it is said that " it is taxing vice ; " but if this is true, then moderate drinking is vice — as undoubt- edly those styled moderate drinkers, owing to their larger numbers, consume more than drunkards. It is also said they are not obliged to use either rum or tobacco, and therefore it is a voluntary tax. Neither are people obliged to use sugar and various other articles ; and undoubtedly vast numbers would prefer to do without sugar rather than whiskey or tobacco. I do not want those who use whiskey and tobacco to pay my taxes in addition to their own. I think it is wrong to assume that if people use those things it matters not how much of their earnings it takes to supply them, because the number who spend all their earnings for such things is com- paratively small. GEORGE DRAPER. PLEASE READ AND CONSIDER. EDWARD H. AMMIDOWN, NEW YORK CITY, N. Y. : DEAR SIR, — I enclose a check made payable to the order of George B. Butler, Secretary of the New York Association for the Protection of American Industry, for the promotion of the objects of the Association. Id SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. I care not for honor or distinction in this connection, but I am very anxious for success in spreading the truth in regard to holding the " American Market for the American People." I believe we are putting ourselves in a false position by talking so much about labor, and labor alone, as though we cared nothing about American manufacturers, American capitalists who want to invest at home, domestic merchants, and all benefited by holding and sup- plying our own market. If we are so careful to make it appear that we care not for ourselves, but only for the dear laborers, it gives our enemies the chance to attack us as monopolists pretending to a false philanthropy, and they appeal to the laboring class against our hypocrisy. Yours truly, GEORGE DRAPER. The following editorial from the Boston Herald of October 10, 1883, shows what use has been and may be made of the matters suggested in my letter to Mr. Ammidown. What we want is the "American Market " — not for the benefit of the laborer alone, but for all who are benefited by business activity and diversified industry — that is, " The American Market for the American People." GEORGE DRAPER. " The hypocritical pretense that a high tariff is desired by those whose money and influence sustain it, solely in the interest of 'American labor,' is the thinnest of the thin. Every mine owner, lumber lord, or protected manufacturer, gets labor for as small wages as possible. As the railway monopolist puts on all the traffic will bear, in fixing rates, so do the capitalists who bemoan the condition of the ' pauper labor of Europe ' keep down wages as low as the wage-workers will bear. ' Just propose to protect Ameri- can labor by excluding foreign laborers,' says the Chicago Times, 'and see how quick their philanthropy will disappear.' The country has heard, it adds, how the glass man- ufacturers and potters, after getting the duties adjusted to suit them, began to import the cheapest labor they could find, under contract to take the place of American labor. The country has heard, too, that collar manufacturers import the cheapest female operatives they can find, under contract that regulates their wages for a long time in advance. 'If further proof were needed,' it says, 'that the beneficiaries of our tariff system care not a pin for American labor except to get it as cheap as possible, it would be found in the fact, disclosed by the census, that wages rose more during the years of comparative free trade than they have ever done since, and that they were actually higher in some branches of industry in 1860 than they are to-day.' That all this talk about 4 protection to American labor 'is intended to deceive, but that it deceives less than formerly, is indicated by the fact that it proceeds from the employers of labor much more than from the laborers themselves. A good many eyes have been opened since the ' tariff scare' of 1880." AMERICAN MARKET FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. DEAR SIR, — I have carefully read articles on the subject of tariff revision in your issues. From those articles it is evident the writer — whether pro- tectionist, free-trade, or tariff-for-revenue-only man — strongly desires the reduction of duties. You say : " Assuming that one of the chief objects of the revision of the tariff is to reduce the duties and the revenue derived therefrom." SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. H This would apply to a reduction of duties on sugar in case the reduction did not destroy the sugar industry, and possibly if it did ; but how would it work on iron, which you speak of in the later article ? About one-fifth of all the iron consumed in this country, in its various forms, is imported. Suppose the duty reduced to say five dollars a ton on pig-iron, what effect would it have on the iron industry and the labor market in this and other countries? I think it is plain that