Chapter LXXVIII: Section 1: provides for the appointment by the President of a commission (2)

Mr. INGALLS. Only one every fifteen minutes! How often do you expect them to be removed? He has done the best he could. And this does not include the number of those who resigned; this does not include any except those who have been removed. To the Senator from Missouri rising in his seat, impatient at the dilatory procrastination of the Post-Office Department in not casting out more Republican postmasters, I say this does not include all. Undoubtedly many more than eighty-six hundred and thirty-five have fallen beneath the axe of the Department or have been filled by partisans of the party in power as a reward for efficient and faithful party service in consequence of the retirement of thousands of patriotic Republicans: and when the Senator from Missouri attempts to convey the impression here that out of fifty-one thousand fourth-class postmasters only eighty-six hundred and thirty-five have been changed during this past year he is entirely outside the record. It is to be observed that this is but a single Department. How many have gone out of the State department, how many have gone out of the Interior department, how many out of the Army and Navy departments, and out of that illuminated Department of Justice, and out of the Treasury, of course is entirely unknown, and probably will always remain unknown till the secrets of earth are revealed at the last day. They are carefully concealed; there are no lists furnished to the press for publication. Therefore I trust that the friends of the administration will be consoled, that the complaints which have been so frequent hitherto of the want of activity on the part of the administration in finding places for their friends will be tempered by the consideration that they have done the best they could in the time at their disposal.

Mr. President, the list of official utterances is not yet complete. On the first day of this session President Cleveland again repeated his declaration that the civil service was to be divorced from partisanship, and he took occasion to inflict some more castigation upon those who were endeavoring to force him off the civil-service platform which he had declared he intended to occupy. This was his language:

Lay siege to the patronage of Government, engrossing the time of
public officers with their importunities, spreading abroad the
contagion of their disappointment, and filling the air with the tumult
of their discontent.

Rather florid, rather oriental phrase, but in its exactness mathematical; a demonstration in geometry could not be more explicit and satisfactory than that description by President Cleveland of the occupation and the lamentations of the Democratic party. It will bear repetition.

Lay siege to the patronage of Government, engrossing the time of
public officers with their importunities, spreading abroad the
contagion of their disappointment, and filling the air with the tumult
of their discontent.

A besieging, importunate, contagious, tumultuous, discontented organization.

There is more to the same effect in this document that I should like to read, but time does not serve, nor is it material, because there are other independent utterances to which I must pass; and I do this for the purpose of showing the consistent and persistent adhesion of the President of the United States to the declarations with which he started out when he commenced to administer the Government.

On the 30th day of January, 1886, the ordinary avenues of communication with the public being inaccessible, President Cleveland availed himself of the interviewer, and in the _Boston Herald_ was printed a long letter detailing in quotations a conversation with President Cleveland, the many points of which will be found below. This was after this controversy, if you call it so, between the President and Senate, had begun to develop and there were some indications of approaching misunderstanding or disagreement:

He next spoke of his position toward the Senate in the matter of
confirmations to office. He said it gave him some anxiety, for the
Senate had been a good while in disclosing what it meant to do. “They
seem”—

He says plaintively—

“to distrust me,” said he, “if I am to accept what I hear from others.
But I hear nothing from them. They have not called upon me for
information or for documents.”

That complaint no longer exists.

“I have tried”—

He says—

“to deal honorably and favorably by them. My purpose was announced at
the beginning of my administration. I meant then to adhere to it. I
have never changed it. I do not mean to change it in the future. It
seems to me unjust and ungenerous in them”—

That is, in the Senate—

“unjust and ungenerous in them to suspect that I do. If I had not
meant to adhere to my policy it would have been foolish in me to begin
it. I should have escaped much in refusing to begin it. It is not at
all pleasant for me to disappoint, and I fear sometimes to offend, my
party friends. Nothing but a sense of duty has brought me to this
step. Why run all this risk and incur this hard feeling only in the
end to retreat? It seems to me it would have been as impolitic as it
is wrong. No; I have tried to be true to my own pledges and the
pledges of my party. We both promised to divorce the offices of the
country from being used for party service. I have held to my promise,
and I mean to hold to it.”

Then there was an answer to a question propounded by the interviewer, in which he defines his relation toward offensive partisanship in the Democratic party:

“I did not propose to hold party service in the past in the Democratic
ranks as against a man. On the contrary, it gave him a strong,
equitable claim to office. He had been excluded for twenty-four years
because he was a Democrat. He should be remembered for the same reason
when a Democratic administration came into power, provided he was a
competent man for the position to be filled. What I understand by
civil-service reform, as I am carrying it out, is that the
office-holders shall be divorced from politics while they fill their
positions under this government. That rule I have meant to stand by.”
I asked him if he was aware of any deviation from it among his
appointees. “If there has been any,” said he, “it has not been called
to my attention.” I suggested that some such charge had been made in
New York. He said he did not believe that there was any foundation for
it, and that it was well known there that his wishes were that the
office-holders should attend to the duties of their positions, and
interfere neither with candidates nor election contests.

