mm K.Oi '^^'-^^^^^-^Kff^''Jp.^, ^^ zs-/rf7 w ^P ^^^^ ^^ '^m^^- 1^^ S^^^ ^<^Ms ^<^iL>.^^^^S<^> i^M m ^^^ ^^8 "w^^p ^^^v^Sl^ » s» Protection and Prosperity '//;,.,„„j.'^. '^l"/. Protection and Prosperity AN ACCOUNT OF TARIFF LEGISLATION AND ITS EFFECT IN EUROPE AND AMERICA GEORGE B. CURTISS, Esq. COUNSELOP- "A nation, whether it consume its own productions, or wilh them purchase from abroad, can have no more to spend than it produces. Therefore, the supreme policy of every nation is to develop its own producing forces."— Si> John Barnard Bytes. PAN-AMEp^:-:PUBLIS,HI>:G GOMPANY 1 1 ll\^ftiAvenu_e,^'|fe^ w^ .0^ COPYRIGHT, 1896, BY GEORGE B. CURTISS, ESQ. ENTERED AT STATIONERS' HALL, LONDON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PREFACE. In his boyhood days the author became fascinated with the study of the civil and political history of nations. Inspired by the few books which were obtainable during early years, spent on a farm in the State of Illinois, he continued the study after being admitted to the bar, and during the spare hours and evenings of an active practice in the civil and criminal courts of the State of New York. During the campaign of 1880, when the question assumed prominence as the chief issue between the Republican and Democratic parties, a systematic investi- gation of the question was begun. The reading of one book led to the study of others, until, provi4ed with all the leading works upon both sides of the question, the author early discovered that while the political literature of the United States was most complete with speeches, pamphlets and books, and the scientific phases of the subject had been fully discussed by able and critical writers, yet there was still a large field left unexplored. It has been claimed by many that there is nothing new to be said upon the tariff question, yet the following volume presents nearly six hundred pages dealing with the tariff history in foreign countries, which, for the most part, has not hitherto been systematically treated. In his investigation the author found that there was no treatise in the English language giving a history of the tariff legislation of Germany, France, Russia and all Continental countries ; that no protectionist had investigated the history of Great Britain and given to the world an account of the growth and development of her industries and tariff legislation, written from a protective point of view, and that the unwise policy pursued by the United Kingdom in adopting free trade remained practically unchallenged. Since the adoption of the Constitution in 17S9, the tariff policy of the United States has fluctuated between adequate protection and low duties. Although at times the duties were so reduced as to reach nearly a revenue basis, yet at no time had a consistent free trade policy been pursued. With vast resources and oppor- tunities, and economic conditions differing from those of other countries, it was difficult to measure accurately the wisdom or folly of free trade dogmas, upon the information drawn wholly from the experience of this nation. While it could easily be shown that our country has enjoyed great prosperity and made rapid advancement under the stimulating influences of protective tariffs, and that periods of low import duties have in each instance arrested progress and plunged the country into bankruptcy and business depressions ; yet it was found that in the face of this experience the alleged beneficial results of free trade in England were constantly pointed to by its advocates, as proof of its wisdom. The author also discovered that the onlj- test of free trade principles for any considerable length of time, by a highly civilized and great producing nation, was to be found in Great Britain, and while Germany, France, Russia and other Continental countries had, for short periods, reduced duties on imports and approached a revenue basis, yet they soon returned to the protective system, (vii) 250856 The necessity, then, became urgent for a critical investigation of the effect of free trade in Great Britain, and of the results achieved under the protective policy which had previously been pursued as well as of the economic conditions and causes which induced the abandonment of protection and the adoption of the policy of free imports, in order that sound conclusions might be reached. The origin and circumstances under which economic principles were formulated and announced, were conceived to be important, in order that their application to present industrial conditions might be understood. As a result of such research and after an investigation of the facts bearing upon the subject, extending over a period of nearly fifteen years, the present volume is given to the public. The writer has endeavored to compile and arrange the most reliable statistics and historical facts relating to the fiscal policies of the leading commercial nations. The be.st thought of the world bearing upon the various phases of the question is reflected in the following pages. An attempt has been made to verify everj' statement by facts and figures of the most reliable character ; yet a work of this kind which treats of a controversial subject, caimot be supported by statements and conclusions which are whoUj' unchallenged. There is no middle or neutral ground between the policies of protection and free trade. An irreconcilable conflict arises from the fundamental bases upon which the two theories rest, which remains and grows sharper and more clearly defined throughout all phases of the question. The most that a writer can accomplish, who conscientiously and earnestly treats a subject is, to present the truth as it appears to him after a careful and full investigation. This the writer has attempted to do. This work is dedicated to the Republican party. If its merits are in keeping with the importance of the subject treated, it will be a fitting tribute to the political organization which has ever defended the toiling masses, and with patriotic zeal labored earnestly to promote the welfare of every citizen and every section of our great Republic, standing at all times and under all circumstances as a bold and aggressive advocate and defender of the industrial and commercial interests of the nation. If .space would permit it would gratify the writer to make special mention of the aid he has derived in the preparation of this work from the mauj^ patriotic defenders of the cause of protection who have so ably treated various phases of the question ; yet the work abounds in quotations which are accredited to their respec- tive authors. It is inciunbent, however, upon the writer to make special mention of the invaluable assistance in the compilation of historical and statistical matter upon the tariff question in the United States, which he has received from Mr. F. B. D. Curtis, formerly editor of the American Economist. Binghamton, N. Y., February 22, i8g6. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE INTRODUCTION, xx OUTLINE OF COMMERCIAL HISTORY TO 1650. Chapter I. — General Division of Trade, Commerce and Indus- tries I Chapter II. — Commerce of the Nations of Antiquity, 8 Chapter III.— Industrial Development of Italian and German Cities in the Middle Ages 17 Chapter IV. — Development of Trade and Industries in West- ern Europe, 25 CONTENTS. PART II. EARLY ENGLAND UNDER FREE TRADE. PAGE Chapter I. — Sociai. and Industrial Conditions Prior to the Fourteenth Century, 35 Chapter II. — Trade and Commerce Monopolized by Foreigners, 42 Chapter HI. — First Attempts at Protection, 46 Chapter IY.— Rise and Fall of Trade Guilds 50 Chapter V.— Disorganization of Labor 55 PART III. MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. Chapter I.— The Protective Policy of Great Britain from 1558 TO iSoo and What it Teaches, 59 Chapter II.— Growth of Industries from 1800 to i860, PART IV. RETURN TO FREE TRADE IN ENGLAND AND ITS EFFECT ON HOME INDUSTRIES. Chapter I.— Origin of the Free Trade Movement 127 Chapter II. — Free Trade Legislation, 153 Chapter III. — England Under Free Trade from 1850 to 1874, . 198 Chapter IV. — Free Trade and English Industries, 224 Chapter V. — Free Trade and English Industries {Co>iti?iued), . 264 Chapter VI. — The Free Trade Policy a Failure, 300 Tables Showing Foreign Trade of Great Britain, 386 PROTECTION TO NATIVE INDUSTRIES IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Chapter I. — Protection in the German Empire 404 Chapter II. — Russia, 454 Chapter III.— France 488 Chapter IV. — Austria-Hungary, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Switz- erland AND Other Countries, 533 PART VI. THE TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. Chapter I. — Early Tariff History to 1833 564 Chapter II. — Low Tariffs, 1833 to i860 587 Chapter III. — Protective Legislation, i860 to 1892, 616 Chapter IV. — Growth of Agriculture, 1850 to 1890, 657 Chapter V. — Textiles, Iron and Steel, and Miscellaneous Industries, 672 Chapter VI. — Triumph of Democracy and Free Trade 721 Chapter VII.— Economic Discussion, 774 Tables, Miscellaneous Statistics, 82S Index 847 LIST OF TABLES. British Colonies, Date and Mode of Acquisition So Computation of Income by Mr. Pitt, 93 Total Exports and Imports Between Great Britain and Other Countries, 1697-1793. 94 Growth of Population in the United Kingdom, 100 Increase in Population IN the Chief Cities OF England, 1821-61 loi Division OF Population According to Occup.^TioNS loi, 102 British Foreign Trade in Cotton and Cotton Goods, 1S20-59, 10& Exports of Domestic Woolen and Worsted Manufactures (United Kingdom), 1820-59 109 Exports of Domestic Linen Manufactures (United Kingdom), 1820-59 i" Exports of Domestic vSiLK Manufactures (United Kingdom), 1820-59, 112 Declared Value of Exports of Domestic Metal Manufactures (United King- dom-, 1820-59, H4 Declared Value of Exports of Miscellaneous Articles of Domestic Manufac- tures (United Kingdom), 1831-59 117 Total Imports and Exports of United Kingdom, 1793-1859 (Exclusive of Bullion and Specie) ng Fluctuations in Prices, 17S2-1884 121 Revenue and National Debt, (England), 1814-43 15" Revenue FROM Duties on Imports (Englandi, 1840, 165 Revenue FROM Duties on Imports (England), 1849, 166 Effect of the Tariff Changes of 1842, i66 Revenue from Customs Duties (England), 1859, 19: Revenue from Duties on Mandf.actures (England), 1859, 192 (xiii) LIST OF TABLES The British Customs Tariff, 1894, 193 Amount OF Revenue OF THE United Kingdom 193 Amount of Expenditures op the United Kingdom, 196 Total Produce op Pig Iron (Great Britain), 1854-57, 21S Miles of Railroad in Operation in 1866 220 Textile Industry (England), 1S56, 221 Value of Textile Fabrics Manufactured in Great Britain in 1856, 222 Annual Consumption of Raw Cotton, 1S41-89, 245 Statistical Analysis of Cotton Trade, 1S70-S9, 245 Grain Crop in 18S2 and 1892, 281 Decrease in percentage of population Employed in Agriculture (Great Britain), 1851-S1 282 Summary of Imports for Home Consumption Into United Kingdom, Together WITH Total Imports and Re-exports of Foreign and Colonial Produce, 1S36-90 304 Summary of Exports of Domestic Productions from United Kingdom, To- gether with Re-exports of Foreign and Colonial Produce and Total Exports, 1S60-92, 308 Comparative Growth of Foreign Trade of Thirteen Trading Nations, 1S54-74, 1874-90 and 1S54-92, 312 Foreign Trade op United States and Great Britain, 1874-92, 314 Emigration from Great Britain to the United States, 1878-88 316 Balance OP Trade OP United Kingdom, 1S64-93, 3^7 Weekly Earnings of Skilled Laborers in Great Britain in 1S33, 1853 and 1S92, 348 Average Wages Paid IN British Ship Yards, 1851-94, 350 Wages of Cotton Weavers in England 35i Wages of Cotton Spinners, 352 Wages Earned by Women in the Cotton Industry, 353 Wages of Woolen Weavers 353 Wages of Woolen Spinners, 355 Wages Earned by Women in the Woolen Industry, 356 LIST OF TABLES. xr Wages Earned by Women in Miscellaneous Textile Industries, 1891-92, . . 35S Statistics of Pauperism in Great Britain and on the Continent, 1S91-94, . . . 3S0 Imports OF Agricultural Products Retained for Home Consumption (United Kingdom), 1836-90, 386 Imports of Fully Manufactured Articles Retained for Home Consumption (United Kingdom), 1836-90, ■ 388 Imports of Partially Manufactured Articles Retained for Home Consump- tion (United Kingdom), 1836-90, 39° Imports of Raw Materials Retained for Home Consumption (United King- dom), 1S36-90 392 Imports of Food Products Retained for Home Consumption (United King- dom), 1836-90, ' 394. Dutiable Articles Retained for Home Consumption (United Kingdom), 1836-90, 394 Exports OF Domestic Productions of Textile Fabrics (United Kingdom), 1860-92, 396 Exports of Domestic Productions of Manufacturers of Metals, Glass, Earthen and China Ware (United Kingdom), 1860-92, 398 Exports of Domestic Productions of Miscellaneous Manufactures (United Kingdom), 1S60-92 400 Exports of Domestic Productions of Partly Manufactured Articles, Machinery and Coal (United Kingdom), 1860-92, 402 Exports of Miscellaneous Domestic Products (United Kingdom), 1860-92, . . 402 Imports of Wheat and Rye Into Germany in 1891, 429 Exports of Food Products (Germany to Great Britain), 1894, ... • . . . . 430 Imports of Sugar (Germany), 1880-90, 432 Exports of Sugar (Germany), 1876-90 433 Wages Paid in the District of Potsdam-Frankfort-on-Oder, 18S2-S9 446 Imports and Exports (German Customs Territory), 1891, 44S Imports of Raw Material and Exports of Textile Fabrics (Germany), 1893, . 450 Foreign Trade of Russia, 1S24-49 456 Growth of Russian Manufactures Under the Tariffs of 1850-57 and '68, ... 45S Growth of Industries in Russia, 1875-90 460 xvi LIST OF TABLES. Russian Industries in 1890 461 Growth of Cotton Industry in Russia, 1880-89 462 Production and Consumption OF Hemp Fibre (Europe), 1884-S8 464 Growth OF THE Paper Industry (Russia), 1765-1889, 467 Development of the Wood- Working Industry (Russia), 1881-90, 469 Home Production, Consumption and Exportation of Metallic Wares (Russia), 1890 474 Products of Russian Mines in 1890 477 Value of Imports (Russia), 1890-91, 4S0 Value of Exports (Russia), 1890-91, 482 Internal Trade of Russia, 1S90 484 Wages Paid in Russia 485 Foreign Trade (France), 1820-61, 512 Exports AND Imports OF Bullion (France),. 1822-29 512 Statistics of Industrial Development (France), 512-515 Percentage of Land Under Cultivation (France), 1889 525 Production of Cereals (France). 1S78-92, 525 Quantities and Values of the Principal Agricultural Products Other Than Cereals (France), 1893 525 Exports from France to the United States, 1893, 527 Exports from Austria-Hungary to the United St.\tes, 1893, 535 Commerce of Italy, 1S90 538 Trade of Italy with the United States and Canada, 539 .Agricultural Production in Italy, 1889 54° Wages of Italian Workmen, 1S62-S9, 542 Foreign Trade of Belgium, 1892 546 Manufactures OF Switzerland, 1893, 547 Trade (United States) with Asiatic Countries, 1894, . 55' TR.'i.DE (United States) with Africa, 1894, 552 Trade (United vStatics) with Oceanica, 1894 552 Trade iUnitko Statesi with Othicr American Countries, 1894 556 Exports and Imports (rNiTKi) States) to and from Great Britain, 17S4-90, . . 56S LIST OF TABLES. Returns of Manufactures (United States), iSio, 573 Imports (United States), 1S15-1S, 577 Production of Iron (United States), 1810-32, 5S6 Tariff on Raw Materials in the United States and Great Britain Com- pared, 1842 and 1846, 602 Imports (United States), 1846-60 608 Cotton Exported from United States, 1847-60, 610 Balance of Trade in United States, 1848-57 613 National Debt IN United States Before and After THB Civil War 618 Increase of Free Imports, 1867-94 619 Production of Steel Rails, 1867-94, 620 Importation of Rails op All Kinds Into United States, 1S67-93, 620 Importation of Wool and Woolens in 1883 and 1889, 625 Comparative Growth of Principal Manufactures in the United States, 1880-93 62S General Progress of United States, 1860-90, 631 Dutiable Imports Into United States for 1889, with Estimate of Labor That Would Have Been Employed in Producing Them in This Country, ... 634 Industrial Progress of The South Under Protection, 1880-90, 636-637 Distribution of United St.\tes Commerce by Leading Countries and Grand Divisions of the Globe in 1892, 649 Summary of McKinley Bill 653 Summary of American Tariff Acts Passed, 17S9, 1S94, with Salient Features AND Consequences, 654 Distribution op Population of United States in Gainful Occupations in 1890, 657 Incre.ase in Manufacture of Farm Labor-Saving Implements and Machinery, 1850-60 659 Progress of Agriculture in United States, 1850-90 660 Progress of Agriculture, 1870-S0 661 Wages in American and English Cotton Mills, Compared, 673 Cotton Manufactures and Consumption in England and United States, 1832-90 674 xviii LIST OF TABLES. Manufacture and Importation of Woolens (United States), 1820-90, 678 Exports from Bradford, England, to United States in 1883 and 1890, 679 Wages in Worsted Industry, Compared in Massachusetts, England, France and Belgium 681 Imports of Shoddy and Duty Per Pound, 1890-95, 684 Comparative Wages Paid For Spinning Flax in Europe and America, 688 Growth of Iron and Steel Industries (United .States), 1860-90 691 Wire Nails Manufactured (United States), 1875-94, 691 Comparative Wages Paid in America and Scotland for Miners, Railway Operatives and Iron JIanufacturers, 692-694 Wages for Pottery and Cost of Manufacture of Earthen Ware in England and America Compared, 696 Wages in Window Glass Industry, United States and Belgium 698 Wages Paid on Plate Glass in America, Belgium and England, 699 Growth of Manufactures in the United States, i86o-go, 704 Decline of Prices, 1S57-91, 708-711 Relative Value of Principal Farm Products and Articles of Consumption in (United States), 1S73 and 1891, 712 Increase OF Wages (United States), 1840-91, 716 Average Weekly Wages, Europe AND United States, 1890 719 Average Weekly Wages Paid in Great Britain in Certain Trades and Occu- pations, 720 Imports and Exports (United States), 1892-94 and 95 745 Imports of Wool and Woolens, 1S94-95 747 Exports of American Products, 1892 and 1S95 74° Agricultural Imports Under McKinley and Wilson Law Compared 748 Decrease of Business, Labor and Wages, 1893-95, 75° Failures and Liabilities, 1894.-95, 75i Increase of National Debt, 1894-96, "52 Imports of Wheat from Various Countries (England), 1892-94 7S8 Imports of Agricultural Products (United Kingdom), 1894 760 Cost of Coal, Coke and Iron (United States) 767-768 LIST OF TABLES. Effect of Tariff on Prices in United States 772 Supply of Precious Metals, 1492-1S05, 777 Value of Exports and Imports of Merchandise (United States), 1791-1S95, . . 828 Exports AND Imports of Gold and Silver Coin and Bullion, 1821-95 (United States), S31 Receipts of the United States from 1789-1895 834 Expenditures of the United States from March 4, 1789, to June 30, 1895, ... S37 Value of Principal Articles of Merchandise Imported (United States), 1890, 92, 94 and 95, ... 840 Value of Principal ."Articles Exported from the United States, 1890, 92, 94> 95> 844 INTRODUCTION BY HON. WILLIAM McKINLEY, HON. LEVI P. MORTON, HON. THOMAS BRACKETT REED. I. The experiences of states and of nations are of far more value in solving the perplexing economic questions which confront us than the boldest assumptions of theorists. An eminent English economist of the latter day school not long since took the courageous stand that no mere theorist had a right to expect intelligent people, who investigated for themselves, to believe implicitly in theoretical political economy when confronted by practical men who had at their finger ends facts, history and statistics which pointed in the opposite direction. That this same professor should frankly avow in the article on Political Economy in the Encyclo- paedia Britannica that the widespread dissatisfaction with the existing state of eco- nomic science made it inexpedient to attempt a new dogmatic treatise on political economy, indicates much difference of opinion and uncertainty in matters that we were once told by British economists were as settled as the laws of gravitation. The fact is political science, like all other branches of human knowledge, is more or less in a transient state, and free and full discussion by sober -and intelligent men is sure to yield valuable results. More particularly is this true when the discussion is illuminated by such an array of data from all sources as may be found in this volume. Those of us who believe the American policy of protection is best adapted to our citizenship and civilization are naturally glad to welcome the experiences of other nations when they sustain, beyond the question of doubt, the judgment of our own people, though our own belief is sustained by the highest American authorities from Washington down and by a hundred years of experi- ence. We know what it has already accomplished for a self-governed people. The world knows of the wonderful progress we have made. The experience of the United States in diversifying industries and developing its home market has contributed more or less to the growing disregard for the maxims of schoolmen and theorists and increased the value of the unimpeachable testimony of trade and experience. The scope of this volume practically covers the history of the world's trade and commerce. The author has undoubtedly devoted years of patient research to gathering and arranging his material and presenting his argument. After a careful examination of the results of this stupendous piece of work the fair- minded American student and reader will close the book with the conclusion that in our own American policy we ha\-e nothing to take back, nothing to apologize (sx) INTRODUCTION. for. Under similar conditions our experience has been precisely the same as the experience of other nations. In some ways it has even been England's own experience. A low tariff or no tariff has always increased the importation of foreign goods until our money ran out; multiplied our foreign obligations; pro- duced a balance of trade against the country ; supplanted the domestic producer and manufacturer; impaired the farmer's home market without improving his market abroad; undermined domestic prosperity; decreased the industries of the nation; diminished the value of nearly all our property and investments; and robbed labor of its just rewards. The lower the tariff the more widespread and aggravated have been these conditions which paralyze our progress and industries. This is the verdict of our history, and, as the author of this valuable work demonstrates, with a clearness that should carry conviction, it has been the verdict of history in the case of other nations, if facts and figures may be relied upon to point out such results. We try nations as they appear on the balance sheet of the world. We try systems by results ; we are too practical a people for theory. We know what we have done and are doing under the economic system we advocate. For this reason alone the labor performed by the author of Protection and Prosperity is justified and the results will be of permanent value. Fortunately it is written in a clear' plain style so that all interested in the important question discussed can compre- hend economic propositions which too often have been presented in such an obscure manner that only tho.se learned in the science could understand them. It is a book that may well be read and studied in the home, for it deals with issues that affect every hotisehold in the land and which each and every voter should know about and comprehend for himself. The value of such an exhaustive work to students comes from the fact that the author shows in the logical order pursued the economic conditions which suggested and brought into existence protective princi- ples, and has given the historical origin of the essential principles. While writing from the protective standpoint there is no indication of any hobby or new scheme of political economy. The apparent endeavor is to show what the experience of business men and the practices of nations have proven to be wise, just and benefi- cent ; that the principles of protection had their origin with the institution of society and governments, and are a necessary part of that policy under which civilization has advanced. There are numerous books on the tariff and kindred questions, but I recall no work that even attempts to cover the field marked out by Mr. Curtiss. In jMa.e sense it is a commercial history,.of_ the world, and no one could read it without forming a clear idea of the drift of the^worM^s trade and commerce since the fourteenth century. From another point of view it is one of the strongest presentations of the views of those who believe that the question of finding employment for the people in diversified industries, of elevating citizenship and improving home life lies at the base of the science of economics. The author, in this instance, does not wait and bring us gradually to the point where we part company with the free trader, but he thus boldly announces it in the first chapter: ) xxii INTRODUCTION. ' ' No promineut and permanent nation has j-et neglected the development of its resources, and the cultivation, to the highest degree possible, of its own natural products, and the fullest emploj'ment of its labor, without suffering a severe penalty. The people of no nation in the historj' of the world has ever prospered under a policy which sacrificed its home industries to build up and develop the resources and give employment to the labor of foreign states. The controversy upon these questions has arisen out of the distinctions stated. Those advocating the doctrine of free trade teach that the prosperity of nations, regardless of their situation or economic conditions, can most surely be promoted through foreign exchanges; while the advocates of the doctrine of protection believe that countries with a great diversity of natural resources can become more prosperous, their people reach the highest social condition, greatest independence and prosperity, by the encouragement and development of native resources; holding also that foreign exchanges should be treated only as a part of an industrial sj-stem, having for its basis the employment of the labor and capital of a country in domestic production and exchanges." With this unhesitating declaration of sound principles the author begins his story by pointing out the general division of trade and commerce. The industrial ■histor>' of natious of antiquity up to the eleventh century, or as much thereof as may be deemed pertinent to the discussion, is unfolded. The narrative then in succession points out the circumstances under which the Italian cities, the league of German cities in central and northern Europe, as well as the Dutch and Flemish, developed their trade, commerce and industries during the Middle Ages. The commercial history of these cities is brought down to the year 1650. The com- mercial history of England is next taken up, from the time of the Roman invasion, and in about three hundred and fifty pages brought down to the present time. It is worthy of note that England pursued a policy of free trade up to nearly the fifteenth century, relying upon the Italians and Dutch for all implements, tools and clothing; that even the wholesale and retail trade of the country was monopolized by aliens; that as long as this condition pre\-ailed no industrial progress is found to have taken place; that the first steps toward a domestic industrial policy is found in a revolt on the part of English merchants in some of the cities against the competition of alien merchants, which resulted in their exclusion from the wholesale and retail trade of the countrj-. This was followed by the granting of charters to Trade Guilds, which became industrial training schools for the building up of an artisan class; and the adoption of legis- lation which secured to them the home market by excluding the import of a large number of tools, implements and various fabrics; that a vigorous policy of pro- tection was entered upon during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, which was continued and applied with great vigor until 1846. The encouragement given to shipping, fisheries, and the establishment of trading companies, induced the building of a merchant marine and the e.stabli.shment of foreign trade; while the protection given to domestic industries stimulated and fostered the commercial and industrial classes and the establishment of manufactories, until Great Britain INTRODUCTION. xxiii became the workshop of the world. While these facts have been pointed out in a general way, the historical details, from a protectionist point of view, have not been so connectedlj- and fully presented in any other work which has come under my notice. The historical facts as herein presented leave little doubt that it was through the policy of protection that Great Britain became the richest and most powerful nation on the globe. It is well to bear in mind that as a rule the advocates of free trade have almost exclusively been the chroniclers of this period of England's industrial history. They have handled these facts so often and so absolutely to their own liking that the author has pointed out with clearness how grievously the truth has been distorted. Mr. Curtiss seems to have his facts well in hand and one of the most satisfactory features of the book is that he gives without stint his authorities. That there will be controversy over the chapter in which he traces the growth of industries and industrial prosperity from the close of the Napoleonic wars until the adoption of free trade, I have no doubt; but, never- theless, he has the data well in hand, which he freely submits to the reader to sustain his end of the question. The facts and figures here produced, in a measure at least, refute the oft-repeated misrepresentation of free trade writers that British industries were languishing under protection, and that this was the principal cause which induced the English to abandon their policy. Supported by .statistical infor- mation, it is shown that the last half century under protection was a period of mar- velous growth and development, in the increase of population, the growth of cities, the progress made in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, trade and commerce. It was undoubtedly the desire for cheapness in production that would enable Great Britain to control the markets of the world that induced the British peo- ple to abandon protection and adopt free trade. It may be found in the fact that through the use of machinery, the accumulation of capital, the efficiency of artisans, a vast colonial system, foreign trade and industries, the English people had become in advance of all other nations, and able through a sy.stem of free trade to invade all foreign countries with their fabrics; suppress and prevent the establishment of rival industries and control and monopolize the markets of the world. This cry of • ' cheapness ' ' rang through England fifty years ago. It was the voice and philosophy of Cobden ; it was the false and alluring appeal urged for the reversal of Great Britain's industrial policy from protection to free trade. It was the hypocritical cant against which the beloved Kingsley thundered his bold denunciations — that dear and revered churchman, whose memory is cherLshed wherever the English tongue is spoken. Here is his characterization of it : "Next you have the Manchester school, from which Heaven defend us! For all narrow, conceited, hypocritical, and anarchic .schemes of the universe the Cobden and Bright one is exactly the worst. To pretend to be the workmen's friends by keeping down the price of bread when all they want thereby is to keep down wages and increase profits, and in the meantime to widen the gulf between the workingman and all that is time-honored and chivalrous in English xxiv INTRODUCTION. society, that they may make the men their divided slaves — that is, perhaps, half unconsciously, for there are excellent men among them, the game of the Man- chester school." The point is well brought out by Mr. Curtiss that it was not the tariff laws on English statute books, but the tariff barriers raised by other countries and restricting British markets, which became the essential cause of England's objection to protection; that the English could not successfully assail protection in other countries until they at first abandoned it themselves; that by repealing their own protective laws which had ceased to be of any benefit to them under the economic conditions then existing, they could proclaim the doctrine of free trade to the world with consistency and with a better chance of breaking down foreign rivals and maintaining their commercial supremacy. The facts undeniably show that this was the great cause which moved the English people to abandon the policy of protection. The history of the free trade movement is carefully traced from its inception to its consummation and forms one of the most interesting and valuable features of this book. It is a common assertion of free traders that immediately following the adop- tion of free tra.k- b.\ luigland in 1846, great industrial progress was made, as shown by increased imports and exports and the expansion of manufactories. •The author takes issue with those holding this view, claiming that the progress was not due to the adoption of free trade, but that it was a continuation of that steady industrial growth and development which was inaugurated through protec- . tion and had continued for more than two centuries, aided by economic conditions such as the discoveries of gold, the beginning of the period of railroad building, and the substitution of steam for sailing vessels, which also gave an impetus to the industrial life of all great conunercial nations. Yet at this time, by reason of the vast accumulation of wealth and the commercial and industrial advantages already acquired through protection, the English people were better fitted to utilize these causes and profit by them than any other nation. However this may be, the great practical success of free trade during the first quarter of a century undoubtedly con- tributed largely to the prestige enjoyed by the Manchester school of political econonn-. The prophecies and a.ssumptions of Cobden and his as.sociates come under review. The assertions which they made as to how their free trade theories would operate when put into actual practice, are shown to have been entirely false; that when France, Germany and Continental countries had built up their vast manufacturing systems under protection and entered the field to contest markets with Great Britain, then for the first time in the history of the world the principles of free trade were put to a practical test. The effect on the labor and industries of the United Kingdom, including agriculture and manufacturing, since thev had become subjected through their system of free imports, to .sharp com- petition from Continental rivals from about 1865 to the present time, is then con- sidered at considerable length. The commercial history of England becomes more important since the adoption of free trade because it is the only example we have in recent centuries of a large commercial nation subjecting itself for any considerable INTRODUCTION. xxv length of time to the unrestricted competition of strong competitors. Great care has evidently been exercised in preparing the data for this part of the work. Here may be found some of the most valuable tables bearing on these points ever compiled. These tables, showing the increase of imports of competing commodities and the decline of their exports of domestic productions, present an array of important facts to be considered. The injurious effect of this system of iree imports upon the labor and capital of the country, is shown by the evidence of British manufacturers and business men given before the Royal Commission on Trade and Industries in 1885 and 1886. In these reports may be studied the destruction of agriculture, the silk and many other industries, the impoverishment of the people, the impairment of their consuming power, the diminution of the home market, the shrinkage in values, reduction of wages, lack of employment, the vast army of idlers and unemployed, the emigration of capital, industries and artisans seeking investment and employment in protected countries, all furnish an array of indisputable facts against which no amount of free trade sophistries and theories can prevail. England is the only countrj- which imposes a tariff exclu- sively for revenue. This has been her policy for half a century. It has therefore been tried, and under the most favorable circumstances. Is the above picture of her condition inviting to Americans ? Is the condition of the great bod>- of her people encouraging, or hopeful, or assuring ? Listen to the words of the late Cardinal Manning, written in December, 1890, and published in the Nineteenth Century, an English magazine. No one will question their sincerity and truth : "There is no doubt that free trade, freedom of contract, buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, are axioms of commercial prudence. . They are hardly worthy of being called a science. Nevertheless, this freedom of trade has immensely multiplied all branches of commerce and developed the energies of all our industrial population. But it has created two things — the ' irresponsible wealth which .stagnates and the starvation wages of the labor market. ' This cheapest market is the market of the lacklands, penniless and helpless. In four of our western counties wages are so low that men come to London by thousands every year, and, being here, crowd the dock-gates and underbid the permanent workingmen, who have already reason not to be content with their hire. We have these two worlds always and openly face to face — the world of wealth and the world of want — the world of wealth saying in his heart ' I sit as queen over all toilers and traders,' and the world of want not knowing what may be on the morrow. Every city and town has its unem- ployed. Millions are in poverty. Agriculture languishes; land is going out of cultivation; trades are going down; mills and furnaces are working half time; strikes run through every industry. Is there a blight upon our mountainous wealth? At this day we have three millions of poor who in the course of the year are relieved in some way by the poor laws." Does this plain statement from this great Christian teacher and philanthropist, who speaks from knowledge, incline Americans to adopt a policy which has made these things possible and true ? Do the conditions he describes offer anything to xx\T INTRODUCTIOK. the agriculturist of this country better than he has alread)-, or so good; or to the laborer a hope or an aspiration which does not make the heart sick; or to our countrymen generally, whatever may be their occupation, a wish to transplant the want and misery here? Turning from England and its free trade experiment, the author devotes 150 pages to an interesting examination of recent tariff legislation and the growth of industries in Continental countries. From material drawn from many sources, mostly ofEcial, he has constructed a brief history of the tariff legislation and industrial development of France, Germany, Russia, Austria, Italy, and other countries. It is impossible to refer to these chapters in detail in the space allotted for this introduction, but each has its own value. The chapter on Germany is of special interest. The speeches and economic polic)' of Bismarck furnish a splendid endorsement of the policy of protection. In fact, the results of protection in Germany, Russia, France and all Continental countries are shown to be very satisfactory. An important point brought out and apparently sustained in every instance by the experience of Continental countries and of the United States, is that where an industrial nation has for a short period reduced its duties and practised, or approached, free trade, the result has been disastrous, and the nation has been compelled in a short time to return to the policy of protection in order to preserve and restore to life its crippled and decay- ing industries. While, on the other hand, the policy of protection wherever pur- sued, whether for a short or long period, has imparted life and activity, resulted in the development of domestic industries, thrift, enterprise, prosperity and the accu- mulation of wealth. Its benefits have ever manifested themselves in the improved condition of the masses. The longer and the more continuously this police- has been pursued, the more steady and vigorous has become the growth and development of all productive industries. The data Mr. Curtiss marshals in support of this view would seem to be reliable and incontrovertible. In short, these chapters in themselves go a long way in establishing that the industrial development and material progress of all nations of the world have been due to the development of domestic resources through protective legislation. The chapters of the work devoted to the tariff question in the United States are admirable and comprise a complete, although brief, history of the tariff legis- lation of the United States from and including the colonial period to the present time. The statistical information collected and embodied in this part is official and arranged with considerable skill. Mr. Curtiss, in his investigation of tariff legislation in our own country, from the earliest times to 1S60, substantially agrees with a majority of the statesmen, economists and historians who have preceded him. He shows beyond question that the result has not been different from that of other countries when protection has been extended to their industries, or when they have been exposed to the ruinous competition of rivals possessed of superior advantages. The lower the tariff the more widespread and aggravated have been tho.se conditions which paralyze our progress and industries. Industry and property were excessively depressed from 1784 to 1790, and INTRODUCTION. xxvii again from 1818 to 1824, under the low tariffs then in operation. Also from 1837 to the end of 1842, under the compromise act of 1833, and again from 1846 to 1861, under the free trade tariffs of 1846 and 1857. The depression which pre- vailed during all these periods was felt in every individual pursuit and national industry. On the contrary the industries and energies of the nation revived as if by magic from 1825 to 1834, under the protective tariffs of 1824 and 1828; and also from 1843 to the end of 1846 under the protective tariff of 1842. Our progress in industrial development and prosperity from 1861 to 1892 finds no parallel in the world's history. The facts and figures brought together in convenient form in Part VI of the volume will be invaluable for reference and in proving for all time to come exactly what a judicious protective tariff has accomplished for the United States. These data cover nearly everj' branch of industry and comprise the latest and most reliable statistical information obtainable in all branches of our industrial progress. Thirty years of protection has brought us to the first rank in agricul- ture, in mining and in manufacturing development. We lead all nations in these three great departments of industry. We have outstripped even the United Kingdom, which had centuries the start of us. As I have said above her fiscal policy for fifty years past has been the free trade revenue tariff policy, ours for thirty-two years the protective tariif policy. Tried by any te.st, measured by any standard, we lead all the rest of the world. Protection has vindicated itself. It cannot be helped by eulogy nor hurt by defamation. It has worked out its own demonstration, and presents in the sight of the whole world its matchless trophies. It can not be cried down by false names nor injured by offensive epithets nor can it any longer suffer from falsehood, nor the forebodings of the fal.se prophet. It has triumphed over all its traducers at home and abroad. It has made the lives of the masses of our countrymen sweeter and brighter, and has entered the homes of America carrying comfort and cheer and courage. It gives a premium to human energy, and awakens the noblest aspirations in the breasts of men. Our own experience shows that it is best for our citizen.ship and our civilization, and that it opens up a higher and better destiny for our people. In the concluding chapter the importance of the development of native resources and industries is emphasized with considerable force. The author rightly concludes that through a diversifying of industries and pursuits increased opportunities are afforded for employment and that what he calls the "spendable income" of the masses is augmented. This is sound doctrine, and recent events have brought it forcibly to the attention of the people of the United States. And moreover this labor must be well paid. The character of its citizenship is of more importance to the Republic than the cheapness of its clothes. Not only must our national policy be one affording the largest opportunities for the masses to obtain employment, but the wages must be sufficient to keep in comfort those engaged in gainful occupations, to enable them to educate their children and lay up something for old age. There must, indeed, be something for the American citizen more than cheap clothes. There must be some higher incentive than a xxviii INTEODVCTION. cheap coat and a bare subsistence. The farmer's products must bring him fair returns for his toil and investment. The workingman's wages must be governed by his work and worth, and not by what he can barely live upon. He must havt wages that bring hope and heart and ambition, which give promise of a future brighter and better than the past, which shall promote his comfort and independ- ence, and which shall stimulate him to a higher and better and more intelligent citizenship. There would seem to be a good reason for the publication of a work of this sort and the author himself supplies it.' In a letter to a friend he .said that as a lawyer and student of economic questions for many years he was continually .struck with what is unquestionably true, namely, that the free trade side of the question had outdone protectionists in the writing of books; that the commercial history of the world had been written from a free trade point of view, and brought out prominently, and put forward as unquesstioned, statements which had no real historical basis. He found there was no history of the tariff question in Germany, France, Russia and other European countries from which a student could get even a connected outline of their tariff policies and industrial develop- ment He also found that the growth of industries in Great Britain and their tariff legislation had Iteen written by free traders, and that no protectionist writer had attempted a connected historical review of the industrial development and tariff legislation of the United Kingdom. jOf the United States, however, he found an abundance of good books and ably written pamphlets on all phases of the ques- tion, yet there was not in any one book a connected historical and statistical account of our tariff legislation and industrial development from_ the organization of our government to the present time. Mr. Curtiss has undoubtedly carried the statistical information farther than any other writer, and embodied in it a series of tables taken from official sources, which will be of permanent value. By no means the least of the merits of the treatise is the clear, vigorous and readable style in which it is written, which with the useful lessons it teaches and the multitude of facts it brings together for the first time, make it a book every intelligent American citizen may read with profit. Indeed it is not too much to say that the faithfulness with which the work has been performed should com- mend itself to the judgment of all loyal and patriotic Americans regardless of party affiliations or previously conceived economic views. It .should have wide reading and study. ^eJ—^^' INTRODUCTION. II. From an examination of the present treatise on protection, I am convinced that Mr. George B. Curtiss, the author, has performed an invaluable service to the people at large and to the political economists and thinkers who are seeking answers to the many questions which the subject involves. Tracing the tariff his- tory of the leading commercial nations of the world, he carries the narrative down to the problems that press for solution in this country to-day. His novel, clear and convincing discu-ssion of the tariif question in Great Britain and Continental countries, deserves the highest praise. The tariff historj' of the United States is in such an entanglement of error and misrepresentation that the work of a clear-headed investigator and writer is particularly welcome. The public have hitherto suffered less from lack of infor- mation than from the overwhelming mass of confusion and misinformation. Mr. Curtiss does not content himself with bare statements of economic conditions, but he supplies his readers with data upon which to base their conclusions. An examination of some of the tables embraced in his work will do more to clear away the mists that surround the effects of the American tariff policy than would result from the perusal of volumes of campaign literature. By means of facts and figures compiled from what mu.st be regarded as the most reliable sources, he .shows that the scaling down of the tariff has invariably been followed by reduction of wages, loss of employment, displacement of capital and financial stringency, and that the reverse conditions prevailed so long as a protective tariff was effectively main- tained. The author is avowedly a protectionist. He thinks protection has been a most important factor in our national progress and therefore favors its continuance, but, in dealing with the subject, I do not believe that he can justly be charged with a partisan perversion of the facts. The people have long needed a clear and compact tariff history which should avoid the errors and over-zealous statements of economic doctrinaires, and apply the principles of the historical .school of politi- cal economists to the commercial history of the United States. These require- ments the author's work fully meets, while at the same time it presents a more comprehensive and thorough discussion of the protective policy in its general rela- tion to the economic advancement of civilized nations than an>' other work which has come under my notice. ,=,^^^ ^'^^^^^^T' > ixTEODunriox. The book which Mr. Curtiss has written is unlike any other which has been presented on the subject in its method of treatment, and in its width of rauge. Most books on the subject have been too much a discussion of what were claimed to be principles, and too little a discussion of facts. No subject which has largely concerned the hopes and fears of mankind has failed to undergo the experience which political economy has undergone. The natural tendency of mankind is to evolve things out of the inner consciousness and to make theories which account for the facts already known, and then strenuously contend for these theories in defiance of the facts which afterwards become known. Another delusion and snare of human reason is that method which for the sake of simplicity leaves out some facts so as to make the reasoning clearer, and forgets that these facts have been left out, and then goes on to declare that what happens in the ideal world where facts are left out will happen just the same in a real world where the facts are always left in. To reason that the actions of an imaginary man who desires wealth and wealth alone will be the same as that of a real man with all his hopes and fears may be an excellent mental gymnastic but can never be much more productive than the swinging of Indian clubs or the putting up of dumb bells. Exercise of the muscles may help and so may mental exercise if it does not mislead. This book while it has a suitable discussion of principles which is well worth reading and very valuable, devotes itself mainly to a recital of facts which tend to .show what system of economics leads to the best results in the actual practice of the world. Such a book if faithfully written can not fail to add to the prosperity of the United States for it is true history, which is philosophy teaching by examples. It is in direct contrast with those systems which teach by general statements which comprehend all the facts which the author can conjecture and leave out all the rest. Such statements may be very alluring to the brightest minds because they seem so simple, but they will never do for a practical world. Some time ago in his laboratory a chemist demonstrated that corn could be made into a sugar which tasted like real sugar and could be made at such a price as would drive off the face of the earth the tropical cane and the northern sugar beet. Able men took hold of the invention, put two millions of real money into it and discovered that the new sugar would not make candy or cake. Now a sugal which will make neither candy nor cake has the same relation to real sugar thatj most books on political economy have to real business. Luckily these men had brains and ability enough to turn the plant to other uses, and so instead of leaving the ruins to remain as a visible monument of the triumph of facts over the wisest theory the money put into the enterprise was saved but the anticipated fortune was lost. Professors of political economy are seldom so fortunate. One of the greatest sources of error in our home discussions of the theories of free trade and protection is found in our ignoi^ance of English economic histor>-. INTRODUCTION. xxsi Most people have the strangest ideas of the Cobden movement in England and think it resembled and justified the insurrection which led to the Wilson bill which now adorns our statute book and devastates our land. The calm and careful history in this book of the protection system in England which preceded the Cobden movement, and the history of the Cobden movement itself, will go far to rectify the false ideas which have been so long prevalent, and if it contained nothing else would be worth all the book will cost and all the trouble of under- standing the story therein narrated. In 1846 the whole world was carried away by the same false ideas which the Cobden movement made prevalent in England. Everybodj^ was taken with the notion that there were some heaven ordained places where some things must be made, and that whoever tried to make them elsewhere was fighting God and Nature. Fifty years of hard experience have taught us that God and Nature are not to be found out and disclosed by every gentleman of literary tastes who could make a sjdlogism or reason on facts with half the facts left out. Slowly but steadily the world has found out that this doctrine of letting things take care of themselves is only another name for indo- lence, which could never understand God or keep the weeds from growing where the sunny gardens were. This book is also the story of how the nations discov- ered that the best way to be protected and prosperous was not to leave things alone but to use their brains and make things better. Some people in the less advanced parts, even of this countrs% still think that the sole purpose of government is to keep people from cutting each other's throats, utterly oblivious of the fact that it is under such government that the most throats get cut. France, Germany, Russia, Austria, the United States and even England have tried the experiments and have all suffered. All but England have reformed, and to-day half of Eng- land's capital is invested not in England but in lands which have resisted England and shunned her recent example. This book gives the history of experiments tried all over the world of the two systems and the results which have followed. It teaches what the facts teach and nothing more. It does not teach that this law or that law, this rate or that rate, is essential to national .success ; for rates change with circumstances and laws with conditions ; but it teaches that protection whether it be at one rate or another, whether it be by one law or another, so long as it is protection, is the sole essential. Therefore this book does not undertake to urge one law or another. What law there shall be, what rates shall exist, is the province of the statesman whose duty it is to accomplish protection for the country with the minimum of disturbance of preconceived notions and with due regard to the prejudices and the state of knowledge of the nation. Perhaps, as stated by Professor George Gunton in his admirable treatise on Social Economics, the true test of n^ljonal prggpsiity is the nuniber. of the u nemploye d. If proper heed were given to this idea fewer people would lose their heads in the labyrinth which is created by the discussion of prices. It used to be a very taking idea to talk about low prices and to picture the happiness which was sure to come when things were cheap. We have had three years of delicious f xxxii IXriiODUCTION. cheapness. Not only are goods cheap but labor has become cheap ; not only does the housekeeper buy cheap but the farmer has to sell cheap for it is the same identical transaction, and no method has been discovered on earth in the same transaction to make the purchase cheap and the sale dear. Nor is this all. There are fewer sales and fewer purchases. That means less work; less work means more idle men; idle men do not create wealth, they only consume it. The more idle men the less the wealth of a nation. And that would be equally true if a cent would buy a dollar's worth. Perfection of the prosperity of a nation cannot be reached until all are employed. When all are employed the nation is doing its maximum of work and creating all the wealth which it is capable of creating. Then also takes place what is equally essential— the greatest approximation to a fair and honest distri- bution of the wealth produced. With the people all at work those who work can dictate their terms subject only to the limitation of proper profit to those workers who subsist by profit and not liy wages ; who take the risk while others take the certainties. Somehow or other, times like these are great educators. How very fine used to be the sneer about lifting one's self by the boot straps ! How clear used also to seem the denion.stration that taxes could create nothing ! What a fine, large mouth the consumer had those days, and how puny and unworthy seemed the hands of the producer ! Now the unfilled mouth has discovered who owns the hands. This book will show you that this has been the history of nations a hundred times ; nay, it has been the history of our own nation half a .score of times in our short life. I,ike the Spanish Grandee in the cemetery, we were well and wanted to be better, took~meaiciue, and here we are. Is it worth while to undergo this death and resurrection again ? We shall never do it if we lay fast hold on the facts of the universe. There may be a time come when nations will be no more, when the brotherhood of man may be established, when communication ma>' be .so rapid, when we .shall be so equally advanced in civilization, that nobody will care where he lives or is buried; when distance shall break no ties, and when the universal language is spoken by everybody without accent ; in that time we may lose nationality and become citizens of the world. Then free trade may reign. But such a time will not happen within the hundred years which centre in that week when two English speaking nations were ready to clutch each other by the throat about a boundary thousands of miles away, and the German emperor was ready to fight the kingdom of his grandmother about some people in Africa whose ancestors left the fatherland so long ago that history is not quite sure that thcN- did leave it. Nationality is a fact, brotherhood is a hope. Perhaps if we live up to our fact that may be the best way to arrive at our hope. '^^T-z^ ^:::cV /P^ /W^^<_^ PART I. OUTLINE OF COMMERCIAL HISTORY TO 1650. CHAPTER I. General Division of Trade, Commerce and Industries. It is by the production, distribution and consumption of commodities that the various wants of man are supplied. From increased consumption arises a demand for production. In the earlier stages of man's existence he supplied his own wants by his products, but to-day people are enabled to consume onl}' after they have earned money with which to purchase. Man must either apply himself directly to the soil, and thus supply his own wants, or he must trade his labor and efforts for that commodity called money, which can be exchanged for what he desires. However much attention may be given to other branches of the subject, it must be conceded that, under our present social conditions, the question of finding employment for the people, and providing them with the means by which ' they may exchange their labor, directly or indirectly, for commodities, deserves the highest consideration, and lies at the very base of the science of economics. The true economics must begin here. This is the basis of production, aswell asof consumption. The distribution of products is a matter of convenience, and important only as it aids these two neces- sary elements. The three important branches of production upon which the wealth and prosperity of nations chiefly depend are agriculture, manufacturing and mining. A country ble.ssed with resources by which these three branches of industry can be carried on, is enabled to find employment for the largest number of people, under the most perfect divi- sion of labor, and develop to the highest degree the various capabilities and aptitudes of its people. A nation posse,s.sed of a variety of soil and climate suited to the growth of all of the cereals, fruits and vegetables of temperate and semi-tropical regions can reach the highest agricultural development. A nation having gold, silver, copper, nickel, lead, iron and coal in abundance is possessed of inestimable mineral resources. With all of these at its command, with a soil and climate suitable to the growth of cotton, flax, hemp, jute and other vegetable fibres, and with pa.stures for sheep, it possesses in the highest degree, the natural resources and facilities for acquiring every blessing, comfort and luxury attainable. An enterprising and industrious population, inhabiting such a country-, with (1) C0M3IEnCIAL HISTOEY TO 1650. such resources, can practically live within itself, and reach the highest state of prosperity and civilization, without giving any special attention to foreign commerce. Their surplus products can readily be exchanged for those commodities of foreign countries which they are unable to pro- duce, and as they grow in wealth, as their domestic industries increase, as the tastes and wants of the people expand, suflBcient legitimate for- eign trade will naturally arise to give them importance in this class of commerce. The prosperity of a people so situated is measured by that vast volume of unregistered inland exchanges which is carried on within its own borders, and not by the comparatively .small amount of external trade with other portions of the world, arising from a variation of the products of soil and climate. A clear understanding of the application of economic principles can- not be reached without a study of geographical situation, natural resources and those conditions under which all industrial pursuits must be carried on by the people of different nations. There is no country in the world possessed of all elements by which everything can be produced within its own borders. It is well recognized that one country must confine itself to those pursuits to which, by soil, climate, natural resources and the special aptitude and capabilities of its people, it is suited, and at the same time, leave to other portions of the world the production of those com- modities which nature has ordained for them. Tea, coffee, spices, cotton, tropical fruits grow luxuriantly in certain localities, and in no others; while grains, vegetables and coarser products grow in all parts of the world. No one attempts to interfere with the laws of nature, which have selected certain plants and fruits to grow in certain localities. The natural products of a country should not be confounded with the capabilities of man in expending his energies upon raw materials, such as cotton, flax, silk, wool and the metals, or the use he makes of fuel and water power, in con\-erting them into clothing and implements. The growth of those food products and raw materials which flourish luxuriantly in tropical regions, with little effort on the part of man, have no relation to the production of manufactured articles by the application of labor and skill to raw materials. Because nature has ordained that coffee, tea and raw silk shall be produced only in certain .spots on the face of the globe, it does not fol- low that the raw silk should be woven into cloth in France, instead of in the United States, simply because labor is sixty per cent cheaper in Lyons than in Paterson, N. J. At the outset the reader should mark the dis- tinction between natural products of soil and climate and the products of industry and the handicraft of man. Moreover the limitations imposed by external nature upon production are not so great as might at first thoughts appear. Among agricultural products, the cereals and vegetables which contribute so largelj- to the support and sustenance of man, grow in abundance in almost every country TRADE, COM.UERCE AXD INDUSTRIES. and clime between the frigid zones. There are only a few localities adapted by nature to the growth of special products, such as tea, coffee, tropical fruits, etc. Among minerals, iron, copper, lead, etc., are found on every continent and in every country. Coal beds for fuel are equally widely distributed. Manufacturing and mining, as industrial pursuits, do not depend upon natural facilities of soil and climate, but upon the application of capital and labor, excepting that on account of extreme heat certain tropical regions are unsuited to manufacturing, and large indus- trial enterprises which require excessive physical exertion. Trade and commerce may be divided into two general branches, as follows: 1. Domestic Trade, which consists of those exchanges of commod- ities produced at home, which are carried on between the people of the same nation. 2. Foreign Trade, or that frade which is carried on between the peo- ple of different countries. Foreign trade is divided into three main branches, as follows: 1. Round About Trade, in which articles are bought in one foreign country and sold in another foreign country. This class of trade is at present largely engaged in by citizens of England, who, for instance, buy coffee in Brazil, and sell it in the United States. 2. The Exchange of Native for Foreign Produce, that branch of trade in which domestic products are exchanged for foreign articles, the like of which cannot be produced at home, for instance, the exchange, by the people of England, of manufactured articles, for tea, coffee, spices, raw materials, etc. 3. The Exchange of the Native Produce of a Country for Articles the Like of Which Might be Produced at Home, for instance, the exchange by the United States, of agricultural products for manufactured articles, or the exchange, by England, of manufactured articles for agri- cultural products, or the exchange, by England, of certain manufactured articles for other manufactured articles, the like of which can be produced in the United Kingdom. Tke last-named class of foreign trade is engaged in only when one country possesses so7ne acquired adva?itages in productioji over a competing country, such as skill, capital, machinery or cheap labor. It is with respect to this class of trade, that the controversy has arisen beiwee?i the advo- cates of protection to home ittdustries and those favoring free trade. The advocates of protection propose to develop fully the agricultural and mineral resources of their own country ; to encourage the investment of capital in manufacturing, and so far as possible in the production of everything necessary, desirable or useful to its inhabitants. They favor the several branches of foreign trade, but do not believe that domestic industries should be sacrificed or curtailed to make room for COMMERCIAL HISTORY TO mm. Relative importance of domestic production and/oreign trade. manufactured articles from other countries, when these articles can be produced at home through protection to native industries. Those advocating the doctrine of free trade attach great importance to foreign trade, and favor its widest possible extension under all condi- tions, even though the investment of capital and labor in that direction results in an injury to native industries, or in their total destruction. The importance attached to these several branches of industrial pur- suits forms one of the chief subjects of controversy between the two great .schools of economics. Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations," after a thorough examination of the history of the trade and commerce of the world, announced a principle, which was not only proven b)' past experi- ence, but which has been confirmed by subsequent events, and is regarded as of great importance by protectionists. He recognized and stated the importance of domestic production over foreign trade, in the following language : All wholesale trade, all buying in order to sell again bj- wholesale, may be reduced to three different sorts, the home trade, the foreigu trade of consumption and the carrying trade. The home trade is employed in purchasing in one part of the same country, and selling in another, the produce of the industry of that country. It comprehends both the inland and coasting trade. The foreign trade of consumption is employed in purchasing foreign goods for home consumption. The carrying trade is emplo}'ed in transacting the commerce of foreign countries, or in carrying the surplus produce of one to another.' After agriculture, the capital employed in manufacturing puts into motion the greatest quantity of prodttctive labor, and adds the greatest value to the annual pro- duce. That which is employed in the trade of exportation has the least effect of any of the three? The capital therefore employed in the home trade of any country will generally give encouragement and support to a greater quantity of productive labor in that country, and increase the value of its annual produce more than an equal capital employed in the foreign trade of consumption; and the capital employed in this latter trade has in both these respects a still greater advantage over an equal capital employed in the carrying trade. . . . The riches, and .<:o far as power depends upon riches, the power of every country must ahvays be in proportion to the value of its annual produce, the fund frofli which all ta.ves must ultimately be paid, but the great object of the political economy of every country, is to increase the riches and power of the country.' There is a constant effort emanating from certain quarters to mag- nify the importance of foreign trade, and especially of that part known as the carrying trade, although Adam Smith regards it as the least profit- able of all. However prosperous and enterprising those nations or cities may have been, which in times past excelled in foreign commerce, without taking into consideration the conditions which induced it, and the cir- cumstances which turned their attention to this class of trade, we can form no estimate of the application of .such policy to other countries. To a nation like the United States, suited to agriculture, manufacturing and ' Wealth of Nations, page 294. ^ Id. iqi. ' Id. 297. TRADE, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES. mining, the foreign carrying trade is the least profitable of all, because it gives employment to the smallest number of laborers, and investment to the least capital. It is directly beneficial, only to the large capitalists who carry it on. Their ships are built, other things being equal, in navy- yards and countries, where they can be constructed at the least possible cost. They are provisioned in ports where supplies are cheapest, and manned with sailors picked up and employed from different countries. The .ship-owner is interested in the welfare of one country as muth as another. He knows no flag, no nationality, and has no patriotism. He is really a citizen of no country. He makes his profits out of freight gathered from all regions, and. invests his surplus earnings in places where he can obtain the highest rate of interest. He would fly no flag at his masthead were it not required by international law. The very circumstances under which it is carried on confirms the statement of Adam Smith, which more strongly conveys the truth to-day than ever before, that no nation can afford to sacrifice home industries in order to build up this Round About Trade. If, however, the necessity of the situation or an overflowing- population opens this field of enterprise as the readiest and best means of giving employment to the labor and capital of a country, it then, of course, becomes of great importance. In any event the benefits depend upon the extent to which the vessels are owned and manned by its own citizens, the ships built and repaired in native shipyards, and the busi- ness carried on in such a way as to increase the national wealth. The truth and importance of these general principles will appear more clearly when we come to consider the commercial development of nations as shown in their history. The exchange of domestic commodities for the natural products of other countries, the like of which cannot be produced at home, depends upon the state of civilization, the geographical situation, and the resources of a country, for the extent to which it is carried on. For in.stance, the United States must always buy its tea, coffee, spices, rubber, dye stuffs and certain tropical fruits in foreign countries. It is highly profitable and necessary that the United States should engage in this trade and exchange its domestic productions for such articles of foreign growth. England is in the same situation, and necessarily must depend on the native production of other countries, to a larger degree than the United States. In the very nature of things this class of foreign trade must be carried on to the extent of the demands of the people, and is highly bene ficial to the countries so dealing with each other. As a country increases its domestic production and home trade, as its people become more pros perous and independent, as their tastes and desires expand, the market among them for these commodities steadily increases their foreign trade, and the sale of their surplus domestic productions to purchase the neces- saries and luxuries produced in foreign countries constantly grows. The C03I3IERCIAL HISTORY TO 1650. necessaries and luxuries of foreign countries must be obtained, either by buying them outright with coin, or by an exchange of surplus domestic products. So the basis of this class of foreign trade is domestic pro- duction. Without domestic production a country is unable to buy such foreign articles. This class of trade is legitimate, because it is necessarj% arising from an ordinance in nature which has adapted certain regions to the exclusive growth of certain articles. In order fully to supply the wants of man, such exchanges are made necessary; but this class of trade, it should be borne in mind, arises wholly from what is known as the products of nature, proceeding from conditions existing in the nature of soil and climate, and not so much from the industry or capabilities of man. For instance, it is in the order of nature that the people of the United States should receive their coffee and tea from remote regions, while there is no reason existing in nature why the people of the United States should buy their cotton, woolen goods and other manufactured articles from England and the Continent, when the natural facilities for their production exist in the United States, and an abundance of skillful and industrious people, who are as well adapted to the art of producing them, as the inhabitants of any other portion of the globe. Home exchanges consist in that vast amount of inland and coasting trade which is carried on by a people in the exchange of their own domes- tic productions among themselves. Foreign exchanges, as we have shown, should be confined as nearly as possible to obtaining from foreign countries the natural products of soil and climate, to the production of which they are specially adapted, and should be limited to obtaining as small an amount as po.ssible of wares which are produced by the labor of artisans, that domestic productions may be more fully developed. Home trade is carried on by denizens. In the United States it is carried on by citizens of the United States. Factories are built out of materials pro- duced by the labor of our country. Our artisans and laborers have their homes within the country. The capital employed, and thus set in motion, is distributed to all channels of trade, constantly stimulating, sustaining and strengthening all branches of industrial life, and forming the verj- basis of industrial activity and that general prosperity which makes a country most desirable to live in. The larger this class of trade, the more schools, churches, libraries, charitable institutions, and the larger number of homes and comfortable men, women and children. To destroy this class of trade, is like taking the nerves out of the human body. It is by keeping in view this distinction between domestic and foreign trade, that we are enabled to grasp those economic principles which promote the prosperity of a nation. It is by keeping well in mind the distinction between domestic trade and foreign trade, that we are enabled to determine the importance and limits of domestic production, as well as readily to understand the true province and scope of foreign exchanges. TRADE, C0M3IERCE AND INDUSTRIES. No prominent and permanent nation has yet neglected the develop- ment of its resources and the cultivation, to the highest degree possible, of its own natural products, and the fullest employment of its labor, with- out suffering a severe penalty. The people of no nation in the history of the world has ever prospered under a policy which sacrificed its home industries to build up and develop the resources and give employment to the labor of foreign states. The controversy upon these questions has arisen out of the distinctions stated. Those advocating the doctrine of free trade teach that the prosperity of nations, regardless of their situa- tion or economic conditions, can most surely be promoted through foreign exchanges; while the advocates of the doctrine of protection believe that countries with a great diversity of natural resources can become more prosperous, its people reach the highest social condition, greatest inde- pendence and prosperity, by the encouragement and development of native resources; holding also, that foreign exchanges should be treated only as a part of an industrial system, having for its basis the employment of the labor and capital of a country in domestic production and exchanges. CHAPTER II. COMMERCK OF THE NATIONS OF ANTIQUITY. A brief sketch of the general features of the external trade carried on by the nations of antiquity prior to the twelfth century, becomes of importance, as showing the contrast between modern economic conditions and those which then prevailed and as revealing the causes that have determined the commercial destiny of these nations. It has not been until recent centuries that the commercial policy of governments has assumed a definite course and been applied to circumstances at all comparable to present conditions. Prior to the eighteenth centurj' ocean voyages were most hazardous and expensive. The accounts given of the voyages made by the Dutch and English to India, around the Cape of Good Hope, and the proportion of vessels and cargoes lost each year by storms and perils of the sea, may be considered as items of great importance. The inland traffic was carried on in ancient times, by conveying goods on the backs of camels, over deserts, from country- to country, and by caravans, bring- ing the goods from inland to the seaport for shipment. During the Middle Ages a portion of the trade between Western Europe and Asia was carried on by caravans, extending their route from Constantinople west, and from Venice into the heart of Western Europe. Even those goods which were carried by ship from distant countries were shipped into the interior at a great expense. The question of competi- tion, as affected by this element, did not enter into the consideration of economic policies until recent years. It has now become of more impor- tance, as railroads, steamships and canals have reduced freight to a mini- mum and brought all countries within trading distance of each other. It should also be borne in mind that the masses of people were in a condition of slavery or serfdom, and that their wants were supplied as dictated by their masters. The idea of forming an industrial polic}- for the elevation of the masses was not suggested until recent centuries. The articles which entered into foreign trade were few in number, and of uch character that the foreign trade of all countries was necessarily small, when compared with domestic production. From the earliest times to the close of the Middle Ages, each locality supplied it.self with the food pro- ducts obtained by cultivation of its own soil, and purchased only those things not produced at home, without thought of enlarging its industries. The foreign carrying trade was confined largely to luxuries and those articles indulged in only by the nobility and aristocrats. The lack of onnnunication and intercour.se between the people of different countries, (8) NATIONS OF ANTIQUITY. even those adjoining, tended also to prevent a distribution of knowledge by which the people of one country might become familiar with the industrial life and the arts and mysteries by which articles were produced in others. The spirit of progress was so lacking, that the ideas of one country were seldom imitated by a neighbor; hence, the whole world for centuries made no material advancement. From the earliest times down to the close of the Middle Ages, for perhaps 2500 years, but few articles were added to the foreign trade of the world. The earliest records of foreign trade in existence were found by Dr. Brugsch, sculptured on rocks in Egypt. They indicated that in 2500 B. C. the Egyptians sent trading expeditions to the countries bordering on the Eastern coast of Africa, south of the Red Sea. Numerous Bible accounts are given of the caravans which carried on trade between Egypt and the Holy Land. The chief trading peoples of that region, however, were the Edomites and Midianites, who from their geographical situation, from their wandering disposition, and from their possession of the camel as a beast of burden became the natural carriers of the fertile countries that surrounded them. To this they were impelled by the barren char- acter of their own land. On the other hand, the Egyptians, inhabiting the fertile valley of the Nile, gave but slight attention to foreign trade, confining themselves to the exchange of domestic products up and down the river. "The importation of merchandise from foreign countries was a political rather than a commercial affair. Such foreign wares as entered the country came as a tribute, as the spoils of wars or as memorials of peaceful embassies. ' ' ' The ancient kingdom of Babylonia was noted for its manufactures, especially for its weaving of cloth and its pottery. Its foreign trade was extensive, and Babylonian cloth, pottery and ointments were exchanged for the wine and oil of Syria, for the spices of Yemen, and for the wine and wood of the Armenians. Ancient India too was a commercial coun- try. While its domestic trade was especially active, there is evidence also that its products were distributed extensively throughout the North and West. Another people engaged like the Arabs chiefly in the carrying trade was the Phoenicians. They were the first great maritime power of the world, and in fact the only people of antiquity who were exclusively a sea- faring people. The causes which turned their energies in this direction are important from the light they throw on the circumstances that have impelled nations to confine themselves exclusively to this branch of trade. Occupyitig a strip of barren and sterile territory, only eight or ten miles wide, lying between the mountains of Judaea and the coast of the Medi- terranean Sea; deprived by nature of an opportunity of cultivating the soil ; unable to bring the materials for manufacture and food supplies to 1 E. J. Simcox, Primitive Civilization, Vol. I. Baiylc zndli C03IMERCIAL HISTORY TO 1650. their cities, excepting over mountains or bj^ the sea, they chose the latter course. This they could easily do, for on Mount Libanus, within a few miles of the coast, an abundance of timber suitable for ship building could be obtained. The few inhabitants occupying this region first put to sea as pirates, robbing the cities and coasts