it would lessen production here and increase it abroad, and if so, it would cause laborers in that business to be discharged here and more to be employed elsewhere. Whether the revenue to be derived from that would be reduced would depend upon how much im- portations- were increased. I am not engaged in either the manufacture of iron or steel; but the manufacturing concerns I am largely interested in, buy and use a few thousand tons a year. I do not, for one, desire to have the duty reduced on iron and steel, because I believe it is for the best interests of the people of this country to keep and supply our own markets, for such material ; and when any amount is imported, it shows that our manufacturers have no mo- nopoly of the business, and that home competition will prevent too high prices. Protectionists, or those who want THE AMERICAN MARKET FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, must stand together or fall separately. I have no sympathy for those who want protection for their industry at the expense of other industries as necessary as their own. By protecting our own market we promote diversified industry, and create and maintain a demand for skilled labor, which, in turn, calls for an increase in all kinds of labor ; and the effect of holding our own market, imperfectly even, has been to make this the best market for skilled labor in the world. I think there is a genuine demand for the reduction of our duties ; first, from the rulers, manufacturers, merchants, and people abroad ; next, from the carriers of ocean freight ; again, from foreign agents and financiers in this country ; also from those interested in the importing business. All these classes would, in the immediate future, be benefited pecuniarily by such a change in our policy as would cause idleness here, and increase employment there ; but whether they would do as well after our orange was squeezed as they do now in the importing business, is another matter. Im- porters and carriers would undoubtedly be glad to have everything raised in this country, or produced in any way, pass through their hands, and go abroad, as well as everything consumed in this country, come through their hands in being distributed. Think what magnificent sums would be paid for freight and commissions ! They, like sutlers with an army, might get rich while the army is going to destruction. I have no doubt free-traders could demonstrate to college professors that such a state of things would show the greatest prosperity of the people generally. It is evident that you, from your declarations, believe the duties too high generally, or else you believe in lowering them in deference to what you assert to be public opinion. I do not believe that public opinion, independent of the fear that something worse may come, is in favor of lower duties on those articles that are extensively produced here, which are antag- onized by foreign importations in our markets, under the tariff as it is now. I believe 'the constant iteration and reiteration by the press of the statement that public opinion is in favor of anything, uncontradicted, will eventually cause the public to believe the statement, whether true or false. 1 1 SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. In your last article you say : " Meantime the representatives of various interests are in Washington, with the pur- pose of preventing such a revision of the tariff as the country expects. The most strenuous of these interests are iron and sugar, the two articles upon which there should be a decided modification of duties. It is past our comprehension why those who desire the advantage of protection should be so unwise as to combine to prevent the modifica- tion which they must know that the country generally demands. No one thing can injure the policy of protection so much as the present opposition of certain interests to a revision with a view to moderately reduce the duties. These men may not be aware of it, but they should understand that they are doing more to turn public sentiment against the policy of protection than all of the free-trade literature which our home or- ganizations can circulate and British manufacturers will furnish funds to circulate. They are to-day the most potent promoters of free-trade views." Here I take square issue with you. While you say, in effect, that those who do not favor a reduction in duties on iron (one thing you mention) are most potent promoters of free trade, I say that those who pretend to be pro- tectionists, and constantly call for a reduction in duties, are doing far more damage to the holding of the American market than avowed free-traders. For one, I would rather be shot than die of slow poison. If we must go to free trade, let us go quick enough to know what the matter is. In case you advise lower duties, and get them, what will you say to the Democrats in the next Congress who tell you you have acknowledged the fact that you kept the duties too high as long as you could, and have only lowered them