And here comes in the significant statement bearing upon the duty of Republicans in connection with these suspensions and removals from office:

“My removals from office, such as are made,” said he, “are made for
cause. It would be absurd for me to undertake to give the country my
reasons in all cases, because it would be impracticable. When I have
removed a Republican for political reasons or for any other reasons, I
would apply the same rule to my own party. I think the Republican
Senators should be just enough to believe this of me. They ought to
appreciate that I am trying to do my duty. Why they should continue to
distrust me I do not see. They do not come to me either personally or
by committee to get an understanding of my attitude, or to obtain
explanations on points of action to which they object. They stand off
and question the sincerity of my purposes.”

The eight thousand six hundred and thirty-five fourth-class postmasters and the six hundred and forty-three suspensions before the Senate and the thousands of changes in other departments “are made for cause,” not for political reasons merely; but to give those who have been so removed the opportunity to explain or defend themselves would be “absurd” and “impracticable.”

But this is not all. Later in the winter the Civil Service Commission was reorganized, and in a newspaper printed in this city appeared a statement alleged to be “personal” and included in quotation marks, and which it is commonly reported was in the handwriting of the President.

I cannot rid myself—

He said, after speaking about the _personnel_ of the Civil Service Commission—

I cannot rid myself of the idea that this civil-service reform is
something intended to do practical good and not a mere sentiment
invented for the purpose of affording opportunity to ventilate
high-sounding notions and fine phrases.

He alludes to the action of the Civil-Service Commission about a weigher in the city of Brooklyn, and says:

When the Civil Service Commission consulted with me as to the status
of Mr. Sterling and the true construction of the rule bearing upon
that subject, I agreed with them in their second opinion that the
position of weigher was subject to an examination, and that it should
be filled by one who by means of a proper examination under the law
proved himself competent and eligible. But it seemed to me that the
good of the service required that the person to be appointed should be
possessed of certain traits and qualifications which no theoretical
examination would develop. One having in charge two or three hundred
men of the class with which a weigher has to deal should possess
personal courage, energy, decision and firmness of character. It is
entirely certain that the possession of such qualifications could not
in the least be determined by the result of an examination organized
for the purpose of testing an applicant’s knowledge and education.

And he closes:

No cause can gain by injustice or by a twisting of its purposes to
suit particular tastes. And when a result is fairly reached through
the proper operation of methods adopted to further a reform, it should
be accepted—especially by the friends of the movement. They should not
permit those of whom they require submission to say, with any
semblance of truth, that they themselves submit only when the result
accords with their views.

This closes the public declarations of the President of the United States upon the views which he entertains as to the method and plans and system upon which the public service is to be conducted under his administration. There are some interesting details as to the practical effects and results of the effort of the administration to purify the public service, which I would be glad if I had time to refer to, but I believe I will forbear. I can only say that it seems from an inspection of the record as if the cry “put the rascals out” had been changed in effect to “put the rascals in.” Of course Mr. President, no party is exempt from accidents, no organization has a monopoly either of good men or of bad men, and in calling attention to the results of civil-service reform as applied to this administration, I should be insincere if I were to assume that such results had followed from any predetermined purpose to put bad men into office.

We heard a great deal during the campaign about the corruptions, profligacy, misdeeds, and maladministration of Republican officials. I can only say that in view of what has occurred under this administration, if I were inclined to be uncharitable I could with entire propriety say that while the Republican party was in power it endeavored whenever it detected crime anywhere to punish it; but one of the practical results of Democratic administration has been the reverse, and that is to place in office a very large number of admitted and convicted felons. I have before me a selection from which I will, I believe, in support of this view of the case, give a law extract, stating in advance that these compilations are made from Democratic newspapers which, of course, is a mitigation of the slander, though it does not necessarily destroy its credibility.

Mr. ——, of Baltimore, who was made an Indian inspector in 1885, had been involved in notorious election frauds and was condemned by the civil-service reform Independents of Maryland as a companion of Higgins, as a ballot-box stuffer, and a professional gambler.

The postmaster at Sioux City, Iowa, was convicted and sentenced in Dakota for violation of the pension laws. The man who was removed to make a place for this eminent civil-service reformer had eight months yet to serve, and there was no complaint against him even to the extent that he was an offensive partisan.

Mr. Holmes, a postmaster in Mississippi, had been involved in notorious election-fraud scandals.

Mr. Shannon, appointed postmaster at Meriden, Miss., was the editor of the _Mercury_ newspaper, which after President Grant’s death contained a rabid editorial attacking the General’s character; and he had been indicted in the United States court for “unlawfully and criminally conspiring with many others for the evasion of the civil rights law.”