of the Mediterranean. As they carried their booty and treasure home, their wealth increased, they became more enterprising and skillful in managing their .ships, and more venture- some in their voyages and undertakings. After centuries of piratical raids they gradually drifted into legitimate trade and commerce, and became the sole possessors of the carrj'ing trade along the coast of the Mediterranean, between what were then the richest and most populous countries of the ancient world. The}' practiced with great proficiency the art of making glass; engaged in the manufacture of dye stuffs, and other articles of "commerce ; their merchants distributed the spices, perfumes, precious stones, ivories and other luxuries of India and Egypt among the cities of Greece and along the coast of the Mediterranean. Their power as a nation increased and they planted colonies in Carthage, along the coast of Africa, on the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and along the Southern coast of Spain. They are said to have passed the Strait of Gibraltar, and worked the tin and lead mines of the island of Britain. Supplied with silver from the mines of Spain, reaping large profits from this carrying trade of which they held a monopolj', their merchants became rich, and the cities of Sidon and Tyre became centres of wealth and marts of great commercial importance. From the twelfth to the seventh century B. C. was the period of their commercial greatness. Their decline dates from the invasion of Syria by Alexander the Great. The country finally became a Roman province; their commerce and trade disappeared; their wealth faded away, and all that is now left to point to their greatness is the ruins of their cities. Though not such skillful mariners as the Phcenicians, the Greeks engaged extensively in commerce. Athens affords a good illustration of activity in that branch of foreign trade which exchanges domestic pro- ducts for commodities which the natural defects of the home countrj- pre- vent it from producing within its own limits, for the soil of Attica being then as now ill-suited for agriculture, the grain consumed in the city of Athens was obtained for the most part from the great grain-producing regions bordering on the Black Sea. Corinth was a more important com- mercial centre even than Athens. From the middle of the eighth century B. C. the maritime importance of the Greeks was apparent and before a century had passed they had shown their energy and resource by the invention of triremes. The necessity of having articles to exchange for the food products of other regions stimulated manufactures, and Greek pottery, weapons and implements were extensively bartered on the Medi- terranean coast. Numerous and important colonies were established on NATIONS OF ANTIQUITY. the islands of the Mediterranean and as far west as the mouth of the Rhone in France. Carthage, inheriting the maritime skill of her Phoenician fomiders, became for a time the chief naval power of the Mediterranean and enjoj'ed through her ships that dominion on the sea which Rome through her legions was winning for herself on land. Her colonies settled the port of Cadiz. She founded Carthagena and Barcelona, also on the Spanish coast, and had trading stations on the shores of Gaul. Primarily a commercial nation, she left her proper sphere .of action when she entered upon her long and destructive wars with Rome, and though she held her own for a time, ultimately she was forced to succumb. Her power was destroyed and within the ruined walls of her once populous capital only a few thousand inhabitants remained to bear witness to her former greatness. There are few parallels in history to such a sudden and complete extinc- tion of a powerful empire. The chief cause of this was the important fact that the Carthaginians, like the Phoenicians, applied themselves exclusively to the carrying trade and when war destroyed this they had nothing to fall back upon, as the narrow strip of territory on the coast of Africa surrounded by a desert did not possess sufficient natural resources to sustain a great population. The Romans cannot be ranked among the commercial nations. Still, they should be mentioned in a history of commerce because of the immense extent of their empire, which created a vast market, and because of their grand system of communication, which, although established for military and administrative pur- poses, served also for the transport of merchandise. Under the empire, Rome and Italy, whose agriculture was ruined, could not subsist but for the importations from the provinces, especially of their grain. After the devastations of war and the rapine of proconsuls, labor and commerce, protected by a regular administration, served again to restore the wealth of the civilized countries of the East, at the same time that, under the domination of Rome, they gave life to the hitherto barbarous nations of the West. Alexandria was one of the richest commercial cities of this period, the great storehouse of the commerce of the Romans. But, by the con- tinuous weakening of the empire, commerce languished and perished gradually, until the invasion of the northern tribes finally destroyed it' Rome, placed like a mightier Mexico in the centre of her mighty lake, was furnished with every luxury and with many of her chief necessaries from beyond the waters; and cities on every coast, nearly similar in latitude and climate, vied in intense rivalry with each other in ministering to her appetite. First in the ranks of commerce was the traffic in corn, which was conducted by large fleets of galleys, sailing from certain havens once a year at stated periods, and pouring their stores into her granaries in their appointed order. Gaul and Spain, Sardinia and Sicily, Africa and Egypt were all wheat-growing countries, and all contributed of their produce, partly as a tax, partly as an article of commerce, to the sustentation of Rome and Italy. The vessels engaged in this trade, however numerous, were after all of small liurden. The corn fleets did not indeed form the chief maritime venture of the Alexandrians. The products of India which had formerly reached Egypt from ' CyctopiEdia of Political Science, Political Economy and United States History, Vol. I., p. 514. COMMERCIAL HISTOEl' TO JilSO. Arabia and were supposed indeed in Europe to have come only from the shores of the Erythraean Sea, were now conveyed direct to Cleopatris or Berenice from the mouths of Indus and the coast of Malabar, and employed an increasing number of vessels, which took advantage of the periodical trade-winds both in going and returning. The articles of which they went in quest were for the most part objects of luxury ; such as ivory and tortoise-shell, fabrics of cotton and silk, both then rare and costly, pearls and diamonds, and more especially gums and spices. The consumption of these latter substances in dress, in cookery, in the service of the temple, and above all at funerals, advanced with the progress of wealth and refine- ment. The consignments which reached Alexandria from the East were directed to every port on the Mediterranean ; but there was no correspouding demand for the produce of the West in India, and these precious freights were for the most part exchanged for gold and silver, of which the drain from Europe to Asia was unin- terrupted. The amount of precious metals thus abstracted from the currency or bullion of the empire, was estimated at loo, ooo, ooo sesterces or about 800, ooo pounds sterling yearly. The reed called papyrus, the growth of which seems to have been almost confined to the banks of the Nile, was in general use as the cheapest and most convenient writing material, and the consumption of it throughout the world, though it never entirely superseded the use of parchment and waxen tablets, nuist have been immense. It was converted into paper in Egypt, and thence exported in its manufactured state; but this practice was not universal, for we read of a house at Rome, which improved on the native process, and produced what Pliny calls an imperial or noble, out of a mere plebeian texture. With respect to other articles of general use it may be remarked that the most important, such as corn, wine, oil and wool, were the common produce of all the coasts of the Medi- terranean, and there was accordingly much less interchange of these staple com- modities among the nations of antiquity than with ourselves whose relations extend through so many zones of temperature. Hence, probably, we hear of none of their great cities becoming the workshops or emporiumsof the world.for any special arti- cle of commerce. The woolens indeed of Miletus and Laodicea, together with other places of Asia Minor, were renowned for their excellence, and may have been trans- ported as articles of luxury to distant parts; but Africa and Spain, Italy and parts of Greece, were also breeders of sheep, and none of these countries depended for this prime necessary on the industry or cupidity of foreigners. The finest qualities of Greek and Asiatic wines were bespoken at Rome and at every other great seat of luxury. The Chian and Lesbian vintages were among the most celebrated. . . . Again, while the clothing of the mass of the population was made perhaps mainly from the skins of animals, leather of course could be obtained abundantly in almost every locality. When we remember that the ancients had neither tea, coffee, tobacco, sugar nor for the most part spirits; that they made little use of glass, and at this period had hardly acquired a taste for fabrics of silk, cotton or even flax, we shall perceive at a glance how large a portion of the chief articles of our com- merce was entirely wanting to theirs. Against this deficiency, however, many objects of great importance are to be set. Though the ruder classes were content with wooden cups and platters fashioned at their own doors, the transport of earthen- ware of the finer and more precious kinds, and from certain localities, was very considerable. Though the Greeks and Romans generally were without some of our commonest implements of gold and silver, such for in.stance as watches and forks, it is probable that they indulged even more than we do in personal decorations with rings, seals and trinkets of a thousand descriptions The convey ance of wild animals, chiefly from Africa, for the sports of the amphitheatres of some hundred cities throughout the empire, umst have alone given occupation to a large fleet of ships and many thousand mariners. Nor were the convoys smaller NATIONS OF ANTIQUITY. which were employed to transport marble from the choicest quarries of Greece and Asia to many flourishing cities besides the metropolis After due deduc- tion for the more contracted sphere of ancient commerce, and the lesser number of articles, for the extent also to which the necessaries and conveniences of life were manufactured at home in the establishments of wealthy slave owners, we shall still readily believe that the inter-communication of the cities of the Mediterranean, such as Corinth, Rhodes, Ephesus, Cyzicus, Antioch, Tyrus, Alexandria, Cyrene, Athens, Carthage, Tarraco, Narbo and Massilia, Neapolis and Tarentum, Syracuse and Agri- gentum and of all with Rome, must have been a potent instrument in fusing into one family the manifold nations of the empire In the eyes of the Orientals and the Greeks, the mistress of lands and continents, the leader of armies and the builder of roads was regarded as the greatest of all maritime emporiums and represented in their figurative style as a woman sitting enthroned upon the waves of the Mediterranean. The maritime aspect thus assumed by Rome in the eyes of her subjects beyond the sea, is the more remarkable when we consider how directly her ancient policy and habits were opposed to commercial developments. . . . . The landowners of Rome, in the heigh-day of her insolent adolescence, had denounced both the commerce and the arts as the business of slaves or freed- men. So late as the year 535 a law had been passed which forbade a senator to possess a vessel of burden, and the traffic which was prohibited to the higher class was degraded in the eyes of the lower It was thus by following the natural train of circumstances and by no settled policy of her own, that Rome secured her march across the sea, and joined coast to coast with the indissoluble chain of her dominion. On land, on the contrary, she constructed her militarj' causeways with a fixed and definite purpose The population of Gaul crept, we know, slowly up the channel of the rivers, and the native tracks which conveyed their trafiic from station to station were guided by these main arteries of their vital system. But the conquerors struck out at once a complete system of comnmnication for their own purposes, by means of roads cut or built as occasion required, with a settled policy rigidly pursued. These high roads as we may well call them, for they were raised above the level of the plains and the banks of the rivers, and climbed the loftiest hills, were driven in direct lines from point to point, and were stopped by neither forest nor marsh nor mountain.' The state of things which arose on the collapse of the Roman empire present two concurrent facts, deeply affecting the course of trade. ( i ) the ancient seats of industry and civilization were undergoing constant decay, while (2) the energetic races of Europe were rising into more civilized forms and manifold vigor and copi- ousness of life. The fall of the Eastern division of the empire prolonged the effect of the fall of the Western empire; and the advance of the Saracens over Asia Minor, Syria, Greece, Egypt, over Cyprus and other possessions of Venice in the Mediter- ranean, over the richest provinces of Spain, and finally across the Hellespont into the Danubian provinces of Europe, was a new irruption of barbarians from another point of the compass, and revived the calamities and disorders inflicted by the suc- cessive invasions of Goths, Huns and other Northern tribes. For more than ten centuries the naked power of the sword was vivid and terrible as flashes of lightning over all the seats of commerce, whether of ancient or more modern origin.' But meanwhile these immigrations had caused the almost entire decay of agri- culture and industry. During the four or five centuries in which they took place the finest regions of Europe became unfruitful and desolate. It was impossible in such troubled times to improve the fertility of the soil by renewed applications of ■capital and skill. And of course the condition of internal trade was hardly superior ■ C. Merivale, History of the Romatis, Ch. 39. -Encyclopasdia Britaniiica, Vol. VI., p. 200 COMMERCIAL HISTORY TO 1650. to that of agriculture, and for the same reasons. For some centuries there is no trace of any important manufactures, except of course those domestic arts of weaving and spinning which are absolutely necessary for providing clothes, and which can be practiced by separate individuals in every village or household. Rich men, indeed, used to keep artisans in their households as servants; but this only shows that there were no recognized seats of manufacture from which they could easily procure what they wanted. Even kings in the ninth century had their clothes made by women upon their farms. No doubt the villages had their smiths and weavers, but these occupations belonged to a few isolated individuals, and had not yet devel- oped to any considerable branch of industry. Trade between various localities was verj- limited, for the general insecurity of the times made mercantile traffic highly dangerous. The want of communication prevented men from easily moving about to supply one another's wants and at the same time made it difficult for them to find out what these wants were. Robbery bj' violence was frequent and robberj- by extortionate tolls still more so. The ordinary knight of those times was nothing more or less than a bandit, perhaps not always so openly criminal as a highwayman, but very often emploj'ing the .same methods. They made merchants pay extravagant tolls at every bridge and market and along everj' highway in their domains. Fre- quent complaints of these exactions are found in Karl the Great's capitularies or enactments, and the most open robbery was practiced by the German barons. This state of things naturally ruined industry and prevented the development of manufactures or of the products of the soil. Hence Europe in general had prac- tically nothing to offer in exchange for the products of Asia, the only other con- tinent then open to commerce. This is the reason why for so many centuries we have hardly any foreign trade. Almost the only imports were fine Eastern cloths and spices for the nobility. But how were these paid for? In return Europe gave the East gold and silver — the remnants, apparently, of the money in circulation under the Roman empire, but the supply of which thus greatly diminished before the eleventh century. Armor and furs were also exported. A great feature in Euro- pean exports was, however, the slave trade ; for often only by the sale of slaves were the upper classes, as they were called, euabled to pay for the Eastern luxuries they desired. Karloman, the brother of Karl the Great, made a law to try and stop this sale of European slaves to the Saracens, but it was ineffectual. This and indeed all other trade was carried on via Constantinople by the only two trading centres of importance in those ages, Venice and Amalfi. ' Conclusions. A study of the nations of antiquity reveals two facts of importance. In the first place the branch of commerce chiefly followed by the ancients was the carrying trade to which they were impelled by the necessity of their situation. In the second place no nation has ever yet permitted its people to live in idleness, neglected to cultivate its own fields and permitted its domestic industries to fall into decay and ruin without sapping the very foundation of its national life. The chief source of wealth from the earli- est time, the means by which the greatness and happiness of nations have most surely been attained in all ages and among all peoples, have been the application of labor and capital to native industry and the opening of pur- suits which have furnished the most employment to the largest ntmiber of people. In regard to the nations of antiquity it should be further noted 1 History of Commerce in Europe, pages 33, 34 NATIONS OF ANTIQUITY. that not one ever attained commercial greatness in the face of an active competition. The great commercial nations always enjoyed a form of natural protection in their geographical situation or in the possession of some peculiar advantages. Rome furnishes to the world the greatest lesson in economics of all the ancient civilizations. The merits of those two policies which in modern times have formed the basis of the opposing systems of protection and free trade were tested. At first the domestic resources of Italy were relied upon as the principal source of her prosperity. Later, the culti- vation of the soil was abandoned, and the imperial city drew her food supplies from foreign countries. In the early history of Rome, in what was known as her Golden Age, the virtue, industry and patriotism of those citizens who cultivated the soil were the strength and greatness of the Republic. Rome was most fortunately situated in the heart of one of the most fertile and productive regions of Europe. She held within her- self the resources from which an ambitious, enterprising and industrious people could acquire greatness and material wealth. During the palmy days of the Roman Republic, the cultivation of the soil and various pur- suits of industry were regarded as honorable and dignified occupations. Cincinnatus, one of the greatest patriots of the age, left his plow to take the reins of government. It was at this time that Rome defeated Carthage, after holding out for twenty-seven years against the invading army of Hannibal. It was this age which gave to Rome, Cato, Scipio and those statesmen and soldiers who are particularly distinguished for their patriotism and courage in the defence of their country. But this policy was abandoned. The loyal hardy yeomen were supplanted, and from Naples to Gaul, Italy became cultivated by slaves. Wheat and cattle were brought from Egj'pt, the island of Britain and other provinces. The people of Rome were fed on the products of other countries. They neglected not only agriculture, but manufacturing. Their clothing and implements and other wares were brought from the East. All the wealth brought from foreign countries to the imperial city did not compensate her for the loss sustained by her failure to develop her own resources. She made the fatal mistake of neglecting domestic production and attempting to live by foreign commerce. In the best days of the Republic, when it was invaded by Hannibal, the most consummate general of the time, Rome was saved by that sturdy people imbued with a love of country, who were ready to defend the imperial city at the sacrifice of their treasures and their lives. At this time Rome meant something to her own people. After the domestic resources of the country had been destroyed, her sturdy patriotic citizens wiped out and replaced by slaves, she was weak and defenceless, although her nobles and senators had become rich from the spoils and profits of foreign conquest and trade. In the fifth century. from Ike history of COMMERCIAL HlfiTORY TO 1650. when the barbarian hordes of the North swept down upon Italy, instead of finding a people who were ready to fight for their own homes, firesides and personal interests, they found a mass of people who despised their own country and were as willing to see the imperial city destroyed as the invaders were to destroy her. Rome had no friends at home. The cor- rupt and vicious aristocracy of wealth which had lived and prospered by sapping the life not only of her own people, but of her provinces, were not only powerless but were ready to flee to Constantinople or any other city where they could hide their wealth. CHAPTER III. Industriai, Development op Italian and German Cities in the Middle Ages. No attempt will be made to recount the commercial history of Euro- pean nations during the period indicated, but merel}' to present the chief features in the economic development of some of the leading commercial communities and to ascertain, if possible, the influences that shaped their commercial destiny — the causes of their prosperity and their decline. During those centuries known as the Dark Ages, all progress was completely arreste'd and a condition of savagery and barbarism prevailed throughout Western Europe. It was not until about the twelfth century that Western Europe began to rise from this debased condition and take on that national life which made progress possible. The industrial activitj' which made its appearance at this time in Italy and Flanders, and among the German cities of the North, marks an epoch of the great- est importance in the historj- of the world. It was not, however, until the seventeenth century that England, France, Germanj-, Switzerland and all of the countries of Europe turned their attention to those manufactur- ing pursuits which, in recent times and especially in the nineteenth cen- tur>^ have increased their wealth and independence and added so much to the material welfare of their people. The slow but steady growth of this phase of European civilization is worthy of the attention of those who are seeking after the causes of the material prosperity of nations. The growth of this side of a nation's life is, in great part, an intellectual development, arising from the cultivation of skill and artistic taste. The manufacturing supremacy of a nation does not consist wholly in what is known as manual labor. The industrial pro- ficiency of a people, the wares they make, the articles which enter into their trade and commerce, are among the surest means of attesting the degree of their civilization. There is no doubt that as these faculties and tastes develop in the parents, they are transmitted to the children, and that which is difiicult for one generation to perform, becomes second nature to the next. It has been by centuries of education and training, that the people of Western Europe have produced the most skillful, apt and effi- cient artisans in the world. For two hundred years their fine fabrics have surpassed any that have been made in other countries. The skill and taste displayed in their new and beautiful patterns and designs, which appear ever>' year in all markets, are not only the results of long years of cultivation, but also by the development of a special (17) The rise of the Italian Venice compelled by her situ- COMMERCIAL HISTORY TO 1650. genius taught in technical schools supported by their government. The one hundred and sixty millions of people now in Western Europe with the technical knowledge, genius and special aptitudes which they possess in all branches of production, their increased productive capacity by the use of labor-saving machinery, the accumulated capital of cen- turies, with their means of transportation and knowledge of business affairs, are undoubtedly able to supply the rest of the world with every conceivable article of manufacture. This position has not been attained in a day, but by centuries of most skillful and persistent direc- tion of the energies of the people through powerful governments. The period between the twelfth and seventeenth centuries transformed the people from mere cultivators of the soil into artisans, tradesmen, shopkeepers, and developed every phase of industrial life. It stands between the Dark Ages and modern times. It was at the close of this period that the new world was discovered and the sea' route to India was made known. The industrial activity which aro.se at this time, by increas- ing the independence of the people and giving them new means of employ- ment, undoubtedly aided in their emancipation and the modification of tyrannical forms of government and unjust laws. During the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, .sixteenth and a part of the seventeenth century, there were only two countries in Europe. namely, Italy and the Netherlands, which attained a sufficient degree of perfection and power in manufacturing and trade, to give them a standing among great commercial nations. During this period the cities of Italy (first Venice and later Florence, Genoa, Pisa and Milan), engaged in manufacturing and also controlled the carrying trade of the Mediterranean Sea. The rise, development and progress of the industrial life of these cities mark a very interesting period in the commercial history of the world. It was the beginning of the movement of the people of the West toward manufacturing and the development of those domestic pursuits and resources which had been regarded as of little importance by the people of antiquity. The Italian cities imitated the industries of Asia and intro- duced the manufacture of silks, cotton, dye stuffs, fine pottery, glassware and other articles into Europe, thus making these towns the industrial centres which for centuries have supplied the world with the richest, most artistic and most beautiful wares and fabrics. They turned the peo- ple of Europe to a study of the arts and mysteries of manufacturing, and to a cultivation of a taste for that high degree of perfection in industrial pursuits, which during the nineteenth centurj' has contributed .so largely to the commercial power and greatness of the Continent. Fleeing from the savage hordes of barbarians, who invaded Italy under Attila the Hun in 452, the Venetian refugees found shelter and protection among the marshy islands on the north coast of the Adriatic Sea. They built habitations on piles driven into the ground. Their ITALIAN AND GERMAN CITIES. only food for a time was the fish taken from the sea, cured with the salt extracted from its brine. Inhabiting a group of fishing villages, with no land fit to cultivate, they were compelled to look to the ocean for means of subsistence and naturally became mariners. For 250 years, that is to say for eight generations, the refugees on the islands of the Adriatic prolonged an obscure and squalid existence, fishing, salt manu facturing, damming out the waves with wattled vine branches, driving piles intc the sand banks and thus gradually extending the area of their villages. Still these were but fishing villages, loosely confederated together, loosely governed, poor and insignificant. This seems to have been their condition, though perhaps gradually growing in commercial importance until at the beginning of the eightl century, the concentration of political authority in the hands of the finst Doge and the recognition of the Rialto cluster of islands as the capital of the Confed- eracy started the republic on a career of success and victory.' It was under these conditions that the Venetians became fishermen and .skillful mariners. They gradually extended their voyages and enter- prises along the coast of the Adriatic and the Mediterranean and finally became the most important and wealthy trading people of the Middle Ages. That they should have exerted their energies in this direction was most natural, it being the only outlet and means of building up their city and securing for themselves employment, wealth and independence. It was not a question of choice, but purely one of necessity. In the eleventh century when all Europe was ablaze with the religious enthusiasm of the crusaders, Venice became a central point from which troops and supplies were embarked for the East and a halting and recruiting station for the armies which poured over the Continent from England, Flanders and France, to the Holy Land. The Venetians, at this time, were the only people who, to any extent, could supply the crusaders with transports for the expeditions. To meet this emergency their ships and seamen were increased, and large profits were made from the enterprises. Feudal lords of Western Europe and of England, who embarked in these military crusades, in many instances mortgaged their estates to obtain funds with which to hire ships from the Italians for these voyages. Those who lived to return carried back ideas of an extravagant mode of living, which spread over Western Europe and created a new demand among the nobility for the luxuries and wares of the East ; hence, an increased trade sprang up between the East and West. As soon as the prejudices of the wars between the Christian and Mohammedans subsided, the Venetians, quick to take advantage of the new conditions, entered upon this trade with great vigor and enterprise. The whole commerce between the East and West fell naturally into their hands. As trade expanded other Italian cities grew in importance; Genoa, Pisa and Flor- ence all became great commercial cities during this period. The ' T. Hodgkiii, Italy and Her Invaders, Bk. 2, Ch. 4. Profits of from the transporta- tion of the crusaders. COSniERCIAL HISTORY TO 1650. monopoly of this trade bj' the Italians enabled them to concentrate a large portion of the circulating wealth of the commercial world, in the hands of their merchants, shippers, manufacturers and bankers. The monopolj- of this trade was so complete for many centuries that the natural accumu- lation of profits enabled the Italians to build magnificent cities, live in opulence and splendor, and enjoy a degree of prosperity which was almost unrivaled and which certainly, up to that time, had not been excelled bj^ any people. The trade controlled embraced all of those exchanges carried on between England, Western Europe and the far East as well as the entire trafiic between the cities bordering on the Mediterranean Sea. The luxuries of the East were exchanged for the coarser products and precious metals of the North and West. From Asia, Africa and the ports of the Black Sea they obtained spices, perfumes, precious stones, gum, oil, cot- ton, silks, velvets, saddlery and weapons of various kinds, especially the equipages for the knights and barons, the famous swords and saddlery of Damascus which at that time was a great centre for the manufacture of military accoutrements. These luxuries and comforts of the East were distributed throughout the cities of the Western coast of Europe and Eng- land. They were sent in ships to the British channel and conveyed by overland routes into the heart of Europe, and sold at the fairs and trading centres of the Continent. Gibbins says of the shipping of the Venetians at this time: Her ships generally went out in squadrons with some men-of-war as a convoy, and every year a number of these squadrons set out regularly for prescribed ports, following a strictly arranged route and sailing at definite periotfs. The most notable of these trading fleets were the Flanders fleet which traded with the ports of Spain, Portugal, west of France, England and finally Flanders; the Armenian fleet which sailed to Aros in the Gulf of Alexandrietta ; the Black Sea fleet which visited Tana, Azof, the Crimea and Pontic coast generally, and the Egyptian fleet which went to .•Mexaiidria and Cairo, meeting the caravans from the far East. A considerable overland trade was also done with Germany via Vienna, Augsburg and the Rhine.' At Alexandria the products of India, consisting of spices, cotton, fruits and ivory, were received and exchanged for gold and silver metals, and for iron, lead, copper, oil and timber. Ivory, gold-dust, dates and wool were obtained from the caravans of Africa. Raw wool and silk from the East were converted into fabrics by their artisans, and a system of diversified industries was carried on to an extent which rivaled, if not excelled, the commercial enterprise, prosperity and wealth of all the other peoples. In the latter part of the fourteenth centnrx- Venice became the greate.st connnercial and maritime city in the world. McCulloch says : Her marine commerce was probably not inferior to that of all the rest of Christen- dom combined and her ve.s.sels visited every port of the Mediterranean and the coast of Europe. Her exports by sea alone amounted to 10,000,000 ducats a year which 1 History of the Commerce of Europe, p. 50. ITALIAN AND GERJIAN CITIES. yielded profits and freights of 4,ooo,cxx) ducats to her merchants. Her shipping consisted of 3000 vessels of from 100 to 200 tons burden, manned by 17,000 sailors and 300 ships of 8000 sailors and 45 galleys,' being vessels constructed for the com- bined purpose of war and commerce, each carrying fifty pieces of cannon and a crew of 600 men.' Gibbins says that at this time there were at least 1000 nobles in the city whose incomes ranged from 4000 to 70,000 ducats each and that at a time when 3000 ducats would buy a palace. The Italian cities did not confine themselves wholly to the shipping and carrying trade, although they bought extensively in one foreign country to sell in another, and undoubtedly pushed this branch of trade with as much energy as possible; yet they early gave their attention to manufacturing, which opened a field for the investment of capital, the employment of labor and combined with their foreign trade, added immeasurably to their prosperity and wealth. The manufacturers of Venice were brought at once into direct competition with those of Asia Minor, Damascus and other cities of the East. They imitated the arts and industries of their foreign rivals in making silks, paper, jewelry- glass and glassware, woolen and cotton cloths, golden brocades, armor swords and saddlery. The significant feature of this phase of their industrial life is the important lesson it teaches of the necessity in all ages, of meeting foreign competition and building up domestic industries again.st such rivals, by a policy of protection to native industry. Venice furnishes one of the earliest illustrations of the wisdom of this policy. M. Darn in his valuable "Histoire de la Repu- blique de la Venise,' ' quoting from the statutes of the republic, gives a most interesting account of the manner in which the imports of foreign manu- factured articles for domestic consumption were forbidden. The whole system of domestic productions was regulated by law. The policy of the government favored the sale of Venetian wares instead of Oriental goods by their merchants. The statute law of Venice aimed also, to confine to the people of Venice, the results of their improvement, their discoveries and inventions in these industries, by making it practically impossible that the people of other countries should learn their mysteries and imitate their wares. The law of Venice reads as follows : If any workman or artisan carry his art to a foreign country to the prejudice of the republic, he shall be ordered to return; if he do not obey, his nearest rela- tions shall be imprisoned that his regard for them may induce him to come back. If he return the past shall be forgiven and employment shall be provided for him in Venice. If in despite of the imprisonment of his relations he perseveres in his absence, an emissary shall be employed to dispatch him and after his death his relations shall be set at liberty. The trade guilds were also encouraged and they became so popular in Venice that distinguished citizens enrolled their names among their 1 McCuUoch's Commercial Dictionary, Edition 1S51. p. 1381. ompetition (JOMMERCIAL HISTORY TO 1650. members. Dante, the great poet, was a member of the guild of apoth- ecaries. The Venetians dignified all pursuits of productive industry. By throwing about them the shield of protection, the artisans and manufac- turers were enabled to follow their crafts, unassailed by foreign rivals. Under such stimulus, a high degree of proficiency and skill was reached and the wares of Venice became noted for their beauty, fineness and per- fection in all the markets of Europe. That this system of diversifying and encouraging domestic industry contributed largely to the wealth, prosperity and permanence of Venice, there can be no question. This policy made every one feel proud that he was a citizen of Venice, and maintained a spirit of patriotism and interest in the republic, which was one of its greatest sources of .strength. The direction of the atten- tion of the people to the production of the finer fabrics and more delicate articles of commerce, undoubtedly contributed toward the development of that genius displayed by the Italians in latter years in the higher realms of art. Venice was noted throughout the commercial world for her manufactures of fine silks, woolens, cottons, etc. McCulloch says, "The glass manufactures of Venice were the first, and for a long time the most famous in Europe. ' ' Dye stuffs, soap, paper, refined sugar and fine leather were also made in large quantities. In her extensive brass and iron found- ries metal goods were produced in great varieties. Her armor and weapons were sold in all foreign markets. Florence was famed for her jewelers and goldsmiths, and her woolens, silk fabrics, and golden brocades. Naples, Genoa and Milan also manufactured silk, and it was likewise produced in the district about Lyons in France and in the eastern' part of Spain. Milan also was famous for its fine silks and armor. Silk embroideries, saddles, bridles and swords were at that time made in Damascus and cities of Asia, which were famous for their rare and costly goods. It was against the competition of these articles of the East that Venice imposed her restrictions in favor of her own people. The effect of the di.scovery of the route to India around the Cape of Good Hope upon the Venetian trade has been greatly misunderstood. The Italian cities had already declined at the time this route was made known. Had they been in a condition to avail theni,selves of its advan- tages they could as readily have engaged in the trade with India as the Dutch or Portuguese. Moreover the discover)- of the new route could not have affected the trade with the countries bordering on the Mediterranean and Black Seas, which were as accessible to the Venetians as before. Again, the date of the discovery was 1497, and it was not until a hundred years after this that any considerable traffic by the new channel arose. The truth is Venice had declined and her commerce was practically ruined before this route was di.scovered. The large extension of her territorj- on the mainland in the fourteenth century turned her attention from commercial enterprises to schemes of territorial aggrandizement, transformed her from ITALIAN AND GEMMA N CITIES. ail essentially naval power to an important Continental one, and involved her in ceaseless intrigues and wars. As Italy became the battle-ground of Europe, the ser\'ice of Venice was thrown into the balance on the occasion of almost every conflict. Her encroachments provoked the anger of her neighbors, who united with powerful monarchs to destroy her. The League of Cambray, comprising the King of France, the Pope and minor princes, was formed for the purpose of partitioning her territories, and but for the dissensions of its members would have succeeded in its object. In the meanwhile the Turks, destined to become the implacable and heredi- tary enemies of the republic, had taken Constantinople (1453) and estab- lished the Ottoman power over the territory around the Black Sea. For two centuries Venice, almost unaided, held them at bay, but her traffic suffered and many of her colonies were lost. Compelled to live constantly on the defensive against the Turks on the one hand and the Italian princes and the powers of Europe on the other, she gradually declined in strength and her commercial empire pas.sed away. The cities of Europe sometimes by purchase, sometimes by force, and again by political influences attained a condition of practical independence. By charters and .special privileges obtained from monarchs, they secured a degree of protection against the arbitrarj^ exaction of feudal lords and exemptions even, in many instances, from certain interferences on the part of the government. They were thus enabled to set up manufactures, engage in various trades and occupations, without being plundered and robbed. The security thus acquired induced the investment of capital in manufacturing, gave encouragement and protection to guilds and associa- tions, which instructed the apprentices, employed journeymen, and carried on domestic industries. The building up of the free cities of the Continent, through a system of municipal aid and protection, gave the first impetus to a system of diversified industries in central and Northern Europe. At fir,st becoming trading centres from which the .surrounding territory' was supplied with their manufactures, they gradually extended the field of their operations, and by combining for mutual protection were enabled to engage in foreign commerce. It was during this period, and in the free cities of Europe, that the merchant and craft guilds had their origin and reached the highest point of their perfection and power. The out- growth of these conditions in the cities of Western Europe was a trading and manufacturing class of people, which laid the foundation for the commercial greatness of that region. While the trading and shipping of the Mediterranean and of Europe was in the hands of the Italian cities, there existed in Northern and Western Europe a union of cities known as the Hanse Towns, formed for mutual aid and protection in trade and commerce and exerting a wide influence on the commercial affairs of the time. T/ie/ree Europe.— Theirin- dustrial growth. COMMERCIAL HISTORY TO 1650. The Hanseatic League formed as early as 1241, and continuing until the latter part of the sixteenth century, gave the first note of the increasing traffic between countries on the Baltic and in Northern Germany, which a centurj* or two before were sunk in barbarism. Lubeck and Hamburg commanding the navigation of the Elbe, it gradually spread over eighty-five towns, including Amsterdam, Cologne Frankfort in the South, and all the important cities bordering on the Baltic. This league had entire control of the carr3nng trade and commerce of Ru.ssia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, and with the Italians, con- trolled the trade of England. Its merchants exchanged flax, hemp, grains, furs, skins of bears and wolves, for linens, woolens and silks of the South and West. It established factories and commercial agencies in Europe and England. All of the fairs and trading centres were visited by its agents. Charters and privileges were secured from kings and barons, enabling the members of this powerful organiza- tion to control and monopolize even the retail and local trade of many countries. They early established themselves in London, and for centuries, under special charters obtained from the kings, exercised a controlling influence on the retail as well as on the wholesale trade of the country. They were finally excluded from the retail trade, but their head- quarters in London, known as the Steelyard, were not taken from them, and their privileges finally revoked until 1597. The city of Bruges, in the Netherlands, became a town of great importance, where the trading fleets of the Hanse merchants met the Venetian galleys and exchanged their timber, hemp, flax, pitch, tar, tallow, grain, fish', etc., for the spices and luxuries of the East as well as for the domestic manufactures of Flanders and Italy. CHAPTER IV. Development of Trade and Industries in Western Europe. The primitive inhabitants of the Southern part of the Netherlands (now modern Belgium) were of Celtic and German stock. The Dutch in- habitants of the Northern portion (or what is now modern Holland) were of German blood. By the very earliest accounts of this country, at the close of the Dark Ages, these people are found far in advance of their neighbors in industrial pursuits and civilization. Although differing in blood, they had many things in common. They grew up side by side, trading and bartering together. Their energies took a decided industrial turn, although they were exerted in different fields. The spirit of industry and enterprise dominated the whole of the Netherlands. The South being less marshy and better adapted to agriculture, the people became cultivators of the soil and engaged extensively in manufacturing. While the Dutch, from the very necessity of their situation, like the Venetians and the ancient Phoenicians, became mariners and fishermen, and engaged in trade and commerce. The weaving of linen and woolen cloth made the Flemish weavers famous throughout Europe. The making of cutlery, armor, weapons and the tanning of leather formed their chief industries. Flax, hemp and other products of the soil, carpets, damask and velvets, furnished employ- ment for the people in all of their principal towns and villages; yet manu- facturing was not carried on as extensively in the North as in the South. The wool of Spain and England was shipped to Flanders to be dressed, dyed and woven into cloth, and sold by the Flemish and Dutch not only to the Spanish and English, but throughout Northern and Central Europe. The condition of their industries in the fourteenth century is described by Mr. Gibbins as follows : Bruges, Ghent, Lillia and Ypres possessed great commercial prosperity. Each of them had about forty thousand looms constantly at work, largely supplied with wool from England. The city of Ghent in the year 1400 had eighty thousand men capable of bearing arms. The weavers alone furnished twenty thousand. Amster- dam, Rotterdam and Leyden were also great seats for woolen and linen manufactures. Mr. Gibbins relates the following historical anecdote, which throws mtich light upon their wealth and independence at this time: Many stories are told illustratingthe wealth of their industries and manufactures. In 1351, for instance, when the Burgomasters of Ghent, Ypres and Bruges went to Paris to pay homage to King John, they were received with what the French thought great pomp and ceremony, but somehow they seemed dissatisfied, for at the great (25) between the Soziikern and North- Prosperity of the Flemings. COMMERCIAL HISTORY TO 1650. Spanish oppressii banquet which was provided in their honor, their seats at table were not furnished with cushions, so to show their dissatisfaction at what seemed to them a lack of due consideration, they took off their rich cloaks, all covered with embroidery, and sat down on them as cushions. After the banquet they rose up and left these cloaks behind them. Some one of the court thinking they had forgotten them, reminded the Flemish of the rich garments they had so carelessly left ; whereupon, Simon van Ertrycke, the Burgomaster of Bruges, answered scornfully, ' ' We Flemish are not wont to carry away our cushions after dinner ! ' ' From the year 1519 to 1556 the Netherlands were a part of the vast dominion of Charles I. of Spain, who became King of Germany, Naples, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, under the title of Charles V. It- was during this period that the cities of Belgium reached the highest point of their prosperity and commercial greatness. During the first half of the sixteenth century, Antwerp was the commercial centre of the Western World. It was the gathering place of the merchants and the seat of money changers and bankers. Two or three thousand ships were often crowded in its harbors at one time. It distributed the merchandise of the East and West Indies, which it took from Portugal and Spain, and the manifold wares of the many manufacturing towns of Flanders, Brabant, Southern Germany, to a great extent and to Northern France. At the same time its own looms, anvils, tanneries, glass works, dyeing vats and mechanic shops of various kinds were numerous and busy. . . . Such was Ant- werp during the reign of Charles V. and at the time (A. D. 1555-1556), when that weary monarch gave up his many crowns to his evil son Philip II. of Spain, and went away to a Spanish monastery to seek for rest. ' The chief source of wealth of the Flemish or Belgians was their domestic industry. These countries being situated between England and the centre of Europe, their wares found a ready and extensive market in the countries where manufacturing at that time was not carried on. An event occurred at this time which had an important bearing upon the industrial life, not only of the Belgians and Dutch, but also of the Eugli.sh. It was under the reign of Philip II., who was King of Spain from 1556 to 1598, that the Inquisition was set up and a war of religious persecution was carried on against the Protestants of Belgium and Holland. Protestantism was suppressed throughout Belgium, and the Flemish weavers, who were largely Protestants, were driven out and sought refuge in Holland and England. This dealt to the industries and cities of Belgium a blow from which they have never recovered. Antwerp ceased to be the commercial centre of the West and Amsterdam suc- ceeded to its place. Belgium was conquered and subdued by Spain. The Dutch stood out against the power of Spain, defended their religious insti- tutions on land and .sea, and finally won their independence. The rise and progress of the Dutch furnish a remarkable instance of the triumph of a people over adverse circumstances and obstacles. A ' Larned'.s History for Ready Reference, Vol. V, p. 3716. WESTERN EUROPE. Cotnmer~ ""ess o/ the Dutch. marshy, slimy soil, made by the alluvial deposits of rivers, lying below the level of the ocean and subject to frequent inundations was converted into gardens, pastures, and brought to a high state of cultivation. The tides of the ocean were kept back by means of dykes built at great expense, and through centuries of the most incessant toil and hardship. By a system of windmills water was pumped from ditches and the soil drained and re-drained. Without stone or building material the Dutch excelled in architecture, brought stone from distant countries and erected magnificent edifices and built great cities. Without timber or any of the materials used in the construction of a ship, they became the greatest ship builders in the world, and for a time were the absolute masters of the sea, and the greatest naval and maritime power in the world. Wholly dependent on other countries for raw materials, they excelled in manufacturing. With- out sufficient arable land for extensive grain-raising, their cities possessed the greatest granaries and storehouses for the grain and food supplies of other nations. Early subject to the piratical raids of the Vikings and Norsemen, they defended their country and industries with that spirit of heroism which in later years made them the terror of the sea. It is not alone in industrial enterprises that the Dutch won their fame. They had a love of liberty, a sense of justice and a moral consciousness which made them the pioneers of the Western world in the establishment of free government, just laws and civil and religious liberty. They defended these most sacred principles against powerful assailants, and upheld them on fields of battle and on the ocean against the most powerful despots of the times. They maintained and defended civil and religious liberty under the most cruel persecutions of Philip II. of Spain and Louis XIV. of France. They were leaders of modern civilization and contributed more to set in motion those ideas and influences which have been undermining the despotic powers and liberating the masses from tyranny' than any people of Europe. They were the first in Western Europe to pave the way for free government, as they were also the first to recognize the dignity of labor and the importance of elevating the masses through industrial pur- suits. It was an old Dutch maxim which held that, "It is a disgrace not to live upon much less than one's income." By great frugality, industry and enterprise they raised the country from insignificance to the front rank among European nations. The period between 1580 and 1650 was one of great commercial pros- perity for the Dutch. It was at this time that the Dutch republic became the dominating commercial and maritime power of Western Europe, monopolizing the commerce and carrying trade of the world. The bankers and merchants of Amsterdam acquired their wealth, and founded in their city the great banking institutions which controlled the finances of Europe. The Dutch East India Company. VOMMEUCIM. I/JSTOUV TO 1650. Und^rthe influence of Henry "the Navigator," the Portuguese in the latter part of the fifteenth and early part of the sixteenth century had become great seamen. In 1497, while exploring the western coast of Africa, Vasco De Gama sailed around the Cape of Good Hope and dis- covered the ocean route to India. Five years before, Columbus .seeking for a shorter route between the East and West, had discovered the new world. The Portuguese immediately entered upon the Eastern trade, and by 1542 had firmly established trading .stations on the coast of India, the Island of Ceylon, the Maldive Island, and Malacca and Maliby. For forty years or until 1580, when Portugal was united to vSpain under Philip II., the Portuguese had engaged in this trade, making Lisbon the commercial centre from which the spices and products of India were sold to the Dutch for distribution among the English and on the Continent. In 1591 Philip II., through his jealousy of the Dutch, closed the ports of Lisbon and all Spanish ports to their trading vessels, but this enterprising and undaunted people, ready to risk everything for their fortunes and treasures of the East, sailed past the port of Lisbon direct for the Portuguese trading sta- tions on the coast. In 1595 Cornelius Hautman, who had formerly been in the Portuguese service, .set sail for Amsterdam in command of a fleet of four ve.s.sels, and made the first voyage under the Dutch flag to the East Indies. He returned in 1597 with a rich cargo of spices and Indian wares. This was the beginning of the Dutch East India trade. In 1602 the East India Company was incorporated with a capital of 6,000,000 guilders. By 1608 forty- three ves.sels were sent each year, trading stations were established and warehouses and dwellings constructed. The profits of this trade were so enormous that it soon became a source of great revenue to the Dutch merchants. The ships were sent out fitted for war and merchandise, ready to gain a foothold in the East at all hazards. This afforded an opportunity to raid the Spanish commerce. In the space of a few years the Dutch had destroyed eleven Spanish merchant vessels and crippled and made unserviceable forty others. The Dutch, however, found not only the Portuguese but the English trading in the East. A fierce struggle for the possession of this trade inunediately arose between the Dutch, the Portuguese and the I{ngli.sh. In 1613 the Dutch seized the Island of Tymore and drove tlic Ivnglish out of Bantam and Jakapra. In 1651 they took from the Portuguese Mulacco, and in 1668 Ceylon. They had al.so gained a footing in Japan, and were the only people excepting the Chinese with whom the Japanese would trade. In 1660 they took from the Portuguese, Celebes, the last station, and completely expelled them from the East. In 1621 they also attacked the Engli.sh and ma.s.sacred their settlement at Amboyna. The Dutch finally gained exclusive control of the Ea.stern Empire and held the trade until they were compelled to divide it with the French and the English. 1 WESTERN EUROPE. During this time, the early part of the sevenceeiith century, they estab- lished colonies in the West Indies, Brazil, Guinea and New Amsterdam. They had reached their ascendancy in the middle of the seventeenth century and extended their conquests and trade in every part of the world. They finally supplanted the Spanish and Portuguese, destroyed their navies and commerce, being aided in this by the Engli.sh, and absolutely dominated the carrying trade of the world. From the organization of the East India Company in 1602 to 1650, the Dutch merchants amassed immense fortunes from their Oriental commerce. In 1650 Holland was able to bear the burden of paying the annual interest of 140,000,000 guilders on the debt contracted in her war with Spain. In i6iotheEast India Company divided fifty per cent profit among its stock holders, in 1613 thirty-seven per cent, and in 161 6 sixty-two and a half per cent. The Dutch West India Company was formed in 1623 for the purpose of trading in Central and South America. In 1 618 Admiral Peter Herr captured a whole Spanish fleet and took from it 10,000,000 guilders in value of precious metals. The Dutch West India Company was organized more for making captures of Spanish and Portuguese vessels and plundering the coast of the New World than for anything else. In 1623 this company divided among its stockholders, twenty-five per cent derived wholly from the taking of Spanish vessels. In 1639 the Dutch Admiral Van Tromp defeated the Spanish and Portuguese armada of sixty-seven large ships, 25,000 sailors and 12,000 soldiers. In 1643 the charter of the Dutch East India Com- pany was renewed by payment to its government of 1,600,000 guilders by the company for the monopoly of the Ea.st India trade. The naval power of the Dutch was able at this time, in 1650, to destroy all rivals at sea. The commercial supremacy of the Dutch Republic, however, was broken in its wars with England in 1652, 1665 and 1672, wars waged wholly for commercial supremacy. In 165 1 England pas.sed her famous navigation laws for the purpose of crippling and destroying the Dutch commerce and building up her own. Spain for a time filled her coffers with the precious metals drawn from the mines of the New World by robbing the ancient Mexicans and Peruvians, but this treasure soon di.sappeared. Made insane or .stupefied by the wealth thus acquired and failing to appreciate the advantages of domestic industries, Philip III. in the early part of the seventeenth century, drove the Moors from Granada and adjacent provinces, thus depriving his realm of a manufacturing and trading class that was adding great .strength, wealth and pro.sperity to the kingdom. The population of Spain was also reduced by .sending her people off to establish colonies in the New World. The neglect of domestic productions and the pensecu- tion of the industrial cla.sses, inflicted an injury upon Spain from which .she 'ard/u, he wel/an producers. 'OMMERVIAL IlHiTDUy TO Vi.Vl. trade- General effect of this has never recovered. The precious metals obtained from the New World were squandered in maintaining armies and conducting wars, and rapidly slipped into the pockets of the Dutch, in the purchase of wares which might have been produced in Spain. Conclusions. In the brief review of the trade and industries of nations above given some significant facts are disclosed, which may be of benefit in arriving at the causes which have resulted in the industrial development of nations in recent times. One fact is certainly worthy of notice. With the bare exception of the Venetians and possibly of other Italian cities, no regu- lations were imposed by governments to induce the investment of capital in home industries and to encourage domestic producers in such pursuits. So far as governmental regulations and aid are concerned, it was a period of free trade. The lack of progress and of interest in industrial pursuits, which prevailed throughout the world for so many centuries, continued as long as govfernmental aid and stimulus were withheld from the people. In this respect, it was a period of inac- tion, indifference and the operation of the natural law of the free traders. People were left to take their own course and go their own way. That barbarous struggle for existence, which is the fundamental basis of free trade, was carried on through all the centuries before the Christian era, through the Dark Ages and down to the middle of the seventeenth cen- tury, without industrial advancement or material ptogress, among the masses. The foreign trade and commerce engaged in was that class so lauded by English economists of buying in one countrj^ to sell in another, or what they call an exchange of natural products. For centurj- after century certain products of India were purchased by other nations, without its ever dawning upon them that they could make the same thing themselves. During all this period, the small amount of com- merce or exchange of products which took place, was confined chiefly to seaport cities. While this contributed to the power and wealth of certain nations, the ultimate results proved that had the same energy been exerted in the development of native resources, and in the education and employment of the masses in the arts of industry, a more permanent and enduring foundation would have been laid for national defence and independence. This fact, however, will be more prominent when in later chapters the reader will be able to contrast these conditions with the connnercial activity and progress which followed the adoption of protec- tive tariffs and the especial encouragement given by the nations of Western Europe to agriculture and manufacturing, from the middle of the seventeenth century to the present time. Advocates of the doctrine of free trade, persistently refer to "the wise and liberal policy," as they call it, of Holland and Belgium, as an WESTERN EUROPE. example of the benefits of the system of free trade. While it is a fact that the Flemish and Dutch established and built up their factories with- out imposing duties or prohibitions on imports, yet the circumstances under which this was accomplished disclose the fact that they needed no protection. The causes which led the Dutch to put to sea, become fisher- men and engage in the carrj-ing trade, are perfectly apparent. Occupying a country destitute of domestic resources, a soil which could not be cultivated, except under great disadvantages; with a coast swarming with herring and with splendid fishing grounds easily within reach, they naturally and necessarily became fishermen and mariners, and looked to the ocean as their chief means of subsistence. What particular cause prompted the Flemings so many centuries before their neighbors to engage in manufacture to the extent to which they did, does not appear. But centuries before manufacturing was thought of in England, and before it was carried on to any extent in France or Germany, the Flemish weavers became famous, and their woolens and linens were sold at all the fairs and markets of England and Western Europe. •From the twelfth to the middle of the seventeenth centurj', the Flem- ish and Dutch manufacturers were absolutely without competition. No fabrics similar to those made in their own looms were shipped into their country, in competition with their domestic productions; hence, there was no necessity for protective duties. The policy of admitting free of duty wool, raw silks and other raw materials, which they were compelled to buy in other countries, is in harmony with the doctrine of protection as practiced by the United States and all other countries which believe in its principles. What the Flemish and Dutch did in this respect, at a time when they held a monopoly of these fabrics and were entirely independ ent of the injurious effects of free competition, proves nothing. The writers referred to do not state all the facts. They conceal or fail to mention, the policy which Holland and Belgium adopted in later years, when subjected to competition by English and French manufactu- rers. During the latter part of the eighteenth centurj-, before the Napo- leonic wars, England began sending her wares into Belgium and Holland. Belgium reduced by free trade became what was known as the "cock pit of Europe." The industries of Holland suffered materially, and at the close of the Napoleonic wars, when Holland and Belgium were united, they were compelled, in order to shield their industries from the ruinous com- petition of English goods, to resort to a protective tariff. From the earliest time, the Dutch government gave the greatest encouragement to ship building, and offered the strongest inducements to stimulate foreign trade. The Dutch merchants who organized the East India Company and secured to Holland her most valuable possessions, were induced to embark in the enterprise by being given, under a royal charter, a monopoly of the trade. Change of policy when competition COMMERCIAL HISTORY TO 1650. Difffteid of'vene- fachirers- Effect of protection. exper. o/vc. %nd the Nether- The situation of the Venetians was entirely different from that of the Dutch and Flemish. They attempted to build up manufactures of fine cotton and silk fabrics, of glass, saddlerj', dye stuffs, armor, weapons, etc., requiring great skill and ta.ste,' in imitation of, and in direct conij)!.- tition with, Damascus and the old manufacturing centres of the East. Their merchants engaged in the Ea,stern trade were distributing its wares among the people of Western Europe. The manufactures of Venice were established, her artisans were trained and their skill was acquired in the production of competing articles, in other words, under conditions which necessitated the protection of the home producer against foreign rivals. Venice excluded those Eastern products from her home market to make room for her own artisans and manufacturers. That this policy was wise is attested by the wealth and prosperity acquired by the Vene- tians through these industries. The Dutch and Flemish on the one hand and the Venetians on the other, afford an illustration of those conditions which determine the economic policy of a nation. It would have been unwise for the Venetians to have neglected manufactures and to have dealt wholly in foreign wares, to build up simply a one-.sided carrying trade. It would have been the height of folly, as it was unnecessary', for the Dutch and Flemish to adopt regulations for the exclusion of competing imports when none were offered. It was time for them to consider the ques- tion of protection, when the necessity for it arose. The Venetians in the south of Europe, as well as the Dutch and Flemish in the north, owe their prosperity, not to one particular class of trade, but to all classes, in which they engaged. Their carrying trade, their foreign trade for home consumption, their domestic industries, all combined, rounded out their industrial life, gave them larger sources of wealth and pro.sperity than they would have possessed by narrowing in any direction the field of their enterprises. There is no question that both the Dutch and Venetians engaged more largely in the carrying trade than they would have done, f they had pos.sessed large regions of fertile soil suited to agri- culture. If any lesson is to be drawn from the industrial life of these people, it proves the wisdom of that system which develops domestic resources, gives employment to labor and keeps the money and earnings of a people at home to build up their cities, constantly enhancing their wealth, power and independence. When the foreign trade of the Dutch had been crippled and partially destroyed by the English, as their foreign markets were lessened by the growth of the industries of France, Germany and England, their attention was turned toward a better cultivation of the .soil and a greater reliance on domestic production for their support and prosperity-. The manufacturing centres created by the Italians remained to furnish employment for their artisans, means of investment for their merchants and a basis of business enterprises for centuries after the WESTERN EUROPE. foreign commerce and carrying trade of the Italian cities had been destroyed. If the commercial and industrial history of the world up to the close of the sixteenth century teaches anything, it is the advantages of domes- tic production and that the permanent prosperity of nations has always rested on those pursuits which furnish employment to people and the investment of capital at home. The encouragement of home production has stimulated a greater degree of thrift and enterprise and made the people more patriotic. Up to the time when the Venetians established their manufactures it was not thought by any people that they could possibly make what they had been buying in other countries, tt was not until the people of Western Europe conceived the idea that they could make their own clothing and implements, that the foundations were laid for that vast manufacturing .system which has contributed so largely to the wealth and prosperity of their people. As long as Western Europe relied upon the East for manufactured articles, there was no progress or improvement. It was not until England, France, Germany, Switzer- land and the whole of Western Europe, in the seventeenth and eigh- teenth centuries, imitated the example which had been set by Venice and Flanders, and turned the attention of their own people to manu- facturing, that their material progress and prosperity began. As long as they continued to buy their wares of the Flemi.sh and the Vene- tians, they remained poor. From this time dates the foundation of the greatness of the nations of modern times. It has been by encour- aging the cultivation of the soil by special inducements offered to the investment of capital in manufacturing and by stimulating .ship building and foreign trade through governmental regulations, especially adopted by these nations that their commercial greatness has been assured. The people of France were wearing the woolen clothing made by the Flemish and did not estaljlish woolen factories until Robais, a Hollander, was invited to France and induced to e.stablish a woolen factory at Abbeville, under the protection of the government. The people of England had .shipped their wool to Flanders where it was carded, dyed, made into cloth and returned to them to clothe their people. They did not establish woolen factories until Edward III. invited John Kemp, with his weavers into England to set up their indu.stry, prohibited the export of wool and gave the woolen manufacturers the protection of the government. The whole history of the world up to this time proves that the people left to themselves will not abandon old pur.suits, embark in new enterprises and carrj' on those indu.stries suited and beneficial to the State, excepting under the direction and encouragement of the govern- ment. Tho.se nations which have continued under the policy of free trade and in which the people have been left to take their own course, have made little or no improvements in industrial pursuits. They are 3 COMMERCIAL HISTORY TO 1050. just where the}- were centuries ago. Onl>- those nations which have received protection and encouragement from their governments, which have engaged in manufacturing and de\-eloped most fully domestic industries, have become the greatest commercial nations. I PART 11. EARLY ENGLAND UNDER FREE TRADE. CHAPTER I. Social and Industrial Conditions Prior to the Fourteenth Century. England was purely an agricultural country until the middle of the fourteenth century when steps were taken toward establishing manufac- tures and developing a system of diversified industries. The early history of England is necessarily of but little interest and throws but little light upon the question under consideration. The older histories of the country are devoted to accounts of the military achievements and doings of kings and rulers rather than to an inquiry into the conditions and life of the people. But in recent years much light has been thrown by very able and industrious English writers upon the social conditions, laws and customs of the people during a period which until lately had not been accessible to the general public. Those who are denied access to the original documents and records from which these writers have gathered the facts from which they have constructed their histories are not, however, without means and materials of the most reliable and authentic character from which to draw conclusions rela- tive to these subjects. The world can never pay the debt it owes, or accord too high a recognition to Professor W. Cunningham, of Trinity College, Cambridge, for the service he has rendered in this respect, in writing of the industrial legislation of England prior to the year 1800. The writer must at the outset, make an especial acknowl- edgment of the aid which he has received from the efforts of this dis- tinguished author, although the material presented is also gathered from many other sources as will appear from the citations made. A brief outline of the condition of the English people during this early period becomes important for the purpose of showing the causes which contributed to the delay on the part of England in establishing manufactures and engaging in commercial undertakings. It will appear that it was the result of erroneous economic ideas. True appreciation of the importance of diversified industries to a nation did not arise until England had been twice invaded and overpowered by foreigners, and until her weak and defenceless condition became apparent by the contrast afforded (35) the Engliik people. EARLY ENGLAND. bj' the wealth and power of her neighbors across the channel, who by a system of manufacturing and shipping had become centuries in advance of the English, and were famous for their opulence and strength. From the first to the early part of the fifth century, the island of Britain was a province of the Roman Empire. During this period it was spoken of by Eatin writers as a rich agricultural region. It was invaded and conquered in the fifth century by the Anglo-Saxons, and held in independent kingdoms till united under Egbert of Wessex in 827. Succes- sive Anglo-Saxon monarchs continued to govern the country until the year 1013, when it was conquered by the Danes. Canute ascended the throne and the country again passed under the rule of foreigners. At the time of the Danish invasion, a sy.stem bordering closely on feudalism had become so universal that but little change in the form of government was experienced. The feudal system was established in all its vigor in 1066, when the country was again invaded and conquered. At this time, at the head of a powerful army, William, of Normandy, defeated King Harold at the great battle of Hastings and made him.self ma.ster of the country. The Anglo-Saxons brought with them from Northern Germany democratic in.stitutions. They lived in tribes, elected their chief by popular vote and managed their own affairs. Either by kinship or social ties, thej' settled in groups or communities, owning in common and occupying a portion of territory which was separated from the land of similiar communities by a boundary line called a "mark." The land within this geographical division formed the Anglo-Saxon mark, in Norman times the English manor and later the English parish or town.ship. These German landowners were political equals and known as English freemen. The affairs of the community wert governed by a council, in which each markman or freeman had an equal voice. "The actual sovereignty," .says Greene, "within the settle- ment rested in the bodies of its freemen." The land within the "mark" was divided into forest, pasture and arable land. Each freeman had a strip of land to cultivate, could pasture his cattle on the common and take wood from the forest. The Anglo-Saxon and Danish wars had brought about a complete social revolution. The people had lost their ownership of land and the right to participate in the election of their chief. The old nobility of blood had pa.ssedaway, and a militar}' nobility, composed of those warriors who had .served the king, became vested with authority. Greene refers to this transformation in the following language: The ravages and the long insecurity of the Danish wars aided to drive the free farmer to seek protection from the Thegns (military nobles). His freehold wa,"; surrendered to be received back as a fief, laden with service to his lord. Gradually the lordless man became a sort of outlaw in the realm. The free churl (freemen) SOCIAL AND IXDOiTKIAL VOyDmONS. sank to villein (serf), and with his personal freedom went his share of the govern- ment of the state. The great mass of the people had lost their right of participa- tion in the government and had become reduced to a condition but little better than slavery. The manorial system, which formed the basis upon which feudalism was constructed, had been fully established. The word manor is a Norman name for a Saxon township or community, and it differed from the mark in this; the mark was a group of householders organized and governed on a common democratic basis, while in the manor we find an organization and government whereby a group of tenants acknowledged the superior position and authority of the lord of the manor The great feature of the manor was, that it was subject to a lord who owned absolutely a certain portion of the land therein and had rights of rent (paid in service or food or money or all three), over the rest of the land.' The manor, like the mark, was divided into pasture, forest and arable land, but the rights of the people had changed. Persons taken in war were made slaves. The slave class had greatly increased. Many freemen had sunk even below the position of serfs, had lost all their rights, and been reduced to slaverj'. Even before the Norman Conquest, the country had passed into the hands of a merciless and arrogant aristocracy, owing no allegiance to the people, respecting only the authority of the king. The principal change wrought by lIi; conquest was the substitution of the Norman king and his followers for the English nobility and old lords of the manors. At the close of the conquest there were 9250 manors in England. The English nobility had either fallen in battle or fled the country, although in some instances they f urrendered their holdings under a com- promise with the new authority. All the lands, however, were confiscated by King William, and with few exceptions were parceled out among his followers. "Two hundred manors in Kent, and an equal number in Chester, rewarded his brother Odo. Grants, almost as large, fell to his ministers, Fitz Osborne and Montgomery, and the barons like the Mowbrays, Warrens and Clairs. " Every soldier was given a piece of land as a reward for his services. The king held large tracts in person, the manors thereon being worked by bailiffs appointed by the king. The great baron owning many manors, was known as the tenant in chief. While he occupied a manor he sublet others to those who became "tenants in mesne." These tenants of the king con- stituted the barons, lords and nobility of the realm. The land was called a fief and the title remained in the king, the tenant holding it under an agreement to render military service and aid in sustaining the authority of the monarch. A sub-tenant was bound by the same condi- tions of service to his lord, and also to the king. The creation of this relation under which the noble became vested with his estate, was sur- rounded with great pomp and ceremony. "Laying aside his arms, with bared head and placing his hands between those of his lord, he took the ' History of the English People, p. 90. EARLY ENGLAND. following oaths: 'Here, my lord, I become liegeman of 3'ours for life and limb and earthly regard, and 1 will keep faith and loyalty to you for life and death, God help me.' The kiss of his lord invested him with the land or fief, to descend to him and his heirs forever." The people living on the manor at the time of the conquest were undisturbed. They became bondsmen of the new nobility, and continued as before to obey their lord and render him service. In every manor was the manor house occupied by the lord or his bailiff. In this buildingwas held the baron's court and the leet court. The church, the house of the priest and other buildings for the servants and retainers of the lord surrounded the manorial mansion. The great mass of the people living on these manors were divided as recorded in the Domesday book, the census taken by the Conqueror, as follows : First, the villeins, who formed 38 per cent of the whole population and who held thirty acres of arable land apiece ; second, below the villeins came the cotters or bordars, a distinct class below the former, who probably held from five to ten acres of land and a cottage, and did not even possess a plow, much less a team of oxen apiece, and had to combine among themselves for the purpose of plowing. They formed 32 per cent of the population. Finally came the slaves, who formed only 9 per cent of the population. ' The villeins, cotters and slaves were all bound to the soil and owed allegiance to the lord of the manor. They were incapable of holding property in their own right, could be sold as chattels and transferred with the manor. If they left the manor they could be reclaimed by their lord and compelled to return. The lord had power to cast them in prison, could beat and chastise them as he liked, yet the villeins and cotters, as fixtures upon the lord's estate, were recognized as having certain rights. Each had the right to live upon his particular piece of land, to pasture his cattle upon the common or waste and to take fuel and timber from the woods. Free tenants constituted a separate class having certain rights superior to the villeins. They occupied holdings for which they paid a fixed rent, were not bound to the soil but could transfer their right to the land and go where they pleased; but they were subject, to the jurisdiction of the lord of the manor, and were also obliged to perform military service, which was not required of the villein. The condition of the people is disclosed by the fact that at this time the free tenants constituted only four per cent of the entire population. Many of the boroughs and towns of England had their beginning in a cluster of houses which grew up about the manorial mansion, and finally became trading centres and places in which the nobility congregated and resided. They were all, however, dominated and governed by the feudal system and controlled and managed by lords, barons and kings and ' Gibbin's Industrial History of Eugland, pp. n-i3- SOCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS. subject to the same arbitrary exactions and restrictions, as the rural' popu- lation. As they grew in importance, becoming centres of trade, the number of free tenants increased, land became divided into smaller parcels and freeholders became more numerous. As in the rural districts, it was the freeholders of the towns and boroughs only, who held the right to partici- pate in their government. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the English nobility was seized with the religious zeal of the age. Kings and barons joined in the great crusades to drive the infidels from the Holy Land. Armies were equipped for these long and perilous campaigns across the Continent, to fight the battles of the cross. Royal treasuries were exhausted, manors mortgaged, and every exertion was made by the nobility and kings to raise funds to carry on the expensive expeditions. That the Christian religion received a great impetus from these move- ments there can be no question. These wars were a great civilizing agency. Trade and commerce were expanded by developing in the nobility of the West a taste for Eastern luxuries and forming new modes of living. The people of the West imbibed the learning of the East, and a great intellectual revival followed. The free citizens, the trading classes, improved the opportunity by furnishing means to the crusaders. They obtained charters for their cities and boroughs, and secured municipal rights and privileges, which laid the foundation of their future political and commercial importance. "Portsmouth and Norwich gained their charters by paying part of Richard I.'s ransom (1194). Again Rye and Winchelsea gained theirs, by supplying the same king (i 191) with two ships for one of his crusaders." Many other cities and boroughs by advancing money to fit out these expeditions or to pay off the debts of the barons, secured privileges and advantages which contributed largely to their growth and independence. Among these privileges were the right to pay a fixed sum in taxes and to collect it themselves ; the right to elect a mayor and to pass ordinances and rules for the regulation of their own affairs. It was through the freedom of the cities, that there arose a body of English freemen, whose political rights were not connected with, or dependent upon, the will of the king or nobility; whose interests ulti- mately became centred in trade and commerce. Under the great advant- age of combination, community of interest, and that contact with their fellows which tends to sharpen and broaden the intellectual faculties, they became progressive, enterprising and ambitious to acquire wealth and engage in trade. It is in the cities and among this industrial class, that we find the first evidences of improvement in the social condition, material welfare and enlargement of the rights, liberties and privileges of the masses. Their growth was slow, the whole country being under the blight of tyranny, excessive poverty, ignorance and degradation, and it was only through centuries of slow development that their conditions were improved. Feudalism held a monopoly of the soil, the first and at that Effect ofthe crusades. EARLY ENGLAND. time the onlj' means of subsistence; and as long as the people were coni- pelled to depend upon their military- masters for food and clothing or the means by which they were obtained, they were powerless to throw off the condition of bondage. We have now very briefly touched upon the form of government, system of land tenures, the incipient stage in the growth of cities and boroughs and the enslaved condition of the great body of the people, up to the fourteenth century. It was not until the middle of the latter century that a change of policy was entered upon, under which means of employment were opened up, independent of the landed aristoc- racy. The rights, privileges and prosperity of the nobility only were deemed worthy of consideration. Kings and nobles were everything; the masses of the people were as nothing. Feudali.sm was a military despotism. The degraded and barbarous condition of the nobility in the fourteenth century, is described by Professor Cunningham, as follows: The great landowner was frequently on the move from one manor to another, and the practice of making a brief sojourn on each estate continued long after the commutation of food rents for money payments had rendered .such a course unnec- essary'. This may to some extent account for the curious lack of comfort, to which rich men of Norman and Angevin times submitted. They and their retinues would be sheltered in a large hall, with one private chamber — the solar — at the end. There was little or no furniture, as the rough tables on trestles and benches brought out for meals were cleared away, when the company settled themselves to sleep on the straw with which the unboarded floor was littered. A lack of knives and forks, of glass and china, rendered inevitable habits of drinking and eating which are inconsistent with our notions of refinement; while the debris of the banquet was discussed by the dogs on the floor, and was finally removed when a great occasion required that the hall should be strewed with fresh straw. When the food which could be conveniently stored in one centre, began to give out, the cavalcade would move on to another estate, each of which was separately managed, and each of which would afford subsistence for a longer or shorter period of residence. ' It may be suggested that there could not have been much left on the manor for the villeins and cotters after the.se hungrj- lords and their dogs had left. Common people must have lived in a condition of most revolt- ing misery and degradation. Between the nobility and king stood the free tenants. They could hold property, engage in business, sit on jurj', sue for their rights and, after the "Magna Charta," (1215) could not be arrested, imprisoned or deprived of their property, excepting by due process of law. It was by the increase of this class that civil and religious liberty was secured and that body of English freemen arose which ultimately controlled the destinies, morals, civilization and commercial policy of the people. It is only necessary here to suggest some of the first stages in the gradual emancipation of the mas.ses, from the tyrannical domination of kings and nobles. As the common law of England developed, and customs > Outline of English Industrial History, p. 31. J SOCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL and statutes for the establishment of individual rights and for the promo- tion of justice were more and more recognized and humanely interpreted by the courts, a change from the hard conditions of feudalism toward representative government, began to be effected. The beginning, how- ever, of the increase of the power of the people, through the action of parliament is traceable to an improvement in their material welfare which grew with, and accompanied the rise and development of the commercial and trading classes. As new means of employment were opened, as industries became established, business increased, the incomes of the people were enlarged, they became less dependent on the ruling classes, and the growth of free government was made possible. The inde- pendence thus brought about enabled the commercial classes to obtain recognition, and to demand and enforce rights and privileges which they were powerless to insist upon under former conditions. Without specific parliamentary enactments it became the practice of the courts to recognize certain customs and usages as conferring upon bondsmen the rights of freemen, and as being evidence of freemanship 1. An illegitimate born in villeinage, having no inheritable blood, could not inherit the conditions of the villeinage. 2. A villein remaining unclaimed for a year and a day, in any privileged town, was freed from his villeinage. 3. The lord might at any time enfranchise his villein. 4. There were many acts of the lord from which the law itself would infer enfranchisement, whether designed or not. These embraced all of those acts by which the lord treated a villein as a freeman, such as ( i ) vesting in him ownership of land; (2) accepting from him the feudal solemnity of homage; (3) by entering into an obligation under seal with him; (4) by pleading with him in an ordinary action. ' Although disturbed by foreign wars and internal strifes, constantly drained by excessive taxation, with kingcraft absolute, and many other causes operating to hinder the growth of industrial life, there came a revolt, first from the merchants of London and next from those who desired to set up industries against that free trade policy which favored strangers to the exclusion of Englishmen. This revolt was born of the spirit of protection, enterprise and progress. As it was fostered and given a chance to develop, improvement came to the masses. It was this spirit which laid the foundation for that industrial activity, which culmi- nated not only in the commercial greatness of England, but which wrested the power of government from kings and barons, and transferred it to English freemen. It was this spirit which animated the Anglo-Saxon people in their struggle for civil and religious liberty. It is this spirit which has been the mainspring of civilization and progress wherever independence and national greatness have been secured. 1 Dean's British Constitution, pp. 20-21. Improye- condition CHAPTER II. Trade; and Commerce Monopolized by Foreigners. At the close of the fourteenth century England was purely an agri- cultural country. Mr. Gibbins, in speaking of their manufacturing indus- tries at the time of Edward III. , says : There was a considerable manufacturing industry chiefly of coarse cloth, an industry very widely spread and carried on in people's own cottages under the domestic system. The chief kinds of cloth made were hempen, linen and woolen coverings, such as would be used for sacks, dairy cloths, wool packs, sails of wiud- mills and similar purposes, i The principal source of English wealth and revenue at this time was wool. In the middle of the fourteenth century the annual value of the export of wool was 180,683 pounds sterling. The taxes of Edward III. paid in wool were calculated not in money but in wool sacks. In one year parliament granted him 20,000 sacks, in another 30,000 sacks and in 1339 the barons granted him the tenth sheep's fleece and lamb. Early in the fifteenth century 30,000 pounds sterling out of 40,000 pounds sterling, revenue from customs and taxes, came from wool alone. ' The commercial policy of England was conducted wholly upon free trade lines. Not only was the greatest liberality extended to foreigners in trade, but they were encouraged to bring their wares into the country for sale. Royal charters were granted to them, under which they enjoyed the privilege of establishing headquarters in London, and there monopoliz- ing the trade and business of the country. The merchants of the Han- seatic League, the Italians and the Flemish, held privileges that were not enjoyed by Englishmen. Under these special charters they were per- mitted to bring their goods into the country, duty free, and to monopolize, not only the wholesale but the retail trade. Soon after the Norman Conquest, a few mechanics and artisans came from the Continent, but it was a long time before an artisan class arose. Immediately following the Norman Conquest, a number of Flemish weavers who had been deprived of their homes by an inundation, and had immigrated to England, sought the patronage of Queen Matilda, who was a Flemish woman. It does not appear, however, that any important results followed their settlement. The building of castles, monasteries and cathedrals, which followed the Norman Conquest, invited masons and History of England, 'IJ.. p. TRADE MONOPOLIZED BY FOREIGNERS. mechanics from the Continent, who remained and contributed to the mechanical skill of the country.' A number of merchants followed William the Conqueror and set up business in London. At this time wool was exported to Flanders and cloth imported. In 1155 the articles of export were lead, tin, fish, fat cattle, wool and jet. In 1221 wine was obtained from France and Lorraine. As «arlj' as the time of Ethelred, the Germans received a license to establish trading quarters in London. Similar privileges were granted to the merchants of Cologne, by Henry II., in 1157. They were to be protected in London as his own men, both in their merchandise, possessions and houses, without interference from any one. Under Richard I. they received still further privileges. They were to pay only two shillings a year for their quarters, and were exempt from payment of cu.stoms, and had the freedom of all the fairs in the realm. This charter was subsequently con- firmed by King John and Henry III. These German merchants established headquarters in London, in a place assigned to them, called the Steel Yard, which they occupied for centuries. They elected their own alder- man, and their headquarters became a place of great commercial impor- tance. The Flemish merchants were also granted a house of their own. These privileges were extended by Edward II. , and successive English monarchs. In 1325 Edward II. gave to the Venetian merchants full liberty to sell their merchandise in England. Edward III. gave addi- tional rights to the merchants of the Hanseatic League in consideration of an advance of money for the redemption of his crown jewels, which he had pawned at Cologne. The bankers of Florence had also loaned Edward III. a large sum of money. They were made collectors of his customs and extensively operated in England under privileges procured from the king. At this time the people of England were without merchant vessels, men-of-war or foreign commerce. The)' were also without domestic industries, and relied upon foreigners for all clothing, weapons and imple- ments, excepting those of a coarse domestic make. All articles from abroad passed through the hands of foreigners, who, of course, were constantly prospering from this trade. Even the wholesale and retail trade of the cities and boroughs was to a large extent monopolized by aliens. An utter disregard was shown for the welfare and prosperity of the masses. This system of placing a premium upon the business of merchant strangers and sustaining the industries of the Venetians and Dutch, was pursued until England realized her insignificance, and became not only jealous, but in constant fear of the power of her neighbors across the channel. That England should have been several centuries behind the people of the Continent, in industrial life, was the natural and inevitable result of this policy. The Hanseatic League 1 Growth of Eng. Ind., Vol. I., pp. 138-139. Privileges yoreign Commer- cial insig- of England EABLY ENGLAND. continued to hold their quarters much longer than the Italians. As late as 1474 more favorable terms and privileges were extended to them by Edward IV. They were given absolute po-ssession of their guild halls in London, and also permitted to e.stabli.sh quarters in Boston and Lynn. It was not until the reign of Elizabeth in the year 1597, that their charters were finally annulled. For nearly four hundred years this powerful organ- ization of German cities by their wealth, persi.stency and political influ- ence were enabled to flood England with foreign wares and hinder the industrial development of the country. During the fifteenth century their privileges were exercised in the face of the constant protest of London merchants, and by the unwilling acquiescence of English monarchs, who by their need of money, lack of ships and dependent condition were too feeble to protect the rights of their subjects. The trouble encountered by the English people in expelling these alien merchants who had been sapping the life of the country, and in gaining control of their own markets and becoming relieved from their exactions, shows how difficult it is for people reduced by a free trade policy to rid themselves of the entanglements and complications of such alliances. The English people embarked upon a policy of developing their own resources and establishing indu.stries under mo.st serious difficulties. It was a struggle with powerful and wealthy rivals, who had not only been long in the business with their industries well developed, but who held an absolute monopoly of English markets through political and- financial influences. The English monarchs, engaged almost constantly in foreign wars, were not only compelled to borrow money of strangers, but could not displease them without embarrassing their own plans. The more wealthy and powerful rivals could not at once be cut off from English trade. Besides England had no ships, and her merchants could not at once build merchant vessels and put to sea without the protection of men-of-war, and this they were too poor to afford. The development of industries was necessarily slow for other reasons. The mass of the people were ignorant and unskilled. Their tastes and training had been confined to the cultivation of the soil, and the}' had no money to invest in busi- ness enterprises. If the landed aristocracy had any ambition, it lay in the direction of foreign conquests and militarj' achievements. Without ship- ping, without a navy and constantly being drained of their treasure, the people were so tightly bound by the fetters of free trade, that a change of policj- was most difficult. The gradual rise of the industrial classes first appears in a revolt against aliens. Edward I. imposed higher duties on goods imported by strangers than upon similar articles brought in by natives. He appointed officers to collect duties, prevent smuggling and enforce laws. This policy was reversed by Edward II. and the privi- leges of foreigners restored. At this time complaints arose among the merchants of London against the Italians and Germans. It was stated in TRADE MONOPOLIZED BY FOKEICXER^. their petition to Edward III. that, "The citisois that bore the conni. burdeiis of the toivii were impoverished by the competition of foreigni whose stay zi'as unlimited:' But no relief was granted. These complaints were continued from time to time, until Edward III., in 1327, by charter :ommanded, "all merchant strangers coming to England to sell their wares md merchandise within forty days of coming hither, and to continue to board with some free hosts of the city Without any house- hold or society by them kept." This charter was followed by another exercise of royal prerogative in 1376, which prohibited all strangers "from selling any wares in the city, or any suburbs of the city, by retail or through a broker.'" This, however, applied only to the city of London, and the Han,seatic League was not included within the restrictions. The struggle between the home and foreign merchants continued for many years. It was not, however, over the importation of goods, the building of factories and the employment of labor in England, but upon the policy of allowing aliens who brought the goods into the country to monopolize, as they long con- tinued to do, retail as well as wholesale trade. Parliament finally came to the rescue of the foreigners and by a statute' granted full freedom to the alien merchants in utter disregard of the ancient charter rights of the city of London, to fix its own tolls and customs and to regulate trade within its borders. Edward III., however, renewed the charter of the city, providing in the instrument that, "No strangers shall from hence- forth sell any wares in the same city or suburbs thereof by retail, nor by any broker in said city or .suburbs thereof, any statute or ordinance made to the contrary notwithstanding." But during this agitation, Edward III. was under such obligations to the merchants of the Hanse- atic League, that they were exempted from the operation of this charter, and their privileges continued as before. 1 Growth of Eng. Ind., Vol. I., p. 270. =9th Edw. III., c. I. Protection introduced by Edivard CHAPTER III. First Attempts at Protection. From 1327 to 1377, a period of fifty years, Edward III. reigned over the English people. At a time when the spirit of chivalr>- was in its zenith and foreign conquest and militar}^ achievements were the high- est ambition of a king, Edward III. entered upon a commercial policy which gave him a greater distinction than all the glory gained in the victory of Crecy or in any of his military achievements on the Con- tinent. The appellation of the "Father of English commerce," has been conferred upon him by the generations of people who have prospered under the influence of that mercantile policy, which he gave to England. Henry C. Carey says the Magna Charta secured the privileges of the aristocracy, but the statute of 1337 laid the foundation of the liberties of the people, by providing for the diversity of their employment and the development of individual faculties ; as a consequence of ■which the change of system was followed by a rapid increase of both individual and national power' Considering the circumstances and conditions of the times, the establishment of this policy by Edward III., is one of the most impor- tant episodes in the history of England. In 1 33 1 he invited John Kemp, a Flemish weaver, guaranteeing to him special protection, to set up cloth weaving in England, and he came with his servants and apprentices, both weavers, fullers and dyers. He and his men were to enjoy the king's protection and were encouraged to exercise their craft, and to instruct those who wished to learn.' Further than this Edward^ invited artisans from all countries to settle in his realm, guaranteeing them full protection in setting up their crafts. About this time, weavers came from Zealand and Brabant. "In 1368 three clock makers from Delft were encouraged to settle and ply their trade in London, and a craft of linen-weavers was also introduced before the end of the cen- tury. ' ' ' In 1337, however, an act was passed' which made the reign of this monarch one of the most famous in the commercial history of England. It was the first of that long series of parliamentary enactments, which fostered and encouraged English industries and attempted to establish the GrowthofEng. Ind., Vol. I., p. 283. »iUh, Edw. III., cc. 1-5. i. '3d. Kdw. III., cc. 3-4. (46) FIRST ATTEMPTH AT PROTECTION. policy of protection in Great Britain. This statute prohibited the export of wool so that it might be turned to the manufacture of cloth in Eng- land. The importation of cloth was prohibited. All Engli.shmen were required to wear domestic cloth, excepting in those instances where the statutes permitted the wearing of furs. Mr. Cunningham in speaking of the result of this legislation says: The fact remains that he (Edward) did introduce the manufacture of the old draper}', which was prosecuted so successfully that the export of raw wool declined, as home manufacture came to flourish more and more. It is interesting to observe, too, how closely many subsequent efforts to plant new industries followed on the lines that Edward III. had laid down.' The instances in which Edward favored the Italians and Germans, and those other acts of liberality toward foreigners, are mentioned by many economic writers as an illustration of free trade tendencies in this monarch. But taking his whole career into consideration, those acts may be accounted for by his impoverished condition, his dependence on those foreign merchants for loans as well as their ability to embarrass his political schemes. The treatment which he would have extended to foreigners, had he been less dependent upon them, is indicated by the special efforts made to establish industries and build up a commercial class. He declared his "sovereignty of the .sea," and w^ould undoubtedly have enforced it, had he been provided with the means to construct a navy. The broad and comprehensive commercial policy which he had in mind cannot be mistaken. This legislation was certainly in response to a growing feeling among the people of the importance of building up indus- tries in England. This policy begun under Edward III. was further developed by his successor, Richard II., in whose time complaints were renewed against alien merchants. They were accused of enhancing prices by combi- nations to the injury of local merchants and dealers; to prevent such practices an act was passed which provided as follows: "It is ordered and assented that no merchant stranger alien shall sell nor buy merchan- dise within the realm with another stranger merchant alien to sell again. ' ' '' The first effort on the part of parliament to encourage domestic shipping contained the following provision: "To increase the navy of England which is greatly diminished, it is assented and accorded that none of the king's liege people do from henceforth ship any merchandise in going out or coming within the realm of England in any port, but only in the king's legation." ' It does not appear that this law was enforced or that it had any effect in stimulating shipbuilding, It was at a much later period, and tinder navigation laws specially 'Growthof Eng. Ind., Vol. I., p. 285. 2 26th, R. II., c. I. s 15th R. II., c. 3. ofthepr ttcti-.'e EARLY ENGLAND. enacted at the time, that the period of shipbuilding and the growth of merchant shipping began. By section two of the preceding statute, the export of bullion, gold, silver coin, plate, etc., was prohibited. Protection to agriculture was also embraced within this policy. In 1453 the merchants of the Hanseatic League began to bring large quan- tities of wheat into the country. This interference with the agricultural interests by foreign competition was restricted by a statute ' which pro- hibited the import of foreign-grown grain, when the price of wheat at the port of entry did not exceed six shillings and eight pence to the quarter. It was during this period, and especially under Richard II., that the system of bondage among the agriculturalists was abolished, and the rural population given the occupancy of land under leases and copyholds. This change connected with the system of protection to agriculture, which was inaugurated and subsequently enforced for centuries, with great vigor, built up that large body of yeomanry which added so much to the inde- pendence and strength of the English people. Though the outcry about the interference of foreigners in the great manufac- tures of the country had no immediate effect, serious efforts were made in the latter half of the fifteenth century, to encourage native industry, partly by prohibit- ing the importation of finished goods, and partly by encouraging the importation of materials. In 1455 a complaint was made on behalf of the silk women and spin- ners of the mistery and occupation of silk working in London, that the Lombards, with the intention of destroying the said mistery, were introducing ribbons and chains, falsely and deceitfully wrought, all manner of girdles and other things con- cerning the said mistery and occupation, in no manner-wise bringing in any good silk unwrought as they were wont to bring heretofore; and parliament entirely pro- hibited the importation of these goods under the penalty of forfeiture, together with a heavy fine. • The reigns of the Yorkists were particularly distinguished for the eagerness with which this policy was pursued. Edward IV. passed similar measures with regard to silk in 1463 and 1483; but the former statute contained another clause of a far more sweeping character. It complains that owing to the import of wares "fully wrought and ready made to sale" the " artificers cannot live by their misteries and occupations as they have done in times past, but diverse of them as well household- ers as hirelings and other servants and apprentices, in great number be this day unoccupied and do hardly live, in great miserj-, poverty and need, ' ' and it proceeds to prohibit the introduction of a very miscellaneous assortment of finished goods.' It seems hardly credible that up to the close of the fifteenth century England was relying on the Continent for such a variety of articles of ordinary dome.stic use, as were excluded by this act. The following is a list of the articles prohibited to be imported by the act referred to by Professor Cunningham, passed in 1463, to-wit: Woolen caps, woolen cloth, laces, corses, ribbands, fringes of silk and thread, laces of thread, silk twined, silk in any wise embroidered, laces of gold, tyres of silk or gold, saddles, .stirrups, or any harness pertaining to saddlery, spurs, bosses ' 3d, Kdw. IV., c. 2. 'Growth of Eng. Ind., Vol. I., pp. 384-5. FIRST ATTEMPTS AT PROTECTION. if bridles, andirons, gridirons, any manner of locks, pinsons, fire tongs, dripping )ans, dice, tennis balls, points, purses, gloves, girdles, harness for girdles of iron, atten steel, tin or of alkemine, anything wrought of any tawed leather, any tawed urrs, buscans, shoes, galoches, or corks, knives, daggers, wood knives, bodkins, shear or tailors, scissors, razors, sheaves, playing cards, pins, pattens, pack needles or iny painted ware, forcers, caskets, rings of copper, or of latten gilt, or chafing dishes, langing candle-sticks, chafing balls, sacring bells, rings for curtains, ladles, skim- ners, counterfeit basins, ewers, hats, brushes, cards for wool, blanch iron thread, ;ommonly called white wire.' Henry VII. whose administration is partictilarly distingtii.shed for the attention given by him to the accumulation of capital and encouragement af industries in 1488, induced skilled laborers to come from the Continent and instruct his people. Another act was passed at this time ' which pro- bibited the export of wool and the export of white ashes was prohibited in order that a plentiful supply of material might be had for making and dressing wool.' In 1552 a general act was passed for the regulation, control and encouragement of the woolen industries of the realm. Cunningham in speaking of the success of the protective policy at the time of Queen Mary at the close of the period in question, says: It was the means of giving special advantages to English merchants and of pro- tecting English artisans. This definite political object was kept clearly in view with regard to direct and indirect taxation alike. In the very same year in which the general subsidy was voted which aliens paid at a double rate, the king was empowered to rearrange the whole scheme of rates and the subsequent manipulation of the new customs, was prejudicial to alien merchants, while the levying of impo- sitions was favorable to the English artisans. The conditions under which aliens had to trade, were rendered so hard that as soon as the English shipping again revived under Elizabeth, they were driven out of the field; in the time of Edward III., they had done most of the trading of the country, but they had been gradually forced alike out of internal trade and foreign commerce.* At the close of this period, a revolution had been wrought in the industrial life of the English people. A people familiar with and adapted to agricultural pursuits alone, had been transformed into skilled mechan- ics. Artisans from the Continent had become instructors through inducements and special advantages oflEered by this policy. Busy centres of industry were growing up in localities which had thronged with tramps and beggars. The agricultural districts surrounding the towns and boroughs, where shops had been established, were finding a local market for farm produce, and receiving in exchange tools, implements and clothing. New fields were opened for the employment of labor, the development of talent, skill and the cultivation of enterprise and business ability. The English people were beginning now to supply themselves with the manufactured articles which prior to the adoption of this policy had come from the factories and workshops of Europe. Effect 0/ ike protec- tive policy. • Cunningham, Vol. I., p. 385. 24th, H. VII., < Cunningham. Vol. I., p. 490. '22d., H. VIII., c. 2d and 37th, H. VII. CHAPTER IV. Rise and Fall of Trade Guilds. As a part of the indtistrial life of the people of the free cities and boroughs, there grew up a combination of persons for mutual protection and benefits in trade. It is not necessary here to attempt to describe the ancient "peace guilds" or those organizations formed for religious and charitable purposes known as "religious guilds." In the Middle Ages the tradesmen of these cities formed associations known as "merchants' guilds. ' ' As the cities and boroughs grew in im- portance, and as tradesmen increased, the citizens of these municipalities combined to control the trade and industries, and later their power was extended to municipal affairs. Under their earlier charters, the merchant guilds secured the right of coinage, grants of fairs and exemption from tolls. The}' framed the regulations for the sale of goods, the location and control of markets, the collection of debts, of tolls and customs, the regu- lation of prices and quality of goods. Their participation in politics arose from their influence and numbers, rather than from any special chartered privileges. Merchant guilds continued until the close of the fourteenth century, when they were superseded in their influence, at least, by the "craft guilds." Craft guilds were a combination of artisans or craftsmen associated for the purpose of carrying on trades. A seven years' apprentice- ship was required; minute rules and regulations were adopted, fixing hours of labor, wages and quality of goods. The body was governed by a board of overseers or wardens, selected from their number, who inspected work, enforced ordinances, collected fines and expelled members. An expelled member lost his right to pursue his occupation in a city or borough under the jurisdiction of the guild. A common fund for charit- able and other purposes was created. A long struggle continued between the craft and merchant guilds, arising over the objection raised by the merchant guilds, to the granting of charters to their rivals. The struggle was ended in the fourteenth centurj- when Edward III. granted royal charters to the crafts. After a time merchant guilds were practically supplanted, lost their popularity and influence, and the craftsmen came into favor. All members of guilds were made freemen, a serf who had left his manor and enrolled himself as a member of a guild in some town or borough, gained freedom after remaining a year and a day. The growth of these organizations .so extended that all craftsmen and traders (50) TRADE GUILDS. vere brought within their jurisdiction and governed by their ordinances .nd regulations, excepting, however, those alien artisans who b)- special avor of the monarch were exempt from their control. When they )ecame fully organized, three classes of members existed, to wit, masters, ourneymen and apprentices. The master was a property- owner and louseholder, was skilled in the business, employed journeymen and nstructed apprentices, taking them into his service to teach them the nysteries of a trade. The journeyman was one who had served his time LS an apprentice and remained in the employ of his former or some other aaster. The apprentice was bound to a seven years' service by an inden- ure entered into with his master. The guilds were fully organized hroughout Europe, long before thej' had gained a foothold in England, ntroduced into England by the artisan immigrants from the Continent, hey were of slow growth, and it was not until the fourteenth centur>- that hey became numerous. From the time of Edward III. until the middle )f the sixteenth century, a period of two hundred j-ears, the industrial ife of England had its beginning, expanded and became of great impor- ance. In the early life of these organizations the welfare of the public vas constantly kept in view. Goods were inspected by experienced )verseers to secure excellence of quality and designs. Great care was taken n the instruction of apprentices. The utmost fairness was accorded to all nembers in the fixing of wages, hours of work and distribution of profits. While craft guilds existed in isolated localities, among small bodies )f artisans who had come from the Continent soon after the Norman Con- quest, they were not given royal charters and did not become clothed with egal jurisdiction and authority, and their importance was not appreciated, mtil that revival of industrial activity which followed and accompanied ;he policy of protection to native industries during the two centuries Detween Edward II. and Elizabeth. The adoption of protection in the :ourteenth century' occurred at a time when the country was being overrun jy foreigners and foreign wares. The excessive competition waged by aliens, together with a lack of capital and skill, retarded the growth of industries. From the lack of custom houses and means of enforcing -evenue laws, smuggling was extensively carried on. Foreign wares were brought into the country in foreign ships, and the benefits of the new policy were lessened, and the guilds were harassed and injured by this illicit trade which necessarily made the growth of industries much slower than it otherwise would have been. As nurseries of the arts and mysteries 3f the trades, as schools of technical learning, they rendered a service incalculably great. Existing at a time when industrial changes were going on, they supplied employment and formed the basis of the industrial skill and enterprise of the English people. This was a period of great economic changes, displacement of labor and great oppression of the people through the exactions of monarchs, EARLY EXaLAXn. especially during the time of Henry VIII. , when a system of confiscation of property was carried on by the suppression of the monasteries and the seizure of their estates. The charters held by the guilds were granted at a time when but few trades existed and little manufacturing was done. Their jurisdiction was limited to the specific locality named in the charter of each particular organization. As manufacturing increased, new industries were established in suburbs and manorial villages, by jour- neymen who had failed to find constant employment with the guilds or who desired to become master workmen, and to engage in business on their own account. Employment was given to the journeymen, and apprentices were taken to service. The shops thus set up were continued without charters, but under rules and customs similar to those practiced by the guilds. They did not, however, have legal jurisdiction to impose fines or to enforce regulations, but were controlled more by common consent. During the latter part of the fifteenth and the early part of the sixteenth century, there were two systems of production operating side by side, but in different localities in the same country ; the one being the craft guilds which had now reached their full vigor and began to show evidence of decay ; the other, those establishments started by persons outside of the jurisdiction of the guilds. These establishments were the beginning of individual or capitalistic production, which superseded the guilds, in the latter part of the sixteenth century and continued for two hundred years, until the introduction of the factory system. Guilds were first organized and conducted on the basis of fellowship and community of interest ; the good of the public ; the common benefit and welfare of apprentices and journeymen and masters were equitably considered and justly measured without complaint. Duties were dis- charged toward each other and toward the public with a spirit of piety, and in some instances with a religious enthusiasm. A portion of the funds was contributed to the church for masses and religious obser\'ances. In the course of time a surplus of journeymen arose. The free tenants who had drifted into the boroughs and towns in search of employment for themselves and their children, were compelled to seek admission to the guild. The system of clearings, by which a large portion of the agricul- tural population was driven into the towns, increased the competition for apprenticeships. The guilds came to hold a monopoly of the industries of the country and the employment of the people in trades. Their rules and regulations must be complied with or it was impossible for a journey- man to set himself up in business or find employment. Under these circumstances only could a person find service as an apprentice. By petty ordinances and arbitrary exactions, the wardens and overseers in their efforts to perpetuate their absolute control, created di.ssatisfaction which caused complaints, not only among trades people outside of the guilds, but among those journe\'meii who had suffered from their arbitrar>' TRADE GUILDS. regulations, as well as those who had failed to become apprentices. In 1437 the disaffection became so widespread that it attracted the attention of parliament. Complaints were made "that they had set the local authorities at defiance and thus injured the people." The preamble of an act' of Henry VI's reign recites that: Masters, wardens and people of guilds, fraternities and other companies corpo- rate, dwelling in divers parts of the realm, ofttimes by color of rule and governance and other terms in general words to them granted and confirmed by charters and letters patent, of diverse kings, made among themselves many unlawful and unreasonable ordinances, as well in prices of wares and other things for their own singular profit and to the common hurt and damage of the people. This act of parliament prohibits the making of any ordinance or rules unless submitted to justices of the peace for record. A later statute - passed in 1503, prohibits the masters, wardens and fellowships of crafts and all rulers of guilds from making any rules, regulations or ordinances for their government, unless they are approved by the chancellor or justice of the peace. Many of the objectionable ordinances and regulations referred to in the petitions of parliament or set forth in preambles of stat- utes, disclose the grounds of their objections. One of the arbitrary exac- tions imposed upon the apprentices was in fixing excessive charges for the privilege of entering upon an apprenticeship, and heavy fines and penalties upon the termination of such service. In 1531 it was enacted that "in no ca.se should they charge more than half a crown as an apprentice fee, and three and four pence at the end of his service as a fine."^ These organizations were not content with monopolizing and controlling apprentices and journeymen while in their employ, but took measures to prevent their becoming competitors at the close of their ser- vice. It appears from a recital in the statute' that: Diverse masters, wardens and fellowships of crafts have by subtle means prac- ticed and compassed to defraud and delude the said good and wholesome statutes, causing diverse apprentices or young men immediately after their years be expired or that they be made free from occupation or fellowship, to be sworn upon the Holy Evangelist at their first entry, that they nor any of them after their years or terms expired shall set up nor open any shop, house nor cellar ; nor occupy, as freemen, with- out the assent and license of the master, wardens or fellowships of their occupations upon pain of forfeiting their freedom, or other like penalty. The effect of such regulations and oaths is evident. It tended to drive journeymen who had respect for their oaths outside of the local jurisdiction of the guilds to set up shops of their own; an oath exacted under such circumstances could justly be construed as morally bind- ing only within the territorial jurisdiction of the guild. In the brief space which must be allotted to this subject, only an outline of these organizations can be given. They received their death-blow by = 19, H. VII., I 2Sth, H. VIII., Death-blow to the guild EAUir EKGLANV. a statute passed in 1547 under Henrj- \'III., against associations and dealers in victuals. It was also directed against artisans and laborers wholiad made "confederacies and promises" and "sworn mutual oaths." Artisans might work where they pleased whether free of the town or not, and the authority of the local craft guilds was abolished."' A few sur- vived the effect of this statute in cities like London, Ludlow, Preston and Coventry, which could not be interfered with, excepting by local authori- ties, these cities holding special constitutions to which general acts of parliament did not apply. However useful the guilds may have been in former times, they had certainly fallen into disrepute and lacked sufficient influence to continue their existence. They had undoubtedly performed a great .service in the industrial life of the country in instructing and educating apprentices, in securing uniform weights and measures, and preventing frauds upon consumers in the sale of inferior wares. Upon the downfall of the guilds, manufacturing by private individuals and companies by direct employment of labor, under the relation of employer and employed, came into practice. This change was not brought about in a day, but was effected by a gradual process in the decay of old industrial centres over which the guilds held exclusive jurisdiction and in the establishment of industries in new localities under new conditions. Journeymen, under the patronage of landed proprietors, opened shops in village manors and employed journeymen and took apprentices independ- ently of those guilds which held charters. 1 Cunuiughara, Growth of English Industries, Vol. I., p. 465. CHAPTER V. Disorganization of Labor. The reign of Edward III. is noted for the Black Death or a deadly plague which started in Asia, traveled westward over Europe and reached England in 1348. It spread over the country and carried off about one-third of the population.' It was more than a centurj' before the peo- ple recovered fully from the effects of this terrible visitation. Another cause which during this period operated to disorganize labor was the system of enclosures which was resorted to by the land o^^ners. Vast tracts which hitherto had been cultivated were fenced in for sheep pastures and cattle grazing. During the reign of Henry VIII.,the property of the Catholic Church was confiscated, which, in connection with the enclosures, threw large numbers of people out of employment, and created great distress among the laboring clas.ses. The monasteries held large tracts of land, gave support and employment to multitudes of people, and at the same time were the only bodies who looked after the poor, and assumed the burden of distributing public charities. The confiscation of the property of the guilds was another act of Henry VIII. which dealt a severe blow to the industrial masses. The lands confiscated were handed over to a set of court favorites and retainers. By the enclosures the people were driven from the manors, their cot- tages and habitations demolished and vast numbers of rural laborers were set free to seek other employment. They could not remain on the land or go back to it without the con.sent of the proprietors. The displacement of labor, caused by this and by the confiscation of monasteries and the property of guilds, flooded England with a surplus of laborers seeking new employments. Neither the demands of the country in agriculture nor in the industries were sufficient to absorb the thousands who were driven into idleness. As they .sought refuge in the towns and boroughs, the guilds, as far as possible, enrolled them as apprentices. This condi- tion filled the land with paupers, who overran the country to such an extent that the most stringent laws for the suppression of begging were imavailing. Homeless and landless, ignorant and unskilled, seeking an opportunity to apply their God-given forces in honest toil to obtain sub- sistence, they wandered about the countrj- begging for bread and pleading for work. These acts of confiscation and this system of enclosure under ^ Industrial History of Kngland, p. 70. EARLY ENGLAND. Condition ofthe o/ remedial legislation. which the habitations of so many people were demolished are without a par- allel in brutality in the history of England. The manorial system following the Norman Conquest, however unjust and arbitrary it may have been, yet had the redeeming feature that although the serf was bound to the land and held in bondage, he was sure of subsistence upon the manor by his industry. During this transitional period, the hope of the people lay in the sys- tem of a protective tarifi. They were wards of the realm. The king and English nobility owed them a duty. It was a moral, as well as a political, obligation. Apart from all considerations of national greatness and individual gain, it called for the interference of the sovereign power of the realm in behalf of humanity. Although it took a longtime to work out the problem, relief at last came to the people, through the building up of industries, the improvement of agriculture and the development of the domestic resources of the country in which they found means of sub- sistence. The following extract throws much light upon the terrible condition to which the people of England were reduced during the reign of that monarch who has been so glorified by many English writers, and yet whose reign is blotted with some of the basest acts of cruelty known to history : Concerning the poor people, notwithstanding all the laws made against their begging and for the provision of them within their several parishes and towns where they dwell; for there be for one beggar in the first year of King Henry VIII. at this day, in the thirty-third year of her majestj', an hundred. As may partly be gathered by the multitude of the beggars that came to the funeral of George, late Earl of Shrewsbury, celebrated at Sheiiield in Yorkshire, the 13th day of January in the thirty-third year. For there were by the report of such as served the dole unto them, the number of eight thousand, and they thought that there were almost as many more that could not be served through their unruliness. Yea, the press was -so great that diverse were slain and many hurt; and further it is reported of credible persons, that well estimated the number of all the said beggars, that they thought there was about twenty thousand. Now judge ye what a number of poor people is to be thought to be within the whole realm, seeing so man)' appeareth to be in one small part of a county or shire, for it is thought by great conjecture, that all the said poor people were abiding and dwelling within thirty miles of the town of Sheffield aforesaid, and yet were there many more that came not to the dole. ' An examination of the condition under which protection was adopted in England cannot be made by a candid and careful observer, without repudiating the constantly repeated statement that the mercantile system was e.stabli.shed through base and selfi.sh motives, for the purpose of acquir- ing political power and of promoting personal ends. However arbitrary and tyrannical the ruling classes were at this time, it is not possible to conceive in them a character devoid of all sense of righteou.sness and luimanitv; but such thev must have possessed, to witness unmoved by all of Religious Houses, Colo. Mss, DISORGANIZATION OF LABOR. pity, the masses of their own people in idleness and degradation, under circumstances which would perpetuate such conditions without that protection which it was within their power to extend. The question of finding employment for labor was never so pressed home upon any people, as it was upon the English people at this time. The contrast between their condition during the period above treated and that which prevailed when the full effects of the protective systeip were felt will appear in a subsequent chapter. For the present it sufGces to say that there is no example in the history of any country, of a greater change and improvement following the adoption of protection than is found in the history of this people. In the course of time every village and bor- ough, town and city in the whole realm, was converted into a bee-hive of industry where men and women found employment, not only in making all articles for their own use, but in the manufacture of all sorts of wares, from the crudest implements to the most delicate and costly fabrics. Protective legislation, having its beginning in the exclusion of foreigners from the retail trade of the country, was extended later to the development of a great variety of domestic industries. The first idea seems to have been, to keep their wool at home to build up their woolen industries and turn the labor of Englishmen to providing their own people with cloth. As we have seen, English wool had hitherto been exported to Flanders and returned in the form of cloth, with the labor and profits of the Flemish added. The interference of aliens with the retail trade of the merchants of London was very injurious. The foreign importer, by bringing the wares into the countn,^ could demand whatever price he saw fit. The monopoly thus held excluded the citizens of London from a par- ticipation in trade. The policy of interference of the government in behalf of its own citizens was most wise and just. If governments are ordained for the protection of property, one of their first duties is to make it possible for their own citizens to acquire property. When we contrast the result of this policy with the encouragement given to the Flemish, Germans and Italians to bring their wares into England, resulting in giving employment to the artisans of those coun- tries, the investment of capital and building up of industrial centres on the Continent, instead of in England, we can readily .see why Holland and Flanders became rich and powerful, while England remained poor and her people unskilled and degraded. The excessive rate of interest and the galling exactions of the Florentine bankers had undoubtedly taught Edward how impolitic it always is for a nation to rely upon for- eigners in time of need. The English must, at this time, have been reduced to a very low financial condition, when her ruler was compelled to pawn his crown jewels to raise money. The very coin that he bor- rowed on the Continent might have been drawn from the English people and drained from the country by the free trade policy which prevailed. Govern' mental in- terference. 'rt-e trade EARLY ENGLAND. The very fact that it was necessary to bring skilled artisans from foreign lands to teach the English people the arts of industry shows how a people under a system of free trade will cling to rural pursuits without any desire or ambition to embark in new enterprises. Such foreign competition was then, as it has been in all countries when given full sway, a perpetual blight upon home industry. Edward's proud spirit undoubtedly felt keenly the inferior position in wealth and industrial life of his own peo- ple. When English monarchs grasped the great economic truth that they should favor their own people against strangers in every department of trade in which they were at a disadvantage, the problem of English suprem- acy was solved. Although this great principle was not fully appreciated and embodied in a comprehensive industrial code and national policy until the time of Queen Elizabeth, yet successive monarchs and parlia- ments sufficiently recognized its application to the conditions of the Eng- lish people, to make a steady progress under its beneficent influence. The intervention of wars, both foreign and internal, between the time of Edward IV. and Queen Elizabeth, left little room for industrial activity. It was during this period that the wars between the houses of York and L,ancaster plunged the nobility into a fierce struggle for the crown. The establishment of the Church of England by Henry VIII., his suppression of the mona.steries and seizure of the property of the Roman Catholics, disarranged the business affairs of the realm with injurious results. The struggle between Catholics and Protestants, which continued to the time of Queen Elizabeth, prevented a rapid industrial development under this policy. At times and for long periods it was almost wholly lost sight of. The system of collecting revenues and enforcing prohibitions on imports was so imperfect that smuggling was constanty and persistently indulged in. Besides this it was not until the early part of the sixteenth centur}- that England had become strong enough to defy foreigners and take from the Hanseatic League its privileges. PART III. MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. CHAPTER I. The Protective Policy of Great Britain from 1558 to 1800 and What It Teaches. "A wise man will make more opportunities than he finds." — Bacon. The S3^stem of protection gradually ripened into a settled national policy, which continued from the time of Queen Elizabeth uninterrupted and persistently strengthened at every point until 1846, when it was in the main abandoned. England was not, however, without political parties and bitter controversies over policies and forms of government took place. From the reign of Elizabeth until the latter part of the seventeenth century, the main question was whether the sovereign power of the realm was vested in the king by divine right or rested in that great body of English freemen represented by the House of Commons. This question was ultimately .settled by a resort to arms. It brought Charles I. to the block, established the commonwealth, and ultimately placed it in the power of the people of England by an act of succession to choose their own ruler, make their laws and establish for themselves a form of govern- ment. But through all this controversy, there was one question upon which the English people were agreed. It mattered not what party was in power, whether Puritans or Royalists, Whigs or Tories, the industrial development of England by a system of protective tariffs, navigation laws and governmental regulations was recognized as the best means of secur- ing commercial and industrial greatness. A spirit of loyalty to Eng- land and to Englishmen per\'aded all classes of people and found expres- sion in deeds of bravery and heroism on land and sea, in defending and extending their dominions, building up their industries, and making the power and name of England supreme in the world. The reign of Queen Elizabeth, which began in 1558 and closed in 1603, forms one of the most important commercial epochs in the history of the country. The most renowned in literature, it should be no less distinguished for the influences exerted on trade and commerce. This was the age of Shakespeare and Lord Bacon, two of the greatest men of all time. As a statesman, jurist and philosopher, Lord Bacon is without (59) 3I0DERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. a peer. Undoubtedly his genius gave form and order to the national policy of protection, which hitherto had been indefinite and unstable. At this time the legislation of preceding reigns was gathered together, re-enacted and formed into a comprehensive, industrial code, having for its specific purpose the development of all branches of productive industry and com- merce. The purpose of such a policy is disclosed in the several branches of industrial life, which were sought to be specifically regulated and fos- tered by the following legislation : 1. The Statute of Apprentices or Laborers. 2. Poor Laws. 3. Protection to Agriculture and Manufacturing. 4. Encouragement of Fisheries. 5. Encouragement of Shipping and the Extension of Foreign Trade. While all these important branches received legislative sanction and recognition at this time, the policy thereby definitely begun was not only adhered to by successive English administrations, but was constantly strengthened and improved upon, until every country on the face of the globe felt its influence, and England became the richest com- mercial nation in Christendom. It is a fact worthy of consideration that the supremacy of England was reached at the close of the eighteenth cen- tury, before the Napoleonic wars. The navigation laws passed in the time of Cromwell were the crowning acts of this series of industrial legis- lation, having for their definite purpose the establishment of industries and the expansion of trade and commerce. The "Statute of Apprentices" or "Laborers," as it is sometimes called, passed bj' parliament in the fifth year of the reign' of Elizabeth, continued in force from 1563 to 1825. While it cannot be commended in all respects, it can be approved in some. It throws much light upon the statesmanship and sound economic ideas which prevailed. The necessity of finding employment for labor, at good wages, and the regard which everj' well-regulated state should have for the welfare of its artisans, were certainly comprehended by the statesmen of this period. Although the means by which it was sought to accomplish such a result were ineftectual, and in some respects unwise, yet the misery and degradation inflicted upon the artisans of a country by a depression of wages are so necessary to be avoided, that experiments of this character should be treated with great consideration by those who are unable to understand fully the con- ditions under which production was carried on and subsistence procured at this time. One of the chief purposes of this enactment was to secure an increase in the wages of laborers which could not be obtained under the old statutes. This is expressly stated in the preamble, as follows: ^ 5th, Elizabeth, c. 4. GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. Chiefly for that the wages and allowances limited and rated in many of the said statutes, are in diverse places too small and not answerable to this time respecting the advancement of prices of all things belonging to the said servants and laborers, the said laws cannot conveniently without the great grief and burden of the poor laborer and hired man be put in good and due execution. This effort to improve the condition of labor by governmental aid has been most severely criticised by recent English writers, and especially by those who advocate free trade. They condemn not only the specific details of this legislation, but the whole policy under which conditions favorable to artisans were brought about. When we come later to contrast the effect of free competition on English industries, during the past twenty- seven years, with the marvelous development and improvement which followed the legislation under Elizabeth, the discredit will be ca.st upon those who regard low wages as an economic advantage to acountrj-. The legislation in question attempted to regulate the whole system of appren- ticeship, wages, terms of employment and length of day's labor in agri- culture and manufacturing. Instead of leaving the question of wages to be settled by free competition or free contract, entered into between the employed and employer, it provided that justices of the peace should meet on or before the tenth of June of each year to fix the rate of wages to be paid during the ensuing season. The statute says, the justices of the peace, after fixing the time of their meeting, " calling to them such discreet and grave persons, as they shall think meet, and conferring together respecting the plenty or scarcity of the times, and other circumstances necessary to be considered," shall limit and appoint the wages for every kind of manual labor skilled or unskilled, by the year, week or day, and with or without allowance of food. It was made a penal offence to pay less wages than those fixed by the magistrates. This portion of the statute, however, which vested justices of the peace with power to fix wages, became a dead letter, although it remained unrepealed until 1825. But few instances are found in which it was ever acted upon. The reason is undoubtedly the general improvement of the masses, and the increase of wages which followed. As opportunities for work increased and new fields opened for the investment of capital in manufacturing, shipping and agriculture, the demand for labor tended to prevent the occurrence of the conditions which were sought to be alleviated through the statute. The statute also provided a seven years' apprenticeship for artisans, and authorized an agriculturalist to take a boy and instruct him in farm labor, until he arrived at the age of twenty-one years. Every master who had three apprentices was required to employ at least one journeyman for each extra apprentice. The statute was designed to secure stability and permanence of employment. Terms of service were fixed and penalties imposed upon laborers for quitting within the limitations, as well as upon Attempt t fix rate o, wages. Attempt t, of employ- 3IODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION Necessify of leg i da- of III I. policy employers for dismissing a servant before his time had expired. At the termination of employment, the master was required to give the emplo}'ed a certificate of approval, and no laborer could apply for work in another parish excepting upon presentation of such writing from his former employer. It is not necessary here to enter upon a description of the minute details of this statute, or show its application to the various classes of workmen, such as clerks in stores and mechanics. It is sufficient to present only its general features relating to the means by which the mass of ignorant, crude laborers of England were transformed into skilled and efficient artisans. The conditions were such that a resort to extreme measures was necessary. The number of beggars, paupers and idlers was so great that governmental interference in directing their energies, moulding and developing their faculties and fostering a diversity of industries in which they might find employment, w-as justified upon the ground of public policy as well as upon sound economic principles. If they had continued on free trade lines and been permitted to take their own course unaided and undirected, England would have remained the most barbarous, weak and defenceless country in Europe. If they had con- tinued to exchange agricultural products for the wares made by the labor of the Continent, the people would have been powerless to improve their condition and serfdom, poverty and degradation would have been per- petual. Such free trade policy would have been a continual check on ambition, a hindrance to progress, and the free trade maxim that the "fear of want is the spur to exertion" would then have had full play. The energies and faculties which make a people independent and opulent would never have been aroused. But the English people at this time were attempting to develop their best faculties and to secure good workman- ship, and excellence in quality and design of wares. Her artisans must be educated and disciplined. The .system of apprenticeship, enforced bj' law, was undoubtedly beneficial in securing that body of skilled mechanics and artisans which in later years made England so famous for the variety and beauty of her merchandise. Besides, this policy was in practice during a period when manufacturing was carried on largely by hand in small establishments, and before the introduction of machinery and the vast factory system which now prevails. This enactment at the time was intended to apply to all industries and every part of the realm. As years rolled on, as conditions changed, new industries were introduced and corporations formed, which were held to be not within its operations. During the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth century, before the final repeal of the statute of laborers, there were in existence in Eng- land, being carried on side by side, two .systems of production : the one regulated by the Act of 1563, the other consisting partly of the system of apprenticeship, and partly of arrangements made between employer and employed, under free contract. We shall later see the application of the GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. doctrine of free contract to the conditions existing in England in the early part of the nineteenth century, when the agitation of free trade was begun. No sooner had the statutes, which secured to the laborer certain protection against their employers, been repealed, and the artisans of England thrown back upon their own resources and left to shift wholly for them- selves, than labor organizations came into existence, and commenced an agitation for a regulation of hours of labor, a restriction on the employ- ment of women and children, and enforced sanitary regulations of factor- ies through inspectors appointed by the government. We shall be able to trace some of the elements of a system of labor protection from the craft guilds through the legislation of Elizabeth, finally culminating in the labor laws now on the statute book in England, placed there, however, under the protests of the advocates of the doctrine of free trade. The lack of business experience and the low standard of morals and integrity which prevailed at this time, encouraged all manner of frauds, cheating in weight, quality and size of goods put up for sale. It is not surprising that dishonesty should prevail among business men, when kings had set the example by engaging in the most dastardly practice of debasing the coins of the realm and repudiating national debts. To raise the standard of business integrity, to give to English goods a name and to prevent fraud and secure good workmanship, fineness and excellence of quality, the whole manufacturing system was placed under the supervision of government inspectors. England at this time, it should be noted, was attempting to establish an industrial system in competition with the Dutch and Flemish, whose goods not only monopolized all foreign markets, but had acquired a reputation which procured for them a ready sale everywhere. The very name of Flemish goods gave their producers an advantage over all others. It was to meet this opposition and to establish a similar repu- tation, that the English Government adopted most stringent means to secure honest weights and measures and good faith in everything offered for sale. The abuse of this system by subsequent monarchs, in farming it out under licenses granted to persons and corporations who derived large profits therefrom, affords no valid objection to the policy itself, which undoubtedly contributed largely to a proper direction and control of the English producers in securing that foreign trade from which they derived in later years such immense profits. Prior to the reign of Elizabeth, the poor of the realm were supported wholly by private charities. From the earliest times, after the conversion of England to the Christian religion, the poor had been regarded as the wards of the Church. The monasteries were for centuries the places from which they were cared for and fed. The destruction of these religious institutions by Henry VIII., and the confiscation of their property for a time, left the unfortunate of the realm in the most helpless condition. It was not, however, until the reign of Queen Elizabeth that the government Inspection of goods — .\'eed of MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. JPromotion of native industries. took upon itself the duty of regulating and enforcing a relief of the destitute of the country. By an act of parliament, ' the care of the poor was imposed as a burden upon the land of the several parishes of the realm. The bishops of the Church were given jurisdiction to enforce its regula- tions. Laws were immediately enacted imposing a more complete enforce- ment of its provisions, by the levying of assessments and by the sale of goods to enforce the collection of rates from those who refused to pay. Many provisions of these statutes and amendments intended to provide for the employment of the idle, to punish those who were able but refused to work, and to suppress vagrancy-, proved ineffectual. At the time of Henry VII. and Henry VIII., says Mr. Cunningham, "The able-bodied tramp who had no employment was the chief difficulty. In the seventeenth century we hear less of this evil excepting so far as it was directly due to war." ^ By an act of settlement the pauper class was distributed proportionately among the several pari.shes of the realm. This practically prohibited or prevented those seeking emploj-ment, or who might become paupers, from shifting from one part of the kingdom to another. A new arrival in the parish would at any time within forty days be returned by the poor authorities to the parish from which he came. The purpose of the Poor L,aw enacted at this time was to afford relief for the lame, sick and those unable to work, and to encourage habits of industry in the able-bodied. A more extended view of the Poor Laws will be found in Chapter VI. of Part IV. The following quotation from the "Growth of English Industries," is so concise and authentic, that but little is left to be said on this branch of the subject: It is unnecessary to describe in any detail the industrial policy which Elizabeth pursued; in its main outlines it was protectionist and utilized the various expe- dients which had been already tried and had been deemed successful. a. The importation of finished goods from abroad was prohibited early in her reign; the list of articles to be excluded is not as lengthy as that in the statutes of Edward IV. or Richard III. , and consists for the most part of cutlery and small hardware goods ; but the principle of action is precisely similar to that of preceding monarchs, and the preamble urges the old pleas, in the encouragement given to the artisans abroad and the consequent enrichment of other realms while our own work- men were unemployed. b. The exportation of unmanufactured products, whicll might be worked up at home, was also restricted. The English wool was, of course, the mainstay of the manufacturers of the realm, and it was desirable to retain the English breed of sheep; in consequence a very severe measure was passed in 1566, and those who exported .sheep or lambs alive were liable to lose a hand for the first offence, while a second was adjudged a felony. At the same time, it was enacted that no Kentish or Suffolk cloth was to be exported unless it was wrought and dressed, and that for every nine unwronght cloths sent from other parts of England, one dressed cloth should be sent abroad. ' 43d. Eliz. ! GrowUi of Kng. Itul., Vol. n., pp. 200-201. GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. i. Another mode of encouraging native industry was by trying to promote the consumption of English manufactures. -During the whole of the Tudor period there w;is frequent interference in regard to the cappers. Henry VIII. had tried to regulate the trade; while Elizabeth insisted that her subjects should wear English made caps. The trade had apparently been very extensive ; London alone had maintained Sooo workers, and it had also been practiced in Exeter, Bristol, Mon- mouth, Hereford, Bridgenorth, Bevvdley, Gloucester, Worcester, Chester, Nantwich, Alcester, Stafford, Lichfield, Coventry, York, Richmond, Beverly, Derby, Leicester, Northampton, Shrewsbury, Wellington, Southampton, Canterbury and elsewhere; the division of employment had been carried very far in this science of capping for carders, spinners, knitters, parters of wool, forcers, thickers, drepers, walkers, dyers, battlers, shearers, prepers, edgers, liners and bandmakers all are mentioned ; but it was alleged that people had left off wearing caps, that many who had been busily occupied were thrown into beggary, and that there were fewer personable men to serve the Queen in time of war. On every Sunday and holy day, every person of six years and upwards, with some few exceptions, was to wear on his head one cap of wool fully wrought in England, and if he neglected to do so was to pay a fine of three and four pence for each offence.' In the fifth year of the reign of Elizabeth, a statute was passed, con- tinuing in force the acts of Henry VII. and Henry VIII., which had been enacted to prevent the system of enclosure from being carried to any further extent; but in 1592 this policy was abandoned and the land- owners were again permitted to take their own course. The result was that large tracts were fenced in and the displacement of the agricultural population was renewed. The injurious effect upon agriculture was so quickly felt, that in 1597 the old laws were revived, and it was provided that the land which had been turned into pasture since the repeal of the old law, .should be restored to tillage. The laws in regard to the export of wheat were somewhat changed. Under Elizabeth, export of wheat was permitted when it was worth ten shillings a quarter, and prohibited when the price reached twenty shill- ings a quarter. This act was passed in 1592.' Prior to that time, since the reign of Philip and Mary, the export of wheat was allowed when the price was six shillings and eight pence a quarter. The improved condition of agriculture is shown by a writing by Dymock in 1650, who says, that "In Queen Elizabeth's day good husbandry began to take place." It should be noted that the statute passed under the reign " provided that a cow should be kept, and a calf raised for every sixty sheep. In the forty-third year of Elizabeth, laws were passed to effect a drainage of fens and low lands, and to reclaim for agriculture a large amount of manshy land which had been untillable. An incidental proof of the prosperity of agriculture is to be found in the gradual increase of rents, on which Professor Thorold Rogers lays considerable stress. This rise was not like the enhancement of the sixteenth century, which seems to have been due to the increased value of unimproved land for grazing Growth of Eng. 11.. pp. 33-< :35th, Elii ' 2d and 3d, Philip aud MODERN EXGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. purposes ; but it followed in consequence of actual improvements, especially, as Best notes, of enclosing pastures. ' The lands iu the pastures weere (att my father's first comminge) letten to our owne tenants and others for 2s. a lande ; afterwards for 2s. 6d. a lande, and lastly for 3s. a lande; but nowe being enclosed they will let for thrice as much.^ The legislation relating to the fisheries performed the double purpose of giving encouragement to industry and causing an increase of shipping, intending thereby to provide for the defence of the realm. The fisheries were made a nursery for Briti.sh seamen. Edward VI.' had withdrawn the aid formerly given to shipping, but these laws were revived and enforced with great vigor by Elizabeth. In 1563 it was forbidden to bring wine from Gascony in foreign ships.* Fish caught by Englishmen with English vessels were exempt from custom duties and all tolls and tax of landing the fish. The act^ which made it obligatory upon all subjects to catfish on Friday and Saturday, was amended in 1563 by adding Wednes- day as another fish day. Although the act on its face was ostensibly passed for the purpose of encouraging piety and religious observance, it was really a piece of commercial legislation. By an act of Elizabeth's reign, '' fishermen were exempt from service as soldiers. Section 10 of the same act prohibited foreigners from bring- ing cod and herring into the country, and admitted free of duty those caught by Englishmen. During the latter part of the sixteenth centurj^ England became an asylum for those Flemish and Dutch artisans who fled from the religious persecutions and warfare of the Continent. This was a most important episode in the industrial history of England. Partly from religious sym- pathy, partly from the importance which the English people were then attaching to the development of their industries, these refugees were made welcome. It was fully realized that, at this time, they were greatly needed, not only to establish their industries in the kingdom, but also to instruct Englishmen in the mysteries of the various arts of manufactur- : ing, which had been carried on in the Netherlands. The immigrants were allotted to different towns by the government, under the direction of the privy council, these towns having, in most cases, petitioned the privy council, that they might settle in them. In 1 56 1 Sandwich received twenty -five clothmakers and their families. The manufacture of cloth known as new drapery was begun in Norwich in 1665, by thirty of these refugees. Other settlements were made at Stanford, Halstead, l,ynn and Dover, and also at Colchester and London. The weaving of linen was begun, and the making of needles, parchment, sack cloth and many other articles was introduced into England by these SRural Economy in Yorkshire in 1641. V- "9- I. s 2d and 3d, Edw. VI., c. 19. «5th,b;iii. 1 Crowl h of KnR. I Id. and Com., »5tll and 6th Edw 18. <5th Eli c. 5- sec. II. GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. people. Again, in 16S5, Louis XIV. revoked the Edict of Nantes and opened a war of persecution against the Protestants. It is estimated that five hundred thousand Protestants fled and sought refuge in Germany and other Protestant countries. This was one of the severest blows ever inflicted upon the industries of France, as the Huguenots were largel}- artisans and manufacturers, who were placing France among the manu- facturing nations of the world, and laying a foundation for that industrial career which has always contributed so greatly to the wealth and pros- perity of a country. It is estimated that England received about fifty thousand of these people. Charles I. and James II. issued edicts which permitted them to become naturalized citizens of England. Those coming from Normandy and Brittany settled largely in the suburbs of London, others in Coventry, Sandwich, Southampton, Winchelsea, Dover and Wadsworth. They engaged in making silk, linen, paper, clocks, glass, ].ocks, surgical instruments, and many other articles requiring a high order of skill and artistic taste. By a system of protection the foundation had been laid for a diversity of industries, through which the English people could not only .supply their own wants, but produce a surplus by the exchange of which they could supply themselves with the necessaries and luxuries of all countries. England was so situated that great wealth could not be reached and a high development of her people attained, without large exchanges with other countries. While she was well suited to the growth of wheat, cereals and vegetables, she must always buy tea, coffee, spices, tropical fruits, sugar, rice and many other food products. Dye stuffs and many raw materials must also be purchased in other countries, in order to expand extensively certain branches of manufacturing. Although at this time, it could not have been foreseen that cotton, wool, vegetable fibres, rubber and many other raw materials would be brought from distant regions into England, there to be worked up and reshipped in the form of finished products, enough was known of foreign commerce to give the English people a conception of the vast and profitable foreign trade which thereby might be secured. As a purely agricultural country little ship- ping was needed, but in order fully to round out the nation's life and give full play to all energies and faculties of her people in those lines which were then in sight, a combination of home and foreign trade was made neces- sary. The English people were most fortunately situated. Surrounded by splendid harbors, secure from foreign invasions, with a powerful navy, their domestic industries could enjoy uninterrupted peace at home. The New World had been discovered and that system of colonization by which a portion of the population of the Old World was transferred to the New was just beginning. The people who were invading the wilds of the new hemisphere could not easily take with them the means of establishing industries. They must for a long time at least, look to the Old World for MODEllK ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. their clothing, tools, implements and many other articles of necessity. The Dutch and Flemish were the only people capable of meeting these new demands of trade, which were constantly arising. English states- men, especially Lord Bacon and Sir Walter Raleigh, foresaw the advan- tages which would accrue to England Ijy stepping in and acquiring a share of this commerce. Up to this time no efforts had been made on the part of England to extend her foreign trade. When she conceived the plan of employing her own labor, in making implements and clothing for other countries, she at once entered upon that policy which has made her great. We have seen how powerless her people were to compete successfully with the Dutch and Flemish in the production of manufactured goods under free trade, that it was only by imposing restrictions and duties on the importation of foreign wares, that the atten- tion of her own people could be turned in that direction. Instead of exporting wool she soon became the exporter of woolen cloth. Instead of sending coin to India, with which to buy Eastern wares and products, she soon began to send articles produced in her own shops and by her own labor. England saw the Spanish, the Dutch, the Portuguese and the French extending their dominions in the New World and establishing themselves in India. Stimulated by the rising power and greatness of her neighbors and ambitious to lift her own people to a high state of com- mercial and political greatness, her attention was ultimately turned to foreign trade. The persevering efforts? of the Portugue.se to discover a route to India by sail- ing around Africa were crowned with success in 1497. And it may appear singular that notwithstanding the exaggerated accounts that had been prevalent in Europe from the remotest antiquity, with respect to the wealth of India, and the importance to which the commerce with it had raised the Phoenicians and Egyptians in antiquity, the Venetian.s in the Middle Ages, and which it was then seen to confer on the Portuguese, the latter should have been allowed to monopolize it for nearly a century after (1497) it had been turned into a channel accessible to every nation.' England's delay in extending her trade to foreign coimtries is fully accounted for by her backward connnercial condition, by her lack of wealth and of ships. It was the threatened invasion of England by Philip II. of Spain, the actual peril that the kingdom was placed under by the Spani.sh armada, that aroused the English people to build ships for naval defence. The war between Spain and England culminated in the attack on England by the great Spanish armada in May, 1588. At this time the English fleets consisted of onl> about two hundred ves.sels, many of them coasters and fi.shing craft, which had hurriedly been converted into men-of-war for the occasion. The armada came with vessels so powerful and so numerous, that an engagement was avoided by the English. Their • McCuUoch's Commercial Dictionary, p. 536. GREAT BKITAIX-S PEOTECTIVE POLICY. light sailing vessels were enabled to keep at a distance and out of the reach of the Spanish. As this, the most powerful naval armament the world had yet witnessed, sailed up the British channel, it was only by the intervention of a storm which drove the vessels in together against the coast, where many were wrecked, that the English were afforded an opportunity to attack them with fire ships, and in their crippled condition gain a victory which was one of the most im- portant in the history of the world. It was after this disastrous naval engagement, when the power of the Portuguese and Spaniards had been broken at sea, that the English attempted to engage in foreign trade. The shipping of Spain and Portugal were subjected to con.stant attacks by the Dutch and English, their merchant vessels seized and taken as prizes, and their maritime power broken. This left the Dutch in absolute possession of the foreign commerce of the world, as described in the report of Sir Walter Raleigh subsequently given. During the latter part of the sixteenth and the early part of the se\'enteenth century, the foreign policy of the English people was begun by a most vigorous and systematic effort to establish trading stations and make successive voyages to different parts of the world, through trading companies which received the patronage and approval of the government. The English had avoided a collision with the Spanish and Portuguese by confining their maritime ventures to attempts to find a northern pas- sage to India. Failing in this they entered upon the Indian trade by the route around Africa. In 1 582 Captain Stevenson was the first Englishman who sailed around the Cape of Good Hope and examined the coast of India. Sir Francis Drake circumnavigated the globe in 1587. In 1586 Mr. Thomas Cavendish fitted out an expedition, sailed to the Indian Ocean and made explorations of the country. About this time, a large ship of the Portuguese was captured by Sir Francis Drake with a rich cargo of Oriental wares, and on board were found papers giving a full account of the East India trade. In 1593 a fleet commanded by Sir John Burroughs, which had been fitted out by Sir Walter Raleigh for tWs trade, captured a Portuguese vessel of 1600 tons burden, carrying 700 men and 36 brass cannon. When this ship was brought into Dartmouth, it is said to have been the largest .ship yet seen in England. Her cargo consisted of gold, spices, calicoes, silks, pearls, drugs, ivory, porcelain, etc. Englishmen were aroused by the opportuni- ties offered for acquiring large profits and great wealth. In 1599 there was formed in Eondon an association to engage in this trade, entitled, "The Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading in the East Indies." It received a charter in 1600, and directors were named in the charter: But power was given to the company to elect a deputy governor, and in future to elect their governors and directors, and such other officers as they might Begin- nings 0/ foreign The East India Com- MODERN ENGLAND VNDER PROTECTION. The levant or Turkish Company. think fit to appoint. They were empowered to make by-laws ; to inflict punishments, either corporal or pecuniary, provided such punishments were in accordance with the laws of England ; to export all sorts of goods free of duty for four years, and to export foreign coin or bullion to the amount of 30,000 pounds a year, 6000 pounds of the same being previously coined at the mint; but they were obliged to import, within six months after the completion of every voyage, except the first, the same quantity of silver, gold and foreign coin that they had exported. The duration of the charter was limited to a period of fifteen years.' This company opened up the trade with India, which has constantl)- grown and brought England immeasurable wealth, and still continues to afford the best market for her wares. The authority thus vested in this corporation laid a foundation for the power which ultimately extended British supremacy over a vast territory inhabited by over 200,000,000 of people. The charter of this company was renewed by Cromwell in 1657, and confirmed by Charles II. in 1661. Shortly after the revolution of 1688, the authority of this company to monopolize the Eastern trade was conferred by parliament. It secured an absolute dominion and govern- ment of the country, including the rights of making war upon any people not of the Christian religion, "of establishing fortifications, garri- sons and colonies, of exporting ammunition and stores to their settlements dutyfree; of seizing and sending to England such British subjects as .should be found trading in India without their leave; and of exercising civil and criminal jurisdiction in their settlements, according to the laws of England." It wotild be out of place here to attempt an historical sketch of the renewals of the charters of this company, the extension from time to time of its powers and ultimately the establishment of a government for India by a constitution in 1854. The important fact connected with the incor- poration of this company is the light it throws upon the vigorous policy and means adopted by the English people, for extending their possessions and opening markets in foreign countries for their wares. Mr. McCul- loch says, "Exclusive companies were then very generally looked upon as the best instrument for prosecuting most branches of commerce and industry. ' ' ' The trade of India was not thrown open and made free to all Engli.sh merchants until about 1814. The first English voyage to the Mediterranean was made in 1550, by Captain Bodenham, but the Levantine trade was not engaged in until 1581, when some merchants of London obtained from Queen Elizabeth a charter, which gave them the exclusive privilege of this trade for seven years. This charter was renewed in 1593, and again by James I., who made it perpetual. This company continued to hold a monopoly of the trade with Turkey and the ports of the Ea.stern part of the Mediterranean Sea until 1803. 