to prevent a really proper reduction by the Democrats ? On the other hand, if we hold on about where we are, raising some duties where needed and lowering some not needed, cut off the internal revenue mainly, if not wholly, — then if the Democrats reduce the duties materially, it will produce such an effect on business as will produce a reaction. We could then go into the next Presiden- tial election on the issue of THE AMERICAN MARKET FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, and discuss this question of Free Trade so that the people would understand its practical bearings, and so elect the Republican ticket and settle the policy of protection of the American market for many years to come. For one, I am willing to take all the responsibility that may come from insisting upon substantially as much protection as we get now, and more if it is needed to hold our market. GEORGE DRAPER. SUGGESTIVE FACTS. LIST OF FARM AND FACTORY PRODUCTS, SHOWING THE BENEFIT OF HAVING FARM AND FACTORY NEAR TOGETHER. I present some interesting statistics taken from the United States census by the Hon. George F. Hoar, United States Senator : RANK OF COUNTIES ACCORDING TO FARM VALUES.* 1. Lancaster, Pennsylvania $69,004,919 2. Allegheny, Pennsylvania 40,411,956 3. Chester, Pennsylvania 39.217,513 4. Monroe, New York 38,712,935 SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. 5. Berks, Pennsylvania .... 6. Montgomery, Pennsylvania 7. Bucks, Pennsylvania .... 8. Dutchess, New York .... 9. Washington, Pennsylvania . 10 Erie New York $36,989,274 . 36,688,601 36,151,958 . 35,977,88i 35,284,957 34,958,336 ii. Westchester, New York . 33,264,505 12. Onondaga, New York .... . 31,932,959 13. Oneida, New York .... 31,500,144 14. York, Pennsylvania . 31,142,021 15. St. Lawrence, New York 30,656,943 16. Westmoreland, Pennsylvania . . 30,550,823 17. Cook, Illinois 29,891,243 18. Middlesex, Massachusetts • 29,737,317 19. Worcester, Massachusetts . 28,597,624 RANK OF COUNTIES ACCORDING TO FARM PRODUCTS. i. Lancaster, Pennsylvania $9,320,202 2. Monroe, New York 6,382,976 3. Oneida, New York .... 6,378,153 4. Montgomery, Pennsylvania 6,086,078 5. St. Lawrence, New York 6,046,906 6. Chester, Pennsylvania .... 5,972,290 7. Bucks, Pennsylvania .... 5,960,056 8. Erie, New York .... 5,352,737 9. Onondaga, New York 5,079,198 10. Worcester, Massachusetts 4,869,123 n. Middlesex, Massachusetts . 4,657,145 12. York, Pennsylvania .... 4,623,232 13. Berks, Pennsylvania .... . 4,485,551 14. Cook, Illinois . 3,699,973 15. Washington, Pennsylvania . 3.671,369 16. Allegheny, Pennsylvania 3,666,167 17. Dutchess, New York .... 3,659,174 18. Westmoreland, Pennsylvania . 2,907,171 19. Westchester, New York . 2,544,041 Manufacturers. Wages. Product. i. New York, N. Y $97,030,021 $472,926,437 2. Philadelphia, Penn . 64,265,966 324,342,935 3. Cook County, including Chicago, 111. 35,603,567 253,910,548 4. Kings, N. Y . 22,867,176 179,188,685 5. Suffolk, Mass 25,634,027 134,567,625 6. Middlesex, Mass . 21,706,749 128,031,850 7. St. Louis, Mo 17,743,523 114,338,375 8. Hamilton, Ohio 20,017,718 108,338,756 9. Allegheny, Penn. .... 22,371,951 105,272,739 10. Essex, Mass. ..... 21,854,758 101,159,429 ii. Worcester, Mass. .... 20,004,899 O, %3:7, t y 87,001,852 RANK ACCORDING TO WAGES. i. New York . . $97,030,021 2. Philadelphia . . $64,265,966 3. Chicago . . . 35,603,567 4- Suffolk . 25,634,027 5. Kings . . . 22,867,176 6. Allegheny . . 22,371,951 7. Essex .... 21,854,758 8. Middlesex 21,706,749 9. Hamilton . . 20,017,718 10. Worcester . . 20,004,899 ii. St. Louis . . . 17,743,523 14 SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. The whole number of counties in the United States is 2,461. Calling the county which contains the greatest value of farms within its limits, No. i, next to the largest, No. 2, and so on, Worcester County stands No. 19. Taking the same course in regard to farm products, Worcester County stands No. 10. It will be observed, also, that the same nineteen counties having the greatest value in farms also have the greatest value in farm products. This cannot be accidental. Of these counties, the ist, 2d, 3d, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, I4th and i6th — nine in all — are in Pennsylvania. The 4th, 8th, loth, nth, I2th, I3th and I5th — seven in all — are in New York. Illinois has one, the i7th. Massachusetts the 1 8th and I9th — two in all. In farm products, Pennsylvania has the ist, 4th, 6th, 7th, 1 2th, i3th, i$th, i6th and i8th— nine in all. New York has the 2d, 3d, 5th, 8th, 9th, I7th and igth — seven in all. Massachusetts has the loth and nth. Illinois has the I4th. It will be observed that while Wor- cester County is No. 19 in value of farms, it is No. 10 in the value of farm products ; the value of the farm products being over 1 7 per cent, per annum of the value of the farms. In this important aspect Worcester County stands third ; only Oneida and St. Lawrence counties in New York being ahead in all our vast country. What is the meaning of all this? Is not