In Rhode Island a Democratic postmaster was appointed who had been in the preceding three months arrested nine times for violation of the liquor law.

In Pennsylvania a man was appointed in the Philadelphia Mint who openly confessed to writing a forged letter from Neal Dow to be used in influencing the German vote in the State of Ohio the preceding year.

There have been some strange things done in Maine. I almost hesitate to quote this, but if I am wrong the Senators from that State will undoubtedly correct me. It is alleged that the postmaster in the town of Lincolnville was at the time of his appointment actually in the Portland jail, where he was serving a term for a misdemeanor.

An agent by the name of Judd, who was appointed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was, upon inquiry as to the fact whether he had been a horse-thief and served in the penitentiary, suspended from office. The writer states that the only ground for supposing that he was not a horse thief arose from the fact that they do not put men in the penitentiary for stealing horses out West: that if he was alive it was a reasonable, natural conclusion that he had not stolen any horses. Nobody denied the penitentiary.

A gentleman named Richard Board, of Kentucky, was appointed in July, on the recommendation of Comptroller Durham, clerk in the railway mail service and assigned to duty in New Mexico. This is under the Postmaster-General, who found leisure between removing postmasters every fifteen minutes to appoint this man in another branch of the service where he incautiously mentioned to his friends something about his previous history, and it appeared that he had been three times arrested in Cincinnati for obtaining money under false pretenses, that he had been twice arrested for stealing in Kentucky, and once in Texas—a variegated and diversified career. “No pent up Utica” contracted his powers. He had stolen in three states. His father was a very wealthy man in high standing who had spent a great deal of money to protect his son, and through him he secured the endorsement of Comptroller Durham, and after he had been in service for a few weeks he committed a number of robberies, stole $163 from the money order service, and at the date of this communication was lying in jail at Santa Fé awaiting trial.

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. VOORHEES] yesterday took occasion to advert with somewhat of animated hilarity to the suggestion of the Senator from Iowa about the evolutionary condition of the Democratic party, and dwelt with considerable unction upon a term that the Senator from Iowa had applied to the Democracy in his very able and interesting speech: “a protoplasmic” cell, and the Senator then proceeded to give us the definition of the term as it appears in the dictionaries, and suggested that if those facts had been known at the time when the canvass was pending Mr. Cleveland would undoubtedly have been counted out in New York.

The Senator from Iowa might have gone further in his application of the doctrine of evolution with much propriety. Geology teaches us that in the process of being upward from the protoplasmic cell, through one form of existence to another there are intermediary and connecting stages, in which the creature bears some resemblance to the state from which it has emerged and some to the state to which it is proceeding. History is stratified politics; every stratum is fossiliferous; and I am inclined to think that the political geologist of the future in his antiquarian researches between the triassic series of 1880 and the cretaceous series of 1888 as he inspects the jurassic Democratic strata of 1884 will find some curious illustrations of the doctrine of political evolution.

In the transition from the fish to the bird there is an anomalous animal, long since extinct, named by the geologists the pterodactyl, or the winged reptile, a lizard with feathers upon its paws and plumes upon its tail. A political system which illustrates in its practical operations the appointment by the same administration of Eugene Higgins and Dorman B. Eaton can properly be regarded as in the transition epoch and characterized as the pterodactyl of politics. It is, like that animal, equally adapted to waddling and dabbling in the slime and mud of partisan politics and soaring aloft with discordant cries into the glittering and opalescent empyrean of civil-service reform.

The President closes his recent message to the Senate in this language:

The pledges I have made were made to the people, and to them I am
responsible for the manner in which they have been redeemed. I am not
responsible to the Senate and I am unwilling to submit my actions and
official conduct to them for judgment.

There are no grounds for an allegation that the fear of being found
false to my professions influences me in declining to submit to the
demands of the Senate. I have not constantly refused to suspend
officials, and thus incurred the displeasure of political friends, and
yet willfully broken faith with the people for the sake of being false
to them.

Neither the discontent of party friends nor the allurements constantly
offered of confirmation of appointees conditioned upon the avowal that
suspensions have been made on party grounds alone, nor the threat
proposed in the resolution now before the Senate that no confirmations
will be made unless the demands of that body be complied with, are
sufficient to discourage or deter me from following in the way which I
am convinced leads to better government for the people.

He is not responsible to the Senate, nor is the Senate responsible to him; both are alike responsible to the people. But in the cases at bar we are compelled to inquire, in justice to the people, whether those pledges have been redeemed, or whether they have been broken, violated, and disregarded. Had the patronage of the Government, within proper limits, been turned over for its exercise to the party intrusted with power by a majority of the people there could have been no complaint, but upon the assurances that I have read, the declaration was made that in every case where an incumbent was competent and qualified he should remain in office till the expiration of his term.