1 McCulloclrs Commercial Dictionary, p. 537. • Id. GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. In 1555 a company of merchants obtained from Queen Mary the exclusive right to trade with Russia in the East. This privilege was sanctioned by parliament in 1556. They held an exclusive monopoly of the trade with Russia, Armenia, Media, Persia and the Caspian Sea. It was not until the latter part of the eighteenth century that their privileges were taken away and the trade was thrown open to all English merchants. It was provided by act of parliament, that they should employ only Eng- lish made ships, manned with a majority of English sailors. The ex-porta- tion of English cloth by the company was prohibited unless it was dyed iu England. In 1578 a charter was granted to the Prussia Eastland Company for trade in the Baltic. This company controlled the trade of Norway, Sweden, etc. The privileges of the Hanseatic League were abolished, and this company was organized for the purpose of securing the trade which for centuries had been monopolized by that confederation of German towns. To the Guinea Company was given the trade of the west coast of Africa. This is the company which subsequently carried on the slave trade. In North America, the "South Virginia Company" monopolized the trade of Marj'land, Virginia and Carolina, and the Plymouth adventurers, the connnerce of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and New England. Through these companies, English trading vessels were sent to every portion of the globe, where opportunities for traffic and business enter- prise could be opened. The exclusive privileges and arbitrary power conferred upon these corporations, stimulated ship building and induced capitalists to embark in enterprises which they otherxv'ise would not have undertaken. Competition with the Dutch was everywhere met. The trade which properly belonged to English merchants, it was found diffi- cult to wrest from this rival which had been so long in the business, acquired such experience and gained so much wealth. The insignificant position occupied by England in foreign trade at the beginning of the seventeenth century, is brought out very clearly in a report made by Sir Walter Raleigh to King James I. in 1604, entitled, "Obser\-ations Con- cerning the Trade and Commerce of England with the Dutch and Other Foreign Nations." That the Dutch and other petty States do engross the transportation of the mer- chandise of France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Turkey and the East and West Indies; all which they carry to Denmark, Sweden, Poland and other northern parts, and bring back the bulky commodities of those northern regions into the said countries. Yet, is England better situated than Holland for a general storehouse. No sooner does a dearth happen of wine, fish, corn, etc., in England, than forth- with the Embdeners, Hamburgers and the Hollanders, out of their storehouses, lade fifty or one hundred ships or more, dispersing themselves round about this king- dom, and carrying away great store of corn and wealth — thus cutting down our merchants, and decaying our navigation, not with their natural commodities, but those of other countries. Otitcr coinpanii Report of Sir Walter Raleigh on England's foreign 3WDERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. dependence on foreign food products. o'fFlg"sh ji siting industry. Amsterdam is ?iever withotU seven hundred thousand quarters of corn, besides what they daily vend, though none of it be of the growth of their country ; and a dearth of only one year, in England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc., is justly observed to enrich Holland for seven years afterward. In the last dearth, six years ago, in England, the Hamburgers, Embdeners and Hollanders supplied your kingdom from their storehouses ; and in a year and a half carried away from the three ports of Southampton, E.reter and Bristol alone, near tzuo hundred thousand pounds, and from other parts of this kingdom, more particularly including London, it cannot be so little as tzuo millions of pounds more, to the great decay of your king- dom, and itnpoi'erishing of your people, discredit and dishonor to the merchants, and to the land. They (the Dutch) have a continual trade into this kingdom, with five or six hundred ships yearly, with merchandise of other countries, storing them up here, until the prices rise to their minds, and we trade not with fifty ships into their coun- try in a year. The greatest fishing that was ever known in the world, is upon the coast of England, Scotland and Ireland ; but the great fishery is there made by the Low Coun- tries and other petty States wherewith they serve themselves and all Christendom. 1. Into four towns in the Baltic, viz. : Konigsberg, Elbing, Stettin and Dantzic, there are carried and vended in a year between thirty and fort)' thousand lasts of herrings which being sold at but fifteen or sixteen pounds the last, is about 620,000 And we send none. 2. To Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the ports of Riga, Revel, Nar\'a and other parts of Livonia, etc., there are carried and vended about ten thousand lasts, worth 170,000 And li'C send none thither. 3. The Hollanders send into Russia fifteen hundred lasts of herrings, sold at about thirty shillings per barrel 27,000 And iVe send about twenty or thirty lasts. 4. To Stade, Hamburg, Bremen and Embden, are carried and vended, of fish and herrings, about six thousand lasts, sold at about fifteen or sixteen pounds per last 100,000 And we send none. 5. To Cleves and Juliers, up the Rhine, to Cologne and Frankfort-on- Main, and so over all Germany are carried and vended of fish and herrings, near twenty-two thousand lasts sold at twenty pounds per last 440,000 6. Up the river Meuse to Maestricht, Liege, etc., and to Venloo, Zutphen, Deventer, Campen, Zwoll, etc. , about seven thousand lasts at twenty pounds 140,000 And we none. 7. Guelderland, Artois, Hainault, Brabant, Flanders, Antwerp, and up the Scheld all over the archduke's countries, are vended between eight thousand and nine thousand lasts at eighteen pounds .... 162,000 And -we send none. 8. The Hollanders and others carried off all sorts of herrings to Rouen alone in one year (besides all other parts of France), five thousand la,sts, value 100,000 And zve not one hundred. Total sterling money 1,759,000 GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE FOLIC Over and above these, there is a great quantity of fish vended to the Straits. Surely the stream is necessary to be turned to the good of this kingdom to whose sea- coasts alone God has sent these great blessings and immense riches for us to take; and that atiy nation should carry away out of this kingdom yearly, great masses of money for fish taken in our seas, and sold again by them to us, must needs be a great dishonor to our nation and hindrance to our realm. That although the abundance of corn grows in the East countries (Poland and Livonia), yet the great storehouse for grain, to ser\-e Christendom, etc. , in time of dearth, is iu the Low Countries. The mighty store of wines and salt is in France and Spain, but the great vin- tage and staple of salt are in the Low Countries ; and they send nearly one thousand sail of ships yearly into the East countries, with salt and wine only, besides what they send to other places, and we not one ship in that way. The wool, cloth, lead, tin and divers other commodities are in England, but by means of our wool and our cloth going out rough, undressed and undyed, there is an exceeding manufactory and drapery in the Low Countries, wherewith they ser\'e themselves and other nations and greatly advance the employment of their people at home and traffic abroad, and in proportion suppress ours. We send into the East countries yearly but one hundred ships, and our trade chiefly depends on three towns, viz: Elbing, Konigsberg and Dantzic ; but the Low- Countries send thither about three thousand ships trading into every port and town, vending their commodities to exceeding profit and lading their ships with plenty of their commodities which they have 20 per cent cheaper than we, by reason of the difference of the coin, and their fish yields ready money. They (the Holland- ers) send into France, Spaiji, Portugal and Italy about two thousand ships yearly with those East Country commodities, and we none in that course. They trade into all cities and port towns of France, and we chiefly to five or six. The Low Countries have as many ships and vessels as eleven kingdoms., of Christendom have, let England be one. They build every year near one thousand ships, although all their native commodities do not require one hundred ships to carry them away at onee. Yet, although we have all things of our own in abundance for the increase of traffic, timber to build ships, and commodities of our own to lade one thousand ships at once (besides the great fishing), and as fast as they made their voyages, might relade again, yet our ships and mariners decline, and traffic and merchants daily decay. God hath blessed your majesty with copper, lead, iron, tin, alum, copperas, saffron, fells (?'. e. skins), and many native commodities to the number of about one hundred; and other manufactures venible to the number of about one thousand ; besides corn, whereof great quantities of beer are made, and mo.stly transported by strangers ; as also wool and coals. Iron ordnance, a jewel of great value, far more than it is accounted, by reason that no other country but England could ever attain unto it, although they had attempted it with great charge. That there were about eighty thousand undressed and undyed cloths annually exported from England, zvhereby four hundred thousand pounds per annum for fifty-five years past [being about twenty millions) has been lost to the nation; which sum; had the cloths been dressed and dyed at home, would have been gained, besides the further enlarging of traffic, by importing materials for dyeing and the increase of customs thereon. Moreover, there have been annually exported in that time, in baye. (baizes) Northern and Devonshire kerseys, all white, fifty thousand cloths, counting three kerseys to one cloth; whereby five millions more have been lost for -want of dyeing and dressing. 3I0DERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. Need of protecting the fishing Signifi- cance of RaleigIVs England's foimidabh- rivals. Our bayes are sent white to Amsterdam, and there dressed, dyed and shipped for Spain, Portugal, etc. , where they are sold by the name of Flemish bayes ; so we lose the very name of our home-bred commodities. That the great sea business of fishing employs near twenty thousand ships and vessels, and four hundred thousand people yearly upon the coasts of England, Scot- land and Ireland, with sixty ships of war, which may prove dangerous. The Hol- landers alone have about three thousand ships to fish with, and fifty thousand men are employed yearly by them on your Majesty's coasts aforesaid; which three thousand ships do employ near nine thousand other ships and vessels and one hundred and fifty thousand persons more by sea and land to make provision to dress and trans- port the fish they take, and return commodities, whereby they are enabled yearly to build one thousand ships and vessels. King Henry VII. , desiring to make his kingdom powerful and rich by an increase of ships and mariners, and for the employment of his people, moved his seaports to set up the great and rich fishery, promising them needful privileges, and to furnish them with loads of money, yet his people were slack. That by onl)' twenty fishing busses placed at one seacoast town where no ships were before, there must be to carry, recarry, transport and make provision for one buss, three ships. Likewise every ship setting on work thirty several trades. Thus those twenty busses set on work eight thousand persons by sea and land, and caused an increase of near one thousand mariners and a fleet of eighty sail of ships in one town, where none were before. ' The facts revealed in this official document will be somewhat surpris- ing to those who have supposed that England has always been the greatest power in the world. As a matter of fact, the English nation was built by English people during the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Hitherto they had been without manufacturing, shipping, foreign commerce and foreign possessions. If she had continued the free trade policy which was pursued for centuries, she would have remained poor, insignificant and dependent. The supremacy of Holland could have been maintained at sea for centuries, while her shops and factories could so have flooded England with her wares, that it would have been impossible for the English people to have passed beyond the making of anything except the crudest sort of implements. The literature of the time reveals the fact that Engli.sh statesmen were fully alive to the sit- uation, and comprehended the necessity of building up their home indus- tries. From the time of Edward I. to the reign of Elizabeth, only feeble efforts were made toward .ship building. The struggle between Spain and England at the time of Elizabeth had given English sailors a schooling in naval warfare. The organiza- tion of trading companies had laid the foundation of a merchant marine, and turned the attention of the English people definitely toward foreign trade. The foreign conquest and acquisition of territory in the New World by Spain, Portugal, Holland and France, had aroused the jealousy of England. Holland had become at this time the strongest commercial and maritime power in the world. Venice had ceased to be a competitor ' Macgrcgor's Commercial Statistics, Vol. I., pp. S10-S14. GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. in the western trade. The power of the Hanseatic League was broken ; the vast commerce which had formerly been carried on by them had fallen into the hands of the Dutch, whose mariners were controlling trade in every country. In North America, the State of New York, then New Amsterdam, was a Dutch colony. The Portuguese had been driven out of the East, and the trade in spices, formerly held by Lisbon, had been transferred to Amsterdam. In 1623 the English garrison at Amboyna was massacred and the East India Company practically expelled from the country. Their trade was harassed and constantly interfered with by the Dutch, and the British coast swarmed with Dutch fishing vessels. The war between Holland and England, in the middle of the seven- teenth century, was purely a struggle for commercial supremacy. Both countries had defended the Protestant religion, when their seamen fought side by side against Spain and Portugal. The religious preju- dices of the time had bound the two nations together by a tie that made them almost one people, but there was one interest upon w^hich they were divided. Holland was struggling to extend and maintain her com- mercial supremacy, while the English were attempting to undermine it, and acquire it for themselves. The clash came in 1651 when the famous navigation laws were passed by parliament. The account of the period of war which followed is thus concisely given by Mr. McGregor : In 1651, Dutch vessels being at this time generally employed by the English in the trade with the American settlement was, this year, by the Rump Parliament, considered a suflBcient justification for their bringing forward the celebrated Navi- gation Act, which was now enforced and ten years afterward legalized by Charles II. This act provided thai no merchandise, the produce of Asia, Africa, or America, should be imported into England in any but English built ships, commanded by an English master, and navigated by a crew, threefourths of whom should be English- men ; nor any fish exported from, or imported into Englayid or Ireland, except of English taking. Until this law was enacted, all nations, in amity with England, might import or export whatever commodities, and in whatever ships, they pleased. Under this act of navigation the English frequently searched and seized Dutch ships; the carrying trade by which, between England and foreign countries, was now completely suppressed. Cromwell demanded of the States-General : 1. Amount due of the tribute for fishing on the British coasts. 2. Restoration of Amboyna and the spice island to England. 3. Bringing to justice such as we're still alive of those who committed the bar- barities at Amboyna and Banda. 4. Satisfaction for the murder of Dorislaus. 5. Reparation for damages to English trade by the Dutch in Russia, Greenland, etc., 1,700,000 pounds. These demands were so peremptorily made by Cromwell, that the Dutch pre- pared for the war, which broke out next year. In 1652, Van Tromp, as a signal of his being able to sweep the seas, sailed down the channel with a broom at the masthead of his ships. The Dutch fleet consisted of one hundred and fifty ships great and small. Incredible destruction on the side MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. both of the Commonwealth and the Dutch; four general engagements during nine iths, besides lesser fights. 1653. In this year a general engagement between the fleet of the Common- wealth, consisting of one hundred ships great and small, commanded by Admirals Monk and Deaue, and the Dutch fleet of about the same number, commanded by Admirals Van Tromp, De Ruyter, De Witt and the two Eversons. They fought desperately for two days, the Dutch being finally defeated, losing eleven ships taken, six sunk and two blown up. Van Tromp in his memorial to the States- General says, "The ships and the guns of the Dutch are too slender for those of the English;" and De Ruyter says, "He would not return to sea if he were not re-en- forced with greater and better ships. " It would appear that Cromwell had, by this year, managed so efficiently the administration of the navy, that the English had two hundred and four ships of war, manned by thirty-five thousand seamen. They invested the coast of Holland, prevented the fishing vessels putting to sea, and greatly harassed the Dutch trade. Some of the Dutch East India ships were added to their fleet, which in little less than a month amounted to one hundred and ninty-five ships under Van Tromp, who engaged Monk on the Dutch coast. This was a desperate fight. Monk's orders were neither to give nor take quarter. The English gained the victory, lost one ship, took none, but either sunk or blew up twenty-seven Dutch vessels. Van Tromp and a great number of men were killed, and the English suffered great loss of life. The war between England and Holland, altogether naval, and carried on with such desperation on both sides that De Witt acknowledges the great superiority of the English shipping; besides the ships of war destroyed, the Dutch in two years lose about seven hundred merchant ships, and Holland sends accordingly to Cromwell to sue for peace. In 1654, peace established by treaty between England and Holland. The most remarkable article of this treaty is, "That the Dutch ships as well of war as others, meeting any of the ships of war of the English Commonwealth in the British seas, shall strike their flag and lower their top-sail. " This is the first instance of Eng- land's claiming the right of the flag by formal treaty. The States-General were also bound to "See justice done on the authors and abettors of the barbarous murders committed on the English in the island of Amboyna in 1622-23, if a"y of them be yet alive." Sums of money were also paid to the representatives of the English who suffered at Amboyna, for losses sustained by the detention of British ships by Dutch influence in Denmark, for losses sustained in the East Indies — Cromwell had then fully accomplished his promise, that "he would make the name of England everywhere respected." In 1664, New York, then called New Amsterdam, Albany, Staten Island and Long Island, taken from the Dutch by the English, who now founded the province of New York. The English fleet on the coast of Africa take several places from the Dutch, which are soon after retaken by De Ruyter. The Duke of York commands the English fleet and takes one hundred and thirty Dutch merchant-ships— war against Holland then formally declared— merchant vessels at this time were armed and usually sailed in fleets to protect each other. In 1665, the British fleet of one hundred and eight ships of war and fourteen fire ships under the Duke of York, attacked and defeated the Dutch fleet of one hundred and three ships of war, and eleven fire ships. Several Dutch ships beini; taken, sunk or burnt. The same year eight ships of war, two East India ships, ami many trading vessels were taken from the Dutch. De Ruyter takes the English fort of Cormanteen. Sir Robert Holmes attacks and burns one hundred and fifty Dutch GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. merchant vessels on the coast of Holland ; yet in this year the Dutch make several descents on the coast of England. In i566, the English and Dutch fleets fight for four days with great loss on both sides, especially on the part of the English. Several other sea conflicts this year. In 1667, the Dutch fleet take and blow up Sheemess, sail up the Medway and burn the ships at Chatham. In 1667, peace between England and Holland. Louis XIV., this year, overruns the Netherlands. In 1668, the triple alliance between England, Holland and Sweden. Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle. ' In the meanwhile Louis XIV. of France saw with pleasure these efforts at mutual destruction on the part of the two greatest maritime nations of the world. In the decade from 1660 to 1670, however, the English trade seems to have suffered more heavily than the Dutch, for according to the statement of a contemporary writer, ■ the Dutch and Hamburgers annually employed from four hundred to five hundred ships in the Greenland whale fishery at this period and the English but one. Moreover, the Dutch had a virtual monopoly of the Russian trade, the large trade in salt from Portugal and France, and the fishing for white herrings on the English coasts; while the English trade in the Baltic had fallen off one-half, the Dutch had increased ten-fold. In 1672 England was again involved in war with Holland under the secret treaty of Dover between Charles II. and Louis XIV., but the war was not popular in England and Louis was left to carry it on alone (1674). For a time Hol- land seemed destined to sink to the condition of a vassal of France, but the terms of peace were so galling as to drive the people to desperation. The dykes were cut and the French, unable to advance over a flooded country, were obliged to retreat. Peace was forced upon the French monarch by the intervention of England and Spain and the Dutch escaped from the war with their independence unimpaired and their credit restored. With the return of peace between England and Holland in 1674 their mutual trade began to assume great importance and the accession of the Dutch Stadtholder William to the English throne improved their com- mercial relations. Nevertheless the navigation laws were rigorously maintained. They provided that no goods of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any country in Europe should be imported into Great Britain, excepting in British ships, or in such ships as were the property of the people of the country or place in which the goods were produced, or from which they were exported. This restriction was intended wholly to injure the traffic of the Dutch, whose commerce con.sisted almost entirely in dealing in the produce of other countries. A further provision confined to English ships the carriage of a large number of enumerated articles of ' Macgregor's Comraei quoted in Macgregor's Coniii ■ Childe's Di.scourse Upon Trade, irlal'inn's between England and Hot- MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. England in the eighteenth commerce. The navigation laws which secured to the English shippers a monopoly of the carrying trade, remained in force in their main features until 1849, when steam navigation was introduced and England with her vast facilities for constructing steam vessels no longer needed such regu- lations to keep the carrying trade in her hands. No sooner had England crushed the Dutch, no sooner had she secured to her own merchants and ship-owners a monopoly of the carry- ing trade to and from England, and through her trading companies, extended her trade to every portion of the globe, than a new rival arose in the French. JTFrom the close of the seventeenth century to 1815, Eng- land was almost constantly engaged in foreign wars for commercial supremacy. She was hardly out of one before some new cause or pretext arose for engaging in another. The Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese and French were seizing the territory of the New World. If British pos- sessions were to be extended, it could be only through wars of con- quest and by taking from those countries what had already been acquired. From 1688 to 18 15 the struggle between France and England was inter- rupted only by short intervals of peace and was renewed by England upon the slightest pretext. The war of William III. and Anne against France, known as the War of the Spanish Succession, in 1702-13, was waged to prevent Louis XIV. from adding Spain to his dominion, and thus becoming a more formidable rival of England. Although this war increased the national debt of Great Britain over two hundred and fifty million dollars, yet it was a profitable commercial undertaking. It not only curbed and checked the rising power of France, but gave to England Gibraltar, the Hudson Bay Territory, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. In 1739 another war broke out between Spain and France on the one side and England on the other. Philip V. of Spain, had entered into a secret compact with Louis XV. of France, by which it was agreed that Spain should exclude English vessels from the South America trade. England forced a recognition of her suprem- acy at sea. This war drifted into the war of the Austrian Succession, which lasted eight years, and resulted in crippling the power and checking the growth of France. Owing to disputes which arose between the French and English set- tlements in North America, war was renewed in 1756. This is known in American history as the French and Indian war, and in Europe as the Seven Years' War, for while the conflict was raging for dominion in the New World between England and France, hostilities were being carried on on the Continent, where England and Prussia fought against France. England not only harassed and crippled the French trade and shipping in every part of the world wherever it could be attacked, but at its close com- pelled a cession of a vast territory in the New World. She gained Canada, all of British North America, Florida and all of the French possessions on i GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. the Mississippi River, excepting New Orleans. During this same strug gle, the power of the French was broken in India. The French, who had united with native princes, were defeated in successive battles, and finally by 1765, the dominion of the East India Company was extended over Ben- gal, Behar and Orissa. The power of the English was fully established in the East, and from that time until the pi-eseut, has not been subjected to foreign interference. It was in the war of the American Revolution that England received the first check to her ambition of almost universal dominion. The facts and circumstances connected with this important struggle, beginning in 1776 and lasting until 1783, are familiar to the reader, and it would be out of place to enter upon a recital of the details. The causes, however, which contributed largely to the revolt on the part of the colonists, will appear when we come to consider England's colonial policy. The Napoleonic wars which lasted from 1793 almost uninterruptedly until 181 5, apeiiodof over twenty years, are less important for the territory acquired, than for the commercial advantages which England secured by the impoverishment of all Continental countries, the destruction of their industries and the annihilation of their commerce. The vast territor)- in the United States, lying between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Ocean, comprising the whole region excepting the States of California, Texas and New Mexico, was ceded by Spain to France in 1800. Napo- leon, recognizing the danger of this vast region's falling into the hands of England, ceded if to the United States in 1803. This transaction, known as the Louisiana purchase, illustrates the fear which England's long-continued success as a colonizing nation and as a naval power inspired in the strongest of her enemies. Napoleon had reasonable grounds for apprehension. There has been no war in modern times of such magnitude, as this one between Napoleon and the powers of Europe. While England was furnishing money to Napoleon's enemies and maintaining vast armies in the field, the destruction of industries on the Continent, and the anni- hilation of the shipping and foreign trade of all Continental countries, left her, at its close, the only nation that had profited by the struggle. While the conflict was raging on the Continent, her own cities and towns, secure from attack, were perfect beehives of industry. She was at this time, indeed, as Napoleon stated, "the workshop of the world." It is said that when his army invaded the cold regions of Russia, it was clothed with English woolens. Notwithstanding the decree of Napoleon which ordered all English goods found on the Continent to be seized and confiscated, English factories and artisans were supplying the hostile powers with arms and ammunition, clothing and implements, to an immeasurable extent. While England secured the islands of Malta, Ceylon, Trinidad, the Cape of Good Hope and a few other possessions, the great advantage derived from MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. this struggle was the absolute commercial supremacy which she attained, the entire trade and commerce of the world having fallen into her hands. The eighteenth century was the great period of her acquisition of foreign territory. Below is given a statement of the date of settle- ments and mode of acquisition of colonies and foreign possessions. THK BRITISH COLONIES. Colony. Mode of Acquisition. Anguilla Settlement Antigua Settlement Ascension Settlement Bahamas Settlement Barbadoes Settlement Barbuda .... Settlement Berbice Capture Bermuda Settlement British Columbia Settlement British Kaffraria Separated from C. of G. H.. . D.\TE. • 1650 ■ 1632 . . . 1629 . . . 1625 . . . 1628 . . . 1609 . . . 1S5S . . . 1S60 Capture 1759 . . . 1760 Canada East Canada West Capture Cape Breton Settlement and capture Cape of Good Hope Capture 1S06 Ceylon Capture 1795 Demerara and Essequibo Capture 1803 Dominica Cession 1763 Falkland Islands Settlement 1842 Gambia Settlement ■ 1631 Gibraltar Capture 1704 Gold Coast Settlement 1661 " (late Danish) . Cession 1850 Grenada Cession 1763 Heligoland Cession 1814 1 (Cession i6-'i Honduras i „ , l Settlement 1742 Hong Kong Cession. . . 1842 Jamaica Capture 165.=; Labuan Cession i84i> Lagos Constituted a Colony 1862 Malta, Gozo and Comino Capture iSoo Mauritius Capture 1810 Montserrat Settlement 1632 Natal Settlement 1824 Nevis Settlement 1628 /Settlement I Separated from N. Scotia 17S4 Newfoundland Settlement 160S New South Wales Settlement 1788 New Zealand Settlement 183^ {Settlement I7,s,s Re-Settlement 1823 Transferred to Pitcairn Is'ders 1836 Brunswick GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. Colony. Mode of Acquisition. D.\te. Nova Scotia Settlement and Capture Prince Edward Island Settlement Oueeusland Separated from N. S. W 1859 St. Christopher Settlement 1623 St. Helena Cession 1673 St. Helena Transferred to Government 1836 St' Lucia Capture 1803 St. Vincent Cession 1763 f Settlement 1787 Sierra Leone t Transferred to Government 1807 South Australia Settlement 1836 Tasmania Settlement 1804 Tobago Cession 1763 Trinidad Capture i797 Tristan D'Acunha Settlement 1818 Turks and Caicos Settlement Vancouver's Island Settlement r Settlement 1836 t Separated from N. S. W Virgin Islands Settlement West Australia Victoria . 1666 Settlement 1829 Note : ' ' The Auckland Island settlement, formed in 1849, was abandoned in 1853. The Bay Islands have been resigned to the State of Honduras (which guarantees their neutrality). Fernando Po has been given up to Spain, to which it properly belongs, and the Ionian Islands have been ceded to Greece. ' ' The dominating idea of the English people has been to keep down and destroy all rivals, to build up and promote the material interest of England. Her colonies and foreign possessions were regarded wholly as a source of revenue for the home government. Her foreign wars have been carried on, and conquests and settlements made, for the purpose of estab- lishing markets for her domestic produce and of monopolizing the foreign trade. All her legislation, whether placing prohibitions and duties on imports or giving bounties to exporters or ship builders, and even the final repeal of such enactments, including the adoption of free trade, had this one purpo.se in view. Creating and maintaining advantages in commerce had been the chief study of the English people, from the time of Elizabeth to the present day. All changes of policy or legislation have simply been attempts to accomplish the same end by different means. Inordinate selfishness often blinded her people to the wisest and most politic course The treatment of the American colonies proved to be unwise, when regarded purely from the standpoint of promoting the material welfare of England, as it restilted in a revolution which established their independ ence, and England lost her most valuable and richest possession. Eng land, however, was not aware of the growing .strength and importance of the people of the New World, and their increasing ability to resist aggres- sions and defend themselves against arbitrary and unjust laws. MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. The English Government attempted, as soon as the first indications arose of the building of rival manufactures in the New World, to suppress them and to compel the colonists to confine themselves to the production of food products and raw materials, and to buy their clothing, implements, tools and foreign luxuries from English manufacturers and merchants. This policy would, of course, impoverish her subjects in America, and constantly enrich the English. The colonists' surplus gain would yearly be expended in the purchase of foreign wares; the balance of trade would necessarily be against them, which would absolutely pre- vent any considerable accumulation of specie in the country. When this policy was begun, it was undoubtedly promoted by commercial reasons; later, as political differences arose, and the spirit of independence began to show itself , political considerations influenced the English Government to make it impossible for the colonists to live within themselves, or to become strong enough to separate from the mother country. It is, then, from both standpoints that the legislation must be considered. The efifort absolutely to prevent an energetic, industrious and ambitious people from engaging in manufacturing pursuits and supplying their own wants by their own labor, furnishes a series of the most arbitrary and unjust legislative enactments anywhere to be found. The several acts of parlia- ment through which this purpose was sought to be accomplished are so familiar to the American people, that but brief notice of them is necessary here. They are referred to in all histories of the United States in con- nection with the causes which led to the American Revolution. Some of the more important ones may be briefly stated as follows: In 1650 thecarrying trade was confined to British and colonial ships. In 1660' the carrying trade was taken from the colonists and by a navigation act the chief articles of export were required first to be brought to England in English ships, and there warehoused before reship- ment to other countries. In 1663 an act was passed "which allowed no foreign commodity to be sent to the colonies, unless it was actually laden and put on board at an English port and sent in an English ship." In 1699 the British parliament declared that "no wool, woolen yarn or woolen manufactures of her American plantations should be there shipped, or even laden in order to be transported from thence to any place what- ever. ' ' The House of Commons declared in 1719 "that erecting any manu- facture in the colonies tended to lessen their dependence on Great Britain." In the early part of the eighteenth century the emigration from Europe was so increasing and the growth of the colonies was so rapid that their trade became yearly of greater importance to the English people. 1 I2lh, Charles 11., c. 18. GREAT BRITAjyft PROTECTIVE POLICY. Complaints were being made to the government bj- manufacturers, and finally the Board of Trade was called upon for a report upon the subject, a statement of which is given by Mr. McGregor, as follows: That the colonists were not only carrj-ing on trade, but also setting up manu- factures detrimental to Great Britain ; and, in consequence of these reports, an order was issued by the House of Commons requiring the Board of Trade to report with respect to laws made, iiiarmfaclures set up or trade carried on detrimental to the trade, navigation or manufactures of Great Britain. The report made by the Board of Trade in 1732, which, although probably not accurate, contains the best account of the condition of American manufactures at that period. This report stated that a law had been passed in the colony of Massachusetts Bay to encourage the manu- facture of paper, which act tended to diminish the profits made by the British importer of that article; that in New England, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, woolen and linen cloth were manufactured to some extent for domestic use, and that the product of those colonies being chiefly cattle and grain, with a quantity of sheep, the wool would be lost were it not used for that purpose. It was also reported, that flax and hemp were produced in the colonies to a considerable extent, which were manufactured into a coarse sort of cloth as well as bags, traces and halters for their horses, that were more serviceable than those that were imported from abroad; yet from the high price of labor here, the manufacture of linen could not be carried on at less than twenty per cent, and that of woolens than at fifty per cent. less than the cost of the English fabrics. The returns from the English governor of New Hampshire alleged that there were no manufactures in that province, excepting a little linen made by its immigrants from Ireland, but that the principal trade was in lumber and fish. Massachusetts at that time also manufactured a coarse cloth from their flax and wool, but the merchants could import the foreign fabrics at a cheaper rate than they could purchase those which were made at home. A few hat makers worked at their trades in the towns of that State, but none of their articles were exported. The leather of this province was also wrought by the people ; and although iron was worked to some extent, it was deemed inferior to that which was imported from Great Britain ; this being con- sidered much the best, as it was wholly used in shipping. The same report stated that all the iron works within its bounds did not make one-twentieth part of the amount required for its consumption. Nor did New York, at that time, exhibit the degree of manufacturing enterprise which was deemed detrimental to Great Britain— provisions, furs, whale-bones, pitch, oil and tar, constituting the prin- cipal portion of its trade. That of New Jersey was no more formidable in this respect, as its traffic consisted of necessary articles shipped from Pennsylvania and New York. To these articles may be added a little linen and cotton cloth, brown holland, "for women's wear," a paper mill that manufactured to the amount of two hundred pounds yearly, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, besides six furnaces and nineteen forges for making iron, that had been constructed in New England. In Rhode Island there were no manufactures returned ; and the province of Connecticut produced timber and boards, all sorts of English grain, hemp, flax, sheep, black cattle and swine, goats, horses and tobacco. The manufactures in this colony were inconsiderable, the greater portion of the people being engaged in tillage, while others were employed in the various handicrafts, such as tanning and shoemaking, in building, joining, tailors' and smiths' work. At this period the colony of New York was enabled to pay for the foreign fabrics imported from Great Britain, by being permitted to exchange their provisions, and those of New Jersey, as also horses and lumber, with the foreign colonies, for money, rum, molasses, cocoa. 3I0DEBN EhGLAXD I'NDKl! I'ROTKCTION. indigo, cotton and wool. Horses and lumber were exported from Connecticut in return for sugar, molasses, salt and ardent spirits. In Pennsylvania, brigantines 1 small sloops were built, which they sold to the West Indies, and the "surveyor general of his Majest5''s woods" states, that in the province of New England many ships were built for the French and Spaniards in exchange for rum, molasses, wiues and silks, which "they truck there by contrivance." (Report of the Board of Trade. ) ' The interest which was then being taken in the subject of the rise of a possible rival in the New World entailing a loss of trade is further indicated by the following article which appeared in the Merchants' Magazine: The commerce which was carried on in America for nearly a century both by the French and English, was confined to the exchange of European articles for the furs of wild animals and to the fisheries on the coast. The policy of Great Britain was afterward perseveringly directed against the manufacturing industry of the colo- s. As early as 1731 the jealousy which existed on this subject induced the House of Commons to report with respect to ' ' any laws made, manufactures set up or trade ied on in the colonies, detrimental to the trade, navigation and manufactures of Great Britain;" and, in consequence of an alarming discovery in respect to the manufacturing of hats, it was ordained that no hats or felts should be exported from the colonies, or "loaded on a horse, cart, or any other carriage, for transportation from one plantation to another." In 1750, another law was passed, equally degrad- ing. It prohibited the "erection or continuance of any mill, or other engine for slitting or rolling iron, or any plating forge to work with a tilt hammer, or any furnace for making steel in the colonies, under penalty of two hundred pounds. " Lord Chathana declared in a speech delivered in parliament that "the English colonists of North America had no right to manufacttire even a nail or a horseshoe." Lord SheflSeld in defining the policy of England toward her American colonies said: "The only use of American colonies or West India Islands is the monopoly of their consumption and the carriage of their produce." Joshua Gee, an Engli.sh writer and government official, in referring to the English policy said: That manufactures in American colonies should be discouraged or prohibited. "We ought always to keep a watchful eye over our colonies, to restrain them from setting up any of the manufactures that are carried on in Great Britain ; and any such attempts should be crushed in the beginning. For if they are suffered to grow up to maturity, it will be difficult to suppress them. Our colonies are much in the same state Ireland was in, when they began the woolen manufactory ; and as their numbers increase, they will fall upon manufactures for clothing themselves, if due care be not taken. ' ' If we examine into the circumstances of the inhabitants of our plantations, and our own, it will appear that not one-fourth part of their own products redound to their own profit; for out of all that comes here, they only carry back clothing and other accommodations for their families, all of which is the merchandise and manu- facture of this kingdom. "New England and the northern colonies have not com- modities and products enough to send us in return for purchasing their necessary clothing, but are under very great difficulties; and therefore, any ordinary sort sells 1 Commercial Statistics, Vol. III., p. 543, " Mauuf'actuves in the Uuitcd States." GREAT BEITAIX'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. with them, and when they have grown out of fashion with us, they are new fash- ioned enough there. ' ' That this policy was one of the chief causes that led to the Revolu- tion is well understood, and the experience of the British Government in this instance caused it, in later years, to modify its course toward its other colonies, which has resulted finally in efforts to build up home industries, through a system of protective tariffs against the interests of English manufactures. The same restrictive policy piu-sued against the colonies was also enforced to prevent rival industries from springing up in Ireland. Laws were enacted which prevented the Irish people from engaging in woolen manufactures. The linen industries of the countr}^ were favored because at this time there were no important Engli-sh linen manufactures to suffer from this competition. In 1620 the importation of cattle into England froiu Ireland was prohibited. It was estimated that at this time one hundred thousand head were brought into the country each year.' The navigation laws prevented the Irish from trading with the colonies and engaging in trade with English ports. This practically drove every Irish trading vessel from the sea. It is hardly necessary to pursue in detail the policy which had become so thoroughly established and was so persistently and arbitrarily enforced for the regulation, control and establishment of industries. Every new in- vention was patronized, every new industry was fostered and encouraged, until everywhere throughout the whole realm villages and cities became beehives of trade and manufactures. A tract, published in the early part of the seventeenth century, speaking of the tariff policy says, "It is the wisdom of the kingdom or nation to prevent the importation of any manu f actures from abroad, that might be a detriment to others at home. ' While this principle was fully recognized and acted upon, the English Government went farther by attempting to supplant all rivals in existence and by forever preventing any new ones from rising in any other country which it could control. Eegi.slation to promote home industries did not stop with Elizabeth or Cromwell, but continued through the sue cessive reigns and was applied whenever a new industry or condition made it necessary. In 1660 all burials were required to be made ir woolen shrouds, and in coffins lined with woolen cloth. This, of course was to encourage or force a larger consumption of woolen cloth in the countrj'. In 1740 the importation of woolen yarn from Ireland was made duty free. Duties were also removed from the imports of dye stuffs, and an attempt was made to encourage the cultivation of madder in England In 1750 raw silk was admitted free of duty when grown in British colonies. So it appears that in some instances revenues were surrendered in cases where industry might thereby be benefited. In 1765 the 1 Parliamentary History. I., 1195. Additioi. i„ promo MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. importation of foreign silks was entire^^ prohibited, while laces, muslins and calicoes were permitted to be warehoused until they could be re- exported. In 1745 a penalty of five pounds was imposed on all persons found selling or wearing French cambric or lawns. To encourage the production of domestic goods in 1722, three shillings were paid by the government on the exportation of every pound weight of silks; four shillings for silks mixed with gold or silver, and one shill- ing on silk stockings. Especially important were the efforts to promote ship building. In 1703 bounties were paid on imports from American colonies of pitch, tar, hemp, turpentine, masts and spars. Ship building was akso stimulated by paying a reward for the construction of ships of large size. A tenth part of the tonnage and poundage duty f«r the first three voyages were given to the ship owner for building a three-decker of four hundred and fifty tons capable of carrying thirty-two guns. A royal navy of thirty thousand reserves, ready to be called into service at any time, was enrolled. They were paid two pounds sterling per annum whether called upon or not, and when in active service were given a larger share of the prize money, and a preference in promotion over com- mon sailors. The granting of monopolies, the .system of bestowing upon individ- uals and' companies the exclusive privilege of carrying on a particular trade or industry during a period of years, was prohibited by the statutes of monopolies passed in 1623, ' although for some time thereafter many special privileges were given to establish new industries, which were ex- empt from the operation of the general law. The monopolies thus created, and special favors given to individuals, are criticised and held up as representing the principal feature of the industrial system of England prior to the adoption of free trade. While it is true that measures were resorted to, which to some appear extremely arbitrary and uunecessarj', yet they are easily separated from the wise, just and beneficent features of the mercantile system by those who are not seeking to misrepresent or to condemn a whole policy, because of a few errors. It is from this specific feature of the mercantile system that the advocates of free trade attempt to associate the doctrine of a protective tarifi with monopolies. When the old writers, Adam Smith for instance, condemned the monopolies of the mercantile system, they did not have in mind that branch which resorted to just import duties, protecting every citizen within the realm alike, and conferring upon no citizen a privilege which was not equally open to all. It is hardly necessary to attempt to give in detail the instances in which monopolies were granted after the passage of the general statute in 1623. They were resorted to by the king to accomplish the double purpose of raising revenue aud encouraging the establi.shment of new industries. 1 2ist, J. I., sec. J3. GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. The privileges thus extended were limited to a term of years, and finally were confined almost wholly to the granting of letters patent. The latter part of the eighteenth century was a period of industrial im- provement and invention which revolutionized the industries of the country and placed England far in advance of every country in the world. The most important improvement being the invention of machinery for the production of textile fabrics. Up to this time the making of woolen cloths constituted the chief industry of the country\ The expansion of this indu.stry during the eighteenth century was mo.st marvelous. At the close of the seventeenth century the value of the wool clip was $10,000,000 from 1 2, 000, 000 sheep, and the cloth manufactured was worth $30,000,000 or $40,000,000. Nearly a half century later, in 1741, the number of sheep in the country was 17,000,000. By 1774 the value of the woolen manufactures had reached $65,000,000.' At this time but little cotton was manufactured. The calicoes and prints were brought from Asia. It was through the invention of machinery that the cotton industry sprang suddenly into exi.stence, and in the early part of the nineteenth century became the chief .source of England's power in foreign trade and enabled her to become the greatest cotton manufacturing country in the world. In 1760 James Hargreaves invented the spinning jenny, which came into use ten years later. At first, by this machine eight threads could be spun as easily as one could by the old process. It was soon brpught to such perfection that a girl could tend from eighty to one hundred and twenty-eight spindles. This machine was sup- plemented in 1 77 1 by the spinning frame patented b}' Sir Richard Arkwright. By this machine the spinning of fine thread was made pos- sible. The mule jenny was invented by Crompton in 1779, and the power loom by Cartwright in 1775. In 1769 James Watt had discov- «red the means of utilizing the power of steam, and invented the steam engine. In 1769 it was first used in pumping water from coal mines, and later applied as a power for running machinery. There was just one invention left to be made to perfect the processes of producing cotton cloth with great rapidity, and at so small a cost that it could be placed within the reach of everybody. This invention was reserved for an American. In 1793 Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, by which the wool could be separated from the seed at a merely nominal cost. During the eighteenth century England had developed her coal mines, and hence was provided in advance of all other countries with the means by which she could excel in cotton manufacturing. The rapidity with which this industry grew after these inventions is one of the industrial mar\-els of the world. The importation of raw cotton increased from 9,000,000 pounds in 1783 to 18,000,000 in 1785, and had reached 60,000,- 000 pounds by 1802. ^ Industrial History of England, p. 135. Improve- MODERN EKOIAND UNDER PROTECTION. The English manufacturers were not content with the advantage sc suddenly thrust upon them, and immediately applied to parliament to prevent by legislation, if possible, other countries from using their new inventions The machinery of Arkwright and Hargreaves impressed upon par- liament the importance of cotton manufacturing and the advantages which might be derived from it. Steps were immediately taken, in the year 1774, to prevent the exportation of machinerj-. The act' was entitled, an "Act to prevent the exportation to foreign parts of utensils made use of in the cotton, linen, woolen and silk manufactures of this kingdom." The preamble recites: Whereas, the exportation of the .several tools or utensils made use of in prepar- ing, working up, and finishing the cotton and linen manufactures of this kingdom or any or either of them, or any other goods wherein cotton or linen or either of them are used, will enable foreigners to work up such manufactures, and greatly diminish the exportation from this kingdom ; therefore for preserving as much as possible to his Majesty's British subjects the benefits arising from these great and valuable branches of trade and commerce, it is enacted, etc. "Stringent provisions are then made against the putting on board of any ship, vessel or boat which shall not be bound to some port or place in Great Britain or Ireland," of any such tools or utensils as are com- monly used or proper for the preparation, working up, or finishing of the cotton or linen manufacture, under penalty of forfeiture of such tools, etc. , and a fine of two hundred pounds. Similar penalties are imposed for having in possession, with intent to export the same out of the kingdom, any tools or implements used in the woolen or silk manufacture. The provisions of this statute, says John L,. Hayes," were either not sufficiently stringent, or the rapidl}^ increasing importance of the manufactures demanded a more rigid restriction; for in the year 1781 another statute ' was enacted explaining and amending the former act, and prohibiting the exportation of "any machine, engine, tools, press, paper, utensil or implement whatever, which now is, or may at any time be used in, or proper for preparing, working, pressing, finishing, or completing of the linen, cotton, wool or silk manufactures of this kingdom, or any other goods w'herein wool, cotton or silk is used, or any part of such machine, etc., or any model or plan of any such machine." To the forfeiture of the machine, etc., and fine of two hundred pounds as in the previous statute, is added imprisonment for the space of twelve months. In the year 1825, upon a general revision of the ctistoni laws, the above statutes were repealed, but in the new act for the regulation of the customs which was thereupon passed* it was provided that certain articles should be absolutely "prohibited to be exported." Among those mentioned are, 1 14111, George IH., c. yi. ' American Textile Macliiiierj', pp. 8-9. » 21st, George III., c. jr • 6tli, George IV. GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. any machine, engine, tool, press, paper, utensil or instrument used in or proper for the preparing, working, pressing or finishing of the woolen, cotton, linen or silk manufactures of the kingdom, or any other goods wherein wool, cotton or silk is used, or any part of such machine, etc., or any model or plan thereof (except wool cards and spinners' cards not worth above 4^. and is. 6d. per pair respectively). To this list was added utensils used in cotton printing. It will be seen that in the list of arti- cles prohibited, the precise language of the statute of 178 1-2 is retained. A revision of the customs tariff was made again in 1833 and in the table of prohibitions of exportations the same list occurs. ' This prohibition remained in force, it would seem, for twelve years, although it may have been less rigidly enforced or the means of evasion were greater with the increased facilities of intercourse with England than at an early period.^ The Act of 1833 was not repealed until 1845 about the time England changed her policy and adopted free trade. A duty on the importation of manufactures of cotton amounting to forty-four per cent was imposed by the general tariff law of 1787 and increased to fifty per cent in 1819. It was repealed, however, in 1846. The iron industry is one of the oldest in England. It received its great impetus in 1 740, when the proce.ss of smelting began to be carried on by the use of pit coal instead of charcoal. In 1 740 the quantity of pig iron was 17,000 tons, made from fifty-nine furnaces; in 178S, 68,000 tons, from eighty-five furnaces; in 1796, 125,000 tons from one hundred and twenty-one furnaces, and in 1806, 250,000 tons from one hundred and sixty-nine furnaces. The discoveries made by Josiah Wedgwood in 1760, gave to the English people a .superiority in the manufacture of pottery, which had not hitherto existed. The rapid growth of this industry, during the latter part of the eighteenth century, added immeasurably to the industrial power of the country. The eighteenth century was a period of systematic development and intrenchment of the English people in every branch of production, trade and commerce. The marvelous growth of foreign trade and ship- ping ; the perfection and improvement in manufacturing and the fisheries; the establishment of colonies and the acquisition of foreign possessions, all combined to make the eighteenth century the most important, in some respects, in the commercial history of the country. Space will not admit of a detailed analysis of all of these phases of pro- duction and sources of wealth. Besides, this was a great period of pub- lic enterprises. The improvement in highways; the building of bridges and the making of turnpike roads, together with the construction of canals, provided means of communication and transportation throughout all parts of the kingdom. Rivers and harbors were improved ; light-houses 1 3d and 4th, W. IV., c. .S2. - Textile Machinery, John I,. Hayes, pp. 7-S. MODERN EKOLAND UNDER PROTECTION. Evidence prosperity were built, and in fact every means which was known to the English people, or which could be devised, was resorted to for the development of the country and the encouragement of trade. John Wade, in his history of "Middle and Working Classes of England," during the reign of George II., (1727 to 1760,) says: Of the thirty-three years of this king's government, only thirteen were years of war; the remainder of peace, prosperity and great internal improvements. Ship- ping increased, agriculture, commerce and the manufacturing arts flourished. Under numerous enclosure acts the waste lands were reclaimed; new roads were opened and old ones improved; bridges were erected, and numerous rivers widened and deepened, for facilitating internal communication ; vast quantities of corn were annually exported. The balauceof payments in return for the excess of exports, in grain and other commodities kept up the circulation almost without the aid of a paper currency ; commercial interest ran steadily at three per cent. The prices of the public securities rose above par, so that ministers were enabled to reduce annuities by offering the usual alternative to the creditors of either the payment of the princi- pal or the acceptance of a lower rate of interest. The activity of national industry and abundance of capital are evidenced by the extent of local improvements, especially in London and Edinburgh. In Lon- don no fewer than eight new parishes were erected between the Revolution and the end of the reign of George II. An act had passed in Queen Anne's reign for the building of fifty additional churches in the metropolis. The extension of commerce and manufactures caused a great addition to the population in the chief seats of industry and enterprise in the country,— in Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, Leeds, Sheffield, Frome. The growth of population was very great. Prior to 1751 it had not increased over 3 per cent during any period of ten years, but from 1751 to 1 78 1 the increase in each ten year period was 6 per cent. Between 1 78 1 and 1791, the increase was 9 percent, and 1791 and 1801,11 per cent, and 1 4 per cent between 1801 and 181 1, and 21 per cent between 181 1 and 1818. In 1760 the population was 8,000,000, and it had reached 12,000,- 000 in 1819. The demand for labor which had been occasioned by the develop- ment of the vast system of diversified industries, then carried on in all parts of the country, had brought about an increase in wages and such a general improvement in the condition of the laboring classes that this period is universally referred to by the historians of the time as one of great satisfaction and encouragement in this respect. The vast factory system had not been introduced, every village, and in fact the rural dis- tricts were filled with those small shops and factories in which various branches of manufacturing were carried on. Daniel De Foe in his "Tour Through Great Britain," in giving an account of his obser^-ations of the condition of the people, near Halifax, in Yorkshire, between 1724 and 1726, says: The land was divided into small enclosures from two acres to six or seven each, seldom more, every three or four pieces of land having a house belonging to them ; GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. hardly a house standing out of speaking distance from another. We could see at every iouse a tenter, and on almost every tenter a piece of cloth or kersie or shalloon. At every considerable house there was a manufactorj-. Every clothier keeps one horse at least to carry his manufactures to the market; and every one generally keeps a cow or two or more for his family. By this means the small pieces of en- closed land about each house are occupied, for they scarce sow corn enough to feed their poultry. The houses are full of lusty fellows," some at the dye-vat, some at the looms, others dressing the cloths; the women and children carding or spinning; being all employed from the youngest to the oldest. De Foe further adds, "Not a beggar to be seen or an idle person." The improvement in agriculture; the ease and comfort enjoj-ed by the people during this century, present a striking contrast to the con- ditions which prevailed in the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, before the fostering care of protective legislation became the settled national policy. As the artisans, manufacturing, commercial and profes- sional classes increased, the home market for the produce of the farm expanded. It was the vast increase of the home market, occasioned by the growth of population, incomes and wealth of the people of England, which so immeasurably improved the condition of the agriculturist. Mr. Gibbins says of the condition of the rural population in the latter part of the eighteenth century : Nor was that convenient plenty which was the lot of the manufacturing portion of the people, confined only to that section. The condition of the agricultural laborer, who was generally the worst off of all classes, from being so much under the direct supervision of his master, had considerably improved together with the general improvement of agriculture spoken of in a previous chapter. The price of corn had fallen, while wages had risen, though these were less than an artisan's, being, according to Arthur Young's average estimate for the North and Midland counties, about ys. a week. But it was generally Ss. or los. , while the board of a working man may be placed at about 5.S. or 6s. a week. Cottages were occ.isionally rent free, or at any rate only paid a low rent, never more than 50.?. or 60s. per year. There was an abundance of food, clothing and furniture. Wheat bread had entirely superseded rye bread. Every poor family now drank tea, which had formerly been a costly luxurj-. "The consumption of meat was, " says Arthur Young, "pretty considerable, ' ' and that of cheese ' ' immense. ' ' Indeed, he states that the laborers, "by their large wages, and the cheapness of all necessaries enjoyed better dwellings, diet and apparel in England than the husbandmen or farmers did in other countries.' John Wade, in his history above quoted from, speaks of the agricul- tural improvements as follows: In 1710 the winnowing machine was introduced from Holland, and also about the same time the thrashing machine began to be used in the northern parts of the island. In 1732 the celebrated Jethro Tull commenced his experiments on his farm in Berkshire, but thirty years elapsed before they excited much practical attention, and before the more valuable parts of his system began to be adopted by intelligent agriculturists. He introduced the drill-husbandry and recommended the substi- tution of labor and arrangement in the place of manure and fallow in the culture of land. A rotation of crops and the cultivation of turnips, clover and potatoes in 1 Industrial History of England, pp. 149-50. Condition of rural population. prosperily oftfic Causes assigned by Pitt for th'e MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. the field became more general. That agriculture was extending is shown by the course of legislation. More land was demanded for cultivation. In the belligerent reign of William III. not a single act was passed for the enclosure of wastes or the draining of marshes. In the equally fighting reign of Anne, there were only two enclosure acts, but in that of George I. the number was twent)--six, and in the thirty-three years' reign of George II. two hundred and twenty-six were passed. The Earl of Lauderdale, writing at the close of the eighteenth cen- tury, considers England superior to all other countries in wealth, power and the material welfare of her people. He sa3's: This nation is at present the greatest commercial country in the world. There is hardly any people, in any climate with whom our merchants have not dealings; and if we examine the cargoes that are made up to suit the demands of different nations, we shall universally observe that it is the distribution of property in each country that dictates the nature and quality of the goods that are sent to it.' England is the only country in Europe where wealth is so diffused that the great body of the manufacturers, that is, a great proportion of the people can afford to enjoy a mixture of animal with vegetable food for their nourishment. ^ In 1786, Mr. Pitt, then Prime Minister, introduced a proposal for the accumulation of a sinking fund, which was followed in 1792 by a bill for its increase. Upon this occasion, the Prime Minister presented in a speech delivered in parliament, a review of the prosperity and commercial impor- tance of the country, which shows the pre-eminent position occupied by England at this time as a commercial nation, and the cati.ses which were then operating to augment the vast accumulation of capital which was going on. The following extract from the speech. pf Mr. Pitt, is taken from the Earl of Lauderdale's "Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth:" Having stated the increase of revenue and shown that it has been accompanied by a proportionate increase of the national wealth, commerce and manufactures, I feel that it is natural to ask, what have been the peculiar circumstances to which these effects are to be ascribed? The first and most obvious answer which every man's mind will suggest to this question is, that it arises from the natural industry and energy of the country ; but what is it which has enabled that industry and energj' to act with such peculiar vigor, and so far beyond the example of former periods? The improvement which has been made in the mode of carrying on almost every branch of manufacture, and the degree to which labor has been abridged by the invention and application of machinery, have undoubtedly had a considerable share in producing such impor- tant effects. We have besides, seen, during these periods, more than at any foniier time, the effect of one circumstance which has principally tended to rai.se this coun- try to its mercantile pre-eminence; I mean that peculiar degree of credit, which by a twofold operation at once gives additional facility and extent to the transactions of our merchants at home, and enables them to obtain a proportional superiority in markets abroad. This advantage has been most conspicuous during the latter part of the period to which I have referred, and it is constantly increasing in proportion to the prosperity which it contributes to create. In addition to all this the exploring and enterprising spirit of cur-merchants has been seen in the extension of our navigation and our fisheries, and the acquisitions ' Inquiry into Nature and Originof Public WcaUh, p. 321. -lA., p. 324. GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. of new markets in different parts of the world ; and undoubtedly those efforts have been not a little assisted by the additional intercourse with France in conse- quence of the coinniercial treaty ; an intercourse which, though probably checked and abated by the distractions now prevailing in that kingdom (French Revolution), has furnished a great additional incitement to industry and exertion. But there is still another cause even more satisfactory than these, because it is of a still more extensive and permanent nature; that constant accumulation of cap- ital—that coutinual tendency to increase, the operation of which is universally seen in a greater or less proportion wherever it is not obstructed by some public calamity, or by some mistaken or mischievous policy. This accumulation of capital arises from the continual application of a part, at least, of the profit obtained in each year, to increase the total amount of capital to be employed in a similar manner and with continued profit in the year following. The great mass of the property of the nation is thus constantly increasing at com- pound interest ; the progress of which, in any considerable period, is what, at first view, would appear incredible. Great as have been the effects of this cause already, they must be greater in future ; for its powers are augmented in proportion as they are exerted. It acts with a velocity continually accelerated, with a ,force contin- ually increased. In 1799 an income tax was imposed. Upon the presentation of the measure, the Prime Minister laid before parliament an estimate of the incomes of the country, which might be subjected to the tax, together with the probable amount of revenue which might be derived therefrom. The estimates made by Mr. Pitt' are as follows: Computation of Income by Mr. Pitt. Deduction for part under $300, which will pay nothifig, ajid part binder $1000, which will pay an average of 7-5. Annual Income. Taxable Income. Landlords' rents, 40,000,000 cultivated acres, estimated at \is. dd. per acre 1(125,000,000 1-5 $25,000,000 |ioo,ooo,ooo Tenants' rents at three- fourths . . . . 95,000,000 2-3 65,000,000 30,000,000 Tithes 25,000,000 1-5 5,000,000 20,000,000 Mines, Nav. and Timber 15,000,000 15,000,000 Houses 30,000,000 1-5 6,000,000 24,000,000 Rents on inhabited houses 4,500,000 Professions 10,000,000 10,000 Scotland ]4, of Eng 25,000,000 25,000,000 Incomes from possessions beyond the sea 25,000,000 25,000,000 Interest on funds, after deducting sums issued to commissioners as sinking fund and int. of capital redeemed . 75,000,000 1-5 I5,000,CXX5 60,000 Profit on foreign trade, supposed 15 % on /8o,ooo,ooo, capital insured . . 60,000,000 60,000,000 Profit on home trade at 15 % . . . . 90,000,000 148,000, Other trade 50,000,000 140,000,000 1657,000,000 Reduced to United States money at J5 per pound sterling, ' Published in Appendix IV of An Inquiry Into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth. incomes : '799- MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTIUN. deal rx- panstnn oj foreign trade — In- crease of exports an from l6<^7 to ijg^. It should be borne in mind that the earnings of the laboring classes are not included in this estimate. Considering the fact that at this time the population of England was less than 12,000,000, and that the vast accumulation of wealth from which these incomes were derived, was made before the industrial revolution under which by the use of machinery, new inventions and processes, the power of man over naturewassogreatly augmented, it discloses an industrial activity of much more magnitude than upon first notice would be appreciated by business men of the pres- ent time. It was before the age of railroad building, or of steamships. Even the iron and coal mines had not been developed to any consider- able extent. None of the great sources from which vast fortunes have been acquired during the nineteenth centurj^ were then open to the English people. Their position, however, had been reached by a develop- ment of their domestic resources, manufactures and improvements in agri- culture, combined with foreign trade. The benefits resulting from the Navigation Laws, which secured their commerce with foreign countries, is shown by the constant and rapid increase of their exports and imports. The steady expansion of foreign trade, from the adoption of the policy of protection, is di.sclosed by the following table taken from the ofiicial records of the English Government, from 1697, the earliest date at which an authentic account has been kept of such trade: Total Exports and Imports Between Great Britain and All Parts of the World from 1697 to 1793, Inclusive.' Period of War . Period of Peace . Period of War Period of Peace . Period of War Imports $17,412,930 23,661,800 28,538,345 29,850,875 29,348.030 20,796,520 22,632,690 26,916,000 20,158,245 20,569,665 21,370,275 23,493,315 22,552,965 20,056,705 23,428,925 22,273,410 29,055,385 29,646,135 28,204,715 29,001,290 31,733,840 33,346,950 26,837,495 629,530 610,520 686,310 345,730 349,325 986,425 .851.765 934,715 >544>830 .254,885 199,845 ,822,115 566,785 476,040 ,814,935 ,344,200 458,705 ,040,340 611,315 ,249,960 982,935 ,806,950 ,173,580 Excess of Im- Excess of Ex- ports over ports over Exports. Imports. |i,54o,( $ 2i6,6o» 8,948,720 1,147,965 2,494.855 5,001,295 3,189.905 8,218,785 4,018,715 6,386,585 10,685,220 10,829,570 9,328,.Soo 7,013,820 11,419.335 6,386,010 12,070,790 5,403,320 10,394,205 6,406,600 6,248,670 8,249,095 7,336.085 Published in MacGregor's Commercial Statistics Supplement, Vol. V., pp. 95-97. GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. Total Exports and Imports Betwken Great Britain and All Parts of the World from 1697 to 1793 — Continued. Year. 1720 Period of War 1721 " 1722 Period of Peace 1723 1724 1725 1726 " 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 Period of War 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 Period of Peace 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 Period of Peace 1755 1756 Period of War 1757 1758 1759 1760 " 1761 " 1762 " 1763 Period of Peace 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 Period of War 1776 1777 Imports. 130,450,415 28,842,550 31,980,490 32,528,380 36,972,025 35,473.540 33.389,325 33,994,540 37,846,495 37,703,100 38,900,095 34,957,500 35,439,570 40,084,070 35.479,305 40,800,920 36,539.830 35,368,190 37,194,800 39,146.865 33,518,890 39,680,420 34,334,320 39,011,765 31,814,855 39.235,615 31,028,435 35,585,785 40,682,040 39,589,020 38,860,195 39,717,180 39,446,845 43,125,145 40,467,360 46,191,380 42,210,135 49,365,765 45,370,950 47,644,320 53.417.975 51,462,705 47,895,800 63,844,635 66,,844,635 59,060,720 62,283,820 65,485.765 65.579.545 65.670,450 67,151,490 71,041,620 72,543,575 62,613,215 72,389,380 74,079,275 62,196,145 63,219,170 Excess of Im- Exports. ports over $34,554,495 36,007,475 41,325,425 36,979.590 38,003,600 42,409,410 38,464,200 36,375,790 43,536,080 41,199,615 42,744,910 39,312,440 44,353,960 44,190,670 41,497,015 46,644,205 48,512,190 50,408,560 50.977,715 44,218,120 40,218,120 47,950,430 47,870,955 56,551,485 45,953.105 45.358,930 53,834,190 48,876,700 57,706,005 63,393.790 63,495,400 67,097,490 58,474,560 61,218,020 58,939,140 35,326,215 58,603,725 61,667,775 63,091,670 74,442,960 78,905,975 80,194,565 72,716,680 77,894.715 87. 23 ',530 78,819,335 75,943,340 75,450.005 83,100,660 75,006,410 79,972,855 95,092,400 88,600,840 81,877,150 86,442,430 81,631,815 73,778.515 67,455,150 Excess of Ex- ports over Imports. |4, 104,080 7,164,925 10,434,935 4,451,210 1,031,675 6,935,870 5,074.875 2,381,250 5,689,585 3.492,515 3,944.915 4,354,940 8,914,390 4,106,600 6,017,710 5,843.285 11,972,360 15,040,370 13-782,915 5,071,255 6,699,230 8,170,010 13,536,635 17,539,720 14,138,350 6,123,315 22,805,75s 13,290,915 17,023,865 23,804,770 24,635,205 27,380,310 19,027,715 18,092,975 18,471,780 9,134,835 15,393,590 12,302,010 17,720,720 26,798,640 25,488,000 28,731,860 24,820,880 15,050,080 20,386,895 19,758,615 13,659.520 9,964,240 17,521,015 9.335,860 12,820,365 24,050,780 16,050,265 19,263,935 14,053.050 7,552.540 11,582,370 4,235,980 offo, trade. MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. Total Exports and Imports Between Great Britain and All Parts of the World from 1697 to 1793 — Conliriued. 1778 Period of War .... 1779 " .... 1780 " .... 1781 " .... 17S2 " .... 1783 " .... 1784 Period of Peace .... 1785 " .... 17S6 " .... 1787 " .... 1788 " .... Period of War 154,877,660 |6i. 57,685,060 .■57. 54,061,200 6S, 63,618,065 56, 51,709,140 65, 65,611,175 77, 76,364,385 78, 81,396,995 80, 78,930,360 81, 89,020,120 84, tt.