Worcester County rocky, and comparatively sterile ? Western and Southern farmers would not think a farmer could get a living on such lands, much more get a living and pay higher wages to farm hands than is paid on the fertile lands of the West and South. I think there are few men acquainted with Worcester County, who would have guessed any such results. I have asked many men to guess where it stood, and few, if any, have put her above 500 in the list of counties. The reasons for this are not hard to find, to a practical man. Even fhese farmers consume far more per capita of Western farmers' produce than any cus- tomers they have outside the United States. The Western farmers sell their produce mainly to be consumed a great distance from home, while the average distance of the Worcester County farmers from their markets will not exceed five miles. The Western farmer has to submit to deductions for transportation, storage, insurance against all risks of every description ; also for interest, and neither last nor least to charges for commissions from all parties that are in any way concerned be- tween the farmers and the final consumers. On the contrary, the Worcester County farmer, in almost all cases, transports with his own team, and sells directly to the consumers, without the intervention of middle-men, saving, also, almost all the charges referred to above, that the Western farmer must submit to because of his uncertain and distant market, RECAPITULATION. We have ascertained that out of the whole number of counties, namely, 2,461, Worcester stands No. 19 in farm value, No. 10 in farm products ; this being more than 17 per cent, per .annum upon the value of the farms ; also being third in ratio of products to value of farms. She also stands No. 1 1 in value of manufactured products, and No. i in amount of wages paid in SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. 15 proportion to the value*of her manufactured products. Is this all accidental ? If not, how is it to be accounted for, and what lessons do these facts teach ? It will be seen that four out of the eleven counties showing the largest value of manufactured products in the United States are among the nineteen counties showing also the largest amount of farm value and farm products. The four counties stand thus : — Manufactured Wa.jies Farm Farm Products. Paid. Value. Products. Cook, 111 No. 3. No. 3. No. 17. No. 14. Middlesex, Mass .... No. 6. No. 8. No. 18. No. n. Allegheny, Perm. . . . No. 9. No. 6. No. 2. No. 16. Worcester, Mass. . . . No. n. No. 10. No. 19. No. 10. While Cook County, III., is producing $253,910,548 manufacturing pro- ducts, it is also producing $3,699,973 in farm products ; and Middlesex County, Mass., $128,031,850 manufacturing products and $4,657,145 farm products; Worcester County, Mass., $87,601,852 manufacturing products and $4,869,123 in farm products; Allegheny, Perm., $105,272,739 manufac- turing products and $3,666,167 in farm products. These statistics show unmistakably that manufacturers and farmers in close proximity promote and foster each other's interests to a high degree. As a matter of fact, these farmers are the customers, and not the compet- itors, of the Western farmers. They consume vast quantities of Western flour and corn, as well as beef, pork, and various articles which they do not produce in sufficient quantities for their own use, because they turn their attention to raising garden vegetables, fruits, and furnish milk, butter, cheese, poultry, eggs, and all the various articles that are best when most directly delivered to the consumer. I suppose these facts will only interest some of our college professors, because they suggest that the truck argument is at least as well worthy of notice as their long-winded talks about things they know no more about than they do about farming in a future state of existence. GEORGE DRAPER. WAGES IN AMERICAN AND ENGLISH COTTON FACTORIES. [From the Boston Journal, Dec. 26, rSS2.} A WRITER has published in the Boston Herald of December 23 an article entitled " English Mill Operatives." The first sentence reads as fol- lows : " The question of the average earnings of working-people in different localities is of the greatest importance in determining many of our most per- plexing social problems." He afterwards says : " It is, moreover, a most difficult question for a clear understanding, since it takes into consideration not only the amount of money paid in wages to persons for doing the same amount of work in dif- ferent places, but the value of the money thus paid," etc. l6 SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. The Herald writer has said many things between these sentences and following them tending to mix things and confuse the reader, but nothing to elucidate " the question of the average earnings of working-people in differ- ent localities." It would seem plain to me that the way to answer the ques- tion would be to ascertain how much was paid in gold per hour, on an aver- age, to operatives of the