When, therefore, some were suspended and others were left, what is the irresistible inference, after the declarations of the President, except that these persons were suspended for cause either affecting their personal integrity or their official administration? Upon the ground, then, of personal justice, if no other, we are entitled to know whether wrong has been done by the accusations that have been filed in the Departments, so that we may protect those who are unable to defend themselves from injustice and defamation.

But there is another reason, and to me a still more convincing reason, why we should be advised in the case of these suspensions what are the papers, the official documents, and the reports on the files of the departments affecting the administration of these offices, and that is this: under the tenure-of-office act, every official suspended is reinstated by the provisions of section 1768 of the Revised Statutes, if the Senate adjourns without confirming the designated person, and continues to exercise and discharge the duties of that office, until he is again suspended by the President. Therefore, in acting upon these cases we have a double duty to perform; in the first place, to decide whether the person suspended was properly suspended, and in the next place, whether he is a competent person to be restored to office under and by virtue of the operation of the statute under which he was suspended. If he is not a competent person then he ought not to be restored, and we cannot determine whether he is competent and qualified and fit to discharge the duties of that office until we have the official declarations and statements upon which the action of the President was based.

Since this debate began, there are indications that the President has become convinced that his position is untenable, and that he has concluded to yield to the reasonable requests of the Senate and relieve suspended officials from the otherwise inevitable imputations upon their conduct and character. I find the following correspondence in one of the metropolitan journals, which if authentic relieves the relation between the President and the Senate of the principal restraint:

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, UNITED STATES SENATE, _March 17, 1886_.

DEAR SIR: Will you please advise the Committee on Finance whether or
not there are any papers or charges on file reflecting against the
official or moral character of ——, late collector of internal revenue
for the first district of ——, suspended?

If there are any such papers or charges will you please communicate
their nature and character to the committee?

Very truly, yours,
JUSTIN S. MORRILL.

Hon. DANIEL MANNING,
_Secretary of the Treasury_.

* * * * *

MARCH 19, 1886.

SIR: Your communication on behalf of the Finance Committee of the
Senate, dated March 17, 1886, asking whether or not there are any
papers or charges on file reflecting against the official or moral
character of ——, late collector of internal revenue for the first
district of ——, suspended, is received.

In reply thereto I have the honor to state that, so far as this
inquiry relates to a suspension from office, I feel bound by the rules
laid down in the President’s recent message to the Senate upon the
general subject of such suspensions.

But in order that I may surely act within the requirements of the
statute relating to the furnishing by this Department of information
to the Senate, I beg leave to remind the committee that the office
referred to has no fixed term attached to it, and to further state
that the President is satisfied that a change in the incumbency of
said office will result in an improvement of the public service, and
that the policy of the present administration will be better carried
out by such change.

Except as the same may be involved in these considerations, no papers
containing charges reflecting upon the official or moral character of
the suspended officer mentioned in your communication are in the
custody of this Department.

Respectfully, yours,
D. MANNING, _Secretary_.

HON. JUSTIN S. MORRILL,
_Chairm’n of the Senate Com. on Finance_.

But whether this be true or not, this is not the forum in which this controversy is to be ultimately decided. The Executive is not on trial before the Senate; the Senate is not on trial before the Executive; but both, as to the sincerity of their professions and the consistency of their actions, are on trial before that greater, wiser, and more powerful tribunal—the enlightened conscience of the people, from whose verdict there is neither exculpation nor appeal.

THE GREAT TARIFF CAMPAIGN OF 1888.

The views which point to the tendency of the Democratic party in the direction of Free Trade, at least to their antagonism to the theory of Protection for protection’s sake, are well given in the special message of President Cleveland, given elsewhere in this work. A wing of the Democratic party, headed by Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, dissented from this view, and opposed both the Morrison and the Mills bills. For the purpose of illustrating the views of this class of Democrats, as well as because of the distinction of the speaker, we append

The Tariff Speech of Samuel J. Randall.

_Delivered in the House of Representatives, May 18, 1888._

He opened by referring to the President’s recent message, in which the Executive advised Congress that the surplus in the Treasury by the 30th of June, at the end of the current fiscal year, would be expected to reach the sum of $140,000,000, including prior accumulations; or more closely stated, the sum of $113,000,000, apart from prior accumulations, over and above all authorized expenditures, including the sinking fund for the current year.

He then quoted from the President’s message defining his position on the tariff and internal revenue questions, and said that, from the utterances of the President, he understands the Executive to be adverse to any reduction of the internal taxes, as that mode of taxation afforded, in the opinion of the President, “no just complaint, and that nothing is so well able to bear the burden without hardship to any portion of the people.”

The President further said that the tariff law was a vicious and illegal source of inequitable tax, and ought to be revised and modified, and the President had urged upon Congress the immediate consideration of this matter to the exclusion of all others. The President had asserted in substance that the reduction necessary should be made by additions to the free list, and by the lowering of the rates of duty.