^z. 87, Q6, 95,654,430 100, 98,348,910 113, 98,296,790 124, 96,288,585 101, ,269,475 7,692,875 ;, 243,080 >,7ii,48o 5,086,950 ',341,435 ',670,310 S,245 .529,330 1,348,945 ',361,240 1,702,740 ), 600,605 5,659,975 ^, 526,000 [,950,900 Excess of Im- 1 Excess of Ex- ports over ports over Exports. Imports. 906,585 373,810 730,260 305,925 598,970 671,175 774,610 596.730 946,175 311.065 229,210 662,315 The reader will note that from 1697 to 1793, a period of nearly one hundred years, the balance of trade was in favor of England, with the excep- tion of two years. During this time English merchants and manufacturers sold to the people of other countries, $1,040, 316, 540of merchandise more than they purchased of them. This vast sum was drawn from foreign countries, and added to the wealth of the English people. They were constantly outstripping all rivals, both in the extent and in the nature of the trade. As manufacturing increased, the exports from their factories and workshops became greater; while the imports consisted of those raw materials and food products of other countries which England could not produce. External trade of thischaracter ismost profitable. It furnishes a constant stimulus to every branch of business and productive industry within a country, diffuses life and enterprise into all channels of trade, and results in that flourishing condition which makes a country prosper- ous, independent and powerful. The wealth of the English people, their productive powers and resources were brought into prominence by the Napoleonic;^ wars. The growth of agriculture, manufacturing, foreign trade and all those sources for the accumulation of capital, which had been making such progress all through the eighteenth century, gave to England upon the breaking out of the Napoleonic wars in 1793 a pre-eminence, which enabled her not only to withstand the terrible strain on the finances of the countn', dur- ing the twenty years which followed, but actually to grow rich and pros- perous in the midst of the unparalleled destruction of property which was constantly going on. Her productive powers at this time enabled her to meet the exigencies of the war and bear its burden better than any other country involved in the struggle. While every other nation was left GREAT BRITAIN'S PROTECTIVE POLICY. ruined, bankrupt and prostrate, England prospered and grew more powerful in the very heat of the conflict, notwithstanding the large drafts that were being made upon her energies, and the enormous debt contracted. When the war first broke out, the English Government placed a loan among the London merchants of $375,000,000, which was taken in less than a week. The national debt was increased bj' $3,044,661,645. This vast .sum was readily obtained from English capitalists. The English go\'ernmeut not only sustained its own armies and bore its own expenses in the part taken in this struggle, but loaned $328,507,145 to other coun- tries between 1792 and 1815. The following is a statement of the foreign loans made to other nations in the wars against Napoleon ; Russia . $ 48,066,740 Russo-Dutch Loan .... 20,694,180 Portugal 47,666,775 Germauy 39.683,330 Prussia 28,349,425 Spain 26,243,865 Sweden 24,227,855 Austria 21,055,555 Sicily 13,672,075 Hanover 12,400,535 Small States 8,667,640 Holland 7,648,825 Hesse Cassel | 6,355,535 German Princes 3,300,000 Sardinia 2,950,000 Bavaria 2,505,085 Hesse Darmstadt 1.317,905 Prince of Orange 1,150,000 France (Bourbons) 1,000,000 Brunswick 725,430 Denmark 609,585 Baden I34.950 Morocco 81,855 1308,376,800 ' >|20, 130,345 It may be safely said, that no candid and impartial observer can examine the history of the rise and development of the commercial .suprem- acy of England, in domestic productions and foreign trade, without arriving at the conclusion that it is due more to the policy of protection than to any other one cause. It was not until the people of England con- ceived the idea that they could make their own clothing and implements that the foundations were laid for that vast manufacturing system which has been the chief source of their wealth and prosperity. As long as they relied upon the Continent and the East for these articles, they made no progress. It was not until they imitated the example which had been set by the Venetians, the Dutch and the Flemish, and turned the attention of their own people to manufacturing, that their material prosperity began. Thej' did not cease sending their wool to Flanders to have it carded, made into cloth, and returned with the value of Flemish labor added to the raw material, until Edward III. invited John Kemp with his weavers into England to set up their industry, prohibited the export of wool, and gave the woolen manufactures the protection of the government. By a sy.stem of protective tariffs the people of England were turned to a study of the arts and mysteries of manufacturing and to a cul- tivation of a taste for a high degree of perfection in industrial pursuits. > The Condition of Nations, by G. Kr. Kolb. p. 64. MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. England's commercial When we pufside by side the statement quoted from the Prime Min- ister in the latter part of the eighteenth century, and the report of Sir Walter Raleigh in 1604, a most striking contrast is presented. It is absolutely certain that this change could not have been wrought under free trade. It was only by the aid of, and interference of, the English Government in favor of its own people, that they were enabled to forge their way to the front and establish their commercial .supremacy. Had it not been for this policy the Dutch would have continued to monopolize the fisheries and foreign trade. They would have stepped in and not only controlled the trade of the New World, but by underselling and harassing English manufactures at home, strangled every new industry and defeated every attempt at building up manufacturing in England herself. Without the support of the naval power of the gov- ernment not one of the trading companies could have maintained its existence. Had not England become the seat of manufactures and pro- tected her artisans, the Dutch and Huguenot refugees would undoubtedly have gone to Germany, as many of them did. The growth of foreign trade dates from the passage of the Navigation Laws. And yet the wares produced in English factories formed a basis for that vast volume of foreign exchanges without which there would have been but little use for ships, and no foundation upon which to build her commerce. The most valu- able part of the whole field of English enterprise was the domestic industries. We may trace the history of England from the earliest times to the close of the eighteenth century, and with the exception of the cotton manufactures, which came in under the invention of machinery, and of those industries which enjoy natural protection, we shall not find a manufacturing industry which does not owe its existence to protection. The same maj' be said of their shipping and fisheries. This policy has raised England from a most insignificant position to the first place among the nations of Christendom. It found her monarchs pawning their crown jewels to foreigners to raise a small sum of money, and left her the lender of millions to the nations of Continental Europe. Before protection was adopted, misery and distress prevailed everywhere among the masses, the land was overrun with beggars and able-bodied tramps unable to find employment, and in fact with no industries in which work could be had, and no means for the relief of their destitution, excepting public charity. The policy of protection converted England into the workshop of the world, and by increasing the independence of the people made their eman- cipation from tyrannical forms of government and unjust laws possible. CHAPTER II. Growth of Industries from 1800 to i860. Since the adoption of free trade in 1846, the Manchester School has attempted, by every means possible, to bring the policy of protection into disrepute by creating an erroneous impression of the influence it exerted upon English industries. They have endeavored to show that the manu- factures of Great Britain so languished and declined under protection, that free trade was resorted to as a relief from a policy which was a blight upon the business interests of the country-. An impression to this effect has become quite prevalent in the minds of those who have given credit to such statements, without making an investigation of the actual facts. The causes which, from the close of the Napoleonic wars to 1850, contributed to restrict the unlimited expansion of the external trade of the country will be pointed out in subsequent chapters. The absolute monopoly of foreign markets, which fell into the hands of the British manufacturers at the close of the Napoleonic wars, could be maintained only by keeping open the best markets in the world to the admission,>srf'tlieir goods. The adoption of protective tariffs by the United States and Continental countries prevented this from occurring. While the rise of industries in these countries interfered with the extension of British trade, South America, Asia and Turkey still remained open, and gave the British manufacturer an undisputed majket of vast importance. At the same time, even the United States and the Conti- nent were compelled for a long time to depend upon Great Britain for a large variety of manufactures. It was not until about 1865 that the Continental countries had so far adopted the use of machinery that they began to be independent of her. A steady expansion of British industries is found to have taken place from 1815 to 1874. The pro- tective period terminated in 1846, and the free trade period extends from this date to the present time. During the first three-quarters of this century the British manufacturers held not only an almo.st exclusive monopoly in neutral markets, but in certain branches of production in a large measure controlled the trade of all countries. For the purpose of refuting the reflections which have been cast on the policy of protection in its practical working up to 1846, a brief review (99) M()i)i:i:\ KyaiA^D iwdei: imoTECTiON. of the progress of English industry during the closing years of the protec- tive period becomes important. Table No. i. Showing Growth of Populatio7i in the United Kingdom and Principal Ma7iufacturing Cities During the Census Years from 1801 to 1861. Compiled from Reports of the Censits. Scotland Total Great Britain > United Kingdom . London Manchester and Salford . Liverpool Birmingham Leeds Bristol Sheffield Wolver Hampton . . . , 9.553.021 611.233 1,805,864 1,281,883 13,090,523 7iS,353 806,274 2,091,521 2,364,386 : 4,500,565116,552,410 !li302',392 !24',3l9,'8ll Bradfo Plymo, ,378,947 163.635 138,354 1,997,427 911,705 185. 21,169,951 6,551.970 27,721,921 61,153 45,755 30,584 13,264 50,886 I 32.573 37.005 I 1,654,994 1.948,417; 237,832 I 311,009 201,751 I 286,487 143,986 182,922 : 123,393; 152,074 104,408 I 125,146 1 91,692' 1II.09I ' 67,514 93.245 43,527 I 66,715 65,963 70,340 53,613 i 70,337 43,510 ; 67,308 !,362,23e 401,321 375,955 232,841 172,270 "37,328 135,310 119,74s 103.778 90,401 87.784 ' 84,690 r.327.117 460,428 493.938 I54!o93 185.172 By an examination of Table No. i , it will be found that a great increase in the number of inhabitants of the United Kingdom and of the principal manufacturing cities occurred during this period. The popula- tion of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), increased from 10,880,000 in 1801 to 18,846.825 in 1841, being 72 per cent. Taking the periods of twenty years before and twenty years after 1841, the growth of population was as follows: From 182 1 to 1841, 29.9 per cent; from 1841 to 1861, 23.4 percent. While the population of Ireland increased 56 per cent during the forty years preceding 1841, and 20 per cent during the twenty years preceding 1841, it declined 29 percent, or from 8,175,124 in 1841, to 5,798,967 in 1861. This was caused, in part, by the exodus which took place as the agricultural interests of the country were being undermined and destroyed by the exce.s.sive imports, under free trade, of the farm produce of other countries. The population of the United Kingdom increased 71.9 per cent between 180 1 and 1841. While it increased 26.7 per cent, or from 21,302,392 in 1821 to 27,021,949 in 1841, it only increased 7.5 per cent, or to 29,070,932, between 1841 and 1861. This decline was, of course, caused in part by the decrease in Ireland. Excluding from consideration the decline in Ireland, there is nothing in the increase of the number of inhabitants between 1841 and 1861 to • lucludes army, navy and isles in British sen GROWTH OF INDUSTRIES. show that any material impetus was given to the county- by the adoption of free trade. The growth of the nation following the adoption of free trade is dwelt upon by the free traders in order to create an impression that the change of policy revolutionized affairs and set the country going at a marvelous pace. The growth of the principal manufacturing cities during the last years of the protective policy is very significant. Their increase in population was in general greater between 1821 and 1841 than between 1841 and 186 1, as is shown by the following table, taken from the census report of the United Kingdom. The most extraordinary growth of these cities during both periods referred to compares favorably with that of the cities of the United States. Their expansion was not due to any shifting of industries or to causes other than a natural growth brought about by the increase of factories and the general advancement of industrial and commer- cial interests. The Increase in Population of the Chief Industrial Cities of England, AS Shown by Percentages, is as Follows ; London increased between 1S21 and 1841, 41%; between 1841 and 1861, 19% Manchester and Salford " " 1S21 " 1841, 90%; " 1841 " 1861,48% Liverpool " " 1821 " 1841,107%; " 1841 " 1861,72% Birmiugham " " 1S21 " 1841, 79%; " 1841 " 1861,61% Leeds " " 1821 " 1841, 81%; " 1841 " 1861,36% Bristol " " 1821 " 1841, 47%; " 1841 " 1861, 23% Sheffield " " 1821 " 1841, 70%; " .1841 " 1861,66% Wolver Hampton " " 1821 " 1841, 75%; " 1841 " 1861,58% Bradford " " 1821 " 1841,153%: " 1841 " 1861,59% Plymouth and Devonport " " 1821 " 1S41, 27%; " 1841 " 1861,81% New Castle-on- Tvne " " 1821 " 1S41, 60%; " 1841 " 1861,62% Hull " " 1821 " 1S41, 48%; " 1841 " 1861,45% The development of all of the resources of the country under pro- tection had presented a division of occupations, and such a diversity of pursuits, that the whole industrial life of the people was well rounded out and balanced. The census of 1841 shows that, in their occupations, the people were divided as follows : ENGLAND AND WALES. 183I. 1S4I. Employed in agriculture, 31-69 25.65 " " trade, manufacture, etc., 39- n 43o8 otherwise, 29.20 31.27 100. 100. SCOTLAND. Employed in agriculture 30.40 27.88 " trade, etc., 43-oo 46.60 " otherwise, 26.60 2552 niOfimN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. GREAT BRITAIN. 1031. Employed in agriculture, 3i-5i " trade, etc., 39-65 " otherwise 28.84 1841. 25-93 43-53 30-54 100.' Ireland. The proportionate number of families engaged in the principal divisions of occupations in Ireland, in 1831 and 1841, were as follows : Agriculture 65.7 66.2 Trade aud manufactures i7-4 23.9 Other classes, 16.9 9.9 In 1 84 1 the great textile industries of the countrj' furnished employ- ment to 1,465,485, as follows : Great Britain. Cotton, 377,662 Hose Lace Wool and wossted, Silk Flax and linen, . Total, 50,955 35.346 167,296 83.773 85.213 800,246 Of the above, England aud Wales, 618,508 Scotland 181,738 Ireland. Cotton Lace Wool and worsted. 6,415 655 77.746 Silk, 770 Flax aud linen, 13S.609 Fabrics not specified, 44i.o44 Total 665,239 A material increase of the number of artisans employed in the United Kingdom occurred between 1841 and 1S47, at the very period when the repeal of the Corn Laws was being urged, and at a time when the free traders now claim there was great distress in tluir industries. GROWTH OF INDUSTRIES. During the eight years between 1839 and 1847 121,240 hands, or 28.62 per cent, as follows : England and Wales, 105,588, there was an increase of Scotland, Ireland, . 7.931 7.721 or 30.21 per cent or 13.37 per cent or 51.92 per cent Divided between the five branches of manufacture, as follows : Cotton, . Woolen, Worsted, Flax, . . Silk, . . 56,942, or 21.95 per cent 18,588, or 45.27 per cent 20,550, or 45.27 per cent 14,771, or 33.96 per cent 10,389, or 30.27 per cent 121,240 The above is confined to those factories under the supervision of the go\-erninent inspectors, which did not include all those employed in these branches of production. The situation of the farming interests of England was entirely different from that of any other industry. Notwithstanding the extent of their foreign trade and the growth of their manufacturing and mining, it had been for centuries the chief means of subsistence of the Engli.sh people. From the time of Elizabeth it received the patronage and encouragement of the government, and its importance as a chief means of employment and support for the people had been appreciated. There is, perhaps, no country in the world possessed of a stronger and better soil and climate, suited to the growth of wheat, oats, barley, rj'e, potatoes and the coarser vegetables. The numerous springs, streams and pastures of England especially adapted the country to the rearing of cattle, sheep and swine. For centuries it had been the chief wool-producing country in Europe, yet the purchase of wool from Australia and the Continent had been made nece.ssary by the vast expansion of the woolen manufactures which was then going on. The growth of agriculture up to 1846 had practically kept pace with the marvelous increase in population. If it had not been for the failure of the harvests in three or four seasons, up to this time the United Kingdom would have imported only a small quantity of wheat There was, however, a radical difference between absolute free trade, which was sure to annihilate this important industry', and that degree of protection which would have shielded English farmers against ruinous competition and preserved intact this vast field of employment and great source of wealth and profit, which for centuries had made them independ- ent of foreign countries. With a constantly increasing population, it is surprising to see how insignificant the importation of wheat in comparison with the home supply must have been. Mr. Porter says upon this point: MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. wholly sup- pliedbi 'dZ-iitr 111 the ten years from 1801 to 1810 the average import of wheat into the kingdom amounted to 600,946 quarters; and as the mean number of the population during that period was 17,442,911 souls, this quantity would afford a very small fraction above a peck for the annual consumption of each person. The average importation in the ten years between 181 1 and 1820 was 458, 578 quarters; and as the mean number of the population had in that period advanced to 19,870,589, that number of quar- ters would afford each person one gallon and a half toward the year's consumption. In the third period, between 1S21 and 1830, the average annual importation advanced to 534,992 quarters; but the population had advanced in an equal proportion, so that the annual share of each person in the foreign supply remained the same (one gal- lon and a half) as last stated. The average amount of importation in the ten years from 1831 to 1840 rose to 907,638 quarters, and, the mean number of the consumers in this period having been 25,601, 119, the importations, if fairly divided among them, would have given annually to each about two and one-quarter gallons. In each of the three periods of ten years into which the foregoing statement has been divided, up to 1830, there were two years of large importation, arising from deficient harvests, and in the last decennary period there occurred four years of this character. If those )-ears were excluded from the calculation, the average importations would, of course, be materially lessened. During the la.st nine years of the series, viz., from 1841 to 1849, the average quantity of foreign and colonial wheat and wheat flour taken for home use advanced to 2,588,706 quarters per annum, which quantity, divided equally among the increased number of consumers, would afford nearly six gallons per annum for each person. It will be fresh in the memory of most persons that, in addition to several years of somewhat deficient harvests, we have, during the period included in these nine years, been visited by one of the severest calamities arising from the influence of seasons which it has been our misfortune ever to encounter. " The famine caused in Ireland by the destruction of the potato crop in 1S47 will long be remembered with feelings of horror by all who were by any circumstances brought to a personal knowl- edge of its effect, and will ever remain as a dark page in our history. During its continuance food of various.kinds was sought in every market open to us, the laws regulating its importation were suspended, and our navigation law was placed in partial abeyance. It must be clear that under such circumstances it would be idle to attempt to draw any fair comparison between this and other periods. The foregoing calculations show in how small a degree this country has hitherto been dependent upon foreigners in ordinary seasons for a due supply of our staple articles of food. It is not, however, with this view that those calculations are brought forward, but rather to prove how exceedingly great the increase of agri- cultural production must have been to have thus effectively kept in a state of inde- pendence a population which has increased with so great a degree of rapidity. To show this fact, the one article of wheat has been selected, because it is that which is most generally consumed in England ; but the position advanced would be found to hold equally good were we to go through the whole list of the consumable products of the earth. The supply of meat, during the years comprised in the inquiry, has certainly kept pace with the growth of population ; and, as regards this portion of human food, our home agriculturists during the largest portion of the whole period enjoy a strict monopol}'.' Mr. Porter continues his coinptitations, showing that between 1801 and 1810, ont of a population of 11,769,725 persons, 11,168,779 were fed GROWTH OF IiXDUSTBIES. with home-grown wheat, at the rate of eight bushels per annum ; that the increase of home production continued as the population increased ; that between 1821 and 1830, out of a population of 15,465,474, 14,930,482 persons were fed on wheat grown in England. During the next ten years, ending with 1840, the home-grown wheat was suflBcient for 16,628,188 persons out of a population of 17,535,826. He shows further that between 1841 and 1849 only 375,930 persons were fed on imported wheat. What cause was there for complaint, under these circumstances, against the agriculturists ? It had been demonstrated during all the years that had preceded that the farmers of England were able to supply their own home market. Comparing this statement with the speech of Lord Derby, quoted later, upon the prices which prevailed during this period, it will appear that the conditions under which the Manchester manufacturers entered upon their raid against the farmers presented no occasion for alarm. It is apparent that it was simply a movement on the part of those interested in one industry to strike down another for their own profit and advantage. The greatest expansion and most remarkable growth is found in the cotton industry. This is due to many causes apart from any consideration of protection or free trade. The use of machinery really brought the trade into existence, and its development was rapid. The invention of the cotton-gin, power-loom, spinning-jenny, and discoveries in bleaching and dyeing, made it possible to produce a fabric which could be sold at a very low price. As an article of clothing it was specially adapted to the warmer climates to which the English manufacturers had extended their markets. Even in Europe and in temperate regions it was substituted, to a large extent, for woolens. By 1 845 the exports of cottoii goods and yarns had reached the sura of $130,596,655, while the amount consumed at home was valued at two-fifths of that exported, or $52, 238, 662 — a total production of over $182,000,000. There were then spun in the cotton factories of England 554,196,602 pounds of raw cotton. Mr. McCuUoch says that at this time the industry gave subsistence to from 1,000,000 to 1,200,000 persons. To the persons directly employed there were $65,000,000 paid in wages. In 1847 Mr. McCulloch estimated the items which entered into the industry as follows : Value of total products, $180,000,000 Raw materials, $50,000,000 Wages paid weavers, spinners, etc., 65,000,000 Wages paid 80,000 engineers, machine-makers, smiths, masons, joiners, etc 20,000,000 Profits of manufacturers, wages of superintend- ence, the materials of machinery, coal, etc., 45,000,000 Capital invested in spinning-mills, power and hand-looms, workshops, warehouses, stock on hand, etc., 175,000,000 MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. TABI.E No. 2. Account of the Total Quantities of Raw CottoJi hnported and Retaiyied for Home Consumption ajid the Declared Value and Quantities of British Cottoji Manufactured Goods, Twist and Yarn Exported from the United Kingdo7ti in Each Year, from 1820 to i8^g, both inclusive. [From McCuUoch's Com. Diet., Edition of 1870, pp. 462 and 468.] COTTOK MANUFACTDRES. 145.648,6 1I7.947.I 124.569.! 'is 254.314.7 210,363.8 192,478,2 286,292,9 302,935,6 .126,407,6 250,956,541 266,495,901 304,479,691 301,816,254 344-651,133 336,466,698 267,060,534 365,492,804 363,328,431 402,517,196 444,578,498 421,385,303 461,045,503 496,352,096 555,705.809 557.515.701 637,667,627 531.373.663 690.077,622 731,450,123 790,631,997 751,125,624 437.093. 5,11.750, .... , 581.303,105 918,610,205 658,900,0 739,6oo,c 760,900,0 776,100,0 1,096,751,823 1.337.536.116 1,358,182,941 2,324,139,085 2,562,545,476 2,776,218,427 66,045,000 65,964,520 69,269,770 64,903.220 72,241,275 71,165,050 49.333.115 64,740,175 62.416,245 " !,58l,235 Cotton Twist >,598.l '.817.: 565 57.503.150 62,255,300 70,636,760 75.907.155 74.929.050 64,436,100 75,842,320 88,060,730 90,149,040 83,508,160 81,035,515 78,554,285 102,652',I75 110,246,010 108,242,290 119.509,550 117,407,530 130,617,385 142,607,795 143,933.230 160,2 >.S70 3,638,560 3,590,620 4,334.430 4,6oi-,300 3.678,955 5.734.940 5.833.815 5.209,425 5,875,765 5.593.360 5.875.015 6,655,585 5.876.095 6,201.420 7,642,625 j 4,560,960 5.805,620 6,568,685 6,325.450 6,233,500 5.103.320 5,427,680 6,023,090 5.631.440 5,080,730 5.84'>.7o5 5.212,560 6,380,410 9.976,545 7.875.110 7.276,310 23,032,325 21,526,369 26,595,468 6l,4ll,25l 64.645,342 65,821,440 75.667.1.50 70,626,161 76,478.468 1,198 14.133,215 11,529,150 13,487,950 13,129,735 15.676 .■'.033.645 17.457.690 17.727,890 17.977.025 19,884,370 20,668,705 19.875.095 23.613,795 23,520,120 26,055,075 28,.S32,q45 138,510,079 135.144.865 I 82,668,770 80,612,685 86,395,280 81,623,57s 92,252,685 91.799.995 70,468,760 88,203,005 86,222,085 87.675.030 97.143,320 86,286,020 86,991,960 92,432,005 102,567,930 110,641,520 l02i98o!6l5 120,738,630 122,751,875 123..343.240 117.497.390 108,395,240 117.239.855 129,026,740 130,596,655 127.999.130 116,666,105 113,406,000 133.S75.67S 141,287,005 1,444,180 I 47.897,395 , 47,290,560 49.354,375 , 149.,390,435 163,964,510 158,729,290 158,895,705 191,163,705 195,367.100 The magnitude of the cotton indiistn- in 1845 formed the principal basis of the free trade movement. The abilitj- of the Manchester manu- facturers to undersell all rivals, and as they believed, to hold the advantage which they then possessed, not only induced them to abandon all protective GROWTH OF INDUSTRIES. legislation affecting their industrj-, but made the removal of protective tariffs in other countries, and the opening of all foreign markets to the free sale of their fabrics, of the greatest benefit to them. It is absurd to contend that the revolt of the cotton manufacturers against protection, was in any way caused by the protective tariff laws which were on the statute books of England. The industry had been built up and reached most marvelous proportions, while England was practi- cing a vigorous policy of protection. Its expansion from 1820 to 1846 was marvelous. The growth of this industry is set forth in Table No. 2, from which the reader can ascertain its development during the period in question. An analysis of this table by percentages, discloses the following increase in its various departments, during fourteen years before and fourteen years after the adoption of free trade : 1831 to 1845. 184s to 1859. Raw materials consumed increased loS per cent. 63 per cent. Fabrics exported increased by yards 159 per cent. 134 per cent. Fabrics exported, declared value increased 48 per cent. 105 per cent. Hosiery and small wares, declared value 6 per cent. 51 per cent. Twist and yarn increased in pounds 105 per cent. 42 percent. Twist and yarn increased by declared value 75 per cent. 35 per cent. Total exports increased by declared value 51 per cent. 84 per cent. During the first years upon which the computation is based there was a steady decline in values, the most marked in the history of the industrj' ; while from 1849 to 1859 there was an advance in prices. The decline in values from 1820 to 1849 is stated by Mr. Porter as follows : While the number of yards exported in 1S49 is greater by 430 percent than the number exported in 1820, the increase in the declared value is only 42 per cent; the average price per yard, which in 1820 was I2lid., having fallen in 184910 3 2-5(/. The quantity of twist exported has increased during the same period, in the proportion of 6 to i, while the increase in the declared value, is only in the proportion of about 5 to 2. The average price of twist in 1820 was 2.S. sYzd., and in 1849 was a little more than ioj{d. per pound.' The early use of textile machinery by English manufacturers in advance of other countries, gave them a decided advantage over all rivals. The English people having become the great inventors of this class of machinery were enabled, by prohibiting its export and imposing severe penalties on the emigration of .skilled artisans, to hold in large measure the advantages which .such improvements secured. Had the old method of workmanship been continued in competition with Continental rivals, the necessity of continuing protective duties on cotton fabrics would un- doubtedly have been conceded by Engli.sh manufacturers and no amount of sophistry could have induced them to expose their industries to a ruin- ous competition at home. It is not the purpose here to discuss this branch 1 Process of the Nation, p. 179. Giowth 0/ the cotton industry. MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. of the question. The conditions under which the industry was carried on, its continuous growth and development up to 1S46, when placed in com- parison with the growth which followed the adoption of free trade is important because it completely annihilates the arguments which in recent years have been so frequently resorted to by the advocates of free trade to prove that the industries of England languished under protection. The policy of protection so early adopted and so long continued, gave domestic producers absolute security in the home market, and incited them to most vigorous action in every department of production. They at once conceived the idea of bringing the raw cotton of the world to their factories and by utilizing their fuel, steam-power, machinery and labor to monopolize the trade. The policy which protected and encouraged their own people and intrenched them in foreign markets, was so successful, that in 1846 they were masters of the situation and could defy all competitions. Only by long years of development could any rival appear with strength sufficient to destroy or weaken their supremacy. As has already been pointed out, the rearing of sheep and the making of woolen cloths, were for centuries the chief industries of the English people. The cheapening of cotton fabrics under the new inventions introduced a rival to the woolens, which somewhat checked their produc- tion ; yet for a long time it held the first place, and always continued second in importance among the textile industries. As early as 1825 it had become so extensive that the manufacturers could no longer rely upon domestic wool for their supply. The exportation of home-grown wool had been prohibited up to 1825, in order to encourage sheep raising in Eng- land, and to secure to the British manufacturer the fine grades of wool produced at home. Between 1820 and 1844, immediately preceding the adoption of free trade, there was not only a great increase in the amount, but a marked improvement in the quality of fane woolen cloths. Mr. Porter said, that they had become "in every respect equal to the fabrics of France." This is indicated by the increase in their exports during this time, which by the piece averaged in each year as follows: Between 1820 and 1824, 1,064,441 pieces. Between 1830 and 1834, 1,505,993 pieces. Between 1835 and 1839, 1.429,057 pieces. Between 1S40 and 1844, 2,128,212 pieces. An increase of over 100 per cent. The increase in factories and in hands employed between 1835 and 1839, was as follows: In factories built, 10 per cent. In hands employed, 20 per cent. The growth in population of the West Riding of Yorkshire, the principal seat of the woolen manufacture, between 1801 and 1841, was GROWTH OF INDUSTBIES. from 563,953 to 1,154,101, or 104 percent. The town of Dewsbury, in which carpets are made, increased in population between 1801 and 1841 from 11,752 to 23,806, or 102 per cent. The steady growth of the woolen industry from the close of the Napo- leonic wars up to i860 may be briefly pointed out. The number of, sheep increased from 19,000,000 in 1800, to 25,343,000 in 1825. The increase in the consumption of wool from 1800 to 1845 was as follows : iScx). Domestic wool consumed, 94,376,640 pounds. Imported, 8,609,368 pounds. 1845. Domestic wool consumed, 145,724,880 pounds. Imported, 76,813,855 pounds. Thus showing an increase of over 1 1 5 per cent. Table No. 3. Statement of the Qua7itity of Imports of Wool into, and the Declared Value of the Exports of Domestic Woolen and Worsted Majiufactures from, the United Kingdom, in each year from 1820 to 1859. [Compiled from Sessiona Papers of the British Parliament by Erastus Bigel ow.— The Tariff Question, pp. 99 and 100. Imports of Raw Wooi.. Exports of Woolen and Worsted Manufactures. From 1820 to 1S40. From 1R40 to i860. From 1820 to 1840. From 1840 to i860 Lbs. Lbs. 1820 9,794,620 1840 49,436,284 1820 f27, 917,150 1840 128,904,050 1S21 16,632,028 1841 56,170,974 1821 32,307,835 184I 31,504,105 1822 19,072,364 1842 45,881,639 1822 32,423,640 1842 29,111,755 1823 19,378,249 1843 49,243,093 1823 28,158,295 1843 37,665,600 .824 22,572,617 1844 65,713,761 1824 30,226,190 1844 45,815,265 1S25 43,837,961 1845 76,813,855 1S25 31,000,510 1845 43,800,215 1826 15,996,425 1846 65,255,462 1826 24,948,265 1846 36,216,865 J827 29,115.341 1S47 62,592,598 1827 26,4.7,895 1847 39,487,010 30,236,059 184S 70,864,847 1828 25,629,915 1848 32,554,015 J 829 21,516,649 1S49 76,768,647 1829 23,306,290 1849 42,164,730 1830 32,305,314 1850 74,326,778 1830 24,254,220 50,201,660 1831 31,652,029 1851 83,311.975 183 1 26,948,445 185? 49308,635 1832 28,128,973 1852 93,761,458 1832 27,399,325 1852 50,779,170 1833 38,046,087 1853 119,396,449 1833 32,703,180 1853 58, 144, ,840 1834 46,455,232 1S54 106,121,995 1834 29,877,065 1854 53,391,855 1835 42,174,532 1855 99,300,446 1835 35,748,010 1855 48,722,345 1836 64,239,977 1856 116,211,392 1836 39,990 220 1856 61.950,350 '837 48,379,708 1857 129,749,898 1837 24,965,585 1857 68,225,875 .838 52,594,355 1858 126,738,723 133,284,634 1838 30,898,025 1858 63,719-335 1839 57,379,923 1859 X839 33,474,825 1859 75,688,845 MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. Consumption in 1854. Domestic wool consumed 200,000,000 pounds. Imported 106,000,000 pounds. Imports of wool from Australia began about this time. In 1833 they had reached only 3,516,869 pounds, while by 1845 they had grown to 24,177,317 pounds. In 1851 of the imports of 81,000,000 pounds, 51,993,000 pounds were the production of British possessions outside of Europe. Of this amount 40,000,000 pounds came from Australia. Table No. 3, exhibiting the total exports of woolen manufactures from 1820 to 1859, making an allowance for the decline in prices occurring between 1820 and 1830, shows a steady and continuous increase. Taking a period of fourteen years before, and fourteen after, the adoption of free trade, we have the following results : Exports increased, 62.5 per cent between 1831 and 1845. Exports increased, 72.8 per cent between 1845 and 1S59. Further facts in reference to this important industry will be given below under a consideration of textile indu-stries. The linen industry gained a foothold in Ireland and Scotland before it was taken up extensively by the English people. Under the fostering care of protective legislation, it had steadily increased during the period in ques- tion. The quantity of raw flax and tow consumed^ both imported and home grown, greatly increased. The importation of linen yarn decreased from 1827 to 1844, from 4,000,000 pounds to 1,000,000 pounds, and the English people ceased purchasing these yarns from other countries and began their exportation. The shipments of yarn to France alone, increased from 76,512 pounds, in 1833, to 22,202,293 pounds in 1842. This indicates the development which was going on in France at that time. The exportation of linen fabrics, as appears from Table No. 4, increased from $12,308,115, in 1831, to $20,484,680, in 1845, an in- crease of 66.4 per cent. This was the period of protection, while the increase during the next fourteen years was 53.2 per cent, the exports reaching $31,395,945. The importation of flax increased 51 per cent, between 1831 and 1845, while between 1845 and 1859 it increased but .9 per cent. This decline in imports was caused largelj' by the fact that the farmers of England turned their attention, under the advice of free traders, to the cultivation of the fibre, as the importation of agricul- tural products began to destroy their other industries. The experiment was, however, short-lived, because the English maiuifactnrer began purchasing this raw material so extensively in foreign parts, that the advice of free traders again proved an utter failure. Those industries in which jute and hemp form the raw materials have been more largely developed since i860. GROWTH OF INDUSTSJES. Table No. 4. Statement of the Quantity of Imports of Flax and Tow into, and the Declared Value of the Exports of Domestic Lineal Matiufactures from, the United Kingdom in Each Year, from 1820 to i8sg. [Compiled from Sessional Papersof the British Parliament by Erastus Bigelow.— The Tariff Question, pp. 96 and 1 Imports of Flax and Tow. Exports of Lin EN MANUFACTDRES. From 1831 to 1S40. From 1840 to i860. From 1820 to 1840. From 1840 to i860. Lbs. Lbs. 1840 140,362,880 1820 19,483.665 1840 $20,644,820 1821 1841 150,846,416 1821 11,061,825 1841 21,600,105 1822 1842 128,325,008 1822 11,865,680 1842 16,885,245 182^ 1843 160,960,800 1823 11.355.100 1843 18,510,265 ^%H 1844 177.351,328 1824 13,091,490 1844 20,377,375 184s 158,852,176 IS2S 11,536,430 1845 20,484,680 1826 1846 128,474,304 1826 8,281,765 1846 18,531,065 1827 1847 117,833,968 1827 10,652,740 1847 18,043,720 1848 163,930,032 1828 10,945.595 1848 16,481,190 1829 1849 202,347,376 204,166,816 1829 9,441,190 1849 21,129,475 1830 1850 18,0 10,308,410 1850 24,143,465 18V 104,878,032 i8-;i 133,748,608 183 1 12,308,115 185 1 25,294,110 1832 110,041,792 i8,S2 157.775.968 1832 8,917.150 1852 26,861,755 1833 126,518,896 1853 1833 11,195,140 1853 29,567,045 1834 90,912,864 I8S4 145,962,320 1834 12,898,280 1854 25.264,795 1835 82,971,168 144,864,720 1835 16,043,890 1855 25,274,970 1836 171,260,992 1856 188,948,592 1836 18,225,485 18,56 31,268,800 1837 112,096,880 I8S7 209,020,000 1837 13,065,255 1857 30,824,165 1838 182,142,912 I8s8 143,797,360 1838 17,832,170 18.58 29,353.480 1839 137.054,512 1859 160,388,144 1839 21,167,255 1859 31,395,945 From the earliest introduction of silk manufactures, the English people labored under disadvantages as compared with the people of the Continent. Compelled to import the raw material, and deficient in that high degree of skill which early made French artisans famous, they could not successfully compete with those rivals. Protective regulations, how- ever, compensated for the disadvantages under which they labored. The prohibition of imports left the English manufacturer with a monopoly of the home market, subject only to the competition of the smuggler. Dur- ing the Napoleonic wars, the necessity for revenue was so great that the principles of protection were ignored, and high duties imposed on raw materials. In 1826 the duties on raw silk were greatly reduced and the fabrics were permitted to be imported upon the payment of a duty equivalent to 30 per cent, ad valorem, which afforded ample protection to the home producer. In 1845 the small amount of duty remaining on raw material was removed, and the ad valorem duty of 30 per cent on the finished fabrics reduced to 15 per cent. Protection to this industry was continued until i860, when by the reciprocity treaty with France the duties were removed and it was brought within the policy of free trade and exposed to the competition of the Continent. Later the attention of the MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. reader will be called to the disastrous consequences of this change. Here it is only necessary to point out the growth of the industry under the influence of protection. The exportation of the manufactured articles increased from $2,605,560 in 1830 to $11,768,060, in 1859. Enough, however, appears from Table No. 5, to show the magnitude and growth of the industry up to 1859. Table No. 5. Statement of the Quantity of Imports of Raw Silk into, and the Declared Value of the Exports of Dotnestic Silk Manufaetures from, the United Kingdom, in Each Year from 1820 to iS^g. [Compiled from Sessional Papers of the British Parliament by Erastus Bigelow.— The Tariff Question, pp. 97 and 100.] Imports of Raw silk. Exports of Sil K MANUFACTURES. From 1820 to 1840. From 1840 to i860. From 1820 to 1840. From 1840 to i860. Lbs. Lbs. 1820 2,641,866 1840 4,748,836 1820 $1,855,565 1840 13,963,240 1821 2,542,195 1841 4,966,098 182 1 1,869,685 I84I 3,944,470 1822 2,680,568 1842 5,785,507 1822 1,907,275 1842 2,950,945 1823 2,880,634 ■843 5,347,776 1823 1,754,395 IS43 3,339,760 1824 3.477,648 1844 6,300,173 1824 2,212,860 1844 3,682,275 1825 3,894,770 6,328,159 1825 1,483,310 1S45 3,832,025 1826 2,665,225 1846 5,735,338 1826 841,915 1846 4,187,885 1827 3.610,727 1847 5,598,747 1827 1,180,460 . 1847 4,928,130 1828 4,765.241 1848 6,588,755 1828 1,278,775 1848 2,940,585 1829 3.805,933 1849 7,034,977 1829 1,339.650 1849 4,991,670 1830 4,318,181 1850 7,159,176 1830 2,605,560 1850 6,278,205 183I 4,621,874 1851 6,597,178 1831 2,894.365 I85I 6,633,890 1832 4,224,897 1852 8,015,211 1832 2,649,950 1852 7,759,330 1833 3,663,679 1853 9,436,433 1833 3.687,015 1853 10,221,805 1834 4,848,612 1854 10,251,903 1834 3,185,985 1854 8,461,900 1835 5,375.327 1855 8,904,630 1835 4,868,930 1855 7,621,715 1836 6,458,030 1S56 10,251,903 1836 4,589,110 1856 14,810,280 1837 5,320,965 1857 15,035,027 1837 2,518,365 '^57 14,449,145 1838 4,669,484 1858 8,513,525 1838 3,886,400 1858 10,481,500 1839 5,014,006 1859 12,578,849 1839 4,340,590 1859 11,768,560 In speaking of its flourishing condition between 1830 and 1850, Mr. Dunckley says: Besides maintaining their position in the home market, our manufacturers pushed their sales abroad, and from 1830 a gratifying increase is perceptible in tlio value of our silk exports; their total value for the ten years ending with 1S39, hav- ing been ^7,042,619, while during the preceding decade their aggregate value IkhI amounted to no more than ^3, 149,618. In Germany and the United States, our fab- rics came into successful competition with the products of the French loom, and in 1844 nearly three-fifths of the manufactured silk exported to the whole of Europe were shipped to France itself. The secret of this extending trade is found in the greater excellence which has marked our silk manufactures since 1824.' GROWTH OF INDUSTRIES. Mr. Duuckley again says: Turning to the reports of the factory inspectors, we find ample proof that the silk manufacture is regarded as a profitable investment by those who have the best means of being informed respecting it. During the last year, twenty new factories have been built and set in motion, eleven of which are intended for "throwing" onlv, four for spinning only, one for spinning and weaving, and four for weaving only. Our imports of raw .silk, which in 1842, amounted only to 3,856,867 pounds, were 4,385, 107 pounds in 1850, and the value of our exports last year showed an advance of more than half a million sterling upon that of 1842.' Table No 6 exhibits the foreign trade of the United Kingdom in the several branches of the great iron and steel industry of the country. The magnitude of this department of production in 1845 is not only dis- closed by the table in que.stion, but is referred to by Mr. McCulloch who shows that from the furnaces of the countiy in that year, there were produced 1,750,000 tons of pig iron, and that in the various processes nece.ssary for the production of iron and steel, 9,125,000 tons of coal were consumed. The exports of pig iron in 1845, were 80,000 tons ; of bar iron, 154,000 tons ; and the exports of all sorts of iron in 1847, amounted to 400,000 tons, which at $50 per ton, yielded $20,000,000. The pig iron produced at $30 a ton, was worth $52,500,000, and the additional labor expended in forming the pig iron into bar iron, that is, into bars, bolts, rods, etc., probably added about $17,500,000 more to its value. '^ With the exception of a small amount of Swedish iron, about 20,000 tons, imported for making steel, the entire iron industry of the country, was based on the raw material taken from their own mines. Considered by percentages, during the fourteen years which preceded the adoption of free trade, and the fourteen years which followed, the exports increased at the following rates : 1831 to 1845. 1S45 to 1S59 The exports of brass and copper, 110.9 per cent 53.5 per cent Hardware and cutlery 34.5 per cent 74.4 per cent Iron and steel 211.5 per cent 251.0 per cent Lead and shot, 119.0 per cent 127.9 per cent Plate, plated ware, jewelry and watches 56.3 per cent 68.2 per cent Tin and manufactures of tin, pewter, and tin plate, 122.9 per cent 177-8 per cen Total exports 1 23.1 per cent 167.4 per cent The processes of production were so improved, that a great fall prices, especially in hardware and cutlery, took place between 1830 and 1845. Mr. McCulloch says, "In some articles the fall exceeded So per cent, and there are but few in which it does not exceed 30 per cent." ■' ' The Charter of the N.itions, pp. 190-91. - McCuIloch's Commercial Dictiouary, pp. 783-4. -^Commercial Dictionary, p. 660. s MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. ^ ^ -I H --5 i ^ 1 ^ a ^ i 1 1 ;; r^ rC^O rC ON cf- (N — ' I-* "-' '-' >- "' '^jCO lo c5 'i" t^ ^ r^\d CC^ J2 ^ J. | ipO O >0 ID c .a3>ai to O C> O O t^OO CT>00 OS OSOO CO OV - SO_ N oQOOQQ>OQP o o lo o o q o ^8Rg>S fOCO ro OM^ OO .OS-- t^r^os^ r» t^M rOO ■)nnnin»nooOioOOioOO»00>OOto»oQ>o»oO»r)Oy£J 5 Sj^S 8-^i!?&-^(J5 gSvSirttivo o r-o^-5 M OS g;°o ^ ;S' S: ^^ OcJ-(>^r5o:c5 4^^jO(>^^^<» rpvDOO ^^^CO ^VO OS Q CO ■8^ :?,8^5 ~i o^ cT I - ^__ c^ 1 _ ■; «' i-c t^ dwiSix^D CO o o o I ^5 8 Ss^8s5;C!;??>8 ^2 g:?^8^5 ^8 8 2 l^g'gl 5 35 OS 1--5 ^00 o< i^ o to o >o -^o5_ -^ t^oo_ H._ Tf M_vD q, !n so t f^ t^: rOforTfiM'NNfOf^-^*^*^^'^'^'^"^ "^^ ^ '^ ^^ CO CO CO r^ r^ - \n\o r^co OS c ?00 00 M !^CO » 00 00 GROWTH OF INDUSTBIES. ■i 1 ^""^"""""""" 1,1 l"i ^ " " " " " 1 1 1 t2vo S K 8^ I^CC -O ro5 t^ CO -^vO hJ" w" hT hT fO rf oi r^f -r^f uS lO rT rf rf vo" -^00* rTtw" rO rOGO" -^ cf^vO' «/> -<^ rf m' C^.^ . JOO^O S M^ f„ cr. ji'O "3^_ ■-; o_ ^ ON lOOT o_ ^ a< ro < tS & go ||-= .-Ht^^ONtNONO-^^' ■ !>■ -^ rO "-I P4 rOVO^ON-^t-^ ) a> -^ CO ro COCO m ^ G^'^ \r> •-T (N IN f^.\d uS ^ r^ a>a)"oo" _____ . - O C>vO t^W lor^i-iCO CT^^CS ^VD CT\ \n\D c W r^ c^O) 00 O <-« lO^O On t^ P) ^ ^ W lOVO CO u-,CO S C^ tN <» t loinOioOOtnOO C ir> co ^ o O^ rri d^ -^ C^'>CZO'^\D Q O O O ^ O^^ 8vo88'^°°2'-^-'^°"^° OiOOOO Q O lO lO r-- o^xi o^ I-- CO •- r-*co OMyj >— i>.in C7^x t^ o a^ n lo ■^co t^vo m '— ao *-" O lOX) -sO O CO I- lO lO^ Q !>■ -^ rO -^vO t^- rTi G^ O lOONrOO t^^C vO \0 co-^-i--^t--i->co Mco__a;_o_r^-ico >- on'-'MD o on^o r^^o lo o ^ rt r^ lo n ri n cT "5Q0Q':nQ mO O vpO OmO »oQ looioimo tjNfO'-H M cSo n ^n -t Q '^ Q \D -^ i^r^HH o i- nv£) r-^ in o ^ o O t>. r^N r^r^'^coi-^r^OvO'^Oco in mco m >-* \d <-* roioCTNt^r^ONfO irnoo CO r^jVO rO "^ -^ r^ ON CO 0Ot^I>. UO^X> vO lO^-Tj-cOtN i-'VO (N cOrOrOlDi-i -^ a>_^^^CNv£3MTt t^CO rDvO -^ c^CO CO CO "^ -^ ^ lOCO O VD CN •-" Q « rO ^^ m' m" hT kT m' Cf N w" W" CO rO fO fO -^ -^ 4 uS lO^O VO^'oo' O* pT -^\D in^" ^ OMo ID CO a^\o ^ ^ ^ ^ t^ ^ rn r)\o \D !>. to ON -« O CO^ ^O t^'sO ON I>.GO ONCO O^ O >-> cO-^CS MCOi-i ^ ON )LO»oQ O uoo QO OQtomo io>oioQ >r>o O iTJiOO lOiOu-jioiO ONCO Qnr-.'- ONtN>HOOiOr-.n On O^^O >o loco o_ q^ ON -_ ro fo lo ON «_oo_ t^ ON - ^_ ON q^ o_ q^ r^co_^ *"r 1: "} '^ *^_ ^ ^_ "5 '»-i^ hHHHM'">-r^'rrM>-.i-«noi>-«c*«ciMCN m\C vo vO i>. t^ On O lOO lOiOO O UDiC»O0 I .co\5covo cow coo 0a5 < r^co I-" CO •^t^vovS loco i ) -^ CO in r^^D locd CO Q oo od on "--^ -^ cox" t-^'O o I cO'O lO O O '^'O OnO I>.C7NONONiO'rf"^GNr^'^i 3 ^ cOX^ "^ O r^NO :i r^vb r^^O CO '-'" N -t -i-'-D lo r^ -^^^ -" -^ co -^ t--cO to co i-' ---^ — vd>0 vd N cOX X 't r^ CO ON^ <- ON r~-iO -Tj- ONVD N "O rhX cO rO *0 cOX CT\ ■-. i^ O '-' "^O^D t:T\iO'-' OnmD O I-" r^ t~^ lO ONX lOOtNX (^"^O r^t^ON "wrrwcOMCrcOCOcincOcOcOcOcOcTcO'!?^ -^vd CO "^ d\6 G^O ) \D O "O X NO CO-^IOKD r^X ON O '-' M CO -^ lovo r-x On o »■ - lOVD l-^X ON MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. this market had been kept to themselves. Considering the wealth and population of the country, it must have been important. There being no authentic sources of information upon the total production and inland trade, no estimates will be made. The subjoined Table No. 8, presents a general view of the external trade of the United Kingdom from 1793 to 1859, covering the period of protection up to 1846, and of free trade, or partial free trade, as it is called by some, from 1846 to i860. The mode of entering articles at the Custom House during this period, together with fluctuations in prices of commodities, must be taken into consideration in estimating the growth of trade when making comparisons with other periods, or in making comparisons between those years when the industries were under protection, and the years that followed the removal of duties. There were two methods of estimating the value of articles upon which the duties were collected, and imports and exports computed. One method of entry was by the official valuation, under which the value of each article was fixed by law. The first four columns on the left-hand side of the table show the imports and exports at their official valua- tion. The imports were not entered at anj'^ other valuation until 1854. The other method of entry was, by what was known as the declared valuation, that is, the value stated in the declaration or bill of lading accompanying the goods for import or export, being the value placed on the articles by the exporter or importer. The fifth column shows the declared or real value of the exports of domestic produce during this time. The next two columns exhibit the excess of one valuation over the other. The official valuation not having been changed during the period, repre- sents a fair index of the general growth of the industries based upon uniform and stable prices. It is in part equivalent to measuring the growth of trade by quantities. The next two columns representing the balance of trade show that during all this time the balance of trade, according to official valuation, was greatly in favor of the English people. Without having the real value of imports during this time, trustworthy comparison with later periods cannot be made. The literature of free traders is filled with comparisons which are very misleading and deceptive. Mr. David A. Wells, an eminent free trade authority, in his article on free trade, in the ' ' Encyclopoedia of Political Science," Vol. II, page 298, in attempting to prove that protection had an injurious effect on English commerce, said, "Under the most stringent system of protection ever known in Great Britain, the growth of British' exports, commencing with 1805, was as follows : 1805, $190,000,000 ; 1825, $194,000,000 ; net increase in twenty years, $4,000,000, or at a rate of $200,000 per annum." It is surprising that so eminent an author as Mr. Wells should fall into such an error as is disclosed by the figures which he presents. While on their face they are substantially correct the conditions GROWTH OF INDUSTRIES. d, s ■^ O) ^ s ^ ^ ^— ' 1 ■g •So si ^ ^ ^ -^i, d ■§ !^ ^' •^ -S -S ^ S ^:|' it 1 ^ Total. Total Foreigu Trade. I f ■og^- 11^ ; :^s^ls^ls5 :;:::;:::;■: O' ■* "5 f^vo cfoT r^ (N- . .^K^S§S5fr'"^£^ l"l pi ^Rlg^lS^SS-.S^^^K^ r^a>-vO -J-^ ^c^csvo - "Sr^TTUO^-a-wt^O-^ till 1 1 11 > i i 5 ^ 1 „ ^?is8|^^^^2 8 8 22|SKa?;g^H^ ° 1 ^n^&M^Sf^f ^i^4=§^'^'sEsll 1 igllllllllllllllllllltl 3I0DERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. it 1 5 y? ?, S. iPvS IG uS -j^ cT a. -■ 0^ r^ 1-- !N O^ ON .sc-5 SS^ 1 i £ 3 ^ II 5 = ^ ^-N 'S c 5 1 00 11 So^S^dot-RSw (K CO ^ cs « ^: TT ^M t^ n S CO a> -a- - covD « r^ i 1 1 o 1 S rt 11 1 1 11 ^ ^^M^^^B^^Si^^B^^^^^^i^^^M GROWTH OF IXDUSTEIES. upon which they are based justify no such conch:sion as he attempts to draw from them. The superficial examination which Mr. Wells must have made led him into the error, which is committed so often by all those economic writers who fail to examine the facts and conditions which deter- mine the real force of economic propositions. If Mr. Wells had examined the fluctuations in prices of commodities during the period in question he undoubtedly would have withheld his statement. The discrepancy between the figures given by Mr. Wells, and those contained in the table referred to, does not materially affect the question. It has already been pointed out that, following the breaking out of the Napoleonic wars in 1793, through the suspension of specie payments, the issuing of paper money and other causes, prices at once advanced to an almost unheard of point, and then at its termination about 1819, upon the resumption of specie payment, a most sudden fall in prices took place, which continued until about 1841. The value of British exports was also affected by the introduction of machinery and improved methods, which greatly reduced their cost of production. The sudden fluctuations in values during the time referred to by Mr. Wells, is very clearly illustrated by the following diagram : ' 1841-50, 1851-60, 1861-70, 1871-80, 1881-84. /io- A. Agriculture. B. Manufactures. C. General Level. The reader will note that Mr. Wells in selecting 1 805 as the basis of his comparison, picked out a year when the prices of manufactures had reached their highe.st point. The}' had advanced about forty per cent over twelve years before. He then says that the exports in 1825 were worth only $194,000,000, a net increase in twenty years of $4,000,000, or of only $200,000 a year, a verj- small increase indeed and a very poor showing for protection ; but when we take into consideration the fact that prices by this time (1825) had fallen forty per cent, and were down to the level of 1793, an entirely different phase of the situation is presented. ' Mulhall's History of Prices, p. 131. Fluciua- ''Vlcef Decline ii, of cotton. MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. If the $194,000,000 of British exports of 1825 had been sold at the prices which prevailed in 1805, instead of having $194,000,000 of exports and an increase of only $4,000,000, the exports would have been $271,000,000, an increase of $77,600,000, instead of $4,000,000, a good showing foi protection. It appears from Table No. 8, that in 1805 the real or declared value of the exports was $71,635, 125 more than their official vshx^. While in 1825 prices had so declined that the iral value of the exports was $41 ,878,460 less than the official value. By an examination of the official values, as represented by the fourth column of the table referred to, it will appear that by the official valuation the total exports ( based on uniform prices), were valued at $152,602,455 in 1805, while by the same valu- ation they had increased to $278,041,35 in 1825, or an increase of $125,- 439,180, or 82 per cent. From this illustration the reader will note the importance of studying prices, and those conditions which tend to disturb settled business conditions, in order to measure properly the growth of the trade of nations. On this point Mr. McCulloch says : The increase in the oiBcial and the decline in the real value of the exports since 1S15 have given rise to a great deal of irrelevant discussion. It has been looked upon as a proof that our commerce is daily becoming less prosperous, whereas, in point of fact, a precisely opposite conclusion should be drawn from it. But the circumstance of a manufacturer or merchant selling a large or a small quantity of produce, at the same price affords no criterion b}' which to judge as to the advantage, or disadvantage of the sale ; for if, in consequence of improvements in the arts or otherwise, a partic- ular article may now be produced for half the expense that its production cost ten or twent)' years ago, it is obvious that double the quantity of it may be afforded for tlie same price without injury to the producers. Now this is the case with some of the most important articles exported from England. Cotton and cotton yarn form a full half or more of our entire exports; and since 1814 there has been an extraordinary fall in the price of these articles occasioned partly by cotton wool having fallen about IS. 6d. to about S'/id. per pound, but more by the improvements in the manufacture. To such an extent have these causes operated that yarn No. 40 which cost in 1S12 2s. 6d., cost in 1843, ()'Ad. ; in 1812 No. 60 cost t,s. 6d,; in 1843 it cost 15. ^d. ; in 1812, No. 80 cost 45. 40'., in 1S43 it cost Js. 4d., and so on, and in the wea\-ing department the reduction has been similar. Hence, while the official value of the cotton goods and yarn exported has increased from about 18,000,000 pounds, in 1814, to above 68,500,000 pounds, in 1842, their real or declared value has only increased from above 20,000,000, in 1814, to 21,675,000 pounds in 1842.' The decline in prices of manufactures continued until about 1849, at which time an advance occurred, continuing until 1870. This important consideration cannot be ignored in making fair comparison of the growth of the external trade of England during this period. The diagram pre- sented, exhibiting the fluctuations in prices, exposes one of the most common deceptions practiced bj- free trade writers, in attempting to create a wrong impression of the influence of a protective tariff in England. • Commercial Dictionary, p. ri? GROWTH OF INDUSTRIES. Taking the whole external trade of the United Kingdom during the period in question, viewing it from a rational consideration of the facts and cir- cumstances existing at the time, we find a stead}- and constant increase up to 1846, which continued from that time until i860. An analysis of Table No. 8 shows the following result when considered in percentages : Per cent of 1831 to 1845. 73 per cent. 128.9 per ceut. 122. 1 per cent. 1 17.9 per cent. Imports (Official value) 73 percent. 74.7 per cent Exports, British produce and manufactures (Official value) 123.6 per cent. 121. 2 per cent. Exports, foreign and colonial produce (Official value) 5i-5 per cent. Total Exports (Official value), 112.7 per cent Exports, Domestic produce and manufactures (Real value) 63.2 per cent The percentages given above represent the increase during the four- teen years before the adoption of free trade and the fourteen years which followed. During the whole of the first period there was a slight decline in prices ; while in the years following the adoption of free trade, there was an advance in prices. During the latter period the building of railroads and steamships, and the increased supply of the precious metals, brought about an activity in business, to which the improvement in foreign trade of Great Britain may be attributed, together with one other fact of great importance. By the low tariff adopted in the United States in 1846, an unusual expan- sion of the exports of British manufactures occurred to that country. That it was the reduction of duties in the United States and other countries which contributed to the expansion of English trade, the people of those countries well knew from the depressed and crippled condition of their industries when subjected to English competition, although it has been constantly urged that the increase of exports which took place was due to the free trade measures adopted by the British parliament. A fuller discussion of the effect of the low tariff of 1846 will be given in connection with the treatment of the tariff question in the United States. The purpose of Mr. Cobden and his associates was in part being accomplished by the surrender of the markets of the United States to British manufactures. The foregoing facts and figures, compiled from the most reliable authorities, ought, for themselves, to be sufficient proof of the steady growth of English industry during the period in which the policy of protection was maintained. It must be apparent from the utterances of eminent English writers, which are given below, that the statements of professional free traders to the effect that Engli.sh industries were being ruined by protection, were pure fabrications. The following quotations, written, nearly all, between 1845 and 1854, are taken from the works of men who advocated the doctrines of free trade, with the exception of free trade andprotec- Indusirial progress under pro- Contem- Engh'sk MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. Archibald Alison, the eminent historian, who was a protectionist and certainly a very trustworthy authority upon the condition of English industries between 1815 and 1845. Writing in 1845 a review of the period between 1815 and 1845, Alison said : Considered in one point of view, there never was a nation whicb, in an equal space of time, had made so extraordinary a progress. Its population had advanced from 20,600,000 in 1819 to 28,000,000 in 1844; its imports had increased from /30, 000, 000 in the former period to ^^70, 000, 000 in the latter; its exports had advanced during the same period from ^44,000,000 to /i30,ooo,ooo ; its shipping from 2,650,000 tons to 3,900,000. There never, perhaps, was such a growth in these the great limbs of industry in so short a period in any other State. Nor had agriculture been behind the other staple branches of national industry. Its produce had kept pace with the income, unparalleled in an old State in the population, as well as the still more rapid multiplication of cattle and horses for the puqjoses of use and luxury ; and amidst this extraordinary growth of consumption, the still more extraordinary fact was exhibited of the average importation of grain steadily declining from the commencement of the century, till at length, anterior to the six bad seasons in succession, which commenced iu 1S36, it had sunk to 400,000 quarters on an average of the five preceding years, being scarce an hundred and twentieth part of the annual consumption of men and animals, which exceeds 60,000,000 quarters. And what is most extraordinary of all, the returns of the income tax, when laid on even in the year 1842, a period of severe and unpre- cedented commercial depression, proved the existence in Great Britain alone of ^200,000,000 of annual income of persons enjoying above /'150 each; of which immense sum about ^150,000,000 were from the fruits of fealized capital, either in land or some other durable investment. It is probable that such an accumulation of wealth never existed before in any single State, not even" iu Rome at the period I of its highest splendor. ' He further said : Nor has the increase of opulence in cities been less remarkable than the augmen- tation in the number of their inhabitants. The daily display of wealth in the metropolis excites the astonishment of every beholder. It is not going too far to .say that it is double of what it was at the close of the war. Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds, Bristol, Dundee, Aberdeen and all the trading towns of the empire have advanced in a similar proportion, not merely in the opulence of a few, but the evident ease and well-being of a considerable portion of the community. It is impossible to see the streets of comfortable houses calculated for persons of moderate income, and the miles of villas beyond them for those more advanced in opulence, without becoming sensible that prosperity has almost ever)-- where descended far in society in the urban population. '' Even Mr. Mongredien, in speaking of the year 1845, the year before free trade was adopted, says : " In 1845 the country was flourishing, trade was prosperous, and the revenue showed a surplus, railways were being constructed with an enor- mous rapidity and the working classes were fully and remuneratively employed." In 1836, Mr. Cobden, referring to the condition of the English people from the close of the Napoleonic wars, says : " In a word, at no period • England in 1815 atul is.is, Alison, p. 6. 2 Id., pp. 26 and 27. GROWTH OF INDUSTRIES. were the peasantry of this country enjoying so great an amount of com- forts as they possess at this time, and the primary cause of which is the twenty years' duration of peace." ' Mr. Dunckley says: No century since the conquest has done half so much to revolutionize the modes of subsistence, and with them the prevalent habits and manners of the people, as that which closed with 1S50. During this period the population has multiplied at a quicker ratio than any preceding epoch. 2 To Northen Europe our exports have nearly doubled ; to Southern Europe, they had experienced an advance of almost 90 per cent ; our exports to Africa had increased five-fold; to Asia 150 per cent; to the United States 80 per cent; to the foreign West Indies more than 100 per cent; to South America more than 75 per cent; and the total amount to /■58,484, 292, being an advance of no less than 86 per cent upon the value of our exports in 1826. ■' Mr. Porter (i 851) in concluding a survey of the industrial progress of the country from the beginning of the nineteenth century to 1850, says : If the complaint of "surplus population" has any foundation, would it not have been in the later years of this series that the evils of such a condition would chiefly have made themselves apparent? And yet, we may triumphantly point to the evidences that have attended our researches as recorded in this volume, to show that the material progress of the country has never before proceeded with a speed equal to that which it has made during the past five and twenty years.* The reader will do well to contrast the foregoing expressions from some of the most eminent and trustworthy authors of Great Britain, with the literature that has been circulated by the members of the Cobden Club, to create an impression that the industries of Great Britain were being- crippled by protective tariffs. An illustration of the way in which the facts bearing upon this question are misunderstood is afforded by the fol- lowing passage in a speech by Mr. Harter, member of Congress from Ohio, in favor of the Wilson bill, January 11, 1894 : Yes, Great Britain had protection until about 1S42, but what was the condition of England's trade under it? How did her commerce flourish? Did her manu- facturers prosper? These, and questions like these, will throw much needed light upon this subject, which so utterly befogs the average Republican intellect. I beg, therefore, to say to the House that, at the time tariff reform measures were first intro- duced in Great Britain, the chronic condition of her working people was one of hunger. One of hunger, I repeat. Her manufactures were languishing. At the end of a period of many hundred years of protection her trade was dormant. Mr. Harter could not have been familiar with the expressions of Archibald Alison , Mr. Porter, or even with what Mr. Cobden himself said in 1836. The effort to throw discredit on the policy of protection by ' Charter of the Nations, p. 10. 3 id., p. 129. < Progress ^X MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. Statements of this character has arisen since the masses of the English people have become reduced to degradation and poverty, and the indus- tries of the country paralyzed under the blighting influence of free trade, in order to show that the conditions are no worse than they were while the policy of protection was being practiced. Aside from the distress of 1846 and 1847, caused by the failure of the potato crop and wheat harvest in 1846 and 1847, and a few exceptional years of commercial panics, it may be safely stated that the English people enjoyed a high degree of prosperity so long as protection was continued. PART IV. RETURN TO FREE TRADE AND ITS EFFECT ON HOME INDUSTRIES. CHAPTER I. Origin of the Free Trade Movement. The period embraced within this chapter, from 1793 to i860, is so filled with industrial and legislative changes that a whole volume might be devoted to their consideration, with an exercise of a fair degree of brevity. The industrial changes which began in the latter part of the eighteenth century were continued by discoveries and inventions, until, by the middle of the nineteenth century, nearly all branches of trade and commerce were revolutionized. During this period steam engines were substituted for water wheels in nearly every branch of manufacture requiring the use of motive power, while railroads and steam navigation revolutionized the means of transportation and communication. The increase of knowledge, the discoveries in chemistry and other departments of science, placed the arts of manufacture upon an entirely new basis, and brought into requisition a different order of talent and skill. By 1846 machine work had largely displaced the old system of hand labor. The old masters who had carried on small factories with a few journeymen and apprentices, were compelled to give way to companies and corporations, with large capital and plants fitted up with all modern improvements. The factory system was brought into existence by those inventions of textile machinery which increased the expense of setting up plants and carrying on this department of manu- facturing. As machinery became more perfected, and its use extended to different branches of industry, the system of capitalistic production increased, until finally a complete transformation was effected and the lord of ten thousand spindles became more powerful in the realm, than the lord of ten thousand acres. By the use of machinery a person could, in a very short time, not only learn to perform the same work which hitherto had required years of training, but could accomplish so much more in the same length of time, that thousands of old artisans were thrown out of employment. Their (127) Inttoduc- machinery. Industrial effects of machinery. EETVRN TO FREE TRADE. Itiiportant character- istics of the period from ins displacement caused much suffering and distress. Unable easily to find employment, and to adjust themselves to the changed conditions, they organized into bodies and went about assaulting factories and demolishing machiner}-. The general benefits and advantages of the new inventions, to the whole people, so outweighed the temporary and individual losses which occurred, that nothing could stop or check the full play of inventive genius, and the progressive development of man's powers over the forces of nature went steadily on. The increased productive capacity of labor became so great that it was difficult to find new markets for the surplus products. While the wages of hand workmen were constantly reduced in attempting to keep up the struggle against machinery, until the fight was finally given up, the earnings of those artisans who learned to attend machines, and became fitted for the new system, were greatly increased. There is no similar period in the history of any country in which so many influences favorable to business activity were constantly arising, while at the same time external forces were operating to bring about busi- ness depressions, and hinder an unlimited expansion of the commerce of its inhabitants. While they were perfecting their machinerJ^ increasing their factories, accumulating wealth, educating and fitting their artisans in the use of machinery, and becoming able to do the manufacturing for the entire world, the United States and all Continental countries were building up rival industries under a system of protective tariffs and closing their markets to the admission of English goods. This is one of the most important conditions which was then affecting the unlimited expansion of British industries. Instead of their markets being constantly extended, as their ability to supply them increased, they were being restricted. The conditions which affected the price of wheat during certain 5-ears should also be considered. There was a very deficient harvest in 1839, and three successive poor harvests occurred in 1845, 1846 and 1847. '^^^^ year 1847 is particularly noted for the failure of the potato crop in Ireland, which caused one of the most severe famines with which the people of any country were ever afflicted. It was during the failure of the wheat crop and the famine in Ireland, when the people of both countries were not only sufiering from a lack of sufficient food, but also from high prices occasioned thereby, that the duties on agricultural products were repealed, and the English people changed their commercial policy and adopted free trade. During this period also, between 1840 and 1850, a S3^stem of railroad building was entered upon in England and throughout the world, and the .sub.stitution of steam for .sail- ing vessels, in passenger and freight traffic, was begun, followed immediately by the discover>' of gold in California in 1849, and in Australia in 1851, which gave to the business of the world au impetus, the impor- tance of which can scarcely be overestimated. ORIGIN OF THE FREE TRADE 3IOVE3IENT. The first part of this period, from 1815 to 1840, was one of retrench- ment and recovery from some of the most violent causes which ever revolutionized and disorganized the business of any people in any time. The latter part, from 1840 to i860, is characterized by the new causes which gave, not only to England but to the people of every civil- ized country, increased facilities in manufacturing, trade and commerce. From this time the people of England were doing business under a stable financial policy. The increased supply of the precious metals, the revival of trade and commerce, caused by railroad building and the construction of steamships, created such business activity, that a sufficient demand for commodities arose to enhance prices somewhat. The reader will readily appreciate the fact that nearly all of these causes, which either injured or benefited the commercial interests of the English people, existed wholly apart from either protection or free trade. This period becomes of direct importance, because England entirely abandoned the policy of protection, threw her ports open, and invited the free admission of the products of other countries, in competition with the products of her farms, factories and mines, thus adopting the policy of free trade. Since that time, her statesmen, economic writers and manu- facturers, have persistently been urging and advising other nations to pursue the same course. In the arguments used to sustain the position taken by England, it has been constantly paraded before the world, and vigorously and boldly asserted, that all of the disasters which befell the English people, prior to 1846, were the result of the system of protection, while all of the progress since 1846 was mainly due to the adoption of free trade. The high price of wheat, caused by the failure of crops, is loudly proclaimed as the result of protection, while the free trade writers are absolutely silent about the moderate prices which prevailed when crops were good. The want and suffering, occasioned by the famine of 1846 and 1847 are pictured with all the horrors which can be depicted by the eloquence and graphic pens of English free traders ; yet the plenty and prosperity of other times are ignored. The low wages of the hand-loom weavers are held up as the effect of protection, while nothing is said about the high wages paid to machine workers. One would think to read the free trade literature put out by the Cobden Club since 1867, with which this and other countries have been flooded, that the most appalling conditions existed in England up to the time free trade was proclaimed. Fortunately, however, we are not compelled to rely upon the literature of the Cobden Club for the facts bearing upon this question. This period of the commercial history of the country has been the subject of much controversy, which is of but little importance in consider- ing the merits of protection or free trade, yet it has given rise to so much misunderstanding, that the economic conditions which prevailed at this 9 EETURN TO FEES TRADE. time should be presented, in order to refute the many misrepresentations made, and allow the reader to arrive at the underlying facts. The Napoleonic wars which, from 1793 to 1815, involved all Europe the most destructive and devastating struggle of modern times, afforded opportunity for Great Britain to drive every Continental rival from the sea, gain the absolute control of the foreign commerce of the world, and make her commercial supremacy complete. Since the time of Cromwell her foreign policy had for its chief end her commercial pre-eminence. The great central purpose of this nation was at first to acquire foreign posses- sion and to participate in the carrying trade. This soon, however, developed into a definite plan of preventing, by every means within her power, other people from becoming and remaining competitors in manu- facturing and commerce. Her Navigation Laws were enacted for the purpose of transferring to her own merchants and shippers the trade then enjoyed by the Dutch. At all times ready to engage in foreign wars to forward this end, in numerous instances, she deliberately provoked con- troversies for the purpose of annihilating rivals. To destroy the shipping, foreign trade and business connections of all Continental powers and to strip them of their possessions, formed the chief interest of the English people in the wars with Napoleon. The wealth, productive forces and powerful navy which they already possessed, together with their insular position, enabled them to defend what they then held, while hostilities involving so many rivals afforded an opportunity to bring about the ruin of their competitors. Although the victories of Nelson and Wellington were purchased at a great sacrifice of human life and treasure, and the English people were burdened with an enormous debt, which to this day is unpaid, the com- mercial advantages secured cannot be overestimated. It was half a century before the Continent recovered from the bankrupt and crippled con- dition to which it was reduced. During all this time English manufacturers were acquiring wealth and amassing fortunes from the trade which they enjoyed. The possessions acquired at this time have continued a source of revenue, profit and strength to the realm. The destruction of the ship- ping of Continental countries gave to England such an absolute monopoly of the carrying trade of the world, that no rivals have since arisen capable of taking it from her. The absolute supremacy established at this time is one of the chief causes of the steady and unparalleled growth of commerce, which during the nineteenth century is perhaps the most important phase of the industrial life of the country. That this pre-eminence and commer- cial greatness were not attained by that let-alone policy of free trade is shown by Mr. Cobden, who said : During the latter half of the French revolutionary wars, England, owing to succes- sive victories, became the mistress of the ocean. Her flag floated triumphantly over every navigable parallel of latitude, and her merchants and manufacturers conuiuuuk-d ORIGIN OF THE FREE TRADE 3I0VEMENT. a monopoly of the markets of the globe. For a period of more than ten years an enemy's ship was scarcely to be seen, unless a fugitive from the thunders of our ves- sels of war. No neutrals were allowed to pass along that thoroughfare of nations, the ocean, without submitting to pay homage to British power of undergoing the humilia- tion of a search by our cruisers." Thorold Rogers, one of the most eminent English writers of recent years, speaking of the position held by England at the close of these wars, says: The exhaustion of Europe after the peace of 1S15 left the British people as completely the masters of a sole market as if they ^lad conquered it themselves. The Continental war had absolutely arrested all Continental progress. All the while England was making fresh way in the newer sciences, such as chemistry was, and her rivals were of the future. ' Secure fi-om foreign invasion England was enjoying that internal tranquillity which is so favorable to commercial interests. Her factories and artisans were busy in supplying her merchants and shippers with pro- duce for all markets. Holding a complete monopoly of the carrying trade, the greatest manufacturing country in Christendom, she was ready to profit by the misfortunes of other nations and enjoy a period of pros- perity, such as, perhaps up to that time, had never been known. Of this period Alison says : Prosperity unrivaled and unheard of pervaded every department of the empire Our colonial possessions encircled the earth, the whole West Indian Islands had fallen into our hands. An empire of 60,000,000 men in Hindoostan acknowledged our rule. Java was added to our Eastern possessions, and the flag of France disappeared from every station beyond the sea. Agriculture, commerce and mi factures at home had increased in unparalleled ratio. This most unusual prosperity in the very nature of things could not last. When some of the principal influences which were especially stimu- lating business activity were withdrawn, a business crisis followed as a natural result of changed conditions. The government had been expend- ing over seven hundred million dollars yearly, in paying the expenses of a war. This must now cease. Over three billion dollars had changed hands and been put in circulation by the government and this sum was represented by the debt alone. Over three hundred thousand soldiers were disbanded and sought employment in industrial pursuits. The over- speculation which followed the close of the war, by flooding Continental markets with vast quantities of goods for which they were too poor to pay, ruined many manufacturers and merchants. " Yet the years from 181 5 to 1 8 19," says Mr. Ali.son, " though checkered with suffering from these causes, and from two bad harvests in 18 16 and 1818, were upon the whole prosperous." The conditions which prevailed at this time are so similar to those following the great rebellion in the United States, that the reader 1 Political Writings, p. 229. = Industrial and Commercial History, p. 20, liETUJil^' TO FREE TRADE. will readily appreciate the causes which brought about the crisis in ques- tion. In 1797 the English Government suspended specie paj'ment, and during the twenty years which followed, a large volume of paper money was placed in circulation, not only by the Bank of England, but by numerous country banks. Gold went to a premium and a period of speculation and inflation followed which in its duration and magnitude is unparalleled in the history of the world. With a comparatively small amount of the precious metal on hand, a single gold standard was adopted and specie payments were resumed in 18 19. This not only caused a sudden and great contraction in the volume of currency, but it reduced everything from inflated and fictitious valuations to a gold basis. Instead of slowly and gradually reaching a point at a future period for resumption of specie payment, as was the case in the United States following the great Civil War, the step was taken at once and in the midst of