same class, doing the same kind of work, in France, • Italy, Germany, England, and the United States. It is certain that a manu- facturer would have to do this, in order to ascertain the cost and relative cost of producing the goods made by his operatives. It would make no differ- ence to him in that respect, what the operative did with his money after it was paid to him. One thing at a time, when we can have it so. Earning a certain amount of wages is one thing, and spending or saving the amount after getting your pay is quite another and entirely separate thing. It would seem to me that having ascertained the amount of gold English operatives receive per hour or week on an average, and in the same way having ascertained how much a Massachusetts operative of the same class receives on an average for the same service, you will then have ascer- tained the average earnings of factory operatives in two different localities. At any rate, this will show the relative cost or the same labor, in both coun- tries, without regard to how it may be spent by those who receive the wages. Later on, the writer says : "It is observable in the first place that the average earnings of operatives in the mills of the great factory region of England is but little, if any, changed from the average that prevailed eleven years ago." So it seems, in spite of the great difficulties, the writer has ascertained in some way the average earnings of the operatives in the mills of the great factory region of England, at two different times, and compared them one with the other. Why cannot the average earnings of operatives in other localities be ascertained in the same way ? He then goes on to state the amount earned by English operatives, clos- ing with the statement that weavers producing a high grade class of fine fancy cotton goods in Manchester, England, receive $6. 1 6 per week for three persons, one working full time and two others working each half-time. So much he seems to have ascertained and definitely stated. He adds : " This sum representing six days of labor, is indeed small when viewed under the conditions which prevail in this country. It is small enough, certainly, in England, where the conditions are different." Now, having found out how much gold one weaver and two half-timers can earn in a week in England, and how much a weaver and two half-timers can earn in a week in Massa- chusetts, it seems to me that a price-current of the necessaries and luxuries of life in Manchester and one in Lowell at the same time would enable an operative of ordinary intelligence to satisfy himself in which place he could get the most comfort for his earnings, or save most to put in the savings- bank. He then speaks of the condition of English operatives : " But the effect of these conditions in increasing the relative value of such a sum in wages is shown in further facts which the consular reports set forth. Prominent among these facts is the difference in the matter of dress. The English fac- tory operative, whether man or woman, is born to other customs and habits than prevail here. Bonnets or hats are seldom worn by the girls going to or from work. They throw a shawl over the head, and wish no other covering. On their feet they wear, extensively, wooden-soled clogs instead of leathern SOME VIKWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. shoes, and in this they find health and comfort, astejcag economy, when their work calls them to stand for long hours on stonosj^Sfe*-" w rghg men, too, as Consul Shaw states, are " content with a quality ancPlHaKif l/Tcloth- ing which our operatives would not wear; " so that while clothing is much cheaper in England than in the United States, and the expenditure of the same amount of money will enable a man to dress better there than here, the habits of the operatives induce a still greater economy. Do our operatives desire to have their wages cut down, and adopt the habits and condition of the English operatives as described by this writer, in order to be as well off and happy as they are ? Do English operatives go bare-headed, or wear cheap shawls on their heads, because they prefer to do so, or because it is cheaper ? Do they wear wooden clogs, clapping along, or go barefooted, be- cause they prefer to do so, or because it is cheaper ? In my travels abroad I saw none of the nobility or tradesmen on a large scale wearing wooden shoes to promote either health or happiness. If the English operatives are happier in wearing wooden clogs, why do they not wear them in this country after coming here ? There is no law against it that I am aware of. There is another phase to this question : Which would furnish the best market, 200,000 English or 200,000 American operatives, provided they spent all their earnings ? The writer closes his article as follows : " It is thus seen that, while an exact comparison is impossible, the smaller cost of living and the inferior daily needs of the English operative go far to render his low average of earnings equal to the higher rates enjoyed in this country." So it seems after all that he has discovered that English operatives do not earn as much as the operatives of this country, and also that they do not need so much to make them happy. What is the writer driving at ? Does he want to get operatives to go to England to enjoy the equal or better con- dition there, or does he want our operatives to accept less wages and spend or save less money ? GEORGE DRAPER. (An Old- Time Operative in American Cotton Mills.