In the presence of such language, emanating from the Executive, authorized by the direction of the Constitution to communicate and from time to time give to Congress information on the state of the Union, and recommend such measures as he should judge necessary, it was imperatively required of the representatives of the people to give fair, intelligent, and prompt attention to the suggestions made. He had done so.

He had introduced and had referred to the Committee on Ways and Means a bill to reduce and equalize duties on imports and to reduce the internal revenue taxes, and some provisions of that bill showed that the remedies he would apply were at variance with those recommended by the President. The President sought to prevent the continuation of the surplus revenue by resorting to changes in the customs duties only.

The remedy he (Randall) proposed was through the repeal of internal revenue taxes as well as by a full revision of the tariff, as promised to the people by the Democratic Convention of 1884. The reduction provided for in his bill aggregated $77,000,000 on internal taxes.

Those taxes had always been the last to be levied, and the first to be repealed when no longer necessary.

Jefferson had given the death-blow to excise taxes, that most vicious of all taxes, and among the things he received the thanks of the Legislature of his native State for doing, was for having the internal taxes abolished. The first tax also to be repealed after the War of 1812 had been the excise tax, which was recommended by Madison, and was the first law enacted under the administration of Monroe. The Democratic Convention of 1884 declared that internal revenue was a war tax, and this declaration, taken in connection with the other declarations of the platform, clearly established the fact that the opinion of the Convention was that some of the internal revenue taxes should first go, and that they should all go whenever a sufficient sum was realized from custom-house taxes to meet the expenses of the Government economically administered.

The country was practically in such a condition now, and the true response to those declarations warranted the repeal of the internal revenue taxes to the extent proposed by his bill. He favored now, as he had always done, a total repeal of the internal revenue taxes.

In the bill which he introduced he proposed to sweep all these taxes from the statute books, except a tax of fifty cents on whiskey, and he would transfer the collection of that tax to the customs officials if that was found to be practicable.

With Albert Gallatin, he regarded excise taxes as offensive to the genius of the people, tolerated only as a measure of emergency, and as soon as the occasion for them had passed away they should cease to exist.

Gallatin and Jefferson had secured the repeal of the internal taxes, and relieved the people from their annoyances and the hordes of officials clothed with dangerous power. If this internal revenue system was abolished to-day we would have no surplus revenue to scare the country, while the administration of public affairs would be rendered purer and better. His bill proposed a revision of the tariff on the principle believed to be in harmony with the authorized declarations of the Democratic party in their last convention.

Those declarations clearly recognized the fact that a difference existed in the cost of production of commodities in this and other countries on account of a higher rate of wages in the United States, and declared for a duty ample to cover that difference. There was a cardinal principle which must cover every intelligent revision of the tariff. Labor in this country received a much larger share of what was annually produced than in any other country, and this advantage to labor could only be maintained by giving to the industries protection equal to that difference.

He quoted from Edward Atkinson that since the end of the Civil War, and yet more since the so-called panic of 1873, there had been greater progress in the common welfare among the people of the United States than ever before. The statements of Mr. Atkinson would seem to settle the question as to whether we should adhere to the benevolent policy of protecting home manufactures. It demonstrated unmistakably the truth that, to increase wages, products must be increased, for in the end wages were but the laborer’s share of products.

While a dollar might buy more in another country than here, a day’s labor here would obtain more of the comforts of life than anywhere else. Under free trade this advantage to labor disappeared. It was impossible it should be otherwise. If the tariff itself did not give higher wages to the laborer, it did preserve from foreign competition the industries from which the laborer received his wages. He wished to refer to a few fundamental propositions which had been maintained throughout this debate, and which appeared to exercise and control influence over the opinion of men.

_First._ That the duties were always added to the price to the consumer.

On articles not produced in this country, this doubtless was true as a general rule, and measurably true on articles in part produced in this country, but not in sufficient quantities to supply the home market. But on all commodities produced in sufficient quantities to supply the home market, a different principle controlled. In these things competition determined the price, and the foreign producer came into this market, where the prices were fixed, and the duties were what he paid for the privilege of coming into the market. Another erroneous proposition was that duties on articles produced in this country were a tax or bounty which the consumer paid to the manufacturer, by means of which the manufacturer derived large profits. If this were true, it was not easy to see what justification there was for the committee bill any more than for the present tariff law. But that it was erroneous seemed apparent on a closer examination of the laws of trade. Adam Smith long ago had laid down the proposition that larger profits in one industry than in another could not long prevail in the same country. The United States formed a world of its own. Would it be possible that one class of consumers would pay a perpetual tax to another?

Suppose last year we had manufactured $1,000,000,000 worth of products less than we actually did, and had gone abroad to supply our deficiency, expecting to pay for the goods with our agricultural products—we had sold Europe last year all of the wheat and corn the continent could take—who could tell what prices Europe would have paid if we had thrown upon her markets $1,000,000,000 worth of agricultural products in excess of the quantity we had sold. The farmer and manufacturer in this country must depend almost exclusively upon our home market.

Any other policy would mean ruin and bankruptcy to the country. The greater the producing power of the people the more independent and wealthy would the country be.

Mr. Randall next entered into an explanation of the principles upon which his bill had been constructed. He said that in fixing the duties the rates had been adjusted as nearly as possible to cover the difference in the margin of cost of production here and abroad. In working out the details of the bill it had been his purpose to lower duties wherever possible.

Between the extreme free trader on one hand and a prohibitory tariff on the other there were intermediate positions. One of them was to fix a revenue line on imports just high enough to realize a sufficient revenue for the needs of the Government. Another was to make the tariff sufficiently high to cover the difference of cost of production in this country and other countries. To lower the rate of duty when that line was passed must be to increase the revenue. To raise the rate of duty when the line of maximum revenue was reached would result in a decrease of duty.

Any computation that did not take these facts into account would be utterly worthless. It might safely be assumed that when the importation of any line of merchandise steadily increased from year to year, and there was no good reason why those goods could not be produced in this country, and the result of the increased importations had been to suppress our manufactures, it was proof positive that the duty should be increased.

Otherwise it might be assumed that the duties were quite high enough. And when the duties were high enough to permit the existence of trusts to raise the prices of the commodity, the duty should be reduced as closely as possible to the line. He stated distinctly that if it could be made to appear in any case that the measure he proposed conferred more protection than was needed to cover the cost of production, he was ready to lower it. If in any instance the rate was too low to cover that cost, he was ready to raise it.

Monopolies existed without the tariff. The standard oil trust, the whiskey trust, and the cotton-seed oil trust, and others that he could mention—the greatest trusts in the whole country—were not protected by the tariff. He was for the protection of labor, not in one State merely, but in all States.

He was for the protection and maintenance of that system that allows to labor a larger proportionate share of its products than was realized in any other country or under any other system.

The late Secretary Manning had signalized his accession to the control of the Treasury Department by a more thorough examination of the economic questions of the day than had been made by any of his predecessors. His reports and public utterances were marvels of honest, conscientious, and effective labor.

He had strongly urged the necessity for the substitution of specific for ad valorem duties. The Custom House officers charged with the collection of the revenues had given valuable and emphatic testimony in favor of the change. The present Secretary of the Treasury had taken the same grounds. (At this point Mr. Randall quoted extensively from Secretary Fairchild’s utterances on the subject. He then proceeded with his description of the objects of his own bill.) Certain provisions of the metal schedules, he said, had been very sharply assailed, and he devoted some time to answering the speakers who had attacked his measure.

He took up the schedules relating to steel rails, and quoted figures at length to sustain his action in fixing the duties at the rates he proposed in his bill. The duty on cotton ties, he said, was one of the inconsistencies of the present tariff. It was only fair that they should pay a duty as hoop iron and as an article of manufacture. The present law was a positive discrimination against the home manufacturer and in favor of the foreign producer. The rate of wages in England in cotton tie manufactories was hardly one-half of the wages paid in such manufactories in Pittsburg.

He then proceeded to a criticism of the committee bill as follows:

A declared purpose of this bill is to secure “free raw materials to stimulate manufactories.”

In execution of this idea, the bill places on the free list a large number of articles which are really manufactured articles, such as salt, sawed and dressed lumber, glue, various oils and chemicals, china, clay, etc. These constitute the products of large and useful industries throughout the United States in which many millions of capital are invested, and employing many thousands of working people. At the same time the bill leaves or puts upon the dutiable list, lead, iron, zinc and nickel ores, and coal, which might be called raw materials. Further than this, the bill not only makes so-called “raw materials” free, but places on the free list the manufactured products of these materials. Thus the manufacture of such articles is made impossible in this country, except by reducing American labor to a worse condition than that of labor in Europe. It goes even further, and places or leaves dutiable certain so-called raw materials, such as iron ore, lead, coal, paper, paints, etc., while placing on the free list articles made from these materials, such as hoop iron and cotton ties, tin plates, machinery, books and pamphlets, etc.

In other words, the bill leaves or makes dutiable the raw material and puts on the free list the articles manufactured from it; thus not only placing an insurmountable barrier in the way of making such articles here, but actually protecting the foreign manufacturer and laborer against our own, and imposing for their benefit a burden upon the consumer in this country. Again, the bill places lower rates on some manufactured articles than on the raw materials used in making them. For instance, type metal, 15 per cent.; pig lead, 44 per cent.; carpets, 30 per cent.; yarns used in their manufacture, 40 per cent.