} SUGGESTIVE COMPARISONS. THE COMMERCE OF GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. [From the Detroit Tribune,} [This article is a letter from an Eastern man largely engaged in the manufacture of machinery, written to a friend in this city. The ability and experience of the writer entitle his views to attention.] I HAVE long thought that I would be glad to have some competent writer, who had the necessary time at his command, set forth the real differ- ences that exist between Great Britain and this country in regard to their in- dustrial interests. We are a people occupying a large contiguous territory, l8 SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. but having no isolated States or markets under our control within our coun- try, each State attaching to some other State, with free trade and free com- munication between people inhabiting each and all of them. To be sure we have great rivers, enormous lakes, and a vast coastwise traffic. In connec- tion with these we have a vast amount of water communication, navigation, and transportation. We have also a great abundance of fertile lands still unoccupied, and a constantly increasing market for all sorts of merchandise, owing, in a large measure, to our ability to draw to ourselves skilled laborers and other valuable immigrants from foreign countries, thus increasing our population, in connection with our own natural increase, to the number of about 2,000,000 souls per annum. The large production and the large con- sumption of our people, owing to their industry and energy, make this coun- try the best market in the world. The island of Great Britain is generally spoken of as a nation by itself, and considered in general terms as a nation similar to our own. To my mind, however, no greater mistake can be made in looking at matters from an eco- nomic point of view than to allow this mode of treating the question to con- tinue. As a matter of fact, Great Britain is only a sort of capital to the great empire, consisting of about 300,000,000 of the earth's inhabitants, controlled largely by the sword, as is admitted by an English statesman. As a matter of fact, if we are to compare our policy with the policy of that empire which is ruled over by Queen Victoria, as ruler of Great Britain and Empress of India, we ought to include not only the British Isles, but India, Canada, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand, and all the isles of the sea, and the possessions of that vast realm, the boast of whose people is, " The sun never sets on their dominions." To that vast empire, the oceans crossed by their vessels are to them only what our great lakes and rivers are to us. Their navigation is absolutely essential to intercourse between the different States comprising this empire ; and the commerce between those States and the capital centre of government and exchange cannot properly be consid- ered as commerce between different countries of the world, but only and strictly as internal commerce, similar to that between the different States of our Union. Then, on the question of the amount of imports and exports, in compar-. ing Great Britain with this country, the imports and exports, so called, between Great Britain, the capital, and the other States which comprise the empire, should be excluded from the estimates of the foreign commerce of Great Britain ; and when they are thus excluded the true amount of imports and exports from this country to foreign countries would compare far more favorably with the imports and exports of Great Britain to and from foreign countries outside of her own dominions. GEORGE DRAPER. THE ONLY MARKET WE CAN CONTROL is THE AMERICAN MARKET FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE." SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. 19 AGAINST THE INTERNAL REVENUE SYSTEM. AT the adjourned annual meeting of the Massachusetts Total Abstinence society, held in Boston, Wednesday, March 12, 1884, the following preamble and resolutions, introduced by Mr. GEORGE DRAPER, of Hopedale, at their last annual meeting, after a full discussion at two succeeding meetings, passed with only two dissenting votes : " WHEREAS, it has often been stated in the press of the country that the members of the temperance organizations of the country were opposed to the repeal of the Internal Revenue tax upon whiskey and all other intoxicating drinks ; therefore we, the members of the Massachusetts Total Abstinence Society, in order to put ourselves right on the record, "Resolve, That we are not opposed to the repeal of the tax law above referred to, for the reason that we do not, as citizens, desire to have any part in licensing the sale of intoxicating drinks, directly or indirectly ; neither do we want to receive directly or indirectly any money collected for allowing the sale of such drinks, or have any part of our taxes paid for out of money received for allowing such sale. "Resolved, That this position is no new one for total abstinence organizations to take ; on the contrary, it is the same ground occupied for more than forty years." Among the officers of the Society are Hon. Oliver Ames, Lieut.