It leaves an internal revenue tax of more than 100 per cent. on alcohol used in the arts, amounting to as much as the entire amount of duty collected on raw wool. This article enters as a material into a vast number of important and needful articles which the committee have either made free or have so reduced the rates thereon that the duty would be less than the tax on the alcohol consumed in their manufacture.

In some cases, the difference between the duty imposed by the bill on the so called raw materials and the articles made from them is so small as to destroy these industries, except upon the condition of levelling the wages of home labor to that of Europe. This was so in the case of pig lead and red lead, which is made from it, and of pig iron and steel blooms and steel rails.

Such legislation would leave the ore in the mines, or the pig lead in the smelting works, or the pig iron to rust at the furnaces, while foreigners would supply our markets with these manufactured products. In a large number of articles throughout the schedules the reductions proposed by the bill are so large that the effect must be to destroy or restrict home production and increase enormously foreign importations, thus largely increasing customs revenue instead of reducing it, as claimed by the advocates of the bill. Particular mention in this connection is made of earthen and chinaware, glass, leaf tobacco, manufactures of cotton, flax, hemp, and jute, carpets, brushes, leather, gloves, manufactures of India rubber, and pipes.

Mr. Randall asserted that instead of the bill reducing customs revenues $64,000,000, as was claimed, it would be fair to estimate that its effect would be to largely increase the revenue, instead of reducing it, while the amount of material wealth it would destroy is incalculable.

Those supporting the bill, he said, hold themselves out as the champions of the farmer, while they take from him the protection duties on his wool, hemp, flax, meats, vegetables, etc. And what do they give him in return. They profess to give the manufacturer better rates than he now has. If this be so, how is the farmer to be benefited, or where does he get compensation for the loss of his protective duties?

Much has been said about removing taxes on necessaries and imposing them upon luxuries. What does this bill propose? It gives olive oil to the epicure and taxes castor oil 95 per cent.; it gives free tin plates to the Standard Oil Company and to the great meat-canning monopolies, and imposes a duty of 100 per cent. on rice; it gives the sugar trust free bone-black and proposes prohibitory duties on grocery grades of sugar; it imposes a duty of 40 per cent. on the “poor man’s” blanket and only 30 per cent. on the Axminster carpet of the rich; it admits free of duty the fine animals imported by the gentlemen of the turf, makes free the paintings and statuary of the railway millionaire and coal baron.

Mr. Randall said he yielded to no man on his side of the House in his desire for continued Democratic control in the administration of the Federal Government. He did not believe the adoption of the committee’s bill would make such result certain, and added:

“I cannot be coerced into any particular action upon economic
questions by the direction of party caucus. The period of the
political caucus has departed never to return, and yet we should
confer and have unity, if it is possible.

“In these matters I speak only for myself. My convictions on the
tariff are strong, and founded, as I think, upon principle, and upon
information and intelligent comprehension of the subject. When any one
here enters upon the task of invoking caucus power or other modes of
coercion, I can only say to him, if he acts with good purpose, that it
will prove a fruitless undertaking; or if with ill motive, then I
consign him to all the natural contempt which such self-constituted
superciliousness deserves.”

In conclusion, Mr. Randall quoted from the earliest statesmen in support of his views upon the tariff, and said:

“If Jackson could say he was confirmed in his opinions by the opinions
of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, how much more am I confirmed in my
opinions by his great authority added to that of the founders and
builders of the Democratic party? I warn the party that it is not safe
to abandon principles so fundamental to our institutions and so
necessary to the maintenance of our industrial system; principles
which attest the wisdom of those who established them by the fruits
they have borne, the full fruition of which, however, can only be
realized in the extension of diversified industries to all parts of
the country, not in the North and East alone, but in the South and
West as well. A new era of industrial enterprise has already dawned
upon the South; no section of the country possesses greater natural
advantages than the South, with her genial climate, her limitless raw
materials, her mines of coal and iron, with abundant labor ready to
develop them. Considering what has been there achieved in a single
decade, what may not a century bring forth from her under a system
calculated to favor the highest industrial development? When I read
the history of my country and consider the past and present, and
reflect on what is before us, I cannot believe that the idea that went
down in the convulsions of 1861 will ever again dominate the destinies
of the Republic.”

Tariff Speech of Major Wm. McKinley, Jr.,

_Member of Congress from Ohio_.

In the great tariff campaign of 1888 the two most distinguished Republican speakers were Mr. Blaine and Major McKinley. The latter was invited by the Chautauqua Society of Georgia to explain the doctrine of Protection, and did so in the following comprehensive speech:

FELLOW-CITIZENS: I make my acknowledgments to the Piedmont Society for the courtesy and cordiality of its invitation, which has given me the opportunity to meet, for the first time, an assemblage of the citizens of Georgia.