-Governor of Massachusetts, President ; Hon. John D. Long, M.C., and Ex-Governor William Claflin are among the Vice-Presidents. This action shows that many representative temperance men do not oppose, but on the contrary favor, the repeal of the Internal Revenue laws so far, at least, as intoxicating liquors are concerned, and would quite likely favor the entire abolition of the Internal Revenue department. LETTER TO A SOUTHERN GENTLEMAN, IN 1881. DEAR SIR, — I have just received your letter of the i$th inst. ; also the papers, etc., sent, for which accept my thanks. I have just read your article on the Atlanta Exposition and its probable effects upon the people of the country generally, more especially upon those of the South, and its industries. I thought to commence with, and think now, that the greatest and most wide-reaching effects of the Exposition would be the moral effect produced upon the people who gathered there from the North, South, East and West, to examine, study and talk about things in which they had a mutual interest, and to share each other's hospitalities. The trouble has been, heretofore, that when two men or women met, one from the South and the other from the North, and were introduced, the first thing that came into their minds to speak of was the fact that " you were on one side in the late war, either in action or sympathy, and I was on the other;" and not appreciating the personal peculiarities of each other, it was awkward to commence a conversation the very purpose of which was to form an acquaintance. At the Great Exposition the commencement of an 20 SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. acquaintance was entirely different : we were in the presence of myriads of useful and beautiful things in which we had a mutual interest, and after talking over the wonderful Exposition and some of its contents for a while, the time would come naturally enough when we could speak of past differ- ences in a manner not to give offense. Intelligent and right-minded people of the North would not cripple the South, or hinder its progress in becoming populous and wealthy, unless the population and wealth are acquired to be used against the union and pros- perity of the country as a whole. On the other hand they would, as a matter of feeling and interest, aid its people acquiring education, wealth and general prosperity for all its inhabitants. The accumulated wealth of a country is certainly a great boon in many ways ; but the amount of property that is being consumed in a given com- munity is vastly more important. The day's work of a nation is of vastly more importance to the statesman than the accumulated wealth of a country — our country, at any rate. I am confident that when business is good and the people fully employed, they will earn as much probably in two years — certainly in three years — as all the accumulated wealth of the country. My experience teaches me that the more industrious a nation is, the better educated, the more moral and thrifty it will be. If I am right in this, then the principal object of statesmanship should be to so legislate as to promote the greatest amount of productive industry among the people. In order to make industry as attractive and productive as possible, it should be diversified as much as possible. Taking a new country, with plenty of natural resources, without accumulating capital, in order to diversify industry it is necessary to establish a market. Right here, in order to diversify industry and establish and maintain a market, and attract intelligent and skillful labor, is where an American statesman finds a tariff indispensable. A tariff has the effect to draw skillful labor from other countries where it is not so well used and paid. Free trade would necessarily cut down the price of such labor, and cause it to go elsewhere. Were the price of labor reduced here to the standard abroad, the skilled labor, in connection with their great abundance of accumulated capital, would find more steady employ- ment there for reasons that it is unnecessary to state. Then, when more and cheaper labor was sought, it would be found in Asia or Africa, as formerly, when emigrants were obtained by force or fraud, instead of by attraction, as now, when Germany is at her wit's end to prevent an exodus of her best inhabitants. The only market any nation not crowded with capital and labor can con- trol