I have come, upon the suggestion of the committee, to address you upon a public question of great national import, which concerns not only the prosperity of one section, but of all sections of our common country, and which is of commanding interest to our sixty millions of people. It is no new subject which I propose to consider. It is as old as government by men. Taxation, with few exceptions, has been the chief and absorbing issue for more than a century of the republic.

A revenue tariff is such a one as will produce the largest revenue from the lowest duty. The lowest rate of duty will encourage importations, diminish home production, and inevitably increase the revenue. It will, of necessity, check competition at home, and send our merchants abroad to buy; it affords no protection, not even incidental, for the very instant that you discover that such duty favors the home producer, that instant you discover that importations and revenue are checked, and that our own producers are able to control the home market or a part of it. Then at once the advocate of a revenue tariff reduces the duty, brings it down to the true revenue standard, for it must not be overlooked, according to the free trade maxim, “where protection begins, revenue ends,” and the question of revenue is always controlling. A revenue tariff is inconsistent with protection; it is intended for a wholly different purpose. It loses its force and character as a genuine revenue tariff when it becomes to any extent protective. It has but one object. It can have but one effect—that of opening up our markets to the foreign producer—impoverishing the home producer and enriching his foreign rival.

England is more nearly a free trade country than any other, and her system of taxation furnishes an unmistakable example of the practice and principle of a revenue tariff. Her import duties are imposed almost exclusively upon articles which cannot be produced by her own people upon her own soil. Tobacco, snuff, cigars, chicory, cocoa, currants, figs, raisins, rum, brandy, wine, tea, and coffee—these are the articles from which her customs revenue is derived—articles, in the main, not produced in England, but which must be supplied from abroad; while, practically, all competing products of foreign make and production are admitted through her custom-house free of duty.

A brief statement of the dutiable imports of Great Britain will not be without interest.

It will be observed that her duties are more largely imposed upon the peculiar American products than upon any others. The duty upon tobacco is, according to moisture, from 84 to 92 cents per pound for the raw or unmanufactured article; and, if manufactured, it pays a duty of from $1.04 to $1.16 per pound. The manufactured article is made dutiable at 20 cents a pound greater than the raw product, which, with all of England’s boasted free trade, is intended as a protection to those engaged in the manipulation of tobacco. It is almost prohibitive to Americans who would export manufactured tobacco. The ad valorem equivalent of the duty on tobacco is nearly 2000 per cent. Cigars pay a duty of $1.32 per pound, and from tobacco and snuff over $43,000,000 of duties are collected annually. The duty on tea is 12 cents a pound. How would the Americans enjoy paying such a duty upon this article of everyday use? The duty collected from this source is over $18,000,000 annually. Coffee pays a duty of 3 cents a pound; but, if ground, prepared, or in any way manufactured, it must pay a duty of 4 cents a pound—another example of where England protects those engaged in manufacture. Cocoa pays a duty of 2 cents a pound, but if it is in any form subjected to manufacture it pays 4 cents a pound, the duty on the manufactured article being double that on the raw material.

Besides the articles named, there are about ninety or a hundred others, chiefly of American production, patented and other medicines, which are dutiable at $3.36 per gallon. More than $96,000,000, or nearly one-fourth of the British revenues, are raided from customs duties.

You will note the character of taxation to which the revenue reformer invites the people of the United States. Both the breakfast table and the sick room are made to bear a large part of the burden under the British system of taxation. It is not without significance that the nearer we approach this system the more generous the bestowal of British commendation. Every step we take in that direction, every enlargement of the free list of competing foreign products, every reduction of duty upon such products is hailed as a vindication of Cobden and a beneficence to British interests. It is in vain for the British statesman to assure us that their system is best for us. We are not accustomed to look to our commercial rivals for disinterested favors. “It is folly,” said Washington in his farewell address, “for one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay, with a portion of its independence, for whatever it may accept under that character. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, and which a just pride ought to discard.” We are not insensible to the good opinion of mankind and of the English-speaking race, but when it is to be had only at the expense of our industrial independence, at the sacrifice of the dignity and independence of labor and the destruction of national prosperity, we must regard it with supreme suspicion, and turn from it as the eulogy of selfish interest and the commendation of interested greed.

The other theory of taxation, and the one which I believe to be essential to American development and national prosperity, is based upon an exactly opposite principle. It permits all articles of foreign production, whether of the field, the factory, or the mine, except luxuries only, which we cannot produce in the United States, to enter our ports free and unburdened by custom-house exactions. The duty is to be imposed upon the foreign competing product; that is, the product which, if brought into this country, would contend with the products of our own soil, our own labor, and our own factories, in our own markets. Under this system, if the foreign producer would enter our market with a competing product, he must contribute something for the privilege which he is to enjoy, and this something, in the form of duties, goes into the Treasury, furnishing revenue to the Government; and these duties operate to protect the joint product of labor and capital against a like foreign product.