is its own. When it can supply this fully with all such articles as it can produce, then it will try to supply other markets. I believe protection will be as much needed to develop and maintain varied industries in the South as it has been or is now in the North. The free-traders seem to be looking all the time for foreign markets, to the neglect of our own. Our own is certainly the best, and should not be exchanged for another. I would as soon till another man's farm a great dis- tance away, and let him till mine, as undertake to furnish his market with things I could produce, and let him supply mine. Mankind needs education in the broadest sense of the term. Statesmen and professional men cannot know too much of what they are able to acquire from books and all other sources of information. Every laboring man of SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. 21 ordinary aptness to acquire information should know how to read his ballot or a bill for goods purchased, and write his own name, and reckon his own change in paying for necessaries ; otherwise he is liable to be cheated on all hands. He should also be educated to be industrious, frugal, moral and efficient in his trade or calling, whatever that may be. Communities differ, as indi- viduals, in these respects. There is a vast difference between the condition I of the North and South in the accumulated savings of the laboring classes. ' In Massachusetts, in addition to the property of those who own their houses, furniture, tools, clothing, etc., we have, I think, about two hundred and fifty millions in our savings-banks, to say nothing of their interest in life insurance and other societies. This vast sum is invested in bank and railroad stock, and other securities ; also loaned on mortgages, and on notes having three names approved by the committee on finance. This money is used as capital by the greatest capitalists at the North, to a certain extent. It goes to build factories of various kinds, and fosters a vast number of business enterprises. One of the most important lessons to be taught for the benefit of a com- munity is the importance of saving a sum, however small in itself, for the habit it engenders. You show me a man who saves nothing out of a small income and I will show you one who will never save out of a large one. I was told by a Northern man running a cotton factory in the South that the help were sure, if they saved anything, their wages would be reduced. I would sooner raise the wages of one who saves than one who squanders, and I think most men would. Years ago some of our factories opened a savings-bank for their help. I think this, when properly managed, was a good thing, in the absence of savings institutions separate from the factories, which are far better. I have written in haste, without much consideration. If what I have written should be of any service I shall be glad. Yours truly, GEORGE DRAPER. THE TARIFF QUESTION. [From the Milford Journal. ,] MESSRS. EDITORS, — In discussing the effect of a tariff upon the indus- tries and finances of the people of this country, I shall consider them in bulk. I am well aware that different persons and classes of persons may and will be affected differently ; but to mix the whole with the parts at the same time will only make contusion. If it can be shown that more universal, as well as more diversified, industry will be induced and maintained by a tariff than by a free-trade policy, and consequently a greater increase in the general wealth, it will then be in order to talk about the distribution of wealth, and the effect upon different classes of people. At the very foundation of this question is the control of our market. Our market is of immense pecuniary value — probably of greater pecuniary value than any other in the world. Whom does it belong to — to ourselves or to the empire in which Great Britain is included, or to any other or all other nations or their rulers ? 22 SOME VIEWS ON THE TARIFF QUESTION. I maintain our market belongs to our own people, and that it should be wisely controlled for our own benefit. Is there any free-trader with any repu- tation who would say that he would give away this valuable market without receiving anything in return — that is, abolish our custom-houses and open our ports to all nations on the same terms as to our own people, and then, by direct taxation, raise the money necessary to support our government ? This would be genuine free trade, properly defined, as I understand it. Sup- pose one of these free-traders was delegated to make a commercial treaty with France. Would he offer to allow France to keep on her present tariff, and allow her to send her goods into this country free of duty ? If not, why not ? Why should the British Empire be called free trade ? They raise a vast amount of money by a tariff on goods sent them from this, as well as other countries. You will find custom-houses there as here. They put a tariff on such articles as will best promote their interests. Why should w