extravagance, speculation and high prices. While the conditions then existing were absolutely certain to result in a business crisis, and the immediate effect of the action on the part of the government was to plunge the business of the country into liquidation and place it on an entirely different basis of value, the ultimate efiect was to restore stability and confidence. The financial failures and business calamities which followed the Napoleonic wars, were the natural result of over-trading and speculation which had been going on for a long time. Free traders point to the condition of business between 1813 and 1819 as an example of the injurious effects of a protective tarifi". Before giving credit to the "misrepresentations of free trade writers on this point, the student of tariff history should understand the causes which at that time were operating to bring dis- tress upon the laboring classes and disasters to manufacturers and busi- ness men. Dr. Hanna, Mr. Chalmer's biographer, in speaking of the causes of the panic of 181 7, says : Our exports in 1S14 were double those of the preceding year, and although the increase was not relatively so great the exports in 1815 exceeded in vahie those of 1814, by about seven millions of pounds sterling. This alluring prospect led the British merchant astray. He forgot that the resources of the Continent were neces- sarily limited and had been drained hy war. The over-trading into which he had plunged bore its accustomed fruits. The Continental markets were glutted. Engli.sh goods were selling in them lower than in this countrj'. Heavy losses and frequent bankruptcies ensued. The pressure fell at last, and most heavily upon the laboring classes. Multitudes were thrown out of employment at the very time that the reduc- tion of our military establishment had thrown a large number of additional hands into the labor market. To aggravate the evil, the price of bread began to rise. The autumn months of 1815 and the -spring months of 1S16 were most uncongenial. The crop of 1816 turned out one of the wonst that had been for many years. In the course of twelve months wheat rose to double its former value, and in 1817 and iSiS the war and famine prices were once more reached, etc. ' 1 Kair Trade Joiirual, Vol. I., p. no. ORIGIN OF THE FREE TRADE 3I0VEMENT. It has not been until since the adoption of free trade in 1846 that English writers have attempted to attribute this business crisis and the misfortunes which attended it to the general policy of protection. There were, however, complaints against the duties on wheat, at the time when crops had failed and prices were high. But the prosperous period which followed and the moderate prices of farm produce prevented agitation against the Corn Laws until 1839 and 1846, when the failure of the wheat crop again increased the prices. It is unreasonable to assume that the manufacturers of Great Britain became the champions of a commercial policy, which they at that time had any reasonable grounds for believing would close their factories and be detrimental to their interests. Recent free trade writers, especially those connected with the Cobden Club, have attempted to make it appear that the free trade movement in England had its origin with a band of wise men, whom they delight in calling "thinkers," "economists," ' • seekers after the truth, "and by many other well-known terms which give an impression that the movement was the result of deliberation and research on the part of learned men, who had discovered great scientific truths. The facts of English history show that this was not the case. The English people have always been noted for their practical common sense, and their ability to look out for their own interests, regardless of the welfare of the people of other countries. It is certainly a violent assumption to contend that a nation which for centuries had been so solicitous for the welfare of its own people, could at once be transformed into political philanthropists, and become so filled with a love for humanity in general, that they would sacrifice their own interests for the sake of others. The reason which controlled their actions must be looked for in some other direction than the one suggested. What, then", were the conditions and causes which induced the Eng- lish people to abandon that system of protection which they had practiced for nearly four centuries, and adopt the policy of free trade? It is by an answer to this question that the people of other coun- tries can form a correct estimate of the merits of free trade, and judge of the effect of the application of its principles to their conditions. An examination of their aims and purposes shows that in the adoption of free trade they did not abandon the great central purpose which had been dominant among them for centuries. Th e policy of protection had been practiced for the^ purpose of building up the industries of England and making her the greatest manufacturing centre in the world. This had been accompHshed. Her Navigation Laws were enacted for the purpose of securing her shippers a monopoly of the carrying trade. Foreign wars had been engaged in for the purpose of extending her domains, destroying rivals and securing foreign markets. She had, at the close of the Napoleonic wars, attained absolute supremacy as a commercial nation. BETrnX TO FliEE TRADE. Her people had now reached so high a degree of proficiency in manufac- turing, through their skill, capital and inventions, that they were enabled ta manufacture much cheaper than any other country and, therefore, at that time needed no protection. The whole scheme was entered upon for the purpose of inducing other countries to abandon protective tariffs, and open their markets to the free admission of British wares. Free trade, then, was only a part of the policy which they had pursued for preventing other uations from becoming and remaining industrial rivals. Every means had been employed to prevent them from setting up manufac- tures. By the adoption of free trade in the United States, England would secure by peaceful means what she had failed to accomplish by violence. After the American colonists had gained their independence, they immediately turned their attention to the development of domestic resources. One of the first acts of Congress provided for a system of pro- tective tariffs, for the express purpose of encouraging the working of mines, the building of factories, and the opening of avenues for the employment of labor and the investment of capital. The efforts on the part of English manufacturers to prevent the building of factories in the New World were continued even after the people had thrown -ofi^ the British yoke. The plan adopted was suddenly to inundate the United States with a vast quantitj' of goods and sell them so cheaply that the American manufacturer, with his small capital, would be at once ruined and thereby discouraged from continuing a struggle against the vast accumulation of wealth at the command of English hianufacturers. The whole plan is set forth in the ' ' Address of the American Society for the Encouragement of Domestic Manufactures," published in 1817, which contains the following statement : In the beginning of the year 1792, when the report of General Hamilton, then Secretary of the Treasury, made by order of the House of Representatives, was published in England, it created such alarm that meetings were called in the manu- facturing towns, and Manchester alone, at a single meeting, subscribed 50,000 pounds sterling toward a fund to be vested in English goods, and shipped to this country for the purpose of glutting our market and blasting the hopes of our manu- facturers in Ihe bud. The American market, from this time until the breaking out of the war of 1812, was raided by this system of commeri-ial warfare. During the war of 18 12 the Embargo Act and the susiicnsiini of commercial intercourse between the two countries gave our artisans and manufac- turers a brief period of absolute protection from the assaults of their commercial enemies. People hesitated to invest money in factories and business enterprises which were being constantly .subjected to ruinous competition, but as soon as their own market was made secure they at once engaged in the building of factories and the employment of labor, which produced the most flouri.shing indu.strial condition that the people ORIGIN OF THE FREE TRADE MOVEMENT. of the New World had yet experienced. The example thus afforded strengthened Jefferson, Madison and others in their belief in the advan- tages of protection. Upon signing the treaty of peace in 1815, commercial hostilities were renewed against the industries which had risen in the meantime. Lord Brougham, referring in 1816 to the flooding of American markets with the produce of British factories, upon the opening of our ports at the close of the war, said : It is well worth while to incur loss upon the first exportation, in order, by the glut, to stifle in the cradle those rising manufactures in the United States, which the war had forced into existence, contrary to the natural course of things. Eigh- teen millions worth of goods, I believe, were exported to North America in one year, and for a considerable part of this no returns have been received ; while still more of it must have been selling at a very scanty profit. This statement is corroborated by Mr. Porter, who, in speaking of the vast exports of woolen goods from Great Britain in 18 15, says : The largest export in point of value that ever took place occurred in the year 1815, when owing to the interruption of intercourse with the United Statesof America in the two preceding years, the quantity sent to that country Was unusually great. The number of pieces exported to all parts in that year was 1,482,643, the number of }-ards 12,173,515, and the total value 9,381,426 pounds sterling ($46, 907, 130), of which 4,378,195 pounds sterling ($21,890,975) was sent to the United States.' At the close of the Napoleonic wars in 18 15, the manufacturers of England, through the use of machinery, had become so far superior to tho.se of Germanj- and other Continental countries, that no tariff bar- riers which then existed were sufficient to keep out their wares, hence the markets of the Continent were thrown open. Germany, Prussia, Belgium, Holland, and in fact the entire Continent, were made the dumping ground for the products of English factories. There was a persistent and deliberate purpose to destroy the industries of other nations. The invasion of the Continent tended to destroy and hinder the principal means by which the prosperity of the people might be restored. All of the European nations found themselves at the close of the long .struggle from which they had emerged, burdened with debt, impoveri.shed and demoralized. Their only hope of recuperation and restoration of prosperity lay in the cultivation of the industrial arts. Disturbed for years by the calamities of war, they were anxious for peace, repose and internal tranquillity, but a foe was at their doors. The invading armies of Napoleon that had laid exactions trpon their cities, inflicted injuries from which they could recover ; but the tribute demanded by English manufacturers must not only constantly be drawn from their accumulations and industrial life, but was more destruc- tive to the welfare of the people than the open military conflict which had just closed. It would not only sap the industrial vigor of the people, but • Progress of the Nation, p. 169. IlETCKX TO FREE TRADE. spirit of Great Britain's commercial by an unceasing and persistent system of underselling, carried on under the guise of friendship and the banner of peace, would doom their artisans to a life of idleness and degradation, and deprive their business men of the opportunity of carrying on legitimate business enterprises in their own country-. The commercial warfare which was being waged by English manu- facturers against the rising industries on the Continent and in the United States, the losses sustained and the gravity of the situation thus presented, caused a discussion in the House of Commons in which Mr. Henry Brougham (later l,ord Brougham) participated. In a speech made by him on April 9, 1816, he said : The diflttculties of 1812 are fresh in the recollection of the committee, and are still working their effects in many parts of the countrj', although the repeal of the Orders in Council, by enabling us to export goods which were all paid for to the amount of seven or eight millions, afforded a most seasonable and important relief, and enabled capitalists to lower their stock on hand in a great proportion. That stock, however, began to increase during the unhappy continuance of the American war; and the peace, unexpectedly made, in Europe, followed by the treaty with America, soon produced an effect to which I must request the serious attention of the committee, because I believe its nature and extent are by no means well under- stood. After the cramped state in which the enemy's measures and our own rela- tion (as we termed it), had kept our trade for some years, when the events of the spring of 1814 suddenly opened on the Continent, a rage for exporting goods of every kind burst forth, only to be explained by reflecting on the previous restric- tions we had been laboring under, and only to be equaled (though not in extent), by some of the mercantile delusions connected with South American speculations. The peace with America has produced somewhat of a similar effect, although I am very far from placing the vast exports which it occasioned upon the same footing with those to the European market the year before, both because ultimately the Americans will pay, which the exhausted state of the Continent renders very unlikely, and because it was well worth while to incur a loss upon the first expor- tation, in order, by the glut, to stifle in the cradle, those rising manufactures in the United States which the war has forced into existence, contrary to the natural course of things. > Upon this same subject, Henry C. Carey, quoting from Frederick List, the German economist, says : "The Continental system of Napoleon, however, constitutes the great era in the history of German as well as of French indu.stry ; for under it commenced the for- ward progress of every kind of manufacture, with corresponding increase in tlie attention to the breeding of sheep, the production of wool, and the development of domestic commerce. On the return of peace, however," continues Mr. List, "the Engli.sli, who had greatly improved their machinery, renewed tlieir rivalry ; and general ruin and distress ensued, especially in the country of the lower Rhine, which after being for some years attached to France, now lost her markets. At length, in 1818, the cry of distress could no longer be unheeded, and now a Prussian tariff gave the protection needed against that inundation of English goods, by means of which Great Britain sought to stifle in the cradle the industry of other nations. Very ^ Brougham's Speeches, I^dinburgh, iS3vS, Vol. i, pp. 518-19. ORIGIN OF THE FREE TRADE MOVEMENT. moderate in its duties, this tariiF had the merit of being specific and not ad valorem, thus not only preventing fraud and smuggling, but also encouraging the production of those articles of coarse manufacture, the quantity and bulk of which gives them their great importance. " ' The only means which these nations could adopt to prevent the com- plete annihilation of their industries, through English competition, were those taken by Germany. Protective tariffs were made absolutely necessarj' to the industrial life of the United States and all Continental cotmtries. In the production of all textile fabrics to which the use of labor-saving machinery had been applied, England at this time held an absolute pre- eminence. Besides in those wares which were still made in part by hand, the superior capital of English manufacturers enabled them, by a system of underselling, to prevent their healthy and vigorous growth in the United States and some parts of Europe. The natural and inevitable result was the adoption of protective tariffs by all commercial countries. The United States adopted the tariff law of 1816, which is known as the Calhoun tariff, it having been favored by John C. Calhoun and ether Southern members. Again in 1824, 1828 and 1842, tariff laws were passed by Congress, increasing the duties on imports to such an extent that England's trade with the United States was greatly injured, although the policy was somewhat modified by the compromise measure of 1833, and lower duties prevailed up to 1842, when the more vigorous protective policy was restored. Notwithstanding the modifications of 1833, from 1842 to 1846 the system of protection was the policy of this country. The rising industries of the United States, under the fostering care of such leg- islation, stood as a constant menace to the English manufacturers. Popu- lation was steadily increasing, the markets becoming larger and more valuable. In 1 81 8 Prussia increased her duties on imports. At this time a movement was set on foot to unite all the German states together, for mutual protection. The Zollverein, or German customs union, was per- fected by 1833, and the vast territory which now forms the German Empire was welded together with custom houses on the frontier to guard their industries. This was a severe blow aimed at English manufacturers, who saw here an industrious and enterprising people, with vast resources, and having every facility for engaging in manufacturing, close their mar- kets to English goods. Russia, suffering from the same injuries inflicted on her indtistries by English competition, was compelled in 1822, to return to the policy of protection, which under the advice of a disciple of free trade had been abandoned in 18 18. Count Nesselrode, the Prime Minister of Russia, in recommending the adoption of protection, stated in an oSicial communi- cation that ' ' Russia sees herself compelled by circumstances to adopt an RETCRX TO FREE TRADE. independent industrial system. The products of the empire find no access to foreign markets ; domestic manufactures are either ruined or on the point of ruin ; all the moneys of the empire flow abroad ; and the most solid business houses are on the brink of failure. ' ' From this time on vigorous measures were taken b}' the Russian Government to develop the resources of its vast empire, and to make its people independent of Eng- land for manufactured articles. The policy entered upon at this time, continued until 1857, when after a short and bitter experience with low duties, more vigorous protective laws were enacted than ever before. A revolt against British competition sooner or later arose in every commercial nation. Belgium and Holland stood out longer than Germany, Russia or the United States. They waited, however, until their people had been reduced to a most distressful condition, when protective measures were resorted to, as the only means of reviving their decaying industries. Belgium established the protective policy in 1844, and Holland in 1845. In the latter year Spain increased her import duties and took steps toward building up a system of manufactures, while Portugal became a protective country in 1837, ^^^ increased its duties in 1841. This was the condition confronting England during the first half of the nineteenth century. She now saw rival manufactures rising in everj^ commercial country, shielded from attack by protective tariff walls. She saw the industrial centres of Europe enter upon a policy under which they could not only .supply themselves with their own clothing and implements, but which ultimately would enable them to contend for supremacy in neutral markets. The example which England had set during a period of three centuries, of giving encouragement and protection to her own citizens against foreign rivals, was being vigorously urged in all countries in favor of a similar policy. England was thus in danger of losing those foreign markets, while under a system of free trade she would have no difBculty in controlling them. That this condition played a great part in influencing the action of the English people in 1846, when free trade was adopted, appears from the following statement contained in a book put out by the Anti-Corn League in 1854, giving a history of the free trade movement : In Saxony, Bavaria, Wurtemburg, the Rhenish provinces of Prussia, as well as Russia and Switzerland, factories had been erected, filled with British machinery, and often placed under the oversight of an experienced workman from this country-, and every exertion made, under the shelter of protective imposts, to drive us from the markets of the Continent. Our skilled artisans were to be found in the United States, in Brazil, in the neighborhood of Constantinople and St. Petersburg, ever)'- where teaching the foreigner to render himself independent.' As early as 1820 England's trade in its relation to the markets of other countries had assumed an aspect which alarmed the merchants and ' Charter of Nations, pp. 50, 51 and 53. ORIGIN OF THE FREE TRADE MOVEMENT. manufacturers of London. With constantly increasing capacitj- for pro- duction, they saw the richest and most desirable markets of the world being closed to the admission of their goods, and rival industries rising that in time would prove troublesome competitors in neutral markets. The productive powers of the twenty millions of people at this time, especially in the textile industries, had doubled within the past twenty- five years, and such rapid progress was being made that the limits to their future ability to produce fabrics could not be comprehended. This was a situation which hitherto had not been presented to the English people. At this time a petition was presented to parliament by Mr. Baring, signed by the merchants and manufacturers of London.' It was drafted by Mr. Thomas Tooke, the able author of the ' ' History of Prices. ' ' This document is frequently referred to by free trade writers as e\-idence of the advance in sound economic thinking on the part of the English people. It contains, however, several statements which throw much light on the cau.ses which were then operating to convince the English people that a change of policy would be for their interest. The statements in the petition upon this point are as follows : (/) " That foreign commerce is eminently condiicive to the wealth and prosperity of a country by enabling it to import the commodities for the pro- duction of which the soil, climate, capital and industry of other countries are best calculated, and to export, in payment, those articles for which its own situation is better adapted." This declaration that ' ' foreign commerce is eminently conducive to the wealth and prosperity of a countrj'," was of peculiar significance and importance to Great Britain. The reader should bear in mind that this petition recommended a policy which was believed to be for the benefit of England and suited to her condition. The men who presented it were at the time engaged in a struggle to supplant manufactures which were then rising in the United States and on the Continent. So this declaration should be interpreted in the light of the circumstances and situation of the case. It simply meant that foreign trade was of the highest importance to England. No one has ever yet disputed this proposition. As long as any country can exchange its own domestic productions with other countries for those products, the like of which cannot be raised at home, it is engaging in a class of foreign trade which is necessary and profitable. A controversy arises only when a nation imports articles which might be produced by its own labor, thus sacrificing domestic industries. The petitioners well knew that the great manufacturing interests of England were beyond the reach of injurious competition, and hence it was not contemplated that ma?iitfacturcd goods should be brought in from foreign parts. The specific declaration which follows, simply meant that England should import those products of other countries which they could produce 1 Mcculloch's Commercial Dictionary, p. 384. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. more cheaply and by nature were especially adapted to cultivate, while England should furnish in return manufactured articles. This brings us to a consideration of the precise situation of English trade and industries in their relation to other countries. This declaration is worthy of a more extended consideration from the fact that it forms the basis of an impor- tant element in the theory of free trade. Protectionists, however, restrict its application to certain conditions, while the English free trader urges its universal adaptation to all countries and all conditions. The circumstances under which the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Venetians and Dutch put to sea and extensively engaged in foreign trade have already been pointed out. That it was beneficial and profitable, as it was also necessary, that the English people should direct a large part of their energy and capital to foreign commerce, is conceded by all. But simply because their condi- tion was adapted to this branch of enterprise furnishes no reason why it would be equally profitable and beneficial for other countries, differently situated, to adopt the same policy. The best economic thought of the world to-da3', regardless of views upon the wisdom of free trade or pro- tection as applied to different countries and conditions, repudiates the universality of the alleged economic principles of free trade. It is universally accepted at the present time that there are no ready-made, iron-bound systems of political economy for industrial development, tax- ation or finance which apply to all people, all countries and all conditions alike. The capabilities of a people, geographical situation, natural resources and products of soil and climate, must all be considered in deter- mining whether free trade or protection should be adopted. Protection is never resorted to by any country unless its economic conditions make it necessary. The welfare of one country may best be promoted through extensive foreign trade. The highest development of another may require a combination of home and foreign trade quite evenly balanced, its foreign trade being necessary in order to promote diversified industries and divi- sion of labor at home ; while still another may be so situated that by domestic trade alone it will reach the ver>' highest industrial development, and its foreign trade will remain of secondary consideration. Cuba, for instance, presents conditions different from those of almost any other locality. Having neither coal, iron, flax, hemp, jute, unable to raise wheat and the larger cereals, with a climate too hot for cattle raising, for manufacturing, or in fact, for any industrial enterprises which require excessive physical exertion, she must adopt an entirely difi"erent commercial policy from that of the United States or Great Britain. In the raising of .sugar, tobacco and tropical fruits, for which little human effort is necessary, she is unsurpassed by any locality on the globe. The produc- tion of these commodities so favored by nature undoubtedly aifords the most fruitful field for the enterpri.se and exertion of her people. By the exchange of these commodities all of their wants can be supplied. ORIGIN OF THE FREE TRADE 3I0VEBIENT. Russia and the United States present still another phase of economic conditions. Including within their domains temperate and semi-tropical regions capable of producing almost every species of food supplies and agricultural products, possessed of soil and climate suitable to the growth of cotton, flax, hemp, jute and nearly all vegetable fibres, with vast ranges for sheep and an abundance of iron, copper, lead, coal and petroleum, together with inexhaustible supplies of timber, water power, and nearly every facility for carrying on all branches of mining, manufacturing and agricultural industries,'they are almost independent of other countries and capable of living within themselves. It is to domestic industries and home trade, that these people must look for their chief source of wealth and means of reaching the greatest prosperity and highest industrial develop- ment. A surplus of many things can easily be produced and given in exchange for tea, cofi"ee, spices, tropical fruits, dye stuffs, raw silk, rubber and all those luxuries and products of other countries which thej' need. Foreign exchanges must be confined to a limited number of articles in order to give employment to their people at home in the development of their native resources. Extensive foreign trade cannot be engaged in without neglecting the domestic production of those wares and commodi- ties for which their resources and people are well adapted. Their skillful, enterprising and ambitious people can find the greatest reward for their exertions in the vast inland trade and the diversified system of native industries. The wealth and prosperity of the United States cannot be measured by the comparatively small amount of foreign exchanges which are made necessary. Whether we view England at the present time or go back to 1820, we find conditions of an entirely different nature. The whole United King- dom, England, Ireland and Scotland, contains 121,230 square miles of territory, no more than some single States or Territories of the United States. Upon this small area in 1820, there was a population of 21,302,395, who were compelled by soil and climate to depend on the produce of other countries, not only for a large portion of their food supplies, but for nearly all of the raw materials for their factories. They could not be maintained within their own country, but must necessarily draw a great part of their means of subsistence from remote regions. Located in the centre of the world's markets, at the very door of the most highly civilized and densely populated regions of Europe, through her vast shipping and means of ocean transportation, she had already a coinplete monopoly of the carrying trade of the world. With trade relations extending to her colonies and foreign possessions, a vast commerce was controlled. For nearly two centuries the energies of her people had been exerted in this direction, with increasing profits and accumulations of wealth. The very existence of her manufactures depended upon the foreign trade. Raw cotton must be imported, but it could be brought from India or South JiETUIiN TO FREE TRADE. Carolina and deli\'ered to her cotton manufacturers as cheaply as it could be carried from Charleston to New England. An increasing expansion of her woolen industries required a reliance on wool grown in Australia and other parts. Her silk factories must be provided with raw material from Southern Europe and Asia. Flax, hemp, jute, dye stuffs, hides, rubber, tin, lead, copper, and in fact nearly all raw materials, must be im- ported. In food supplies she must also buy in foreign countries tea, coffee, sugar, spices, rice, tropical fruits, wines, liquors, tobacco, and other food products. Even the timber, masts, spars, tar, pitch and other material for ship building, had been brought into the country for over a century. The English people were compelled to depend upon the purchase of these articles for their development and commercial prosperity. Like the Vene- tians and Dutch, not by choice, but from necessity, they became fishermen and mariners. On the other hand they were in many respects well fitted for engag- ing in manufacturing and foreign commerce. With a plentiful supply of stone, lime, slate, clay, and various earths used in making glass and earthenware, with splendid water power, and an inexhaustible supply of coal and iron ; with an abundance of surplus capital, the accumulation of centuries; in advance of all other nations in the application of machinery and steam power, and with a dense population of trained and skilled arti- sans, they were able not only to supply all home demands for manufac- tured articles, but were constantly producing a vast surplus which must be sold in foreign markets, or perish on their hands. "The geographical situation of the inland districts has also been pointed out as an advantage in transportation, each manufacturing centre being only a few miles from a seaport. Thus situated, without foreign trade the English people would perish from the face of the earth, or be driven to other regions to find em- ployment. In order to subsist, they must be kept at work. Raw materials must be imported, manufactured into finished products, and in finished form exchanged for a new supply of raw materials and food. In this way, by a system of foreign exchanges, their industrial life is perpetuated. Foreign trade at this time was the great source of their wealth, enterprise and progress. With the foregoing considerations the reader will readily appreciate the proposition quoted from the petition. While a certain class of foreign trade might be especially beneficial to Cuba or England, it would inflict an absolute injury upon a country whose industries were unable to with- stand competition. Free trade writers refer to this part of the petition as though it announced fundamental truths which had just been discovered. It contained nothing that had not been well understood for at least a cen- tury by the English manufacturers and merchants. This remarkable petition contains another statement which throws much light upon the situation of the English people at this time. It ORIGIN OF THE FREE TRADE MOVEMENT. exposes the whole free trade movement, and discloses the condition under which the English manufacturers favored the removal of protective duties on manufactured goods. It would be unreasonable to assume that English manufacturers abandoned the protective system upon high moral grounds or because of any scientific notions or regard for great economic truths. At no time have they shown the slightest regard for the welfare of the people of other countries. Every step in the free trade movement, from its inception to its close, was promoted by that inordinate selfishness, that spirit of greed and avarice which has always characterized the commercial classes of the country. That protection was abandoned because the English people were able then to manufacture goods more cheaply than they could be made in any other place, is proven not only by their condi- tion, but by their own statement and claims made at the time. Upon this proposition the attention of the reader is first called to another paragraph of the petition, which contains this remarkable statement: (2) " Thai of the numerous protective and prohibitory duties of our commercial code, it may be proved, that very few are of any ultimate benefit to the classes in whose favor they were originally instituted." The reader should bear in mind that this declaration emanates from the merchants and manufacturers of Eondon ; that it was drafted by Mr. Tooke, one of the most competent authorities upon commercial subjects then living. This shows that England even then had outgrown protec- tion. Her artisans and manufacturers had attained such efiiciency and skill that they held an absolute monopoly of their home market. They were able to- undersell all competitors. They feared no rivals either at home or abroad. The invention of machinerj^ and the accumulation of capital had made them so superior to the industrial classes of every other country, that with minor exceptions they could throw down the bars and defy all competitors without a single English factorj''s being closed or an English artisan's being thrown out of employment. This is a most signal proof of the value of protection. Modern free traders persistentlj- urge that protection brings into existence weak and sickly industries. It seems, however, that it had the opposite eifect in England, whose industries, under its beneficent influence, reached such a high degree of perfection that they became the strongest in the world. From 1820 to 1846 the perfection of machinery and expansion of industries went steadily on, and at the time protective tariffs were finally removed, their industries must have been more independent of foreign competition than they were in 1820. J. R. McCulloch writing in 1847 furnishes stronger evidence upon this proposition than the declaration cited above. He savs : The natural capabilit for carrying on the business of manufacti all things considered, decidedly superior to those of any other peopl PxETURN TO FREE TRADE. But the superiority to which we have already arrived is, perhaps, the greatest advantage in our favor. Our master manufacturers, engineers and artisans are more intelligent, skillful and enterprising than those of any other country ; and the extraordinary inventions they have already made, and their familiarity with all the principles and details of the business, will not only enable them to perfect the processes already in use, but can hardly fail to lead to the discoverj' of others. Our establishments for spinning, weaving, printing, bleaching, etc., are infinitel)- more complete and perfect than any that exist elsewhere ; the division of labor in them is carried to an incomparably greater extent ; the workmen are trained from infancy to industrious habits, and have attained that peculiar dexterity and sleight of hand in the performance of their separate tasks, that can only be acquired by long and unremitting application to the same employment. Why, then, having all these advantages on our side, should we not keep the start we have already gained? Every other people that attempt to set up manufactures must obviously labor under the greatest difficulties as compared with us. Their establishments cannot, at first, be sufficiently large to enable the division of employments to be carried to any consider- able extent, at the same time that expertness in manipulation, and in the details of the various processes, can only be attained by slow degrees. It appears, therefore, reasonable to conclude that such new beginners, having to withstand the competition of those who have already arrived at a very high degree of perfection in the art, must be immediately driven out of every market equally accessible to both parties; and that 7iothing but the aid derived from restrictive regulations and prohibitions will be effectual to prevent the total destruction of their establishments in the countries where they are set up. Speaking of the ability of the people of the United States to resist their competition, he says : It is ludicrous, indeed, to suppose that a half-peopled country, like America, possessed of boundless tracts of unoccupied land of the highest degree of fertility, should be able successfully to contend in manufacturing industry with an old settled, fully peopled and very rich country, like Great Britain. Little as we have to fear from America, we have still less to fear from Swiss or Saxon competition. America has some advantage over England in the greater cheapness of the raw material ; but Switzerland and Saxony, situated almost in the centre of Europe, can only draw their supplies of raw cotton by a distant land carriage by way of Hamburg, Mar- seilles and Genoa ; and we have the best authority for affirming that a bale of cotton may be conveyed at a less expense from Charle.ston to Manchester, than from Genoa, Amsterdam or Hamburg, to Switzerland or Saxony. Switzerland is altogether destitute of coal ; all that she does is done by water power ; and that is said to be nearly exhausted. It is not, however, to be wondered at that the Swiss and Saxons should have succeeded in supplying their own markets and some of those immedi- ately contiguous, with certain species of yarn ; or that they should export hosiery and such other articles as they can manufacture on a small scale, in their cottages; but it is idle to suppose that they should ever be able to do much more than this.' Again he says: Our power looms are superior to those of any other country. There is not in fact, with the exception of the dyes a single particular connected with the cotton manufacture in which we have not a manifest superiority over the Swiss, Saxon, French, Prussians and every Continental nation. ' Mcculloch's Commercial Dictionary, pp. 462-3. ORIGIN OF THE FREE TRADE MOVEMENT. The 3'ear before free trade was adopted (1845) Mr. Porter said: England is, beyond all other countries, interested in the most perfect freedom being given to this as well as to every other branch of commerce. Placed beyond all comparison at the head of civilization as regards manufacturing skill, with capital far more ample than that possessed by any other people, with cheap and inexhaustible supplies of iron and fuel, and with institutions everj- way favorable to the utmost development of tlie industry and ingenuity of her citizens, she must always be able at least to maintain her superiorit}- of position where circumstances are in other respects equal ; and be ready to turn to the utmost advantage every improvement which may reach her in common with less powerful rivals.' It was under these circumstances that the free trade movement was started. It was fully understood that the English people had everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose by its adoption. The removal of duties on manufactured goods extended no conces- sions or advantages to foreign manufacturers in British markets. The repeal of protective laws by the United States and other countries would result in an almost unlimited expansion of England's trade, thus conferring upon her an absolute monopoly' of the markets of all coun- tries. Under free trade in England manufacturers and artisans were as secure from assault as under protection, while the verj' reverse of this was true in the United States, and other countries. As stated by Mr. McCulloch, "Nothing but the aid derived from restrictive regulations (protection) would prevent the total destruction of their establishment." Similar statements might be quoted from other English writers at the time, to .sustain this position, but cumulative evidence will not strengthen a fact already proven. In the light of subsequent events, a third statement contained in the petition of 1820 becomes verj^ interesting. The United States and the Continent intrenched behind the walls of protection were enjoying a prosperity which was most galling to English manufacturers. The war of 18 1 2 had been very unfortunate for England in the animosities and prejudices which it aroused. The spirit of enmity and hatred which had existed among the French against the Engli.sh for centuries was intensified by the Napoleonic wars. National jealousies, which were then dominant among all Continental powers, made pacific measures and treaties difficult. The signers of this petition well knew that nothing short of a most unusual course would make the slightest impression upon foreign countries. The great question in England was not the perpetuation of their own industries by protection, but how to get rid of protective tariffs in the United States and other countries, which alone stood in the way of an almost unlimited sale of their wares. This was the great evil from which they were suffering. The restrictions on their commerce, of which they complained, were on the statute books of other nations. The custom house officers, who so exasperated them and against whom they railed with ' Progress of the Nation, p. 263. 10 RETVRN TO FREE TRADE. such bitterness, were collecting duties on English goods imported into other countries. Their invectives, ridicule and sarcasm were hurled against a system which had become injurious to their trade only by being practiced by their rivals. It was under these circumstances that the entire British press, their orators, statesmen, professors and manufacturers entered upon a raid against the policy of protection. What specific could be applied to the condition ? Foreign tariffs alone stood in their way. The remedy must be their modification or abolishment. The people of the United States must be convinced that protection to native industries was radically and totally wrong ; that it was an unwise policy for any people to pursue under any and all circumstances. A campaign of educa- tion must be carried on in foreign countries. They had always been sensible of the fact that the building of factories in the United States and other countries was in conflict with their interests, but it was not until after the battle of Waterloo that they set up the claim that protective tariffs were unwise and harmful. Step by step they had advanced in those dis- coveries and improvements, which increased their ability to outstrip and undersell all competitors. At the cannon's mouth they had swept the merchant vessels of all rivals from the sea, annihilated their commerce, and taken po.ssession of their markets. They could not batter down protec- tive walls with shot and shell. They could not remove protective barriers at the point of the bayonet. They must resort to other means. There is another thing of vital importance which they could not do. They could not satisfy the people of other nations that the polic)- of protection was unwise, so long as they maintained it themselves. They must first abandon protection before \h.ey could consistently denounce it as an evil. The literature of the times, the debates in parliament, the declarations of their manufacturers and economic writers, all prove the fact that the chief reason for abandoning protection was the influence such action would have upon other countries. It would destroy one of the chief arguments which was being used against them. Upon this proposition the attention of the reader is again called to the petition of the merchants and manufacturers of London, which contained the following statement : (3) That a declaration against the anti-commercial principles 0/ our restrictive system is of the more importance at the present juncture, inasnnich as, in several instances of recent occurrence, the merchants and manufacturers of foreign countries have assailed their respective governments zvith applications for further protective or prohibitory duties and regulations, urging the example and authority of this country against which they are almost exclusively directed, as a sanction for the policy of such measures. And certainly, if the reasoning upon which our restrictions have been defended is worth anything, it will apply in behalf of the regulations of foreign States against us. That nothing would tend more to counteract the commercial hostility of foreign States, than the adoption of a more enlightened and more conciliatory policy on the part of this country. ORIGIN OF THE FREE TRADE MOVEMENT. The foregoing declaration is sufficient of itself to show that the removal of protective duties was a mere matter of diplomacy and was not asked for because of themselves they in any way obstructed or interfered with England's foreign trade. It was simply to put themselves in a situa- tion to accomplish their purpose more easily. The utter disregard for economic principles is revealed in the next paragraph as follows : (4) That allhough, as a matter of mere diplomacy , it may sometimes answer to hold the removal of particular prohibitions, or high duties, as depending upon corresponding concessions by other States in our favor, it does not follow that we should maintain our restrictions in cases where the desired concessions on their part cannot be obtained. Our restrictions would not be less prejudicial to our own capital and industry, because other governments persist in preserving impolitic regulations. Although Mr. Thomas Tooke, the author of this paragraph, is held up before the world as a model economist, the plan suggested is so dis- creditable that it has since been a subject of apology by the English writers. The attempt to overreach other nations and destroj' their indus- tries by treaty stipulations in which England would gain everj'thing and .surrender nothing, while the other contracting party would yield important advantages and lose everything, constitutes the basis of reciprocity as it first suggested itself to English traders. But the pretence of holding a club over the heads of other nations, with the design of forcing them to terms, proved a complete failure. The more surpri.sing feature is the fact that this disingenuous diplomacy was actually attempted. Mr. Porter, speaking of this paragraph, and the efforts of the Engli.sh spider to induce the foreign fly to come into his parlor, says : ' ' From some cause or other, probably the misconception of our motive, or the fear of being overreached, it has generally happened that it has been thought unwise to grant the price we have demanded for the alteration.'" The prayer for relief contained in the petition, outlines the general plan which was subsequently adopted, and has since been adhered to, as follows : (5) That in thus declaring, as your petitioners do, their conviction of the impolicy and injustice of the restrictive system, and in desiring every practical relaxation of it, they have in view only such parts of it as are not connected, or are only subordinately so, with the public revenue. As long as the necessity for the present amount of revenue subsists, your petitioners cannot expect so important a branch of it as the customs to be given up, nor to be materially diminished unless some substitute, less objectionable, be suggested. But it is against every restrictive regulation of trade not essential to the revenue — against all duties merely protective from foreign competition — and against the excess of such duties as are partly for the purpose of revenue, and partly for that of protection — that the prayer of the present petition is respectfully submitted to the wisdom of Parliament. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your honorable House will be pleased to take the subject into consideration, and to adopt such measures as may > Progress of the Nation, p. 3S5. FETCRX TO FREE TRADE. be calculated to give greater freedom to foreign commerce, and thereby to increase the resources of the States. The action taken by the sigtiers of this petition, was the first organ- ized movement toward the adoption of free trade in England. Although it did not at that time assume the form of specific agitation, or go beyond the presentation of the petition, yet it undoubtedly played an important part in arousing English manufacturers and ship owners, and pointed out the remedy, or best means of attacking the barriers which were raised against English trade in foreign markets. It was not, however, until 1839 that a free trade party was organized and definite agitation of the question began. In the mean time, however, foreign tariffs were a constant thorn in the .side of the English manufacturers, and as English factories increased, as machinery became more perfected, artisans more efficient, and yearly outputs greater, the necessity for breaking down the tariffs of other countries and finding a sale for English goods, became more pressing. The petition of the London merchants was soon followed by a reform of the tariff laws. Although the petition was presented to a parliament made up almost wholly of protectionists, the efforts of Mr. Baring and his associates, undoubtedly ha.stened action. The situation was such that a revision was not only needed, but could be made without in the slightest degree disturbing the essential principles of protection. The benefits to be derived from certain changes were recognized and concurred in by nearly all members of parliament. Successive revisions of the tariff were made between 18 15 and 1843, the more important measures being the acts of 1824 and 1825, and that of 1842. The free trade agitation was not begun until the organization of the Anti-Corn Law League, which occurred in 1839, and there was no departure from the principles of protection until 1846, when a parliament which had been elected as protectionist was con- verted into a majority for free trade. It .should be borne in mind that all the tariff legislation and revisions up to and including the act of 1842, were carried through parliaments, which were avowedly protectionist. The purpose of .such legislation was to simplif}* the laws then in force, and to aid manufacturing interests, without abandoning the policy under which England had become the greatest commercial country in the world. It is unnecessary to review in detail, the numerous acts which, during this time, had in one way or another modified or improved the tariff regu- lations. They consisted, however, in reducing the duties on manufactured articles, as well as on raw materials. In 1824 the law which had been in existence since 1765 prohibiting the import of manufactures of silk was repealed and a protective duty substituted, equivalent to thirty per cent ad valorem. The duties upon raw and thrown silk were also reduced, but these provisions did not take cfTect until 1S26. This mea.sure was carried through ]iarlianKnl under the leadership of Mr. Huskis.>^on, who at thai ORIGIN OF THE FREE TRADE MOVEMENT. time was the secretary of the Board of Trade. He was assisted by Can- ning, Robinson, Wallace and Sir Robert Peel, all of whom entertained liberal views upon the question. Mr. Huskisson's death, which occurred in 1 830, undoubtedly deprived the manufacturers of the ser\'ices of a states- man, who, if he had lived, would have become an advocate of the doctrine of free trade. In 1825 a general measure was proposed by Mr. Huskisson, which greatly reduced duties on raw materials, and finished goods. For the next fifteen years, the attention of parliament was given to the Reform Act, the abolition of slavery, and Catholic emancipation. Harvests were generally good, the industries were in a flourishing state and the country was prosperous. In 1840 the tariff was again taken up for consideration, and a committee was appointed by parliament to inquire into, and report upon, the condition and nature of the duties and tariff laws then in force. The work was accomplished principally by Mr. Joseph Hume, assisted by G. R. Porter and John Macgregor, all experts connected with the Board of Trade, or the statistical department of the government. From the report of this committee it appears that the duties then existing on the statute books, had already been reduced to a very moderate protective basis. Although the statutes contained many useless provisions and had brought into effect a complicated system of collecting import duties, the objection- able features could easily be remedied by a more simple and business-like system of administration, without conflicting with the principles either of protection or free trade. The embarrassing features of the law are pointed out in the report of the committee as follows : ' ' The tariff of the United Kingdom presents neither congruity nor unity of purpose ; no general principles seem to have been applied. The schedule of custom duties enumerated no fewer than eleven hundred and fifty different rates of duty, chargeable to imported articles. ' ' As will appear later, a large portion of these articles had ceased entirely to yield any revenue to speak of, either because the duties were so low, or because the English manufacturer held such a complete monopoly of the home market that none were imported. The duties on manufactured goods, then in existence (1840), as shown by the report of this committee, were as follows: ' The duty on manufactures of china and porcelain ware was 15 to 20 per cent The duty on manufactures of leather 20 to 30 per cent " " " " " brass and copper . . . 25 to 30 per cent " " " " cotton 10 to 20 per cent " " " ■ ' " flax 20 to 40 per cent " articles manufactured from skins and furs . 30 per cent The duty on corn, as prices ranged 7 to 50 per cent " " bar iron $7.50 a ton 1 The Tariff Question, Bigelow, p. 4. KETCHX TO FREE Til. IDE. No article had as yet been placed on the free list. The duties in exist- ence, not only afiForded ample protection, but in fact, in most instances, so far as the question of protection is concerned, were then considered to be unnecessary. Although the duties on textile fabrics were \-ery low, with the exception of silks, none were imported. The advantages in this respect to which England had attained, as early as 1825, were strongly stated by Mr. Huskisson in his speech of March 25 of that year. In regard to cotton manufactures, the English, he said, were acknowledged to be superior to every other nation, and, by reason of better quality and greater cheapness, were underselling their competitors in all the markets of the world, not excepting the East Indies, the first seat of that manufacture, where the raw material is grown, and where labor is cheaper than in any other country. 1 Mr. Porter says, " Such duties must long ago have become wholly inoperative through the perfection and economy which had been attained in our manufactures. ' ' ' Increase of Revenue from Direct Taxes Imposed : 1814 1815 1S19 1820 1821 1822 1823 1S24 1825 1826 1827 1S32 1833 1S34 1835 1S36 1S37 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 $2,119,685 1,600,290 39.955 6,680 i5>474,5io 598,010 213,210 92,980 228,025 215,000 940,000 107,010 9.830 3,480,020 3. '37.93° 222,630 19.955 500 8,665 3,778,365 $67,285,595 Revenue Lost by Indirect Taxes Repealed since 1815 11,113.745 16,143,960 182,475 47.820 2,356,545 10,695,505 20,251,250 8,523,620 18,197.7.55 9,869,060 20,190 259.990 632,030 20,469,775 7,992,680 3,736,320 7,634,570 10,457,580 829,085 4.948,930 1,170 1,445 316,290 94.795 135,880 14,185,000 $162,656,695 67.285,595 $3,764. 4,081, 3.981, 3,883. 3.959. 3.974. 4.007. 3.976, 3.982. 3.95S. 3.905, 3,890, 3.919. 3.887. 3.861, 3,856, 3,787, 3,770, 3,758, 3,718, 3,758, 3.718, 3.792, 3.807, 3,811, 3,806, 3.832, 3.831 3.871 3,865 286,180 559,700 000,980 712,015 336,570 902,400 826,550 563.835 650,720 508,060 616,110 641.325 008,695 3S4.450 612,700 259,660 ,434.985 ,502,745 ,294.415 ,376,145 ,294,415 ,376,495 ,749,330 ,112,950 ,375,940 ,738,450 ,708,400 ,858,625 ,599,565 ,341,700 Revenue Yearly. $355,672,515 361,052,560 311,322,730 260,279,565 268,738,975 263,244,235 271,414,790 279,170,960 278,318,250 289,864,995 296,812,015 286,369,345 274,474,945 274,662,590 275,935,710 253,933,010 280,283,080 232,132,230 234,943.775 231,356,630 232,126,315 229,466,845 242,955,900 252,963,265 256,394,640 260,291,745 258,467,550 261,577,165 255,600,200 284,675,110 ' Revenue reduced. 2d series, p. 1196, quoted in The Tariff Question, p. 6. 2 progress of the m a compilation made by Archibald Alison from official papers from the u 1S45, and published as an appendix to his " England in 1815 and 1845." ORIGIN OF THE FREE TRADE MOVEMENT The very liberal reductions in duties which had been made by the protectionists between 1815 and 1840, are shown by the above table, from which it appears that there had been lost by repealing duties on imports $162,656,695 during this period. The interest on the national debt was so large, and the necessity for revenue so great, that parliament was compelled not only to retain many of the duties which would other- wise have been repealed but to resort to direct taxes, from which $67, 285,595 were derived in order to compensate for the loss caused by the revisions which had been made. Nearly the whole of this $162,656,695 reduction of revenue was caused by the repeal of duties on raw materials, the amount of imports of manufactured goods being small throughout this period. An impression has been created to the effect that when the Anti-Corn Law League was organized, the customs tariffs of England were greatly in need of reform. Mr. Mongredien said that, " With the exception of a few slight changes in the silk duties introduced by Mr. Huskisson in 1823, the English tariff had till now (1841) remained in the same old barba- rous state." ' This is the declaration of Mr. Mongredien in describing the situation of the tariff at the time the Anti-Corn Law League began its work. This is a sample of the misrepresentations as to the tariff laws of England at that time so frequentlj- indulged in by free trade writers. Mongredien will be remembered as the member of the Cobden Club, who, in 1880, wrote a scandalous misrepresentation entitled ' ' An x\ddress to the Western Farmer of America," which was gratuitously distributed by the Cobden Club throughout the United States during the Congressional election of 1882. Every reader of free trade literature well understands the deliberate effort which has been made by free trade writers to discredit the tariff laws of England, and to create an impression that the free trade movement in England was made a necessity because of the most "burdensome," "oppressive," "arbitrary," "unjust," and " barbarous " laws then on the English statute books. While it is true that there were many objectionable features in its tariff schedules as they existed in 1839, 3'et they did not involve those principles which divide protectionists and free traders. The administrative features of the laws were "burdensome," "arbitrary," and "oppressive." The same article in many instances was classified under different heads, subjected to different rates of duties and so described that it was diflScult for custom house officers to determine to what class it belonged. Under the numerous acts of parliament imposing duties through the many years which iad elapsed, many inconsistencies had arisen which made the laws difficult to understand and to enforce. That a revision was necessary to simplify the tariff code is undoubtedly true, but it is unjust to condemn ' History of Free Trade, p. 65 RETURN TO FREE TRADE. the policy of protection to home iudustries because of those administrative features which could be improved without in any way violating the cardi- nal principles of the system. Such criticisms are made by the profes- sional free trade writers in order to cast discredit upon a system which they are seeking by every means possible to bring into disrepute. CHAPTER II. Free Trade Legislation. Before considering the subsequent legislation of 1842, and the Acts of 1845 and 1846, it may be well to point out some of the general features of the regulations then in existence, and show how they affected the various industries of the countrj'. Every government, whether practicing protection or free trade, derives at least a part of its revenues from duties on imports. A free trade country maintains its custom houses and enacts tariff laws, solely for revenue pur- poses, while a country practicing protection has a double purpose in view : first, to provide an income for the government, and secondl)', to shield its domestic industries from foreign competition. The custom tariffs of Great Britain at this time were divided into two general branches : 1. Duties levied for the purpose of raising revenue. 2. Duties levied for the purpose of protection. For purposes of revenue, duties were imposed on two classes of arti- cles, as follows : 1 . Upon those food products, the like of which could not be pro- duced in Great Britain, such as tea, coffee, sugar, rice, cocoa, spices, lemons, oranges and tropical fruits ; also on ale, beer, wines, liquors, tobacco, diamonds and other luxuries. Commodities of this class were regarded by both protectionists and free traders as proper objects of taxa- tion. The large income which it was necessary for the English govern- ment to raise each year forbade those distinctions which have since been made by protectionists in other countries, between those commodities like tea, coffee, sugar, etc., which have now become articles of involuntarj- consumption, and beer, wine, liquors, tobacco, etc., which are concededly luxuries. 2. The second class of articles upon which duties were imposed solely for the purpose of raising revenue, were those raw materials which could not be produced at home in sufficient quantities to supply the demand of their factories. At the close of the Napoleonic wars every con- ceivable article of this class was a subject of taxation. During the struggle new import duties had been imposed or existing duties increased upon raw silk, cotton, wool, hemp, jute, flax, rubber, dye stuffs, timber and mate- rials for ship building. In fact, the exigencies of the war had made it nec- essary to subject to taxation every conceivable species of property and branch of industry. The monopoly held by the British manufacturers • (153) RETURN TO FREE TRADE. during the Napoleonic wars was so complete that the duties on these raw materials did not conflict with their ability to control foreign markets and extend their trade ; but when the United States and Continental countries imposed protective barriers, the question of cheapness became so impor- tant to English manufacturers in competing with rivals in those countries where protective tariffs had been set up, that the greatest economy in pro- duction became necessary. As soon, however, as the necessities of the government would permit, protectionists and free traders united in placing them on the free list, and giving to English manufacturers the full advan- tage of their cheapness. Neither protectionists nor free traders, in England or in any other country, have ever placed duties on this class of arti- cles, excepting for revenue purposes and under circumstances which required a resort to extraordinary means of taxation. The policy of protection in England prior to the Napoleonic wars, gave everj' encouragement possi- ble to home manufacturers, both by shielding them from competition, and by admitting those raw materials which could not be produced in Eng- land, either free or by the payment of low duties. By the legislation of Walpole, in 1721, thirty-eight articles of raw materials were placed on the free list.' Even bounties were offered to encourage the import of spars, masts, pitch, tar, and other materials for ship building, from the colonies. The only justification for departing from this policy was the revenue necessities occasioned by the long struggle between 1793 and 18 15, and the burden- some debt which hung over the English people after its-close. The advo- cates of free trade have constantly paraded before the world this feature of the tariff laws of England as being " unjust," "arbitrary," " burden- some ' ' and ' ' unscientific, ' ' and claim great credit for wiping from the statute books such hindrances to English industries. Not the slightest credit is due to the advocates of free trade in England for placing these articles on the free list, because before the Anti-Corn Leag-ue was organized the duties imposed on them had been reduced to a minimum by protec- tionists, and in a short time they would all have been placed on the free list. During the great rebellion in the United States in 1861 , a protectionist Congress was compelled to impose taxes on this class of articles, to provide for the expenses of the government in carrying on the war. They were known as "war taxes." As soon, however, as the national debt was in l)art paid off, and by a system of refunding the interest account was lessened, these articles were restored to the free list. The protectionists of the United States do not impose duties on such articles of raw materials, as have been described. It is worthy of note that the free trade movement in England encountered no opposition from protectionists in the legislation which affected the two classes of articles above named. They did not enter into ' English Tmik- and Finance, p. 145. FKEE TRADE LEGIULATION. the controversy at the time. The duties on raw materials would have been repealed if a free trade party had not arisen in En;jland. The polic3' of claiming credit for everything that was done by protectionist parliaments, before a free trade organization was effected, has created an erroneous im- pression as to the facts connected with the legislation which preceded the organization of the Anti-Corn Law League. The policy of protection as it had been practiced since the time of Elizabeth embraced three general divisions, as follows : 1 . Protection to domestic industries. 2. Protection to shipping. 3. Protection to agriculture. As we have already shown, the principal part, if not all of the manu- facturers of England had become so efficient, that they were able to defy all competitors at home and to undersell all rivals in every market open to the free admission of their goods. Not only this, but they were scaling the tariff walls of foreign countries and invading the chief industrial centres of the world. They were .selling their wares at the very doors of the factories in the United States, and on the Continent, and dividing the market with native producers after paying a duty at the custom house. In considering the abilitj- of the English manufacturers to supplant all rivals, a distinction should be made between cotton, woolen, linen and metal industries, in which their supremacy was unquestioned, and those of gloves, boots and shoes, silks, and a few others which were still carried on in part by hand workmanship. The latter, however, were in,significant when compared with the great textile, metal, and pottery industries. Their ability to hold their own markets, even in all branches, was proven by the te.st applied between 1826 and 1846, when duties were reduced to a very low point. Imports did not increase and hence it was demonstrated by nearly twenty years of experience, that they were quite independent of foreign competition in these great branches of production. Another feature of the policy of protection to home industries, is found in the situation of those raw materials produced in England. The iron mines of England at this time were supposed to be inexhaustible, and b}' their nearness to the coal fields, the smelting of iron ore could be carried on cheaper than in any other place in the world. In salt mines England also had a supremac^^ With lead, copper and tin so accessible, there was no necessity for any protective duties on raw materials for the metal indus- tries. With the superior and abundant supply of clay for her potteries, none need be imported. In these raw materials, England occupied prac- tically the same position as the United States now holds in the produc- tion of cotton. Another element of great importance was the coal mines. It would have been the height of folly for England to impose a duty on the importation of coal, when she was prepared almost to supply the world. The necessity for continuing duties on most manufactured goods, had RETURN TO FREE TRADE. practically ceased. It is therefore absurd to say that the duties then imposed on those manufactured goods were a burden to the English peo- ple. They did not affect the price of a single article. Their manufac- turing supremacy was such, that an entire removal of those duties which had been imposed for the purpose of protection in former times and under different conditions would scarcely affect the volume of importation one way or the other, because under free trade English manufacturers would still hold a monopoly of their own market. Free trade was not adopted for the purpose of increasing importations of this character or of supplying the home consumers or for any of the reasons now urged by free traders to induce the people of the United States to abandon protec- tion. They intended only to enlarge their trade by an exchange of finished goods for raw materials and agricultural products. It was by importing wheat, rye, barley, meat, and other farm produce in payment for cotton, woolens, linens, metals, etc., that they expected to enlarge their trade. With the manufacturers persistently urging a repeal of those duties which had formerly been imposed for the protection of manufactures, it could hardly be expected that the agriculturists, ship owners, and other classes, would raise any serious objection. That there was not the slightest fear on the part of the manufacturers, of injurious competition at home, from other countries, and that they were demanding a repeal of protection to their own industries, is shown by Mr. Mongredien, an eminent free trade authority, and formerly an attache of the Cobden Club. He says, •' ' True these Man- chester manufacturers have declared over and over again, that they did not want for themselves any protective duties, whatever. That they dis- claimed and repudiated them. ' ' Disregarding all considerations of the future, ignoring that broad- minded policy which for centuries had guarded and fostered every de- partment of industry, looking at the question solely in the light of present advantages to the English manufacturer, the commercial classes were be- coming imbued with the idea that they could safely repeal all protective laws and embark on the policy of free trade. The external forces which were operating upon the industries of the countrj', the loss of markets by the building up of industries under protection in other countries, were con- stantly pressing home to the manufacturers and shippers the advantage which they might derive from foreign trade. The textile manufacturers had become settled in the conviction that the only means by which they could get into the best markets of the world, and induce other countries to repeal those protective laws which were standing as a constant hindrance to an unlimited expansion of their trade was, first, by abandoning the policy of protection, and then by proclaiming to the world the advantages of free trade as a policy universal in its ' History of Free Trade, p. 33. FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. application and advantageous to all nations. A bold and comprehensive plan! With this step once taken, they could direct the energy- and intel- lectual forces of their country- to a denunciation of the policy of protection, and thus bring it into disrepute. Pointing to their own example, they could herald the new doctrine as one having the approval of the greatest commercial nation in Christendom. They could advocate it on moral, political, .scientific or other grounds, .suiting their arguments to the condi- tions of the various localities of the world. They well knew that with protective tariffs abandoned in other countries, they could annihilate every industrial rival and thus perpetuate the monopoly of markets, which their vast wealth, superior machinery and the efficiency of their labor would enable them at once to seize. While they could easily convert the shipping interests of the countrj.- to any policy that would increase the carrying trade ; while they could win over all people living on fixed incomes and foreign investments (and this was a large class), to a policy which they might be convinced would reduce the price of agricultural products and give them cheaper food ; the great body which stood in the way of a consummation of this policy was the farmers. It would be a difficult matter to convince them that they could compete with foreign countries under free competition. The soil of Eng- land was most productive. It had been one of the chief agricultural regions of Europe for centuries, well suited to the growth of all grains and coarser vegetables. The raising of sheep and cattle had been an important industrj-. Agriculture was carried on like every other branch of business, and the profits derived from it depended upon the question of the investment of capital and employment of labor, affected onh' by fa^-orable or unfavorable seasons. Agriculture carried on under these circumstances, they well knew could not compete with the almo.st spon- taneous productions of the fertile and virgin soils of new countries. Up to 1839 crops had been good, the country prosperous and ver>' moderate prices for wheat prevailed. There was no special condition favorable to the free trade agitator. Waiting for a time of distress, looking fonvard to a failure of crops or to some great calamity which would bring misfortune to the people, the manufacturers were preparing to attack the agricultural interests and force the country into the policy of free trade. Mongredien says: " The very abundant harvest of 1835 had given the people com- paratively cheap bread, and the voice of complaint was hushed for a time." ' The partial failure of the wheat harvest in 1838-39-40, brought to free traders the very opportunity which they desired. Other circumstances at this time also favored the inauguration of a free trade movement. The Anti-Corn Law League, in its history of the causes which brought the BETCBX TO FREE TRADE. movement into existence, in speaking of the fact that an opportunity liad arisen for decisive action, says : Retaliatory tariffs had been established by Russia, and Sweden. America was about to do the same, and France, to use the language of Lord Palmerston, had made every article of produce a subject of protection, down to needles and fish hooks. (Speech in the House of Commons, May 17, 1841.J While these circumstances urged upon our Legislature the necessity of establishing our trade upon a more satis- factory footing, the present time seemed to offer peculiar facilities for making the attempt. Our treaties with Brazil were on the point of expiring, the United States were about to reconsider their tariff (1846), and the Zollverein would be open in the following year, on discussing the question of its renewal, to a readjustment of those duties which pressed so heavily on British manufacturers. ' The loss of trade occasioned by protective regulations in other coun- tries was a constant subject of discussion and alarm. On this subject Mr. Yeats says : Indeed, the rivalry of France, Germany and Belgium, all of which coun- tries produce excellent cloths, and the improvements in foreign machinerj-, so prejudiced our export woolen trade, that it seemed tjo be in a fair way of disappear- ing. From 1820 to 1840 our exports to Germany were reduced by a third; to Hol- land, by more than a half; to distant parts — India, China and America, the quantity sent out at the best did not increase, while to Russia the diminution was very remarkable. Thus, the number of pieces of woolen cloths and fabricssent to Russia from England in the decennial intervals ending in 1820, 1830 and 1840, were respectively 31,824, 7415 and 1680.2 Again, in speaking of the influence of the Zollverein on their cotton industry, Mr. Yeats says : Germany, with the aid of English machiner}', advanced in manufacturing skill, and consequently took less of our industrial products. Cotton fabrics exported to Germany sunk in value from /'4,soo,ooo in 1S20, to ^1,500,000 in 1838. Yarn, on the contrary, in the spinning of which Germany has not yet been able to compete with England, was sent in constantly increasing quantities, the value rising to /2, 500,000.' The reasons which made it necessary for the English manufacttirers to act were j-early growing more urgent. As factories were built in foreign countries the infltiences favorable to protection were increased ; as employment was given to labor, as flourishing and prosperous industrial centres arose, the people would be convinced of its advantages, and it would become more deeply rooted and difficult to overthrow. While the duties then on the statute books in Great Britain had become so low, with the exception, perhaps, of duties on agricultural products, that they were not felt as a burden, yet the manufacturers desired, above all, to increase their foreign exchanges by trading their maiutfactured goods for agricul- tural products. The establishment of manufactures in agricultural N.itioiis, pp, 50 and 51 Existing Comineri FEEE TRADE LEGISLATION. countries was what they desired to prevent, if possible. While continu ing the agricultural interests of their own country, they were powerless to engage largely in trade with such countries. By agreeing to purchase agricultural products in payment for manufactured goods, they would offer an inducement to other countries to abandon manufacturing and trade with them. England could easily get rid of her duties on manufac- tiu'ed goods. The remaining duties on raw materials were, in any event, sure to be repealed within a short time. The only obstacle which stood in the way of the consummation of their plan was the Corn lyaws.' It was under these circumstances that in 1838 Dr. Bowring, while passing through Manchester, was invited to attend a meeting which had been called by " a private circular issued by Mr. Prentice, the originator of the idea, to about one hundred gentlemen." Mr. Mongredien, in his " Historj' of Free Trade," says that about sixtj' persons responded to this call. One familiar with the situation of English industries, the pur- pose they had in view, and all the circumstances surrounding the first steps in this movement, can well imagine the remarks of Dr. Bowring in his address to these gentlemen on that occasion. He had just returned from an official visit to the Continent, investigating the effect of the tariffs of Germany and other countries on English trade. The plan of getting rid of protection in other countries was undoubtedly the theme of his speech. Mr. Mongredien says : ' ' Dr. Bowring addressed them in an interesting speech, in which he vehementlj' denounced the Corn Laws." It does not appear that there was any outcry on the part of the manufac- turers against the duties then in force upon raw materials, nor that the moderate rates on manufactured articles occasioned any complaint. It was the Com Laws that were made the bugbear to frighten the timid and mislead the ignorant. It was a most cunningly devised scheme to attack the landowners and to arouse the prejudice of the people against an aristocracy which was not popular in the realm. About the tenth of January, 1839, an organization known as the Anti- Corn Law League was perfected in the city of Manchester. The purpose of this organization was to procure if possible, the repeal of all duties on agricultural products. In the same month a monster demonstration was held in the city of Manchester, and a movement was set on foot which in a short time revolutionized the industrial policy of the countrj'. The lead- ing central body was located in the great cotton manufacturing city of Man- chester, in the very midst of the vast textile industries of the country. The perfection of the organization, the persistency of its efforts and the unscrupulous means resorted to in everj- part of the realm, together with the vast amount of wealth possessed by its members, made it the most powerful political combination ever brought to bear upon English politics. Committees were appointed to look after the most minute details of the 1 Duties on wheat, oats, rye. barley and other farm produce. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. work, and nothing was left undone to reach and influence everj- class of society. Branch organizations were formed in everj- part of the countrj-, and channels were thus opened for the distribution of literature, the organization of meetings, and the carrying on of the agitation. Richard Cobden and John Bright, both manufacturers, were among the prime movers. They acquired more notoriety and distinction by their efforts than any others connected with the movement. Bright was aggressive, insolent, and abusive in his treatment of adversaries. One of the ablest speakers in England, he remained a prominent character in English poli- tics until the close of his life. Bright has left a career unblemished by inconsistencies or acts of deception. He was bold and aggressive, and, although radically wrong, his personal interests in free trade, as a cotton manufacturer, blinded and warped his judgment and unfitted him to formu- late a commercial policy suited to the varied interests of the countrj-. Richard Cobden became the idol of the manufacturers. His name has been associated with the cause more than that of any other man. He was an ardent free trader and had advocated the free trade policy before the Anti-Corn Law League was organized. After the protective legislation of England had been repealed, he devoted his time and energies to influ- encing other countries to follow the example set by England. He visited all Continental countries, held consultations with emperors, statesmen, and public men, in which he explained in his most fascinating and con- vincing manner the wonderful advantages of the new faith. This of course was the great ultimate purpose which the English manufacturers had in view. The repeal of their own protective laws was simply a means to an end ; that end was universal free trade. Partial free trade, simplj- the opening of their own ports to the free admission of the products of other countries, making their own country the dumping ground for the surplus products of the Continent (which is all they have accomplished) was not the kind of free trade they were .struggling for. Free trade with them meant freedom to enter the markets of other countries. It was to procure this that Richard Cobden devoted the latter part of his life. While Cobden was a shrewd and able debater, and understood the question at issue in all its bearings, better than any other Englishman, he is not entitled to the place in history which he occupies. Cobden was a thorough-going politician. He was a business man with but few ele- ments of a statesman. As a prophet he was an absolute failure. He formed an entirely erroneous estimate of the patriotism and ability of the .statesmen of other countries. He had no sympathy with the laboriuL; population. His judgment entirely failed as to the practical operation and effect of free competition when applied to the industries of his own country. He understood full well, however, the advantages which Eng- lish manufacturers then held over all rivals and the temporary benefits they would derive from having foreign markets opened to the free admission FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. of their wares. While he well understood the material benefits to be derived from cheapness, as he termed it, that is, that the unlimited exten- sion of English commerce rested on their ability to undersell all competitors, he entirely lost sight of the degradation and misery to which commer- cial supremacy resting upon that basis, would necessarily reduce the great mass of laborers and artisans of his own country. Such a concep- tion of human affairs can hardly fit a man for statesmanship. The true statesman must formulate his policy Upon something besides the cash basis. The recent discussion that has arisen in England on the tariff ques- tion has brought to light many addresses made by Richard Cobden in his appeals to the farmers, which are so inconsistent with speeches which he delivered in parliament after election, and to manufacturing centres, that his reputation as a moralist has greatly suffered. He is described by the Cobden Club in the following poetical strain: "Pure-hearted hero of a bloodless fight ! Clean-handed captain in a painless war !" The effort to vest his character with the wisdom of a statesman and the virtue of a saint, has somewhat failed in England, where he was best known. He participated in all the misrepresentations and frauds that were practiced on the tenant farmers of England to procure their votes in the election of 1841, and to obtain their assistance, or to allay their active opposition, while he was seeking to influence parliament to repeal the Corn Laws. The deceptions practiced on the agriculturist by the Anti-Corn Law League, forms one of the most disgraceful chapters of English history. An amusing incident occurred when the demands which had been formulated by the Anti-Corn Law League were first brought before par- liament. A committee was appointed to appear at the bar of the House of Commons and ask for the repeal of the Corn Laws. A monster petition had been prepared, which set forth the alleged evils of protection, and gave a most gloomy description of the condition of the trade and commerce of the country. That the condition of affairs claimed by the petitioners was a surprise to parliament is shown by what followed. Mr. Wood president of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, was then member of the House of Commons, and on behalf of his constituents presented the petition to the House. The honor was also conferred upon Mr. Wood of seconding the Queen's address. He had either not read the petition of his constituents or had not been told what the keynote of the League was to be. In moving the endorsement of the address from the throne, he gave a most glowing description of the prosperity of the industries of the country, to the disappointment and chagrin of the members of the free trade league, who were present. It is hardly necessarj- to say that this Cobden's true states- RETURN TO FREE TRADE. breach of free trade etiquette cost him his head, and he lost his place as president of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce.' It is hardly neces- sarj' to inquire which was the most truthful, the petition or Mr. Wood's speech. It is a significant fact, however, that the Corn Laws were not mentioned by the Queen in her communication to the law-makers of the realm. In fact, the only necessity for alarm at that time was the one being created by the Anti-Corn Law League. The petition presented was ignored by parliament. In June, 1841, parliament was brought to a sudden clase. A motion of want of confidence in the ministry was carried by 312 against 311 votes.' A dissolution followed and an election was immediately held. Sir Robert Peel, an avowed protectionist at this time, had triumphed over the ministry, and a new election was held without a direct appeal to the countrjf upon the tariff question by either the Whigs or the Conservatives. Yet during the election which followed, the Anti-Corn Law League waged a vigorous campaign to procure the election of members of parliament who would favor free trade, but their efforts were only in part rewarded, there being only about one hundred free traders elected. The election of 1841 was a disappointment to the Anti-Corn Law League. The course of Sir Robert Peel, aften\'ards Prime Minister, and of Mr. Gladstone and other influential statesmen, in still adhering to protection, stood in the way of a consummation of the Manchester plan. Sir Robert Peel had been elected by protectionists, and every tie which binds honorable men to their constituents, required a devotion on his part to those principles which had won him the confidence and support of his people. A further revision of the tariff, however, was within the purpose of those men who still adhered to the policy of pro- tection and opposed the doctrine of free trade. It could be made upon the lines which had been followed by protectionists for over twenty years. The sliding scale of duties on corn, which was adopted in 1826, was still in force. The experience during the seasons of good crops had shown that the duties were higher than the farmers required, to afford them ample protection in times of abundance and low prices. The experience had also demonstrated that the duties were higher than justice and fairness would permit during the seasons of deficient harve.sts and high prices. It was within the plan to revise the Corn Laws and still further reduce the duties on manufactured goods and raw materials, and make further pro- visions for the imposition of direct taxes. Accordingly, on the ninth of February, Sir Robert Peel introduced tlie famous measure known as tlie Act of 1 842 for a revision of the Corn Laws. It permitted the importation of wheat with a duty of fifty cents per bushel when the price was $1.50 ; as prices advanced the duty was reduced, being fixed at thirty-three cents a bushel when the price was between $1.83 and $1.86 a bushel ; falling to > Mougredieu's History of Free Trade, p. 23. FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. \ twelve cents when the price was between $2.10 and $2.13 a bushel ; and to six cents a bushel when the price had reached $2.19 a bushel. Con- sidering the crude means of cultivation and harvesting which then pre- vailed, $1.50 was a price which was conceded at the time to be fair and reasonable. While a duty of Miy cents a bushel was in its effect in most years almost prohibitory-, it secured to the English farmers their home market, without interfering with the general current price in the country. Notwithstanding the very reasonable and moderate provisions proposed by this measure, the Anti-Corn I,aw League was vigorous and unsparing in its denunciation. The league demanded a removal of all duties and the establishment of free trade in all agricultural products. While the meas- ure was pending before parliament the free traders were active in holding meetings in the chief manufacturing towns, for the purpose of denouncing the bill. Lord John Russell, Lord Palmerston and Mr. Villiers favored absolute repeal. They were, of course, supported by Mr. Cobden, who was elected to parliament in 1841. The first move on the part of the free trade opposition was taken on the fourteenth of Februarj-, when Lord John Russell offered an amendment to the bill, to the effect that the House was not prepared for its adoption. This amendment was lost by a majority of 123. A few days later an amendment was offered by Mr. Villiers, for the absolute repeal of the Corn Laws. It was upon this proposition that Mr Cobden first distinguished himself in parliament as a debater. After a spirited discussion the amendment was rejected by a vote of 393 against, and only 90 for the proposition, showing a majority of 303 protectionists in the House of Commons. The bill, as proposed by Peel, finally passed both Houses and became a law on the twenty-eighth of April, 1842. The next step taken by the Prime Minister was the introduction of a bill imposing an income tax. The constant and steady revisions of the tariff which had occurred since 181 5, so reduced the receipts of the govern- ment as to cause a deficiency of $12,500,000. The expenses of the govern- ment, involving as they did the interest on the national debt, were so enor- mous that any species of taxation, direct or indirect, was necessarily high and burdensome. The duties on imports had been so reduced by former parliaments that nearly the whole of the customs revenues was being collected upon eighteen out of over eleven hundred articles subjected to duties. Further steps could not be taken without devising new means of taxation. The income tax imposed by Mr. Pitt to provide for the Napo- leonic wars had been repealed at its close. A return to that system of direct taxation, which was regarded as a species of war taxes, was verj- distasteful to many members of parliament, yet the necessities of the situation procured sufficient votes for the passage of the bill. The next measure embraced within the legislation of this year was now introduced by Sir Robert Peel. It was the famous measure for the modification of the customs tariffs. It reduced the duties on seven RETURN TO FREE TRADE. hundred and fifty articles, leaving four hundred untouched. The reductions made in the duties on raw materials were approved by the manufacturers, while the duties on manufactured goods were left high enough to afford ample protection to the few industries which might possibly suffer from foreigu competition. The prohibition was removed from the importation of cattle, and they were subjected to a duty which afforded^ ample protec- tion to the agriculturist. It is worthy of note that this legislation was the work of a protectionist parliament, carried against the opposition and votes of the ninety free traders who sat in the body. It preserved all the essential principles of protective tariffs. Everj' industry and interest was considered and guarded. Mr. Gladstone participated in the debates, and earnestly and ably advocated protection to agriculture. Speaking on the bill for the revision of the Corn Laws in 1842, he said : The agricultural intere.sts have a demand for protection on two grounds. These grounds are: First, the peculiar burdens upon the land. Secondlj', the immense investments which have taken place under the present system (i. e., before the repeal), and which would be seriously affected by the sudden and violent change. Those circumstances convinced him that they must be prepared to have a cer- tain quantity of corn always disposable in the foreign markets, at what might be called an unnaturally low price ; and that it was against those unnaturally low prices that the agriculturists of this countrj-, so far as a system of protection could be reasonable at any time, claimed with reason to have it applied. ■ But we must surely proceed with a due regard to our industry and interests, both at home and abroad; and it would be absurd indeed if we were to regulate our trade so as to leave ourselves altogether at the mercy of the policy or of the impolicy of the countries with which we trade.' He contended, therefore, however desirable it might be in the abstract to buy cheap, that those principles were not to take effect, and should not take effect without a careful examination having first been made of the result they would be likely to produce in the displacement of labor, and interfering with the course of the investment of a capital of trade and the exchanges. ^ He did not wish to ca.st a stigma upon the principle of political economy, but he felt called upon to object to the strict application of a principle, when circum- stances were greatly modified and restricted.* That the principles of protection were fully upheld by the Act of 1842 is shown by Mr. Gladstone in his "Recent Commercial Legislation," ^ in which he said: It was an attempt to make a general approach to the following rules: First, the removal of prohibitions. Secondly, the reduction of duties on manufactured articles, and of protective duties generally to an average of 20 per cent, ad valorem. Thirdly, on partly manufactured articles, to rates not exceeding 10 per cent. Fourthly, on raw materials, to rates not exceeding 5 per cent. Substantially the .same views were expressed by Sir Robert Peel, in his speech on the introduction of the measure.* I Hansard, Vol. 60, p. 375, Kch. 14, 1S42, "- Hnnsard, Vol. 66, p. .sog, Feb. 13, 1.S43. ^Hans.Trd, Vol. 1.8, p. 922, April 25, 1843- < Hiinsara, Vol b;, p. 127J. l-'i-'l'- -'6, 1845- »P. -'g- « Hausarcl, Vol. 63, 3d .series, p. 353. FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. The requirements of the government made it necessary that reduction of duties and changes which would lessen its income should be cautiously made. The requirements were so large, that revenue from one source could not be surrendered until it was replaced by taxes levied on something else. Neither at the time of the organization of the Anti-Corn Law League nor after the passage of the Act of 1842 was there any necessity for tariff agitation for the removal of burdens on English industries. The follow- ing statement shows the situation of tariff laws at this time: The custom house accounts exhibited in 1842 a list of one hundred and ninety articles upon which duties were levied, independent of such as were not considered worth enumerating, but were described as "all other articles," and the duties upon which, in that year, amounted to $366,755.' It is a curious fact that out of this long array of substances the net produce of the duties upon which amounted, in 1840 to $116,709,065, the large proportion of 93 1-5 per cent, or 1109,362,540 was collected upon eighteen articles, as shown in the following list. By extending the list so as to comprise all articles which yield annually $50,000 and upward, it will be found to comprehend, altogether, only forty-five articles, yielding fii3,7i3j005, or 97;'< per cent of the whole, leaving one hundred and fortj^-five articles besides all those unenumerated, and which yielded $2,996,060, or 2|< per cent of the produce." Eighteen articles from which 93 1-5 percent of the revenue was collected in 1840: Tea, $17,364,320 Sugar and molasses, 23,250,080 Tobacco, 17,940,960 British plantation and foreign spirits 12,204,710 Wine, 8,958,230 Timber, 8,657,745 Coffee, 4,607,750 Cotton wool, 3,244,685 Butter, 1,287,880 Forty-five articles yielding 973-2 Pepper $352,965 Dj'e and hard woods 336,520 Turpentine 425,970 Oils, 439,345 Lemons and oranges 314,070 Hides, 207,210 Furs, 104,570 Iron, 109,095 Indigo, 199,125 Licorice juice, 132,670 Leather gloves, 141,505 Rice, 123,050 Bark 103,755 Tallow, $931,415 Silk manufactured goods, . . 1,203,135 Currants, 1,007,885 Sheep's wool, 663,445 Corn 5,783,195 Raisins, 691,015 Seeds, 977, 705 Cheese, 588,385 171, Bristles, 145,605 Cork wood, 123,975 1 The figures given are reduced to United States money. 2 Porter's Progress of the Nation, pp. 498-9. 3 id., p. 498. * '$109,362,540 per cent of the revenue: Platting for hats $59,500 Skins 95.130 Woolen manufactures, 103,075 Glass 115,240 Raw and waste silk, 88,290 Linen 68,560 Nuts, 69,370 Nutmegs, 75 Brimstone, 55,990 Madder and madder roots, . . . 84,090 Cocoa, 104,720 $4,350,465 Eighteen articles named above 109,362,540 Total of forty -five articles, . * $113,713,005 ite of $5 to a pound sterling. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. A similar examination of the custom house accounts for 1849 shows the following result of these important changes, viz., that upon twelve articles yielding each more than $500,000 the revenue has amounted to 95^2 per cent of the whole; that upon fourteen articles, yielding each between $50,000 and $500,000, the proportion was beyond 2>4 per cent, while all other articles, the revenue from each of which was less than $50,000, yielded than 2 percent of the jearly amount, which, notwithstanding the abolition and reduction of duties since 1840 to the extent of $37,398,425 or 32.88 per cent, yielded in 1849 within $2,368,690, or about 2 per cent (2.08) of the revenue of 1840. Twelve articles above $500,000 per annum : ' Butter $689,220 1 Sugar and molasses, $20,632,520 Coffee, 3,114,175 I Tea, 27,357,100 Corn 2,807,405 j Tobacco, 22,040,090 Currants 1,705,110 j Wine, 8,837,580 Raisins, 758,840 ' Timber 3,092,275 Silk goods 1,267,235 I Colonial and foreign 1106,383,945 or 95.54 per cent, spirits, 14,082,395 1 Fourteen articles between $50,000 and $500,000 : Cheese, 1484,285 Rice, 182,330 Leather gloves, . . . 220,100 Clover seed, . . 206,655 Cocoa, 88,375 Tallow 473-095 Eggs 178,230 Embroidery, .... 61,505 12,912,500 or 2.62 per cent. Figs, 119.155 106,383,945 Flowers, artificial, . . 65,230 Nutmegs, 90,580 Articles, $109,296,445 Nuts 91,930 under 150,000 2,047,870 or 1.84 per cent Oranges and lemons. 323,395 Pepper 427,635 $111,344,315 Further analysis of the legislation in question was made by Mr. Edwin Williams, in Fisher's National Magazine, of September 1846, as follows : " The following statements show the net annual produce of the duties of customs on all articles imported into the United Kingdom in the two years which preceded the alterations in the tariff made in 1842, and in the two years after these changes were effected : Articles on which the Duties were reduced in 1S42-43-44. Articles on which no altera- tion was made in 1842-43-44. Two years before. Two years after. Two years before. Two years after. Raw materials for manufacture, Articles partially manufactured, Articles wholly manufactured, . $6,737,995 5241.715 796,490 $2,586,215 3,240,525 705,920 $4,237,405 14,430 1,601,360 f4.487.990 19,415 1,672,705 corn or grain, .... Articles not belonging to the preceding heads Totals, 5,412,210 ■ 1,067,885 19.256,295 5,404.960 454,360 12,391,980 84,667,325 89.240,800 52,105 90,572,625 57,040 99,974,450 1 Progress of the Nation, p. 499. « Taken from Colton's Public Kcouoniy, p. FREE TRADE LEGISLATION It will be observed that the annual reduction of duty on raw materials for man- ufactures amounted to ^830,356 ($4, 151,780), and on articles partially manufactured to /,"4oo,238 (|2, 001, 190), making the annual boon to the manufacturers ^1,230,594, equal to 16,152,970; while the reduction of duties on manufactured articles imported was only ;fi8, 114 (feo,57o), and on all other articles the reduction was only /'124,- 155 (|620,775). At the same time the amount of revenue on articles in which no alteration was made in the tariff in 1842-3-4, was actually increased jfr, 880,365 (;j9,4oi, 825.00), while the total amount of reductions on articles on which the tariff was altered, was ^^i, 372,863 (16,864,315). This shows that the increase of the revenue on the unchanged articles exceeds the reduction on other articles by the sum of ^^507,502 (|2,537,5io). By the new British tariff adopted at the present session of Parliament (1846), further reduction and repeal of duties on articles imported have been made ; the government still pursuing the policy which has guided it in all the changes in the tariff referred to, namely, promoting the interests of the manufacturing classes. Thus, raw hides, mahogany, and other woods for manufacture, vegetables and a few other articles, are now added to the free list, while animals, beef, pork, and some other articles of food, being also admitted free of duty, the expenses of living are, of course, reduced to the manufacturer; add to this the reduction of duties on bread- stuffs, by the change in the Corn Laws, and we can estimate in some degree the amount of benefits which are expected to be derived by the British manufacturer by the recent legislation of Parliament, and the increased advantages those manu- facturers will have in contending with foreign rivals for the markets of the world. It is true that the new British tariff has reduced the rates of duties levied on the manufactures of other nations when imported into the United Kingdom. British statesmen know that they may safely rely on the capital and skill acquired during long periods of protection, against any attempts that may be made by their manu- facturing rivals of other countries to introduce the products of their industry into Great Britain. In 1839, the duties received on manufactured articles imported into the United Kingdom, amounted to only .^£^443, 355 (jf2,2i6, 775), of which silk goods imported contributed more than one-half. Two years after the alteration of the tariff of 1842-3-4, the annual amount of duties on manufactures imported was ^'475, - 525 (12,377,625); which shows but a small increase of imports in consequence of the reduction of duties. The duties on silk manufactures, in 1839, amounted to ^£■247, 361 ($1,236,805), and in 1844 to ^286,535 ($1,432,675), being about two-thirds of all the duties collected from manufactured articles from foreign parts.' Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Gladstone, Disraeli, Lord Derby, and the most influential statesmen in the realm, were still devoted to the cause of pro- tection. The legislation which had just been effected, instead of aiding the advancement of free trade, had placed obstacles in its way. The duties on raw materials had been reduced so low that no complaint could be raised against then as ' ' burdens on industries. ' ' The duties on manufactured goods were high enough to afford ample protection to the few industries which might possibly suffer from foreign imports, and yet, with the exception of the duties on silks, their removal would not materially affect imports. The duties on agricultural products were reduced to a point which afforded sufficient protection to the farmers, while there was no danger that prices would be materially affected thereby in time of scarcity arising from crop failures. With this situation 1 Publi RETURN TO FREE TRADE. confronting the English people, a continuation of the free trade movement could not be conducted under a plea of "barbarous," "excessive," or " burdensome " duties. This forced the Anti-Corn L,aw League definitely to take the position, that all protective duties, however insignificant, should be repealed. It forced them to assert openly the doctrines of free trade and to assail the whole policy of protection, on the ground that it was injurious to the English people. The manufacturers, shippers and commercial classes could be successfull}- appealed to on many grounds, but they alone could not influence parliament. The farmers must be won over. The great rural constituency must be converted to free trade before their representatives in parliament could be turned away from the cause of protection. The demand for a change must come from the agricul- turists. The landed aristocracy, educated and trained in statesmanship, were too well informed and far-sighted to be fooled by the Manchester .school. They comprehended the whole plan in all its bearings, and pointed out the identical results which have followed. Understanding the selfishness and avarice which gave life to the movement, they at once saw through the shams by which the free traders were attempting to mislead and deceive the people. From the very start Cobden and his associates realized that the landowners could not be duped, and under all circum- stances would oppose their scheme. Here was a definite issue. The manufacturers on one side and the landowners on the other made up the two great forces which must fight out the battle of free trade or pro- tection. Through all the centuries in which the landed interests had controlled legislation and directed the policy of Great Britain, they had displayed the greatest liberality toward all of the industries of the country. If they had been as short-sighted, narrow-miixied and selfish as the cotton manu- facturers, protection to manufacturers would never have been accorded. The ports of England^would have b.een kept open, and they would have obtained their tools, implements and clothing on the Continent, in exchange for their wool, wheat and other produce. Had they done this, there would have been no Cobdens or Brights in Manchester to assail their interests. Broad-minded in commercial matters, and comprehending the industrial question from an enlightened and statesmanlike point of view, they foresaw the advantages which their country might derive from a .system of diversi- fied industries, and the wealth, prosperity and independence which manu- facturing and mining would bring to the whole people. They early recognized and approved the claims of the merchants, manufacturers, miners and shippers to protection. Suitable legislation to foster and guard the interests of all classes was year by year extended, as changed conditions and the growth of the country made it necessary. The\- had ever been protectionists, not especially to advance their own interests, but to promote the welfare of all. It was a protectionist parliament that had FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. introduced the sj-stem of national education in England, and had passed the Reform Act in 1833, which destroyed boroughs, extended the right of franchise, and gave representation in parliament to those who had hitherto been denied participation in the affairs of the government. It was a protectionist parliament that passed the law of Catholic emancipation, repealing those provisions of the penal code which had denied to Roman Catholics the right to sit in parliament. It was a protectionist parliament that, in 1831, abolished slavery in every colony over which the British flag waved. The protectionists of England were foremost in governmental reforms directed to the improvement, cultivation and elevation of the English people. Protectionism in England was based upon that .spirit of nation- ality and love of country which had lifted the nation from insignificance to the proud position of the most progressive, independent and influential state in the world. The promotion of the material welfare of all the people of the countrj' had been the cardinal principle of the statesmanship which had guided the nation for centuries. Notwithstanding the broad and wise policy which had been favored by the many eminent statesmen identified with the landed interests, their resistance in many instances to the growth of free government, which was undermining their power and invading their privileges, made them unpopular with the masses. Ever jealous of their hereditary rights, they were slow to yield to public senti- ment, while they had opposed needed reforms and wise measures. Their opulence and position were the envy of the masses, and even when their political power was exercised as a restraint on the schemes of demagogues, however unsound they might be, bad motives were imputed to them, and prejudices were easily aroused. The insolent and arrogant behavior of the narrow-minded, cock-fighting element of the landed gentry brought them all into disfavor. It was an. easy matter to arouse the prejudices of the nation against those who were lording over it, and who were looked upon bj' many as an obstacle to progress. It was a most cunning piece of political tactics to convert the free trade movement into an attack on the aristocracy of the countr>', and to attempt to win the tenant farmers and masses by parading the policy of free trade before the country as one inaugurated for the benefit of the poor. They attempted to make it appear that the landowners were the real beneficiaries under protection, while the tenant farmers were actually injured by it. With the land- owners unalterably against them, they must necessarily appeal to that other branch of the rural population which stood between the aristocracy and the common laborers. To win over the yeomanry would force parlia- ment to yield. In order to do this, they must first convince them that farming in England would be more profitable, and could better be carried on, under free trade than under protection. It was to this branch of the rural population that the whole campaign was directed. BETVRN TO FREE TKADE. The vast body of tenant farmers, the well-to-do agriculturists, who occupied the land under leases, had for many years been in a most thrift}' and comfortable condition. They had been one of the chief elements of strength and stability in the nation. It was from this class that Cromwell recruited his army when he broke the power of kingcraft. While ostensibly assailing the landed gentrj', the real purpose of the Anti- Corn L,aw League was to destroy the interests of the yeomanry. The property of this vast body of farmers was marked for confiscation through free trade legislation. The value of every species of property which they had gathered about them by years of industrj' and frugality was to be reduced, their profits destroyed, incomes annihilated and their farms and gardens exposed to pillage and attack by foreigners. A more vicious and deliberate purpose to annihilate the property and means of subsistence of a large portion of an empire was never entered upon. There is not in all history a parallel to be found. The tendency of the nineteenth centurj' in every other country has been to elevate and improveThe condition of the masses. Here we find a movement having for its central purpose their degradation and oppression. This is the first instance in the historj^ of England of a combination on the part of the manufacturers to promote their own interests, regardless of the welfare of others. Had the real purpose of the Anti-Corn L,aw League been disclosed to the agriculturists, protection could never have been overthrown. Had they proclaimed or admitted what they believed the result would be, the sense of fairness per^-ading the masses of the English people would have made their triumph impossible. Had they told the farmers what they knew to be a fact, that the land would go out of cultivation, and that the food supply of the English people would be brought from foreign parts, their speakers would have failed in their efforts. The blackest page in the history of the whole movement is the campaign ' ' of education, ' ' as they called it, which was carried on among the farmers from 1842 to 1846, to convince them of the advantages of free trade. While deliberately plotting for the ruin of the tenant farmers, the Manchester manufacturers were professing to be their friends. The rural districts were flooded with the literature of the League. Richard Cobden, John Bright, Colonel Thorn p.son, and many other .speakers, were going from place to place, ad- dressing meetings and arousing the people against protection. It would not do to tell the farmers that their land would go out of cultivation ; that cattle, sheep, hogs, wheat, barley, rye, oats, and even butter, cheese, eggs, poultry-, and in fact nearly everything which they were producing, would be .shipped into Manchester and the great commercial centres of England from other countries. Their mission was to get the farmers' votes, procure their signatures to petitions to parliament, a.sking for the repeal of the Corn Laws. The means used to accomplish this were most discreditable. FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. They told the farmers that they were paying too high rents and being robbed by the landlords ; that the adoption of free trade would compel a reduction of rent, and the loss would fall upon the landowners. Another argument which the professional free traders never neglect on any occasion is an attempt to convince by flatterj-. The English agriculturists were told how much more skillful they were than those of other countries, how under the stimulating influence of free competition their energies would be aroused, and by new and better methods of cultivating the soil, the use of machinery, and by a superior knowledge of scientific farming, they could defy all competition. By every conceivable argument it was urged that the Engli.sh farmers would be benefited by free trade. In 1842 the Anti-Corn L,aw I^eague gave prizes for ' ' the best practical essays demonstrating the injurious effect of the Corn Laws on tenant farmers and farm laborers, and the advantages which those classes would derive from its total and immediate repeal." The three prize essays were written by George Hope, Arthur Morse and W. R. Gregg. In the appeals which were made to the farmers to induce them to abandon protection, these pamphlets were dis- tributed and referred to. The series of tracts were prefaced by a mani- festo from "The Council of the National Anti-Corn L,aw League to the Farmers of the United Kingdom," asking them " to read dispassionately and calmh^ the following pages which are devoted exclusively to the con- sideration of your interests and the interests of your dependents. ' ' Mr. Hope, at page 13 of his essay, said to the farmers : Upon this subject of protection, let me remind you that you have always secured to you the natural protection of the cost of bringing the corn from distant countries. Upon the average, I believe the freight and other charges upon corn imported from the Baltic or America, amount to ten shillings a quarter. And this I say, is natural protection, which nobody can deprive you of. Suppose you grow four quarters (thirty-two bushels), of wheat an acre, this protection of ten shillings a quarter, is equal to two pounds an acre. Notwithstanding that their chief objection against the Corn Laws was based upon the claim that they tended to enhance and keep up the price of wheat, and that their whole cry in the manufacturing centres and among the commercial classes was for cheap bread and the removal of taxes from the food of the poor, they argued before the fanners that the price of wheat would be higher under free trade than it had been under protection. We find at page 6 of the essay written by Mr. Morse, the following argument to show that free trade would make bread dearer, and thus result in a great benefit to the farmer. He says : We have had lower prices for wheat occasionally since 1815, than we ever should have had with free trade. It will hardly be disputed that the Corn Laws have not been successful in preventing very low prices of corn, or that they have not succeeded in maintaining a rise in price, which, of all things, is of the most RETURN TO FREE TRADE. benefit to fanners. That free trade would operate powerfully in accomplish- ing these ends there are very good reasons to suppose. Here tliey attempt to show that free trade will bring about the very- state of things which the Anti-Corn L,aw League was organized to pre- vent. Mr. Gregg says, in his prize essay, "That the repeal of the Corn Laws is necessary to save the farmer himself from ultimate and entire ruin." The following, from Mr. Cobden's speech delivered at Canterbury- in 1843, is taken from a local paper published at the time. Speaking of the advantage of natural protection which the cost of transportation gave to the English farmers, he said : The cost, not merely of freightage, but of loading, insurance, landing, commis- sion, interest and loss, and every item for the conveyance of wheat from the merchant at Dantzic to the merchant at Liverpool was 10s. dd. , a quarter. vSuppos- ing they grew three quarters an acre, was not 31^. 6rf. sufficient protection ? ^\^ly, it was more than their rent, and he said that the farmers could compete with those at Dantzic rent free. But the corn that was shipped no more grew at Dantzic, than the corn at Liverpool, grew at Liverpool. It was brought by the Vistula perhaps some three hundred or four hundred miles at a great expense, risk, and loss. [Hear! Hear!] The average cost of wheat at Dantzic for the last ten years had been upwards of 405. a quarter. Would the farmers then believe the political landlords when they told them that good wheat could be brought over and sold here for 25.?. or 15^, the quarter; or would they believe anything else such silly people taught them? Then with respect to American wheat: He fairly believed that it could not be imported with a farthing duty— indeed it would be a hard strife and struggle for the people of this country to be fed from the plains of America at no duty at all. Wheat from that country had to be con- veyed at least one thousand five hundred miles by navigation in the interior, if not over the Alleghany Mountains. It was brought across Lakes Michigan and Erie, through canals, down the Hudson River, and was three times trans-shipped before it reached the ocean. Would they then tell him that they could not compete with the Americans, whose corn was also grown at the expense of 4^. a day for labor? Why could they not? Because they suffered themselves to be bamboozled. There lay the whole secret.' To assume that Mr. Cobden was ignorant of what was then taking place in the world would be a reflection tipon his intelligence. This speech was delivered at the very time when steamship navigation and the building of railroads had begun, and the possibilities of cheap transporta- tion were attracting the attention of the people of every civilized country. This, however, is not all that Mr. Cobden said to the farmers of England in this line. He stated in a speech delivered on February 8, 1844, that Free trade in corn is the very way to increase the production at home, and stimulate the cultivation of the poorer soils by compelling the application of more capital and labor to them. We do not contemplate deriving one quarter less corn from the soil of this country All we contend for is this, that when we 1 Fair Trade Journal, Vol. 11, p. 13. FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. have purchased all that can be raised at home, we shall be allowed to go elsewhere for more. ' Mr. Cobden ridiculed the warnings of Lord George Bentinck, Disraeli and others. Referring to their prophecies, he said : They have told them, the farmers, with all the high authority that belongs to their life and station, that the Corn Laws will be abolished; they tell their tools, the papers, like Grandmamma, to deal out in their diurnal twaddle the argument that if the Corn Laws are abolished, the farmers would be ruined, even if they paid no rent.^ Again, in the same year Mr. Cobden declared that it was positively demoralizing to argue that the English farmer could not, with free imports, compete against the foreigner. Men who indulged in such reasoning were, he said, "gross humbugs" who were guilty of " a gratuitous piece of impertinence. ' ' Free trade, he added, "will make the agriculturist of this country capable of competing -wilh the farmers of any part of the world. " ' Later statements of the Anti-Corn Law League and Mr. Cobden show that there was not the slightest sincerity in the arguments which were used to convert the farmers to the doctrine of free trade. This is a most interesting period in the tariff history of the world. It was during these years, from the organization of the Anti-Corn Law League in 1839 to the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, that those falsehoods and fallacies which have since formed the basis of free trade arguments, were invented to mis- lead and deceive the English people. The American people have been made familiar with the stock phrases and arguments employed by the unscrup- ulous politicians, who brought the free trade movement into existence. Richard Cobden and his associates were masters of the art of deception. The same parliament which was elected in 1841, composed of an over- whelming majority of protectionists, remained in existence until after the adoption of free trade in 1846. It was to this body that the Anti-Corn Law League was appealing for a repeal of the Corn Laws. To convince its members that they should violate the implied and expressed pledges given to their constituents, and abandon the principles which they were elected to uphold, was the object of the unceasing efforts of the members of the league. As a part of this plan, the creation of a public sentiment in favor of free trade, was constantly going on. The presentation of petitions to parliament, signed by those whom they had converted by their false predic- tions afforded a pretext for the action of those members of parliament who were hesitating to desert their constituents. That they were constantly making headway by all the devices to which they resorted, there can be no question, yet conditions arose between 1842 and 1845 which made their work more difficult. Harvests were plentiful, prices were moderate. The business of the country was in a flourishing condition, and there was little excuse apparent, for continuing the agitation, but it went on. In the life ■Fair Trade Journal. Vol. I, p. 226. = Fair Trade Journal, Vol. Ill, p. 276. » Fair Trade Free trade gandism. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. of Richard Cobden, written by Richard Gowing, and published by the Cobden Club, may be found the following important admission, which shows that the cause of free trade thrived on the misfortunes of the people, while in times of plenty and prosperity, Cobden and his associates made little headwa)'. " In 1843, and more especially in 1844, the British corn harvest was plentiful and the price of wheat ran low, and the working and laboring population were better oS. Upon this the masses of the people grew less eager upon the question of corn law repeal." ' The opportunity for which the Anti-Corn L,aw League had been waiting soon arrived. In 1845 the wheat han-est was a failure and three bad j-ears followed in succession. During these same seasons the potato crop failed in Ireland, the plant having been struck with a blight ; the potatoes rotted in the ground, and the country was visited by a famine, one of the most terrible in the history of modern times. This was the golden oppor- tunity for the Anti-Corn Law League. They took advantage of the situation, renewed their agitation and attributed the high price of wheat, the distress and suifering in the country to the Com Laws. That the calamity which had befallen the people was the principal cause which at that time contributed to the overthrow of protection and the establishment of free trade was fully understood at the time. Mr. Morley, in his ' ' Life of Richard Cobden," speaking of the opportunity the distressful condition of the country afforded tcf the free trader, says of the autumn of 1845 : "It was the wettest autumn in the memory of man. Mr. Bright was travel- ing in Scotland. The rain came over the hills in a downpour that never ceased by night or by day. It was the rain that rained away the Corn Laws." " In the same autumn," says Mr. Gowing, "when men's minds were filled with gloomy apprehensions of the consequences of a wet har- vest, came news of a potato famine in Ireland. The people of that country lived upon potatoes ; the plant took a blight, and the population of Ireland stood face to face with starvation."' During this season of distress the free trader plunged into the fight with renewed energy, stopping at nothing to overthrow the policy of pro- tection. The terrible calamity which had befallen the people was laid at the door of protectionists. With sympathetic appeals, solicitous of the welfare of the masses, they proclaimed the doctrines of free trade as a remedy for every ill from which the people were suffering. This was the time chosen by "statesmen to educate the people " in economic doctrines, which required cool, dispassionate deliberation and reflection. It was a fit time for conspirators to do their work. With a large corruption fund in the hands of "the moving men;" with excuses and justifications, prepared by the members of the league to ease the conscience and give courage to those who were hesitating to betray their constituents ; with the whole country kept in an uproar of intense excitement, in order to • ragf 94. -L,ifc ol Uichard Cobdcu, p. 96. FREE TRADE LSQISLATION. frighten the timid into obedience and, if possible, stampede a legislative body, that policy which had contributed so much to the greatness of England was overthrown. Notwithstanding that the free trade measure was carried by a majority of ninety-eight, such action was taken against the judgment and conscience of parliament. It was forced through with an utter disregard for its merits and the injury it would inflict upon the great mass of the English people. In proof of this, we have the statement of Mr. Cobden himself, made on the twenty-sixth of November, 1852. in a speech delivered before the House of Commons : It is no .secret that, in that Parliament (1846), a large majority of the House of Commons were, in their hearts, unfavorable to the repeal of the Corn Laws. Prob- ably it will not be too much to say that two-thirds of that House, were, by con- viction, if not by interest, opposed to that measure. I am sure that it only required such an organization of official men — a sufficient number of the leading statesmen — to defeat, with the support which the majority of the House would have been ready to have tendered, the proposition of Sir Robert Peel, and to have carried a motion for a fixed duty.' All of the means used to convince parliament against its will that the measure should pass, will remain a part of the secret history of the cam- paign. How the leaders of the League prevented a sufficient number of "official men" from organizing and opposing the passage of the bill is unknown. It is a most remarkable fact that men elected as protectionists, who were " in their hearts unfavorable to the repeal of the Corn Laws," suddenly became free traders. This was a most remarkable episode in the history of the British parliament. No legislative body was ever beset by a more powerful lobby than the one which was in constant attendance, representing the Manchester manufacturers. That the bill was carried by the most flagrant betrayal of constituencies, was openly charged in the debate by Disraeli and other members of the House. This circumstance in connection with the low order of political morality which prevailed, and the enormous sums of money raised by the Anti-Corn Law League at a time when no election was being held, casts a suspicion of the gravest character upon the movement. The following account of the sums of money raised at different times may be foimd in Mongredien's " History of Free Trade," Gowing's "Life of Richard Cobden," put out by the Cobden Club, and " The Charter of the Nations," put out by the Anti- Corn Law League in 1854, and written by the Rev. Mr. Dunckley. When the club was first organized in 1839, $9000 was raised and by February 9, 1840, $36, 680 more. At this time $25,000 was also raised to pay theexpenses of the committee sent to lobby with parliament in their interests. By 1842 they had raised a fund of $250,000. Afl;er this was accom- plished in 1843, they proposed raising a fund of $500,000. At a meeting ' Hansard, Vol. 123, p. 166. Real view, of the majority i Suspicion as to the RETURN TO, FREE TRADE. held in Manchester, on November 14, 1843, $60,000 was subscribed in an hour and a half. The Times of November 18, 1843, said : It is a great fact that at one meeting in Manchester more than forty manufac- turers subscribed on the spot one hundred pounds sterling each, and some gave three hundred pounds sterling, some four hundred pounds sterling, and some five hundred pounds sterling, for the advancement of a movement which right or wrong, just or unjust, expedient or injurious, they at least believe it to be their duty and for their interest, or both, to advance in every way possible. At a meeting held in Covent Garden, June 18, 1845, Mr. Wilson, the chairman, announced that $580,000 had already been paid in. It would seem that the enormous sum, $630,000, then held ought to have been sufficient to run a highly intellectual and moral campaign, con- ducted by a body of unselfish thinkers, but they needed more. At a meeting, held in the Town Hall of Manchester, on December 23, 1845, it was proposed to raise an additional amount of $1,250,000. In a short time $750,000 of this last subscription had come in. In 1854 the Anti- Corn Law League gave a prize of two hundred and fifty pounds sterling to the person who would write the best history of the free trade movement in England. A book written by the Rev. Henry Dunckley, entitled ' ' The Charter of the Nations, ' ' was awarded the prize. This work having received in 1854 the approval of the organization which founded the free trade movement, ought to be good authority at least upon the question of the expenditure of this vast sum of money. At page 79, Mr. Dunckley says upon this qtiestion, speaking of the Anti-Corn Law League, " They had wealth enough for any purpose. The Constitution recognized wealth as a valid title to political power ; they would, therefore, purchase freeholds and master thecountry's constituencies. In 1844 they had raised ^100,000 ($500,000) for carrying on the agitation." ' ' Purchase freeholds and master the country's constituencies. ' ' What does this mean? Elections had been held. The morning Herald speaking of the situation said, " The confederacy (the league) is powerful. The sincerity of its leading men is testified by their subscriptions, and the de- termination of its moving men is certified by their indomitable persever- ance, their incessant activity , and their remorseless unscrupulousness. ' ' The ' ' moving men ' ' were the ones who handled the money. Men of ' ' remorse- less unscrupulousness" attempting to convert a minority into a majority. The Morm7ig Post in speaking of the protectionists and the possibili- ties of a free trade victory said, " They discovered that the landed interest was not likely to be defended by the owners of land with such weapons as in these days prevail. ' ' The work of the League by this time had been so well done that a majority of members of parliament could be relied upon to desert their party and favor free trade. Many influences and circumstances combined to bring about this result. The manufacturers and commercial classes had ' united under the most powerful political organization which had ever FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. attempted to influence British legislation. Parliament now entered upon that series of acts which reversed the policy of the government and intro- duced free trade. In 1845 a bill was carried through which placed four hundred and twenty articles on the free list, many of which were of trifling importance, yet they included the principal articles of raw material, such as ashes, barilla, bark, flax and tow, sheep's wool, cotton wool, hemp, hides, indigo, madder, palm oil, train oil, sago, saltpetre, raw silk, all .sorts of skins and furs, straw for plaiting, all sorts of fancy woods, etc. The duties had been so insignificant upon this whole class of articles that they were gotten rid of very easily, and without opposition. The following year, 1846, is one of the most memorable in the history of British legislation. The session of parliament opened on the nine- teenth of January. Sir Robert Peel, the Prime Minister, in his address upon the Queen's speech, made an important announcement when he said, "My opinions on the subject of protection have undergone a change." This was followed by the presentation, on the twenty-seventh of January, of the famous measure in question. The bill provided for the repeal of all protective duties on wheat, r>'e, oats, barley, vegetables, maize and buck- wheat, retaining them under a sliding scale of diminishing duties until 1849, when free trade in the products of the farm should take effect. It repealed the duties on cattle, sheep, hogs, beef, bacon, animal food, vegetables and poultry, while it continued a small duty on butter, cheese, hops and cured fish, for revenue purposes. The chief textile fabrics, cottons, woolens and linen, were placed on the free list, as were also the principal manufactures of iron and steel. It is a remarkable fact, that while protection was wholly taken from the agriculturists, that only those manufactured articles were placed on the free list in which the English people held an undoubted supremacy. The duty on silk manu- factures was reduced from 30 to 15 per cent, ad valorem. Those indus- tries in which machinery had not been fully introduced were still accorded a moderate degree of protection. The following is a list of the articles of domestic manufacture upon which duties were still maintained: Articles Wholly Manufactured. Silk, not made up. Cotton, wholly or in part made up. Wool, wholly or in part made up. Flax, wholly or in part made up. Iron and steel, wrought or unwrought. Brass and copper. China and earthenware. Glass. Paper. Opera glasses, etc. Extracts and essences. Bronze. Beer and ale. Clocks. Watches. Canes, umbrellas, parasols, etc. Candles. Hats and bonnets. Embroidery and needlework. Leather. Musical instruments. Chemical oils, essential and perfumed. Japanned or lacquered ware. Lace. Other articles. retained. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Articles Partially Manufactured. Wood and timber, sawed or split. Olive oil. Plaiting Iron in bars, unwrought. Gum, shellac and lac dye. Verdigris. Woolen and worsted yarn. Silk, thrown. Drawback on silk manufactures exported. Other articles.! Hides, tanned, tawed, curried or dressed. It was with reference to this class of articles that Sir Robert Peel said, " I do not abolish all protective duties ; on the contrarj-, the amended tariff maintains many duties that are purely protective, distinguished from revenue duties." Mr. Gladstone, in making further revisions in 1853, said, in referring to this class of articles, that they proposed to abolish all duties on articles of manufacture, " except such as are in the last stage as finished articles, and are commonly connected with hand labor; in regard to which cases we have thought it more prudent and proper to proceed in the mode, not of abolition but of reduction."^ The question of exposing the tenant farmers to free competition pro- voked one of the most violent and exciting debates ever witnessed in the House of Commons. While Sir Robert Peel had become the nominal leader of the free trade party, Richard Cobden was its actual leader. Sir Robert Peel and those other members who had deserted their own party and gone over to the enemy, were but doing the bidding of the wily, per- suasive and irresistible Cobden and his associates, who threw off the mask that they had been wearing in the rural districts, and addressed themselves to the question just as they felt. Cobden took the bold position that free trade was to be established for the purpose of extending the foreign trade of the factories, by exchanging their wares for the agricultural produce of foreign coimtries. He said, " The people contended for the right to ex- change labor for food. '" This involved the sacrifice of the tenant farmers, to whom he had given assurances that they would not be injured by free trade. Mr. Cobden had said in his political writings : " No candid advocate of a protective duty will dispute that to restrict the import of corn into a manufacturing nation, is to strike out the life of its foreign commerce." He further said: The question of the repeal of the Corn Laws, then resolves itself into one of absolute State necessity ; since our foreign trade, which is indispensable to the payment of the interest of the national debt, cannot be permanently preserved if we persevere in a restrictive duty against the principal article of exchange, of rude unmanufacturing people. To prohibit the import of corn, such as is actually the case at this moment, is to strangle infant commerce in its cradle.* ' Hansard, Vol. 83, 3d series, pp. io-.i6. ^Mr. Gladstone's Budget Speech, April 18, 1853, revised edition. a Hansard, Vol. 63, p. 719, May 24, 1842. < Gowiug's Life of Cobden, pp. 29-30. » FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. The substance of this declaration is simply, that for the English people to continue to raise their own food at home, would prevent that unlimited exportation of manufactured goods which was so desired. One of the most apt illustrations of their position was given bj- Mr. Cobden him- self in his speech on the repeal of the Corn Laws. Referring to the duty on corn, as affecting the trade between England and the United. States, he said: Suppose now that it was but the Thames instead of the Atlantic which separated the two countries; suppose that the people on one side were mechanics and artisans, capable by their industry of producing a vast supply of manufactures, and that the people on the other side were agriculturists, producing infinitely more than they could themselves consume of corn, pork and beef — fancy these two separate peoples anxious and willing to exchange with each other the produce of their common industries, and fancy a demon rising from the middle of the river — for I cannot imagine anything human in such a position and performing such an ofl&ce — fancy a demon rising from the river and holding in his hand an act of parliament, and saying, "You shall not supply each other's wants," and then in addition to that, let it be supposed that this demon said to his victim with an affected smile, ' ' This is for your benefit; I do it entirely for your protection."' The whole scheme of the Anti-Corn Law League is unmasked in this illustration of the subject. It shows that the movement had for its definite purpose the exchange of manufactured products of England, for agricul- tural products raised in other countries. This involved a sacrifice of the agricultural interests of the countrj-. It contains an implied admission that the farmers of England could not successfully compete with those of other countries and hence must give way. It shows further that it was not contemplated that the English people would buy manufactured articles from other countries. Not for a moment was it intended that a single factory in England should be destroyed or an English artisan be thrown out of employment, but on the other hand they were to find more work and their foreign trade was to be extended by this class of exchanges. Now let us turn Mr. Cobden' s supposition around and see how it would fit his purpose. Let us assume that the people on the east side of the British Channel, those of Belgium, Holland, France and Germany were artisans and manufacturers, possessed of the most efficient machinery in the world, the most skillful artisans, the largest amount of accumulated capital, forty years in advance of England in manufacturing and able, under free trade, to make everything so cheaply that they could inundate England with their wares, close every factory and drive evers' English artisan into the street. Now let us fancy that on the west side of the British Channel there were 20,000,000 of English people who were less skillful and had less capital, although possessed of great natural advantages for manufacturing, without which they could not give full employment to their people. Let us assume that to open 1 Gowing's Life of Richard Cobden, p. 82. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. their ports to free competition would result in the ruin of their industries, throw their laborers out of employment, and reduce them to poverty and degradation. What, then, would Mr. Cobden have said ? Would he have consented, as an English manufacturer or as a representative in parlia- ment, to the sacrifice of the industries of his own countrj^? Would he, under these circumstances, have advocated a policy that would have closed his own and every cotton factor}' in Manchester ? The answer is most decidedly, no ! If, under these circumstances, a being had risen in the British Channel holding in his hand an act of parliament saj'ing to the Continental manufacturers, ' ' You shall not ruin the industries of the English people ; you shall not ruin the cotton manufactures of Manches- ter, and plunge Mr. Cobden, John Bright and the other members of the Anti-Corn Law League into bankruptcy and ruin ; " instead of calling him a " demon," Mr. Cobden would have been the first to pronounce him a protecting and guardian angel. If, however, Mr. Cobden, instead of being a manufacturer, had been living upon a fixed income or drawing a pension from the British Government, and had regard only for his own pecuniary advantage, the opportunitj^ of saving three dollars on a suit of clothes, under strict free trade principles, would have been full compensa- tion for the destruction of the industries of his own country. Nothing short of the loss of his pension would shake his confidence in ' ' sound economic principles." Mr. Cobden was a manufacturer speaking for interests which were able to defy the world in the battle of competition. He was talking solely for the profit and advantage of those manufacturers who had everj'thing to gain and nothing to lose by free trade. He was advocating a polic>- which he supposed to be peculiarly fitted to the condition which then existed in his own country. The question had now reached a point at which disguises were thrown ofi", the real attitude of the free trader toward the farming interests was being made known, and the effect of free competition was no longer a matter of doubt. Colonel Perronet Thomp- son, in speaking against the Corn Laws, urged their repeal upon the sole ground of advantage arising from existing conditions. He .said, "That to encourage the importation of agricultural produce would extend the manufactures." " To refijse it," he remarked, " is like a draper's refusing to sell cloth and buy bread, lest he should raise up a rival in the baker. . . . The power of increasing our wealth and population by exchanging manufactures for food, is what God has given us to hold our ground with." ' This same Colonel Thompson, in his " Free Trade Cate- chism," in answer to the proposition that "without cultivation there could be neither trade nor manufactures," replied : "It maybe information to the home agriculturists to state, that there would be no physical impossibility in living without them altogether." '"' ' l-aii- Trade Joura.il, Vol. i, p. iS. - l-air Trade Journal, Vol. i, p. 3S. FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. It was to promote the interests of the cotton manufacturers, that Sir Roljert Peel betraj-ed his own party and went over to the side of the Anti-Corn Law League. In his speech on January 27, 1846, he said: ' ■ They wish to establish the prosperity of that great staple manufacture of this country, the cotton manufacture, on some sure and certain foundation." Justin McCarthy, in his " History of Our Own Times," in describing the debate in the House upon the repeal of the Corn Laws, refers to the sudden change which came over Sir Robert Peel. Elected as a protec- tionist ; bound by all party affiliations and loyalty to defend in parliament the views of those whose votes he had solicited, he went over to the enemy's camp as soon as the free traders presented a show of a majority. He abandoned the leadership of his own party, ■ to become the leader of its antagonist. He was the first to betray the trust which had been committed to him. It is a reflection on his intelligence for free traders to justify this betrayal upon the ground that he had changed his opinion. Peel was a leader in parliament with Huskisson and Canning in 1826. For twenty years he had defended the principles of protection and was conversant with every branch of the subject. Mr. McCarthy seems to think the following criticism by Mr. Disraeli justifiable : Mr. Disraeli did therefore the very wisest thing he could do, when he launched at once into a severe personal attack upon Sir Robert Peel. The speech abounds in pas- sages of audaciously powerful sarcasm. " I am not one of the converts, ' ' Mr. Disraeli said. " I am perhaps a member of a fallen party. To the opinions which I have expressed in this House in favor of protection I still adhere. They sent me to this House, and if I had relinquished them I should have relinqui.shed my seat also." That is the keynote of the speech. He denounced Sir Robert Peel, not for having changed his opinions, but for having retained a position which enabled him to betray his party. He compared Peel to the Lord High Admiral of the Turkish fleet, who, at a great war-like crisis when he was placed at the head of the finest armament that ever left the Dardanelles since the days of Solomon the Great, steered at once for the enemy's port, and when arraigned as a traitor, said that he really saw no use in prolonging a hopeless struggle, and that he had accepted the command of the fleet only to put the Sultan out of pain, by bringing the struggle to a close at once. ' ' Well do we remember, on this side of the House, not perhaps without a blush, the efforts we made to raise him to the bench where he now sits. Who does not remem- ber the sacred cause of protection, for which Sovereigns were thwarted, Parliament dissolved, and a nation taken in? "I belong to a party that can triumph no more, for we have nothing left on our side except the constituencies which we have not betrayed. " He denounced Peel as "a man who never originates an idea; a watcher of the atmosphere; a man who takes his observations, and when he finds the wind in a particular quarter trims his sails to suit it;" and he declared that, '"such a man may be a powerful minister, but he is no more a great statesman than the man who gets up behind a carriage is a great whip. ' ' ' In this great controversy Disraeli made his mark. He lifted himself at once to the leadership of the Conservative party. Perfectly fearless in maintaining his position, unswerving in his adherence to principles, he 1 A History of Our Own Times, c. 14. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. never betrayed his party nor violated the confidence of those who elevated him to position and power. The events which followed the adoption of free trade confirm the wisdom of his course against it. Lord George Bentiuck was one of the men who upheld the interests of the English people during this struggle. With almost prophetic vision he foretold the calamities which would certainly' befall the English people upon the adoption of the measure. With a much better knowledge of human affairs ; with a more profound statesmanship than Cobden, Peel, or Bright, this man, although scarcely mentioned in English commercial his- tory, was possessed of a wisdom far beyond that of his three contemporaries, who have been advertised and exalted by free trade writers since that time. Greater inconsistencies are not to be found in the writings and speeches of any man of the time than in those of Cobden. An absolute failure as prophet, he placed a low estimate on the ability and patriotism of the statesmen and people of other nations. He was ignorant of the effect upon trade and commerce, of the economic changes which were then taking place and which were fully comprehended by the public men of the time. He was attempting to commit the people of England to a policy which in the very nature of things could be only of short-lived advantage to the manufac- turers. He is not to be compared with such men as Lord George Ben- tinck, who, in defending the protective policy and speaking of the effect of free trade upon all the industries of the nation, said ; It is a measure which is not confined in its operation to this great class. It is calculated to grind down countless smaller interests, engaged in the domestic trade, and interests of the empire, transferring the profits of all these interests, English, Scotch, Irish and Colonial, great and .small alike, from Englishmen, from Scotch- men and from Irishmen, to Americans, to Frenchmen, to Russians, to Poles, to Prussians and to Germans.' If lyord George Bentinck stood in the British Parliament to-day, after forty years of experience, he could not state the case more accurately. The late Duke of Rutland, then the Marquis of Granby, was one of the most able and conscientious upholders of the policy of protection , and during his long career which closed in 1888, he saw all of his predictions and opinions upon the effect of the measure fulfilled. The Times of March 5, 1886, in .speaking of his attitude at the time the foreign laws were under discussion, said : But by the time the Corn Law agitation had a.ssumed formidable proportions he was recognized as one of the principal leaders of the protectionist party. When Sir Robert' Peel brought forward his great free trade measure in 1846, the Marquis of Granby, while giving the Premier credit for pure and honorable motives, declared that if he had promulgated the same opinions in 1841, he would never have been suflered to propose them as a Minister of the Crown. The effect of free trade might be to increase the exports, but Lord Granby maintained that the home consumption of manufactures would fall off in equal proportion, as agriculturists would be deprived of funds wherewith to purchase them. ' Fair Trade Journal, Vol. Ill, p. 276- FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. The position occupied by this distinguished protectionist is indica-' ted by the fact, that for a time in 1S48, he was selected to succeed Lord George Bentinck as the leader of the protectionist party. The Times said of his speeches on the question : At the close of the same session when Mr. Disraeli moved for a select commit- tee to consider the state of the nation, Lord Granby delivered a speech which created a marked impression. In opposition to Sir Robert Peel, he maintained that the disastrous condition of the laborer was due to free trade, and produced a record of wages in Manchester in 1845 and 1849, which showed that the}' had been reduced in every species of manufacture without an equivalent in the fall of prices. He also emphatically denied the charge that the country gentlemen desired to maintain their rents, at the expense of the laboring classes. In several succeeding sessions the Marquis returned to the subject, uniformly contending that the distress in the agricultural districts was owing to legislation and that it must assume a per- manent character unless the causes were removed. In supporting Mr. Disraeli's motion in favor of the relief of agricul- ture in the session of 1851, his lordship said that: "After five years' experience of free trade the landed interest was in a worse position than when it began. The L,egislature, " he held, " would be compelled, sooner or later, to return to protection, admitting the principle that for every tax imposed upon the home producer an equivalent tax must be laid upon the foreigner. ' ' At the dinner given bj^ the master cutlers in Sheffield, in 1885, he spoke as follows : ' ' With a small duty on corn I would put a heavy duty upon all manufactured articles. I would admit raw materials free ; I would take off the duty on tea and sugar and above all, the poor man's tobacco. ' ' This sound protectionist doctrine is the expression of an able and conservative statesman, who had lived under both policies and had seen the actual workings of thirty-five years of free trade. The following speech, delivered by Lord Derby in defence of protec- tion to agriculture, refutes many statements of free traders as to the effect of the Corn Laws upon the price of wheat. He said : My lords, you are called upon to abandon the Corn Laws of 1S42. And why? In what respect has it deceived your expectations? How has it falsified j'our pro- phecies? Your prophecies have been realized to a wonderful degree of accuracy. In what respect has it failed? The object of this and every Corn Law I take to be, to place this countr}- in a state of virtual independence of foreign countries for its suppl}' of food. I know that object may be scouted by some of the very enlight- ened politicians of the present day, but it was not thought unworthy the considera- tion of great men not long passed away from among us; and if your lordships will forgive me for referring to it, I will quote a passage from a letter of Mr. Huskisson, which puts the whole question in a few words in the clearest light in which it can be seen. He was writing at the close of the war, and his sentiments are worthy of the deepest attention. We have forgotten the circumstances of that time; some of us, indeed, are too young to remember them, but generally we seem not to remem- ber in dealing with this question, the evils to which, prior to 1815, this country had been subjected from its dependence for a supply of com on foreign countries. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. The passage quoted from Mr. Huskisson's letter was as follows: The present war, it is true, is now at an end ; but peace is at all times too pre- uot to induce us to guard against the repetition of similar calamities when- ever hostilities may be renewed. But even in peace, the habitual dependence cu foreign supplies is dangerous. We place the subsistence of our own population not only at the mercy of foreign powers, but also on their being able to spare as much corn as we may want to buy. Let the bread we eat be the produce of corn grown among ourselves, and for one, I care not how cheap it is. The cheaper the better. It is cheap now, and I rejoice at it ; because it is altogether owing to a sufficiency of corn of our own growth. But in order to insure a continuance of that cheap- ness and that sufficiency, we must insure our growers that protection against foreign imports which has produced these blessings and by which alone they can be permanently maintained. The history of the country for the last one hundred and seventy years clearly proves, on the one hand, that cheapness produced by foreign import is the sure forerunner of scarcity, and, on the other, that a steady home supply is the only safe foundation of steady and moderate prices. Lord Derby resumes: Now, my lords, you aim by a Corn Law, at independence of foreign supply, accompanied and produced by such an encouragement to your home grower, as shall guarantee him up to a certain point against foreign competition, and shall, beyond that point, protect the consumer against exorbitant and extravagantly high prices, protecting all parties against that which is most injurious to all — rapid and sudden fluctuations. Now, I say, that beyond any law which has ever been in force in this or any other country, this law of 1S42 has accomplished these its great and main objects. First, with regard to the provision of a home supply, we have no statis- tical tables in this country and it is a great pity we have not, Ijy which we could ascertain year by year, the amount of the production of the countrj^, but if it can be proved that in a state of society in which the population is increasing as rapidly as has been stated by the noble Earl, and in which, let me add, the proportion of wheat consumers is increasing more rapidly, still the population of this great country has not alone had a sufficiency to meet the increased demand, but has had that sufficiency at a reduced price and with a diminished and not an increased supply from abroad; then my lords, I maintain that the inference is, that protec- tion has fully effected its object; and that by its means we have been enabled to keep pace with the increasing demand of our increasing population. I will show you, my lords, that this has been the case. I find that speaking of wheat alone — and I shall confine nn-self throughout to wheat, and not weary your lordships with unnecessary details with regard to other grain, the principles being the same in all — in the course of these last twenty years we have imported 21,432,000 quarters of wheat. The yearly average for the last twenty years amounts to 1,021,000 quarters; for the last three years 741,000 quarters; and in the course of the last year it was 308,000 quarters. Has this result, I would ask, been produced by any increased price of wheat at home? A g:ei.t number of fallacies have been made use of, and statements attributed to us, who defend this Corn Law, which we never uttered. We are constantly told that the intention of this Corn Law was to guarantee to the farmer the price of 555. a quarter. The inten- tion of the Corn Law was no such thing. My Right Honorable friend in introduc- ing the measure, stated that if by legislation he could fix the average price of corn he would fix it from 54.$. to $8s. The avowed object of the Corn Law, therefore, was this, that when the price is above 585. the consumer should be protected by a large influx of foreign corn, and that when the price was below 54^. the producer FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. should be protected against any other competition than that which he can engage with upon equal terms — namely, competition with those who are exposed to the same vicissitudes of the same climate, and who have the same advantages and are subject to the same burdens and restrictions with himself. What has been the result of the Corn Law as far as the consumer is concerned? I find that the average price of wheat for the last twenty years has been 575. 4(/. a quarter, whilst the average price for the last three years, since the Corn L,aw passed, has only been 50s. <)d., and the price last year, which we have been told was a period of great scarcity, was 505. \od. My Right Honorable friend stated his wish to keep the price between 54^. and 585., and since the passing of the bill the annual average price has not risen above $os. gi/. , or 505. lod. But a return laid before the House of Commons gives a more accurate test of the operation of the sliding scale, and of the manner in which it acts to check the tend- ency to a rise of price whenever the tendency is exhibited. The paper I allude to is a return of the weekly prices of corn in every week from March, 1S44, to March, 1S46; and, with respect to those one hundred and four weeks, the result was that the price has been between 54.?. and 585. in no less than forty-three of these weeks ; the price has been below 54J. in fifty-four other weeks ; the price has been above 585. in .seven weeks onl}', and the price has never risen in any one week above 59.S. So far, therefore, as concerns the consumer, has he any right to say that the Corn Law has deceived any expectations he was led to form of it? Now, although it is quite true that the prices of corn have fallen considerably below that which was anticipated by Right Honorable friend, if we look to the total amount imported since the great influx of 2,500,000 quarters, immediately after the passing of that measure, we shall find that of 2,000,000 quarters which have come in since that time there have been entered under 55.S. only 305,000 quarters; between 55.J. and 59^., the actual point at which we desired to limit it by the bill, 1,475,000 quarters; and between ^cjs. and 62s., 261,000 quarters. I conceive, therefore, the law has operated in the manner, and nearly to the extent it was expected to operate. Another great and important point respects the fluctuations in the price of corn. Since this passed the fluctuation of price which has taken place between 1844 and 1S46 is only from 58.?. 4^/. , to 45.?. 2d. The whole difference between the highest week and the lowest week in these two years was not a difference of 30 per cent. The greatest weekly fluctuation in the price between any one week and the succeed- ing is IS. 6d. ; and the greatest fluctuation in any period for the whole four weeks of the month is a fluctuation of 4s. , and no more But if your lordships wish to refer to a period of the greatest fluctuation in this country, refer to the period between 1792 and 1805 ; a period when there was the greatest dependence on the foreigner. Hear on this subject the evidence of Mr. Malthus, in a pamphlet written by him in the year 1814. He says: "During the last centurj' the period of'our greatest importation and dependence on foreign corn was between 1792 and 1805, and certainly in no four years of the whole century was the fluctuation so great. In 1792 the price was 42^. ; in 1796, it was yjs. ; in 1801, it was iiSs. ; and in 1S03, 56.?." vSo that between 1792 and 1801 the price was almost tripled; and in the short period between 1798 and 1S03 it rose from 505. to 1185. , and fell again to 565. , and that in that period of the history of this country in which we were most dependent on foreign supply. • It was on the third reading of the Repeal of the Corn Laws Bill, in 1846, that Mr. Disraeli said: It may be in vain now, in the midnight of their intoxication, to tell them that there will be an awakening of bitterness. It may be idle now in the spring-tide '■ Fair Trade Journal, Vol. I, p. 170-1. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. of their economic frenzy, to warn them that there will be an ebb of trouble. But the dark and inevitable hour will arrive: then — when their spirit is softened by misfortune — they will recur to those principles which made England great, and in our belief can alone keep England great. They may then perchance remember, not with unkindness, those who, betrayed and deserted, were neither ashamed nor afraid to struggle for the good old cause — the cause with which are associated prin- ciples the most popular, sentiments the most entirely rational — the cause of labor, the cause of the people, the cause of England.' The bill was opposed by the most experienced statesmen and the most broad-minded members in the body. The reader will be interested to know that upon the real test to which the principles of free trade were subjected during the years which have followed, every essential prediction made by Richard Cobden and his associates, as to their effect upon the industries of the country, proved false ; while the protectionists fully realized the disasters which the change of policy would bring upon the English people. The weakness of the ministry in yielding to the free trade clamor, proved their utter unfitness to deal with great economic problems. Mr. Baring in his remarks in opposition to the passage of the measure well said, ' ' He believed that the greatest want under which the countrj- labored was the want of ministers, and the most appalling scarcity was that of statesmen. " '" Mr. W. Miles said, " He foresaw that the time would soon arrive when the people of these islands would curse the day when their govern- ment was entrusted to a temporizing minister. ' ' " Sir Robert Peel, in his closing remarks, defended the measure on the ground of the superior fitness of the English industries to meet free compe- tition. He said, " Iron and coal, the sinews of manufacture, give us advantages over every rival in the great competition of industry. Our capital far exceeds that which they can command. In ingenuity, in skill, in energy, we are inferior to none And is this the coimtry to shrink from competition ? " * In this statement he expressed the grounds upon which Mr. Cobden and his associates had pressed the question from the very start. Their reliance upon the benefits to be derived from the practical operation of free trade rested solely upon their ability to undersell and destroy even,' rival in every market equally accessible to both. The student of tariff his- tory should not lose sight of the advantage which the English manufacturer then held in this respect. This fact was kept prominently in the fore- ground by the advocates of free trade from the very inception of the move- ment, and should never be lost sight of by any people of any country in adopting a tariff policy. The debate which followed the introduction of this measure lasted twelve nights. Forty-eight speeches were delivered in favor of free trade. 2 History of Free Trade Moveiu England, p. i45- FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. and fifty-eight in favor of protection. The bill finally passed in its third reading on the fifteenth of May, at four o'clock in the morning, by 327 in favor, and 229 against. By the twenty-sixth of the same month, it had passed the House of Lords and received the approval of the Queen. ' As the excitement of the occasion passed away and the country settled down to the practical operation of its provisions, the tenant farmers began to feel the blighting influence of the competition to which they were exposed. That natural protection which their location secured to them under the cost of transportation, was insufficient to accomplish the results which had been pointed out by Mr. Cobden, even before material reductions had been made in freight rates. It is very interesting to note the position taken by Mr. Cobden and his associates as thej' saw the farmers of England enter the life-and-death struggle in which they had been plunged by those who had conspired to bring about their ruin. In less than five years after the passage of the bill imports began to come in. A depreciation in values began and di.scouragement pervaded the entire rural population. They saw that their industry was doomed, but they were powerless to restore that safeguard which had been destroyed. A few meetings were held in their interests, but the cotton manufacturers had such absolute control of the politics of the country, that nothing could be done. The situation is concisely .stated in a .speech by Mr. Butt, Q. C, at a protectionists' meeting held in Derby Lane, April 29, 1851, in which he said : The object of the free traders was the extermination of the tenant farmers of England. It was not a landlord's question. The tenant farmers of England stood between the landlords and ruin. Ruin could not reach the landlord till the tenant farmers and the agricultural laborers were both destroyed. No less than 230,000 of small farmers had left Ireland. It was much easier to destroy a man with thirty acres, than a man with five hundred; but the process that had ruined these 230, 000 would, if free trade were not reversed, reach the farmers of England too.' During the years which followed the exchange of manufactured goods for the farm produce of other countries increased. The manufacturers were prospering, but the farmers were being ruined. The real purpose for which the Anti-Corn Law League was organized was being accom- plished. Prosperity in Manchester meant immense suifering in the rural homes. No excuse or apology has been offered by Mr. Cobden or his associates to the people whom they deceived and ruined. They have never intimated that free trade in its effect on agriculture turned out differently from what they expected. They have never so much as said that they were mistaken when they were riding the rural districts and telling the farmers that they would not suffer from foreign competition. While one can have respect for Colonel Thompson, who told the agriculturists that the countr>' could get along without them, the speeches of Cobden and the 1 History of Free Trade Movement iu England. "- Fair Trade Journal, Vol. II., p. 375. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. statement of the Anti-Corn Law League made in the pamphlets which it circulated among the tenant farmers, remain a blot on the reputation of those men who by deliberate falsehood perpetrated the grossest frauds on an industrious and confiding people. The persistent effort on the part of members of the Cobden Club to surround that group of men with an atmosphere of lofty moralit}^ has vested the cause of free trade with a character to which it has never been entitled. No sooner had complaints arisen among the farmers of England than Richard Cobden began anew to invent remedies for their distress. This species of ingenuity has ever been one of the chief characteristics of the free trade agitator. At a meeting held at Aylesburj', January 9, 1853, Mr. Cobden attempted to point out a remedy by advising a reduction of rents, under which the loss would fall on the landlord. He said : And if the farmers cannot carry on their business, it is because they pay too high rent in proportion to the amount of their produce. I do not say that in man}- cases the rents of the landlords might not be excessive, provided the land were cultivated to its full capacity. But that it cannot be donewithout sufficient capital, and that sufficient capital cannot be applied without sufficient security, or without a tenant right, or a lease amounting to tenant right. We want to bring the land owner and the tenant together, to confront them in their separate capacity as buyers and sellers ; so that they might deal together as other men of business, and not allow themselves to play this comedy of farmers and landlords crying about for protection, and saying that they are rowing in the same boat, when in fact they are rowing in two boats in opposite directions. Fertile in his resources for inventing remedies for the terrible calamity he had brought upon his countrymen, his statement at this time was no less deceptive and disingenuous than his utterances to the farmers beforetheCorn Laws were repealed. He then denounced every one who predicted the ruin of the agrictilturalists as "gross humbugs," when he told them that ' ' free trade will make the agriculttirist of this country capable of compet- ing with the farmers of any part of the world." Now he tells them that the land must be " cultivated to its full capacity , " but that " this cannot be done without .sufficient capital and that sufficient capital cannot be applied without sufficient security, or without a tenant right, or a lease amounting to a tenant right." He comes now to a vital proposition, the tenant must acquire such an ownership in the soil of the realm, that if he desires to borrow capital for his business he will have something tangible to offer as security. But no effort was made on the part of the free traders to abolish the system of land tenures by which the soil of the country^ was held by a few individuals, tied up and transmitted from one generation to another, to the exclusion of the possibility of a farmer's becoming the owner of a small piece of land. Not one step was ever taken by the free traders of England to make the land of the country alodial. Richard Cobden well knew the situation of the farmer— that with a decaying bu.siness, with his property depreciating in value, security on personal property would not be FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. taken. The result was inevitable. The farmer must be driven out. The man with a lease of thirty acres, as Mr. Butt said, can more easily be ruined than a man with five hundred acres. After the Corn I^aws were repealed, and the work of the League accomplished, it then threw ofif the mask and boldly announced to the world that if the farmers of England were unable to survive the competition of foreign countries, it was no fault of free trade, and they must perish. They had either obtained the influence of tenant farmers or had allayed their active opposition by false pretences, fallacies and deceptive arguments. They had told them that the repeal of the Corn Laws was necessarj' to save the farmer himself from ultimate ruin, that free trade would raise the price of farm produce and that England could compete with any country in the world. In 1854, when the farmers of England were crying out against the impending ruin, the Anti-Corn Law League comes to the rescue again, but with an entirely different argument. It now announces a great, scientific truth, a fundamental principle of ecotiottiics , a laiv of nature, as will appear from the following quotation taken from ' ' The Charter of the Nations, ' ' in which the Anti-Corn Law League gave to the world its review of one phase of the free trade movement : In order to make out the beneficial influence of free trade on our agricultural interests, it is by no means necessary to prove that agriculture is at the present moment as profitable to those who are engaged in it as it was under our protective system. The permanent utility of the change to agriculture itself, may render inevitable a temporary diminution of profits. Measures which are in the highest degree beneficial to the bulk of a population, va&y for a time be anything but bene- ficial to particular sections of it. The immediate effect of free trade upon inter- ests formerly protected, is to test their real value to the nation, to ascertain whether they can profitably support themselves, without receiving their accustomed subsidy from the pockets of the people. As soon as they are exposed to competition, the persons engaged in them are obliged to tax their utmost resources, and apply to their development the highest amount of skill and energy. For a time the struggle may be hard, and less profits maybe realized than on the old system, but if in a national point of view, such interests are worth cultivating , the foreigner will soon be driven from the market. If they are not worth cultivating they will soon become extinct, ?ior is there any reason, in such circumstances, to wish their perpetuation. Our agriculture isjiistnozv undergoing this ivholesome ordeal, after ages of prescriptive right our farmers have to contend for existence. That command of the British market which they have hitherto secured by unjust laws, they must now secure by superior energy, or abandon it to their rivals. But free trade is not to be blamed for this struggle. If smaller profits are for a time the result, it is not to be imputed as a fault to the change which has been brought about in our commercial system. 1 The organization of farmers' clubs, and schools are recommended in which their sons may receive instruction "in vegetable anatomy, phys- iology, the physical properties of the soil, the action of ameliorators, stimulants and manures." The use of machinery, scientific methods and numerous other receipts for restoring life to the agriculture of the countrj' ■ Pp. 217-19. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. are suggested. This advice would have been excellent if it had come from a different source, and had been given under different circumstances. The Anti-Corn Law League knew from the very inception of the move- ment that free trade in the products of the farm would ruin and ultimately wipe out the agricultural interests of England. Its whole course and the result which followed, as will appear later, are commended to the earnest consideration of those farmers in the United States to whom the Cobden Club has been addressing circulars during the past fifteen years. While it is commonly stated that free trade was introduced into England in 1846, yet this is true only in part. Protection was with- drawn from the agricultural interests of the kingdom, duties were removed from raw materials, and from the products of the great textile, iron and steel industries ; at the same time, a moderate, and what was regarded as adequate, protection was maintained in favor, of many minor industries. The duties on woolen and worsted yams were removed in 1853, at which time a further reduction of the tariff was made under Mr. Gladstone. In the debate upon the question of the modifications in 1853, Mr. Gladstone said that, they propose to abolish all duties on articles of manufacture, "except such as are in the last stage as finished articles, and are commonly connected with hand labor ; in regard to which cases, we have thought it more prudent and proper to proceed in the mode not of abolition, but of reduction. " ^ A duty equivalent to ten per cent ad valorem was continued on the following articles, with the exception of silk, which was 15 per cent, until 1861 and 1862, when all duties were swept away and the work which was begun by Cobden and his associates, and carried through parliament under the nominal leadership of Peel, was consummated by Mr. Gladstone : Articles Wholly Manufactured. Silk, not made up. Cotton, wholly or in part made up. Wool, wholly or in part made up. Flax, wholly or in part made up. Iron and steel, wrought or unwrought Brass and copper. China and earthenware. Glass. Opera glasses, etc. Paper. Extracts and essences. Bronze. Coil rope, twine and strands. Copper plates. Copper wire. Feathers, ostrich, dressed. Artificial flowers. 1 Mr. Gladstone's Budget Beer and ale. Clocks. Watches. Canes, umbrellas, parasols, etc. Candles. Hats and bonnets. Embroidery and needlework. Leather, manufactures of boots, shoes. Musical instruments. Chemical oils, essential and perfumed. Japanned or lacquered ware. Lace. Cork, ready made. Cotton fringes. Cotton gloves, or of thread. Stockings of cotton thread. Socks, or half hose, of cotton or thread. Speccli, April iS, 1853, revised edition. FEEE TRADE LEGISLATION. Gutta percha, manufactures of, such as Cambric handkerchiefs, hemmed, or hand- bands, shirts, soles and tubing. kerchiefs not hemmed. Articles made of linen, wholly or partly Lace thread, made up. Soap. Starch. Articles Partially Manufactured. Wood and timber, sawed and split. Olive oil. Plaiting. Iron in bars, unwrought. Palm oil. Gum shellac and lac dye. Verdigris. Woolen and worsted yam. Silk thrown. Drawback on silk manufactures exported. Hides, tanned, tawed, curried or dressed. Other articles. It is undoubtedly true that it was intended to shield the industries represented by the foregoing list of articles from competition until they became strong enough to hold their own; but the circumstances under which the free trade movement was started, and the object which it had in view would not permit a half-way policy of this character. The English manufacturers, immediately after the legislation of 1846, entered upon a crusade to convert the people of other nations to the doctrine of free trade. To break down the tariff barriers which excluded their great textile fabrics from the United States and the Continent was the great central purpo.se which brought into existence the Anti-Corn Law League, and induced every step which had been taken in the direction of free trade. They were at once, however, met with the charge that they had not adopted free trade, that they were .still continuing protection to all those industries which might be injured by free competition. The answer that the duties upon this class of articles were levied wholly for revenue purposes was not sufficient, inas much as the total revenue derived from such sources was very insignificant The revenue derived from customs duties in 1859 was as follows : Articles in a raw state to be used in manufactures, $ Articles partially manufactured, Articles wholly manufactured Articles not properly belonging to either of the foregoing classes, . . Articles of food, spirits, etc. : Sugar Molasses, Tobacco and snuff, , Tea, Wines Rum Brandy Other spirits Coffee Butter Carried forward, Ji ,528,395 ,076,495 ,032,575 139,120 1,685,050 793, 120 ,867 335 ,035.945 1,210,815 ■,301,885 .,901,665 205, 630 !, 146,670 522,940 RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Free trade let:islati07L completed. Brought forward 1109,671,055 Fruit, including nuts, 1,292,065 Currants, 1,898,660 Corn (breadstuffs) 2,637,715 Cheese, 248,280 Other articles, 998,275 Total on articles of food, spirits, etc., 1116,746,050 Total revenue from customs duties in 1S59, 123,522,635 Of the $1,528,395 collected from duties on articles in a raw state to be used in manufactures, nearlj' the whole sum, to wit: $1,150,790 was collected from the imports of timber, not sawed or split. $377,325 of the remainder was collected from the import of tallow, leaving only $280 from other articles. Of the $2,076,495 collected from articles partly manufactured, $1,985,115 came firom wood and timber sawed or split. Of the $3,032,575 collected from duties on fully manufactured articles, over one-half, or $1,537,800, was derived from duties on silk goods. The other portion was divided between the several articles upon which duties were imposed as follows : Cotton, wholly or in part made up $ 27,275 Wool, wholly or in part made vip, 19,040 Flax, wholly or in part made up, 4, '35 Iron and steel, wrought and unwrought, 8,065 Brass and copper, 7, 785 China and earthenware » 18,525 Glass 27,205 Paper 74.885 Opera glass, etc., 14. 3°° Extracts and essences, i,770 Bronze 6,935 Beer and ale, . . 16,640 Clocks, 44.890 Watches Si, 335 Canes, umbrellas, parasols, etc i./So Candles, 1,305 Hats and bonnets 6, 155 Embroidery and needlework 47. 815 Leather, 368,700 Musical instruments 61,540 Chemical oils, essential or perfumed, 57.675 Japanned or lacquered ware 1,090 Lace 22,885 Other articles 573.075 |i, 494. 775 Silk 1,537.800 Total 13.032,575 There was no necessity then for continuing the duties on manu- factured and partly manufactured articles for the purpose of providing FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. revenue. The comparatively small sum derived from these sources could easily be obtained by increasing the duties on food products, from which $116,746,050 was already collected. Only slight changes were necessarj' in order to reach a purely revenue basis and subject every industry to the influence of free competition. The free trade element of England had reached a point in its efforts to extend the proposed policy to other countries, at which it became absolutely necessary to take the lead and go to the full extent of applying its principles to every home industry. By 1862 this was virtually accomplished. In i860 a Reciprocity Treaty was made between England and France, under which it was agreed that English manufactures should be admitted into France under ad valorem duties not exceeding 30 per cent, while French silks were to be admitted into England free of duty. This treaty was negotiated by Richard Cobden with Napoleon III., who was in England from 1837 to 1839, and had imbibed some free trade notions which were favorable to Cobden's plan. After the adoption of the French Treaty, parliament was induced to take the final steps in the free trade legislation of the country. In 1861 duties on butter, cheese, silk manufactures, etc., were repealed. In 1862 paper and other articles were put on the free list. In 1867 duties on pepper, wood and timber were repealed, and in 1870 the insignificant duties which had been continued on corn and flour, were removed. In 1871 duties on sugar and molasses were reduced and were finally repealed in 1875. It is not necessary to follow through in detail the various changes which were made in the customs tariflF by parliament after i860. While slight changes have been made in readjusting, reducing, or increas- ing duties, the general policy as it was perfected in 1862, has remained unchanged to the present time. The following table shows the customs tariff of the United Kingdom, as published by the International Customs Journal, printed by the Inter- national Customs Tariff Bureau, in 1894:' Unit. Rates of Duty. English. Equal to— £■ s. d. I Cocoa, Per pound . . . 001 jSo.02 2 Husks and shells Per cwt .... 020 •49 Cocoa or chocolate, ground, pre- pared or in any way manufac- tured Per pound . . . 002 .04 4 CoflFee, raw Per cwt ... . 14 3-41 5 Kiln dried, roasted or ground Chicory : Per pound . . . 002 .04 h Per cwt .... 13 3 3.22 7 Roasted or ground, Per pound . . . .04 S Chicory (or other vegetable sub- stances) and coffee, roasted and ground, mixed . . do . . . . 002 .04 I Bulletin No. i, United States Department of Agriculture, p. 14. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. "{ Fruit, dried : Currants, Figs and fig cake, plums, prunes and raisins Tea, lOO Tobacco : Unmanufactured, stemmed uustemraed — Containing in every pounds weight thereof— ID pounds or more of moisture, Less than lo pounds of moisture, Manufactured — Cigars, Cavendish or negro-head. Snuff, containing in every loo pounds weight thereof : More than 13 pounds of moisture, Not more than 13 pounds of moisture, Other manufactured tobacco and cavendish or negro-head man- ufactured in bond from unman- ufactured tobacco. Wine : Not exceeding 30° of proof spirit Exceeding 30° but not exceeding 42° of proof spirit, And for every degree, a, or part of a degree beyond the highest above charged an additional duty, Sparkling wine : Imported in bottles, b, Imported in bottles when the market value is proved not to exceed 15 shillings per gallon. To countervail excise duty upon Brit- ish beer : Beer and ale, the worts of which were before fermentation of a specific gravity of 1,055° (and so on in proportion for an}- dif- ference in gravity), Beer called mum, spruce or black beer, and beer called Berlin white beer, and other preparations, whether fermented or not fer- mented, of a character similar to minn, spruce, or black beer, the worts of which were, before fer- mentation, of a specific gravity — Not exceeding 1,215° Exceeding 1,215° Rates of Duty. . . do . Per pound Per gallo . . do Per barrel of 36 gallons. ■£. s. d. 3 3 6 5 3 9 4 6 003 020 FSEE TRADE LEGISLATIOX. duty upon Brit- Spirits or strong waters— For every gallon computed at hydrometer proof of spirits of any description (except perfumed spirits), including naphtha or methylic alcohol, purified so as to be potable ; and mixtures and prepara- tions containing spirits, For every gallon of perfumed spirits, ... . . . . Liquors, cordials or other pre- parations containing spirits in bottle, entered in such a manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested, Chloroform, Chloral hydrate, Collodion Ether, acetic Ether, butyric, Ether, sulphuric, Ethyl, iodide of, Soap, transparent, in the manufac- ture of which spirit has been used. To counter\-ail stamp duties on Brit- ish made articles : Cards, playing, Per proof g Per gallon Per pound . . . do . . Per gallon , Per pound Per gallon . . . do . , . . do . , Per pound . . . Per dozen packs. English. Equal to- A. s. d. O ID lO f2.63 o 17 3 4.20 14 8 3 I I 3 1 5 I 10 15 s 13 7 3-57 .75 ■30 •45 3.81 6.36 3-35 003 .06 3 9 •91 a The word "degree" does not include fractions of the next higher degree. Wine includes lees of wine. b The duties on sparkling wines are in addition to the duties in respect of alcoholic strength. Amount of the Imperial Revenue (Exchequer Receipts) of the United Kingdom under the Principal Heads Thereof. The revenue derived from duties on imports under the foregoing schedule in 1894 (Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom of 1894, page 16) was as follows: Customs. id colonial, Tea Coffee, .... Spirits, foreign Wine Tobacco and snufF, Currants, raisins and dried fruit. Other imported articles Miscellaneous receipts, 117,465,470 729.925 20,653,425 6,050,710 50.599.760 1,825,465 896,320 172,415 Total receipts from customs, RETURN TO FREE TRADE. The following sums were derived from inland taxation: Excise. Spirits, . .• 175,946,725 Beer 47,684,740 Licenses, 1,172,820 Railways, 1,395,465 Coffee mixture, labels and chicory 14,250 Other receipts 20,350 Total receipts from excise revenues 1126,234,350 Stamps. Deeds and other instruments, 113,200,455 Probate duties, 11,815,295 Estate duty 6,161,145 Legacies and successions, 19,917, 545 Life insurance, 273,975 Marine insurance, 695,020 Bills of exchange, bankers' notes, and composi- tion for duty on bills and notes, 3,845,640 Receipts and drafts, 5,833,860 Other receipts 2,175,230 Total receipts from stamps $63,918,165 Miscellaneous. Land tax, IS, 175.000 House duty, 7,125,000 Property and income tax 76,000,000 Post-office, 52,350,000 Telegraph service 12,700 000 Crown lands, .... 2,100,000 Interest on advances for local works and on pur- chase money of Suez Canal shares, etc 1,093,150 Fee and patent stamps 4,354,220 Receipts by Civil Departments, etc., 5,934,680 Total miscellaneous 166,832,050 Total revenue of the United Kingdom in 1894, |455,47S,055 Amount of the Imperial Expenditure (Exchequer Issues) of THE United Kingdom under the Principal Heads Thereof. National Debt Services. Interest $80,663,440 Terminable Annuities: Trustee Savings Bank De- ficiency Annuity, 31,967,520 Unfunded debt, 2,341,525 Management of the debt §94,555 New sinking fund 9,132,960 Total $125,000000 Interest on loans, 1,000,000 Total for National Debt Services $126,000,000 FEEE TRADE LEGISLATION. Civil List and Civil Administration Army, including Army Purchase Commission, . . Army ordnance — factories, Navy, including Transport Service Annuity under " Indian Army Pension Deficiency Act, 1885," Naval Defence Fund, Total naval and military expenditure, .... Total expenditure, excluding cost of collection. 189,698,500 1,500 70,240,000 750,000 7,142.855 1167,832,855 $392,619,285 Charges for the Collection of the Revenue. Customs, .... Inland Revenue, . Post-office, . - . Telegraph Service, Packet Service, . 14,229,745 9,125,200 33,605,000 13,320,000 3,6i5,« ^ Total expenditure chargeable against revenue, $456,514,230 In order to admit all manufactured articles tree of duty and to put into practice the policy of free trade, it became necessary to resort to a most burdensome and oppressive system of internal taxation. The taxation upon houses, lands, incomes and estates for the support of the general gov- ernment, together with the system which requires stamps to be placed on all legal documents, bills of exchange, receipts and commercial paper, etc., is a most extreme exercise of the taxing power. Such methods have been resorted to in the United States only in times of war. The $17,000,- 000 collected in duties on tea is certainly a tax on the breakfast tables of the people, while silks, embroideries, Oriental wares, diamonds, jewelry and the luxuries consumed by the aristocracy are admitted free of duty. The whole country is being flooded with the manufactured produce of the Continent which, by displacing domestic productions, is undermining industries, throwing labor out of employment, reducing wages, and im- poverishing the nation. English economists have such exalted opinions upon the subject of taxation, and owe such allegiance to their free trade creed, that they are compelled to perpetuate a system of taxation to which the people of the United States would not submit for a moment, excepting under the necessities arising in times of war. The system of taxation pursued is a "Tariff for revenue only." Duties are imposed on those articles the like of which cannot be produced in England, while competing articles are admitted free. CHAPTER III. England under Free Trade from 1850 to 1874. THE FREEBOOTER'S SONG. Free ! Free ! Is not the pirate free To take what he can get, and keep what he can hold ? This is the freebooter's admirable plea. He sails in his barque o'er the wildly rolling sea, And he plunders at his ease, and he hoards the shining gold. Nothing for thee, And much for me, Free trade befits the free. Free ! Free ! Come twaddle not to me Of the workman's falling wage, or of want and ruin nigh. Grief's voices at a distance make a pleasant harmony Is my pocket to be filled ? Is't to be or not to be ? In the dearest mart I'll sell, in the cheapest mart I'll buy. Ruin for thee, The gains for me, Free trade befits the free. — Archer Gurney} You would fain sell canvas as well as coals, and crockerv- as well as iron ; you would take ever)- other nation's bread out of its mouth if you could ; not being able to do that, your ideal of life is to stand in the thoroughfares of the world, like Ludgate apprentices, screaming to every passerby: " What d'ye lack? " — Riiskiti. The student of free trade theories and arguments should at the outset understand the purpose which Cobden and his associates had in view when the tariff pohcy of England was changed. The great end in view was to make England the manufacturing centre ot the world, while other coun- tries should be confined to the production of food .stuffs and raw materials. This is shown not only by the propositions laid down as the basis of their economic creed, but by the openly expressed declarations of many of their statesmen and the literature of the time. Lord Goderich in addressing the House of Lords, said : other nations knew, as well as the noble lord opposite, and those who acted with him, that what we (the English) meant by free trade was nothing more ncu- less than, by means of the great advantage we enjoyed, to get the monopoly of all their markets for our manufactures, and to prevent them, cue and all, from ever becoming manufacturing nations. ■ K.lir Tmiie.Vol 2, p. 190. (198) ENGLAND CNDER FREE TliADE. The policy that France acted on was that of encouraging its native manufactures, and it was a wise policy; because, if it were freely to admit our manufactures it would speedily be reduced to an agricultural nation, and therefore a poor nation, as all must be that depend exclusively on agriculture. The real pitrpose of the Manchester School is disclosed by a private conversation with one of the Anti-Corn Law agitators, given by Mrs. Trol- lope, mother of Anthony Trollope, in her " Life of Michael Armstrong." She says : His idea is — and I should like to see the man who would venture to tell me that it was not a glorious one — his idea is, if we could get rid of our cursed Corn Laws, the whole of the British dominions would soon be turned into one noble collection of workshops. I wish you could hear him talk; upon my soul, it's the finest thing I know. He says that if his system is carried out into full action, as I trust it will be one of these days, all the grass left in England will be the parks and paddocks of the capitalists. Sharpton will prove to you as clearly as that two and two make four, that the best thing for the country would be to scour it from end to end of those confounded idle drones, the landed gentry. They must go sooner or later, he says, if the Corn Laws are done away with. Then down goes the price of bread, and down goes the operative's wages; and what will stop us then, doctor? Don't you see? Isn't it as plain as the nose on j'our face that when the agricultural interest is fairly drummed out of the field, the day's our own ? Our policy is, you must know, to give out that it is the operatives who are clamoring for the repeal of the Corn Laws, whereas man)- among them, saucy rogues, are as deep as their betters, and know perfectly well, and be hanged to 'em, that our only reason for trying to make "down with the Corn Laivs" the popular cry is, that we may whisper in their ears, "down with the wages " afterward. Ay, doctor, if we can but manage this, England will become the paradise of manufacturers ! — the great workshop of the world ! When strangers climb our chalk cliffs to get a peep at us they will see, at what point they will, the glowing fires that keep our engines going illuminating the land from one extremity of the island to the other ! Then think how we shall suck in — that is, we the capitalists, my man — think how we shall suck in gold, gold, gold, from all sides. The idea is perfectly magnificent ! The fat Flemings must give up all hopes of ever getting their finical flax to vie with our cotton again ! By Jove, if I had my way, Crockley, I'd turn France and the Rhine into a wine cellar, Russia into a corn bin, and America, glorious Amer- ica, north, south, east and west, into a cotton plantation. Then should we not flourish ? Then should we not bring down the rascals to work at our own prices, and be thank- ful too? What's to stop us? Trust me, there is not a finer humbug going, than just making the country believe that the operatives are rampant for the repeal of the Corn Laws. ' The free trade plan was well understood in England at the time of the agitation for the repeal of the Corn Laws. The effect of free competi- tion, or free trade, upon the industries of the United States and other nations, could only be to build up and perpetuate a monopoly of the manu- facttiring of the world in England. Speaking upon this subject Frederick Engle, in his " Condition of the Laboring Classes," in 1844,' says: England was to become the "workshop of the world;" all other countries were to become for England what Ireland already was — markets for her manufactured ' Fair-Trade, Vol. 3. p. 91. =P. 12. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. s, supplying her in return with raw materials and food. England the great manu- facturing centre of an agricultural world, with an ever- increasing number of corn d cotton-growing Irelands revolving around her, the industrial sun. What a glori- ous prospect ! How, then, was this end to be attained ? Force could no longer be re.sorted to as a means of extending and holding markets. That which hitherto had been secured through the military power of the country, must now be defended and perpetuated by peaceful means. The plan adopted for inducing their rivals to remove protective barriers and open their markets to the free admission of English goods, has been pointed out; but how those markets could be held under free trade, how tariff barriers could be scaled, in case of failure to secure universal free trade, remained a vexed question. The new conditions which had arisen, the new problems which presented themselves for solution, were to be met now by new men. The commercial classes had become all-powerful, and dominated every phase of the political and industrial life of the nation. Those statesmen who had guided the English nation safely through her most perilous hours in the past, and who had adhered to the policy of preserving and fostering every interest in the realm, had passed away. The government was now in the hands of mere money-grabbers. A combination of manufacturers, inexperienced in statesmanship, prompted solely by greed and avarice, had seized the reins of government and made the desire for money -getting purely and solely the basis of the nation's policy. A regard for the welfare of humanity, for the masses of the English people, was repudiated as a mere sentiment which formed no part of the real functions of a government. A solicitude for the wel- fare of the masses was no longer to trouble the minds of statesmen. Private gain, instead of public welfare, became the higher law. Those functions of goverimient which had become recognized by experienced jurists and .statesmen for ages were discarded and overthrown. The civil authorities were to perform no duties, excepting to preserve order. The strong and powerful were turned loose upon the weak and defence- less. From this time on man was to be looked upon as an animal in a jungle, to fight for his life, to survive or perish. Free trade, free competition, must now regulate everything. A farthing saved on a yard of calico became of more national importance than a fair day's wages to an artisan. The natural state of the ma.sses was held to be perpetual want and misery, with which governments had no right to interfere. All efforts to aid in the building up of industries, through protective legislation, were regarded not only as a violation of economic dogmas, but obstructions and hindrances to universal commer- cial dominion. The wealth of the few was to be built up at the expense of the many. Cheap labor and low wages were the fulcrum upon which the manufacturer was to place his lever to move the commercial world. ENGLAND UNDER FREE TRADE. The English nation thenceforward was to become an oligarchy of manu- facturers, and every other interest was to be sacrificed to their welfare. The new creed was based upon the lowest and most vicious conception of the obligation and dependence of man as a member of society. The higher duty which man owes to man was left out of their calculation. " Cheapness " was taken up, not only as a weapon of defence, but as an instrument of aggressive warfare. By ' ' cheapness ' ' their home mar- ket was to be retained; by "cheapness" foreign rivals were to be destroyed, and markets won and held. Speaking of the manufacturing interests, and pointing out the means by which a monopoly of markets could be held, Mr. Cobden .said: Upon the prosperity, then, of this interest, hangs our foreign commerce . . . To what are we indebted for this commerce ? We answer in the name of every manu- facturer and merchant of the kingdom — the cheapness alone of our manufactories. Are we asked, how is that trade protected, and by what means can it be enlarged? The reply is by the cheapness of our manufactures. Is it inquired how this mighty industry, upon which depends the comfort and existence of the whole empire can be torn from us ? We rejoin, only by the greater cheapness of the manufactures of another country.' In the foregoing statement Mr. Cobden has announced the very kernel of his creed. The .superior maojiinery, more abundant capital, efficient artisans, extensive trade relations, and means of transportation, which enabled them to undersell all rivals, was recognized by the English manufacturers as the key to the whole question of maintaining their commercial supremacy, and extending their markets. This advantage, with freedom unrestricted to enter all foreign markets, would enable them to suppress all rival industries then existing, and effectually to prevent new ones from arising. Situated as England was, with all the territor>' and possessions desir- able, her interests now lay in defending and keeping what she had, and making the best use, from a financial point of view, of her resources. Under every view of the situation, peace was most desirable. As Mr. Cobden said, "Men of war to conquer colonies, to yield us a monopoly of their trade, must now be dismissed, like many other equally glittering, but false adages of our forefathers, and in its place we must substitute the more homely but enduring maxim — cheapness, which will command com- merce ; and what ever else is needful will follow in its train." Speaking of the question further, he says: "America is once more the theatre upon which nations are contending for mastery-; it is not, however, a struggle for conquest in which the victor will acquire territorial dominion — the fight is for commercial supremacy, and the battle will be won by the cheapest." Thus showing, " that cheapness and not the cannon or the sword, is the weapon through which alone we possess and can hope to defend our extended commerce. ' ' 1 Political Writings, chap 4. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. The repeal of the duty on agricultural products was favored for the purpose of providing the artisans of England with cheap bread-stuffs, and hence enable them to subsist on a lower wage rate. It was conceded that meat, vegetables, dairy products, flour, and grain, could be produced more cheaply in Russia, India, Australia, South America, and North America, upon the virgin soil of new countries, than in England. Bj' this their power to produce cheaply would be augmented by reducing the wages of their artisans and keeping them at the lowest possible point. This necessity was recognized in the first stages of the free trade movement. " Cheapness," how was it to be acquired ? From a purely free trade point of view the answer is, by every means possible. Machinery, cheap raw materials, superior skill, inventions, good business methods, and the power of capital, were not the only means by which this great commercial weapon was to be continually sharpened. Things were to be made cheap and still cheaper, that every rival might be undersold. But if, in order to destroy competitors, to scale tariff walls and invade foreign markets, it became necessary to reduce the wages of English artisans, this, even, though it brought misery and degradation to the great toiling masses of England, and doomed them to a condition from which they could never rise so long as the warfare lasted .and so long as England should exist, was regarded as legitimate and proper means of making successful competition more certain. The vigor with which this policy was entered upon immediatelj- after the adoption of free trade, exposed one of the most infamous features of the creed. The warfare of competition which was waged against foreign countries, brought into requisition the element of cheapness, and the sacrifice which the working classes must make to the cause of free trade. It established a most revolting system of "white child slavery" in England. Without a particle of moral sense, without a grain of human sympathy, the advocates of free trade insisted on the right of "free con- tract," the right to buy labor at the lowest price, regardless of all considerations of public welfare. Under the guise of a natural inherent right as a citizen to conduct his own business in his own way, they insisted on the right to fill the factories and mines of England with star\'ed, stunted, and squalid children from seven to ten years of age, with women subjected to the worst forms of labor. Compelled to work night and day, until physically exhausted and ruined, they were to be discarded as a broken cog of a worn-out machine, to be replaced with another piece of humanity to be utilized in producing cheap goods. The Anti-Corn Law League had no interest in the workingman aside from that economic interest embraced within their creed, which is the same interest they had in their calico, their machinery, their houses and lots, and their horses, /. c. , purely a monied interest. Beyond sufficient food and clothing to preserve health and give vigor enough to do a full day's ENGLAND UNDER FREE TRADE. work, the. system of free trade had no regard for the workingmaii's wel- fare. Cheap fabrics could not be produced without cheap men. The pro- fessional free trader held that men become cheap because there is a surplus, because the supplj' exceeds the demand, just as iron, corn and other commodities become cheap. The true reason why men are so cheap is that the whole system of our laws and government rests upon the principle that we should have a reverent care of the mate- rial productions, and leave the men to take care of themselves It is not the dressmaker we consider, but the dress ; it is not the butcher whose well-being we care for, but the meat ; it is not the grocer whose moral and physical condition is the object, but the grocery ; it is not the baker or the bread-eater whose sole satisfaction we seek, but the bread. Nor is it even these goods for the sake of their utility to man, it is the goods as salable commodities alone. The bread may be adulterated so that it passes and gets the price of a loaf ; it is the same with the butcher's meat, it may rot ; with the gown, it maj' be of counterfeit stuff. But it is the trade in the gown, the meat, the grocer}-, the bread, etc., that is the pbject of existence ; and it is the trade to which our lawmakers look, not the tradesman, the workingman, or the consumer. — Leader, July 12, 1856.' This unrestrained individualism, this free competition, this excessive effort to make cheap goods at the sacrifice of flesh and blood and human souls, soon brought out a revolt against the fundamental basis of the whole system of free trade. Lord Ashley, one of the most humane and high-minded citizens, was aroused to indignation when he saw this feature of the policy of free trade put in practice. With the united support of the laboring masses of England, and the most enlightened and philanthropic statesmen, he led a movement for the enactment of laws for the relief of women and children employed in factories. That system of factory regu- lation which was placed on the statute books of Great Britain, prohibiting the employment of women and children during long hours, in unwhole- some places, met the united opposition of the representatives of the Anti- Corn Law League, and especially of Richard Cobden and John Bright. Speaking of John Bright in his oppo.sition to this class of legislation, the Fair Trade Journal saj's : "All of the immense resources of his unrivaled vocabulary were employed in the ser\'ice of one of the cruelest causes that ever found defenders in the House of Commons. Facts and figures were discarded in order to prove that it was right to permit children of tender years to work for an unlimited number of hours a day, at a wage that would barely provide them with subsistence. ' ' All interference on the part of the government to restrict employers in overworking women and children was resisted by dogmatic free traders on the ground that it was an infringement upon the " Freedom of Contract," and an obstruction to those means by which the greatest cheapness could be secured. It was through Mr. Cobden's adherence to this principle that he waged his war- fare against those labor organizations in England which were forced into 1 Carey's Social Science, p. 229. BETURN TO FREE TRADE. existence for the purpose of resisting that downward tendency of wages which was taking place to secure the very ' ' cheapness ' ' spoken of by him. How shallow and meaningless become the utterances of John Bright and Richard Cobden against human slavery in America, when we place them side by side with their attitude toward the toiling masses of their own country. It is fully understood in England that the free trade movement was started in the interest of the monied class. Mr. Cobden, speak- ing of his whole campaign, said : "It has eminently been a middle-class agitation." The Fair Trade Journal, speaking upon this point said: ' ' His whole endeavor was to make that class the ruling class, and he was not wistful to idly extend its favor to others ; we have him saying, when the power of his own special class had been assured : ' I am less sanguine than I used to be about the effects of a wide extension of the franchise. ' '" John Morley in his life of Richard Cobden, says, in speaking of Mr. Cobden's attitude upon the question of reducing the working hours in fac- tories from twelve to ten hours, that Mr. Cobden said, " I shall certainly vote and speak against the factory bill."^ When this act became a law, Mr. Morley says that, ' ' If the factory law was in one sense a weapon with which the country party' harassed the manufacturers, it was not long before Cobden hit upon a plan for retaliating." '' The efforts which have been made by the advocates of free trade to convey the impression that Mr. Cobden and his associates were friends of the laboring classes, and introduced a policy for their elevation and improvement, have given to the free trade cause, in certain quarters, a character to which it is not entitled. As Mr. Cobden said, the whole movement was conducted in the interest of the middle classes. Compre- hending the real purpose of the movement, we are able more fully to under- stand why the tenant farmers and agricultural laborers were marked for destruction. If Cobden and his associates had been real reformers, enter- taining a desire to improve the condition of the English people, especially the agriculturists, the opportunity was present and urgent. Land tenures by which the soil of the realm was held by a few individuals,— tied up and transmitted from one generation to another, to the exclusion of the masses from ownership, could have been abolished. This would have worked a genuine reform. Every farmer could have become the owner of a small piece of land, and the rural population would have become inde- pendent, prosperous and contented. A change of this character, however, was not conceived by the free trade reformers to be for the benefit of the manufacturers. They were not seeking to bring about conditions which would make the masses more independent and self-reliant. They were not seeking to open new fields of employment, by which the laboring classes would become less dependent on the cotton barons of Manchester. Sub- servient, dependent, low-priced labor, was the comer-stone upon which the 1 Vol. Ill, p. 777. ' p. 56. » p. 44, also Fair Trade Journal, Vol. III., p. 778. ENGLAND UNDER FREE TRADE. whole fabric of free trade rested. This could not be secured, and the workingmen of England could not be reduced to that economic condition bj' which they would become the most useful tqols for the English manu- facturers, so long as it was possible for them to live upon the land. By flooding England with the agricultural produce of foreign countries, by making the cultivation of the soil unprofitable, the free trade plan could more easily be accomplished. By driving them into the cities, over-crowd- ing industrial centres, and making labor abundant, the whole industrial population would be plunged into such a fight for places, such a shuffle and struggle for existence, that wages would be reduced to that ' ' natural level ' ' so much talked about by free trade economists, and so necessary to secure that " cheapness " spoken of by Mr. Cobden. Before pointing out the disastrous results which have followed the adoption of the policy of free trade, it will be well to mention some of the practical business propo- sitions which formed the basis of the new theory. The English people relied upon the prophecies which Mr. Cobden and his associates put forth when they urged parliament to abandon that system under which the greatness of the country- had been secured. To buy where one can buy the cheapest, and to sell where he can get the biggest price, was asserted not only as a natural individual political right, but as a sound principle of industrial development, to be practiced by all nations. It is through this proposition that the most specious plea has been made to the consumers and producers of the world. It should, however, be interpreted in the light of its application to the conditions existing in England at the time it was enunciated. Eike other propositions emanating from this source, it fits in and forms a part of that com- mercial policy of Mr. Cobden and his associates of secfuring the absolute supremacy of English manufacturers. In the first place, what did they propose to buy cheap? Not manufactured goods. They were to be produced in England, and sold to the rest of the world. It was to buy cheap what they were compelled to purchase of other countries, and to sell at a high price everything produced in English factories; to buy American cotton at the lowest possible figure, convert it into fabrics, and sell it again to the American people, with the profits, labor and freight charges of Englishmen added. The wool of Australia was to be treated in the same way. The raw materials of all countries were to be made profitable to English manufacturers, by buying them cheap and selling them dear. Whatever England had to buy was to be bought cheap. Whatever she had to sell was to be sold dear. The United States was to be converted into an agricultural countrj'. The produce of its farms was to be sold in England cheap, but English manufactures were to be pur- chased by the American people at high prices. The surplus farm products of all countries were to be brought into competition in England, thrown upon a glutted market, and sold at prices to be fixed in England. The RETURN TO FREE TRADE. more extensive agriculture became in foreign countries, the greater the surplus would be each year to depress prices. This condition, favorable to Englishmen, would also be increased by restricting the home markets for farm produce. A magnificent scheme, indeed, for England ! To this system of plunder has been given the name of " Freedom of Contract." The con- ditions under which the people of other countries were asked to accept this system gave to England such an advantage in imposing terms, fixing prices both ways, that there could be no " freedom ' ' about it on the part of the people with whom the English manufacturers proposed to deal. At the time England urged all nations to remove their protective tariffs and join with her in a policy of free trade, the English manufac- turers were able by force of competition to destroy the industries of every countrjr in the world. Competition based on fair wages and profits, carried on under the " live and let live " spirit is one thing, but a compe- tition waged for the specific and definite purpose of driving competitors out of the business, closing rival factories, and completely supplanting the industries of a country for the purpose of gaining a monopoly of the market, is a species of warfare as destructive to the prosperity of a country as an invading army, and more lasting in its disastrous consequences. It was this species of warfare or competition which the English manufac- turers intended to carry on. The sole purpose of bringing about the removal of protective tariffs in the United States and other countries, was that England might, by flooding markets with li&r wares, close all their factories, and then by a system of underselling prevent rival factories from ever rising on the ruins of the old, thus making the monopoly of England absolute and perpetual. As soon as the rivals were de- stroyed prices could be advanced and large profits secured. Yes, says the theoretical free trader, but as soon as prices are raised suSiciently to secure large profits, capital will flow in and competing industries will be erected. Experience has proven that this will not occur where they would be driven out and milled by the warfare which woulil immediately set in. It has only been through the shield of protective tariffs against such destroying causes, that home industries have been erected and carried on. This was well known to the English manufac- turers, and furnished the reason why they desired the removal of such protective barriers. This fact is confirmed by the experience of the English manufac- turers. The whole question of the manner in which such destructive competition was carried on, was set forth in a report of a commission to parliament, in 1854, as follows: The laboring classes generally, in the manufacturing districts of this country, and especially in the iron and coal districts, are very little aware of the extent to which they are often indebted for their being employed at all to the immense losses which ENGLAND UNDER FREE TRADE. their employers voluntarily incur in bad times in order to destroy foreign competition, and to gain and keep possession of foreign markets. Authentic instances are well known of employers having, in such times, carried on their works at a loss amounting in the aggregate to three or four hundred thousand pounds sterling in the course of three or four years. If the efforts of those who encourage the combinations to restrict the amount of labor and to produce strikes were to be successful for any length of time, the great accumulations of capital could no longer be made which enable a few of the most wealthy capitalists to overwhelm all foreign competition in times of great depression, and thus clear the way for the wliole trade to step in when prices revive, and to carry on a general business before foreign capital can again accumulate to such an extent as to be able to establish a competition in prices with any chance of success. The large capitalists of this country are the great instruments of warfare against the competing capital of foreign countries, and are the most essential instruments now remaining by which our manufacturing supremacy can be maintained; the other ele- ments — cheap labor, abundance of raw materials, means of communication, and skilled labor,— being rapidly in process of being equalized.' The ofEcial character of this report gives it more weight than the statements of mere theoretical writers. It is not fair or equal competition, but a system of commercial warfare to which every nation must subject its industries under free trade. A nation whose manufacturers are possessed of such vast accumulations of capital that they are able to wage an aggressive warfare for a long period of time, during which profits are sur- rendered and losses sustained, in order to break down the industries of a foreign country-, may be read)^ for free trade, but that nation whose busi- ness men and manufacturers are not provided with such weapons, nmst protect its industries from the inevitable and absolutely certain result of a contest, carried on under such conditions. The "survival" in such a conflict of the ' ' fittest, ' ' simply means that the party having the largest amount of capital is the strongest, and will win. Although the important part which capital plays in the battle of fabrics is fully recognized and understood, the theoretical free trade writer attempts to make it appear that industries which are unable to survive such a conflict, are weak and ought to perish. The part which the vast accumulations of capital held by the English people would play in conquering the world was fully measured and taken into account, when their fiscal policy was reversed. Mr. Gladstone, in completing the work begun by Sir Robert Peel, regarded the vast wealth of the English people as one of the most power- ful weapons to be used against the competing capital of foreign countries. He said: "The power of capital, skill, industry, long-established character and connections, sustaining English commerce, bears up against all that has been done." ^ This was one element of strength upon which Sir Robert Peel relied, in advocating the repeal of the Corn Laws. He said: " That we may retain our manufacturing pre-eminence, we must neglect no opportunity of securing ourselves those advantages by which that pre-eminence can alone be secured. . . . The accumulation of 1 Bigelow's Tariff Question, p. 41. 2 Remarks on Recent Commercial Legislation, p. 61. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. wealth (that is, the increase of capital), is one of the chief means by which we can retain the eminence we have so long enjoyed." ' For more than a century the English people had fully understood the importance of capital as a factor in establishing and maintaining the commercial supremacy of the nation. As early as the latter part of the eighteenth century, Edmund Burke, in a debate on the proposed Commercial Treaty with France, said: " Our capital gives us a superiority which enables us to set all the efforts of France to rival our manufactures at defiance. The powers of capital were irresistible in trade ; it domineered, it ruled, it even tyran- nized, in the market ; it enticed the strong, and controlled the weak."' One of the gravest errors committed by dogmatic free traders was the assumption that ' ' the fear of want is the mainspring of exertion. ' ' It was asserted that sharp competition would act as a stimulus to the exercise of a higher degree of skill, greater exertion and more economic methods, and to develop to the highest point the inventive genius and intellectual forces of man. Blinded by their own conceit, they believed Englishmen pos- sessed superior power for industrial warfare, and hence were capa- ble, when put to the test, of outstripping all rivals. This most flattering argument tickled the ears of the artisans and manufacturers alike, and played no little part in winning them over to the doctrines of free trade. This was one of the principles upon which they relied in entering the warfare of fabrics under the new fiscal policy. They felt strong enough to throw away their shields and fight the battle without them. Now, if this were true of Englishmen, while it might furnish a reason whj' they should be willing to abandon protection, something which they believed they did not need, it would certainly furnish no reason why the Americans, Frenchmen, Germans, and others who were not so efiicient as the Englishmen, and who were not capable of being so highly developed, should throw away their shields also and calmly submit to destruction. If the principle suggested should be accepted and all the potency claimed for it conceded, assuming that all are capable under the same stimulus of being developed to the same degree of perfection, there is still an element which must be considered ; that after all, as stated by Mr. Cobden, cheapness was the weapon which must be relied upon to conquer and hold markets. While eificiency, skill, capital and machinery were within the reach of all civilized people, everything else be- ing equal, the question of wage rate must still control in the battle. It has been demonstrated that one nation cannot pay 40 per cent higher wages than another nation and win and hold markets. As early as 1824, Mr. Hus- kisson, in advising the removal of duties on silk goods, said : " Unbind the shackles in which yottr U7iwise tenderness has C07tfi7ied it; permit it to tak-r unrestrained its own course; expose it to the wholesome breezes of competi- tion^ you give it new life; retnove your oppressive protection, the talent, the 1 Hansard, Third Series, Vol. 83, p. 280. ' Parliamentary History, Vol. 26, p. 487. ENGLAND UNDER FREE TRADE. goiiiis, the cnicrp>isc, the capital, the industry of this great people will do the rest." It was confidently expected that under the stimulating ' ' breezes of free competition ' ' the industries of Great Britain would be aroused to newer energies, and grow stronger and more independent. It will be interesting when we come to view this proposition in the light of the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade, showing how it worked when applied to actual practice, especially in its relation to the silk industries of the country. The foregoing expression has fallen from the lips of advocates of free trade in the Congress of the United States, as though it was a spontaneous outburst of eloquence from a recent convert to the cause. It has been heralded throughout the world, and stands as one of the cardinal maxims of the Manchester School. Before the people of the United States expose their industries to the stimulating "breezes of competition," it will be well to ascertain how it has worked on those English industries which ha\-e been trying it for the last thirty years. Running through the evi- dence of the commission referred to, we shall find conclusive proofs that free competition, instead of having the effect claimed in free trade prophecies, has proven a hindrance to exertion, enterprise and progress. The following is another proposition which was put out by the advo- cates of free trade. It was asserted that — " //■ a/iv industry of a coimtry becomes in whole or in part suppla7ited bv competition, the capital ayid labor which it had engaged would be let loose to find more prof table employment a7id investment in some other home industry." This proposition is of vital importance. If it is sound a nation would in part be compensated for the loss of an industry through competition. This assertion involves one of the most extravagant assumptions to be found in the whole theory of free trade. It assumes that the foreign mar- kets for domestic products will always be equal to the productive capacity of the country. For instance, if 200,000 artisans employed in the silk industry were unable to make silk goods as cheaply as they could be made in France, then it would be more profitable for the English people to buy those goods in France at a lower price, and instead of the 200,000 artisans in the silk factories working for eight or ten shillings a week in order to hold the home market, they could readily abandon silk- weaving and at once find employment in the cotton factories, or some other industry' in England, which would be capable of resisting foreign aggression. This proposition involved the idea that as one or more industries were entirely destroyed by competition, the other industries would necessarily be increased by the capital and labor which had left the less profitable, em- ployment rushing into tho.se which remained, always assuming that England would still hold supremacy in a sufficient number of industries to gi\e employment to all her artisans. It never occurred to Mr. Cobden and RETURN TO FREE TRADE. his associates that there was any danger of a failure of this principle. It was assumed that the people of England still and at all times would be enough cleverer than the people of other countries to prosper just as they had before. It never dawned upon them that the time might arrive when the cotton industry, the woolen industry, the iron and steel industry, the linen industry, and, in fact, every other industry, would at the same time all be subjected to the same vital competition; be driven out of neutral markets, undermined, crippled, and their progress arrested by the sale of competing goods at home. Yet this is precisely what has occurred and what is now occurring in England. The great problem which the English people are now compelled to face is not the fact that they can buy bread-stuffs, silks and a few manufactured articles cheaper in other countries than they can be produced in England, but that everything that is made by the hand of man can be produced so cheaply on the Con- tinent of Europe that the only way English factories can be kept running, is by reducing profits to a minimum and wages to a starvation point. The exercise of great economy in production has become a necessity as a matter of defence at home. Another proposition urged by free traders was, that ' ' no harm conies to a nation if the goods are bought abroad ; it must sell as much as it buys, for goods are bought, not really with the intermediate instrument money, but with goods given in exchange and sent abroad.'" It was known as the ' ' goods for goods theory. ' ' If this were true a country would sell no more than it buys, consequently as its purchases increased or declined, its sales would increase or diminish in like proportion. For every thousand dollars' worth of goods imported into England it was claimed that another thou.sand dollars' worth of some other kind of goods must be made in England to give in exchange for the import . Hence, such imports create a demand for goods to be made in English factories. When this proposition was announced the English people were believed to be capable of fully supplying the home demand from their own factories. It was not contemplated that competing imports would, to any extent, ever displace domestic production. Hence, the proposition in its application to the conditions existing in England at the time the policy of free trade was adopted, involved simply the exchange of manufactured goods for raw materials and those farm products, the like of which could not be produced in England ("the advocates of free trade placing agricultural products in the same category as raw materials). The exchange of manufactured goods for manufactured goods was not involved in this proposition, because it was not contemplated that the English people would be compelled to abandon any domestic manufactur- ing \inder the operation of free trade. The experience of England for two centuries had disproved the proposition last stated. The balance of trade had been in her favor since ' Letter of Bouamy Price to Fair Trade Banquet May i6, 1SS7. EXGLAXD UNDER FREE TRADE. the earh' part of the eighteenth century, and it is diiEcult to comprehend b.ow, in the face of the experience of nations, free trade economists could have announced a proposition so absolutely fallacious and contrary to the experience ofmankind. It, however, was advanced to allay the fears of thosepeopleof other countries to whom the English manufacturers addressed their free trade literature. It has been persistently urged that if the United States would abandon her protective tariffs, she would not suffer from large purchases of manufactured goods from England, because the English people would take in payment therefor, agricultural products, and hence the same capital and labor which would have been employed in the pro- duction of the manufactured articles, had they been made in the United States, would be engaged in producing the farm products exchanged. The inducement involved in this proposition has not only been held out to the people of the United States, but to every agricultural region on the face of the globe. The advantage which England would- hold under the opera- tion of free trade was well known. Her productive capacity had become so great that, with the use of machinery, the labor of one man in England, in converting raw materials into finished products, was equivalent to the labor of a great many men in growing farm produce in the United States ; consequently, while England could supply several countries with manu- factured articles, her small population could consume onlj' a small part of the surplus farm produce and raw materials of the United States. This inequality in the productive capacity of a manufacturing population, com- pared with agriculturists, made it absolutely certain that England could inundate the United States with her wares, while she would purchase only a small part of the farm products which the people of the United States would have to sell. The advantages which are secured to a nation which converts raw materials into finished products, over a nation which confines itself to the production of raw materials, is verj- clearly brought out by Mr. Henry Cary Baird, in the following: " Straws manufactured in and now received from Switzerland, Germany, France and Italy, are sold in this country at as high a rate as $10,000 per ton." Flax is manufactured into cam- brics, laces and embroideries, and sold, on an average, for more than $10,000 per ton. "When this increase in value is fully considered, and it is borne in mind that raw materials, including agricultural produce, are almost exclusively the result of human labor; that manufactured products are, to an equal extent, the result of steam and machine power; that about six thousand times as much human labor is necessary to produce the same result, when it can be reached at all, without the aid of steam as with it ; the superior productive power of a manufacturing nation as compared with that of a nation which confines itself to agri- culture becomes apparent. It is evident that free trade was intended to secure and hold a monopoly of steam power and machinery, with all the RETURN TO FREE TRADE. immense profits and advantages which they would confer upon one countrj' over the rest of the world. Assuming that the advocates of free trade knew that they were in error upon this proposition, they were so situated that their -imports could exceed their exports by a large sum each year, without its becoming neces- sary to send abroad their precious metals to settle an adverse balance of trade. The interest account upon their foreign investments would each year be settled for in goods instead of money. So long then as the balance against them did not exceed freight charges, insurance, profits of im- porters, and the interest account upon their foreign investments, they would not be called upon to export money in payment of an adverse balance of trade. Being a creditor country' , England entered upon the policy of free trade, believing, under the circumstances, that she was in no danger of having her treasury exhausted by a failure of the ' ' goods for goods ' ' theorj\ The recent experience of the English people abso- lutely demonstrates the unsoundness of the contention that import goods are always paid for with export goods. As the struggle for industrial supremacy became more intense the agricultural districts were abandoned and the cities and towns at once became overcrowded with laborers seeking employment. The raid which was made on the industries of other countries in scaling tariff barriers, to find markets for English goods, and later the increasing competition from the Continent demonstrated that the wage rate of English artisans could not be maintained; that, as Mr. Cobden asserted, Ynarkets must be won and held with cheap goods. Cheap goods could not be made with high priced labor. In order to meet competition the price of goods must be reduced to the lowest possible point. This involved small profits and low wages, or goods could not be sold. The inventive genius of the advocates of free trade met the situation with the proposition that "full employment and low wages were better than partial employment and high wages." This expression has found a place in free trade literature, im- plying that low wages necessarily bring "full employment;" but we shall see later that the operation of free trade has not only doomed Eng- lish artisans to low wages but also to " partial employment." When free trade was first announced, it was claimed that two jobs would seek after one man; the result has been that two men are .seeking after the same job. The laboring masses of England have been driven to a point where "partial employment" and low wages are the normal condition of the organized skilled labor, while there exist millions of unemployed, a vast "residuum," as it is called, living in a most wretched and most hope- less condition. As early as 1826 Mr. Huskisson said that, "To enable capital to obtain a fair remuneration, wages must be kept down." An effort has been made to mislead the laboring masses, by the assertion that the EXGLAXn rXDEB FREE TRADE. nation which pays to its artisans the highest wages, will for that reason make tlie cheapest goods and undersell those rivals who pay lower wages. The industrial supremacy through the application of machiner}-, the accumulation of capital, and the monopoly of foreign markets ac- quired by the English people under the system of protection brought about an increase in the wages of English artisans. The question whether such wage rate could be maintained and still further extended was one of the problems involved in the adoption of free trade. It was well under- stood by the English manufacturers that the cost of production depends so largely upon the wage rate that high wages could be maintained only in those industries in whi®h their artisans were possessed of a higher degree of skill and efficiency than the artisans of rival industries. It was never contended for a moment by English manufacturers that high wages alone bring such superior efficiency. It is true that handworkmen paid low wages cannot compete with those using machinery, although paid double the wage rate. It was not high wages that were to bring cheap produc- tion, but it was superior skill and efficiency and low wages. When the artisans of the Continent were provided with the same machiners^ sub- jected to the same training and direction in its use, and manufacturing came to be carried on with the same advantages of accumulated capital that superiority which the English artisans possessed in certain lines began to disappear. It was found that the English manufacturers could not pay higher wages than were paid on the Continent and successfully compete in neutral markets. This condition forced the employers, as a matter of self- defence, to reduce wages in England toward the level on the Continent. The experience of the last twenty-five years in England has demonstrated that, other things being equal, low wages bring cheap production. The evidence before the Royal Commission on the Depres.sion of Trade, quoted later, will be found most conclusive on this point. The experience of tke English people since 1874 has tested the unsoundness of all the free trade propositions stated above. It has demon- strated the truth of the position maintained by protectionists, that the \Vhole system of free trade rested upon theories which were fallacious and would not stand the test of actual experience. The adoption of the policy of free trade by the United Kingdom in 1S46 was in many respects the most important event in the commercial history- of the world. That the leading commercial nation should utterly repudiate the system of protection, and expose its own artisans and pro- ducers to the unrestricted competition of all countries, was an evidence of confidence in its ability to succeed under the new policy. This one fact standing out before the world, confirmed by the conceded ability, sagacity and intelligence of this the most advanced nation in commercial affairs, conferred upon the new creed a character which commanded the attention and careful consideration of the wisest statesmen and ablest business men lUCTURN TO FREE TRADE. of the entire world. When the doctrines of free trade were proclaimed, the foundation of all prior economic ideas was for a time shaken. The sound and beneficent principles of protection were at once obscured bj- the criticisms and attacks leveled against the objectionable features of the mercantile system, especially those which had ceased to be necessary to the maintenance of the industries of modern countries. At the time that the doctrine of free trade was promulgated, its advocates possessed one advantage over their adversaries. Free trade was a new and untried policy. No leading commercial nation had tested the soundness of its principles or subjected her industries to its influences. The effect of an application of its principles and dogmas upon the influstries of a countrj- was purely a matter of speculation and conjecture. When the doctrine of free trade was proclaimed, it was asserted with .such a degree of confidence that the economic world was almost taken by storm. The English press, pro- fessors, manufacturers and statesmen were busy flooding the world with literature favoring the new policy. From this time all manner of tricks were played with statistics, the facts of history were constantly sup- pressed, and a gigantic scheme of misrepresentation was practiced. Every person who failed to endorse this policy was treated with contempt, ridi- culed, and denounced as being either ignorant or controlled by selfish- ness. Those who have attempted to establish industries in other countries, under protection, have always been assailed as monopolists and enemies of the people. Those who, by protection, were stimulating, fostering and building up industries were accused of placing obstructions, hindrances and barriers in the way of trade and commerce, when in fact they were only raising barriers to prevent English maimfacturers from acquiring an absolute monopoly of the markets of the entire world, and to prevent their own industries from being .slaughtered. It should be borne in mind that, during the past twenty years, nearly all the books which have been cir- culated throughout the United States and other countries, favoring the policy of free trade, were written between 1846 and 1870, and before a fair test was made of the system favored. The period under consideration divides itself naturally into two parts. First, from 1846 to about 1874, during which time England held such absolute supremacy in manufacturing, that she was virtually without competitors in neutral markets, and at the same time able, in nearly e\ery department, to defy rivals at home. It will be shown in later chapters that Germany, France and other Continental countries, as they gradually recovered from the impoverished condition in which they were left at the close of the Napoleonic wars, began to work out the policy of building up their home industries, under the system of protection. The substitution of machinery for hand workmanship was necessary, in order to bring them within the advantages arising from those new inventions and appliances which were in use in Great Britain. The factory system, ENGLAND UNDER FREE TRADE. or the carrying on of the various lines of manufacturing, especially iron and steel, and textile industries, by the concentration of a vast amount of capital, made the building of large plants and a gigantic industrial S5'stem necessary. By 1870, the people of the Continent had advanced so far in the development of their industries, under the new conditions, that they were becoming competitors of Great Britain. Again, the English manu- facturers derived great advantage by the reduction of duties on imports into other countries, which for a time, enabled them more easily to enter foreign markets. Under the Reciprocity Treaty of i860, France continued to admit the products of English factories under lower duties, until 1882, when the French Government refused to renew the treatj' and returned to a high protective tariff. From 1865 to 1879, Germany and Prussia practiced free trade. Spain, Portugal, Austria and kussia were at this time pursuing a policy more favorable to the admission of English goods. During this period English manufacturers had fewer barriers to over- come, and consequently were able, by means of competition, to prevent a more rapid growth of rival industries on the Continent, in spite of the universal business activity, arising from causes which were beginning to operate at the time free trade was adopted in Great Britain. The discoveries of gold, the building of railroads, the substitution of steam for sailing vessels, all greatly stimulated business enterprises. The con- ditions which prevailed between 1850 and 1870, were such that a fair trial of the principles of free trade could not be made. The real test of the benefits or disadvantages of the policy of free trade, must be found under sharp free competition. No injuries can come to the indus- tries of a country, so long as they hold such an advantage over would-be rivals, as enable them to undersell and control their markets. So long as the English manufacturers could hold their own markets against all rivals, drive all competitors out of neutral markets, and scale the tariff barriers of other coimtries with their surplus produce, and sell them .so cheaply that the industrial progress of those countries so invaded was held in check, it cannot be said that, so far as Great Britain herself was con- cerned, she was making any test of the principles of free trade. It should also be remembered that, at the time this policy was entered upon, the English people held a monopoly of the manufacturing and carrying trade of the entire world. With the vast sums invested in enterprises and loans in foreign countries, the large interest account which each year came to England was .sufficient to settle a large adverse balance of trade, without draining the precious metals from the country. A creditor nation is in less danger of having its gold withdrawn by an adver.se balance of trade, than a debtor country. During the period in question, Engli.sh commerce enjoyed the same steady expansion which had been going on for a whole century, and was subjected to few influences which retarded or interfered with it. In any event the causes which contributed to the expansion of liETVEN TO. FREE TRADE. trade so overbalanced the injuries to its agricultural and other industries, that as a whole, the nation continued to be prosperous. The pre-eminence of Great Britain in 1850, when she entered upon her free trade policy, as a manufacturing nation, when compared with any country or any period in the history of the world, is one of the marvels of the age. With accumulated capital more vast at that time tlian any nation in Christendom; with a most energetic, venturesome and determined body of business men, ready to hazard anything and stop at nothing in their race for wealth, equipped as they were, nothing but the most unforeseen calamities could prevent unexampled increase in wealth and business en- terprises. Holding a monopoly of the carrying trade of the world; without a rival or successful competitor in the production of cottons, woolens, linens, iron and steel. Great Britain had reason to believe that nothing but an absolute closing of foreign markets to her trade could stop its unlimited expansion and growth. As early as 1828 the .steam-power alone of the countrj- was estimated to be equivalent to 1,800,000 laborers. By 1850 they possessed 1,290,000 of steam-power, while all Europe possessed 2,240,000. By 1854 it was estimated by the Anti-Corn Law League, ' that the 28,000,000 of people in the United Kingdom had the productive capacity of 600,000,000 of people practicing the methods in use before the invention in machinery. These 28,000,000 of people, being a little over two per cent of the entire population of the globe, consumed one-half of the raw cotton grown in the world and converted it into fabrics in their factories.' -In 1840, out of 30,000,000 tons of coal raised from their mines, 29,000,000 tons were con- sumed at home. In 1850, out of 81,000,000 tons of coal mined in the entire world, 49,000,000 tons were produced in England, 46,000,000 tons of which were consumed at home. As early as 1840 21 per cent, nearly one-fourth of the external trade of the entire world, was carried on through English ports. This was the condition in which England found herself when she entered upon the policy of free trade after three hundred years of the most vigorous system of protection that was e\-er pursued by any nation. At this time an unforeseen event occurred which gave to the busine.ss of the world an impetus of the greatest magnitude. The discovery of gold in California in 1849, and in Australia in 1851, increased the quantity of primary money of the world, and furnished a basis for the vast under- takings upon which all nations were then entering. The extensive busi- ness relations of Great Britain enabled her manufacturers and shippers to secure the largest share of this treasure, and especially that portion mined in Australia. Mr. Yeats, in speaking of the treasure found in Australia, says : Within ten years gold was sent to England to the amount of ^100,000.000. During two or three years of this period an annual average exceeding ^"12,000,'boo ' Charter of the Nations, p. 199. ' Yeats' Recent and Existing Commerce, p. 9J. ENGLAND UNDER FREE TRADE. arrive in England, and the quantity found within more recent years still amounts to from /"7, 000,000 to /S,ooo,ooo annually. The total exports of gold between 1851 and 1868 amounted to more than ^31,000,000 from New South Wales, and above /I38,ooo,ooo from Victoria— an aggregate of more than /i69,ooo,ooo. These well nigh incredible sums are amounts entered on ships manifest, and are irrespective of the gold retained in the colony and the large sums brought under private charge.' The advantages which the business world derived from the increased supply of the precious metals may be gathered somewhat from the extent of its production. Between 1850 and 1870 at least $2,500,000,000 was added to the circulating medium of the world. England received a large share. The value of the gold coined at the British mint during the fifteen years ending with 1854 was $327,500,000, and during the fifteen years ending in 1869 it was $382,500,000. Thus an average of $22,500,000 was put in circulation each year, in addition to what was consumed in the arts and manufactures. It should be noted that during this period also the increase in the metals gave to the manufacture of jewelry, watches and plated ware, a great impetus. The value of gold remaining in England in 1870 was $590,000,000.^ England was already the richest country on the globe, with a large class of people who for years had been investing their incomes in foreign securities, and supplying capital for the vast undertakings of other coun- tries. With the treasures from the mines of Australia flowing into the pockets of English capitalists, they were much stronger than ever before for commercial conquests. Apart from the vast incomes of the manufac- turers, the resources of the English nobility and landed gentry were of the greatest magnitude. Mr. Colton (1848) gives some interesting figures on this point : The annual income of the Duke of Sutherland is $1,742,240 ; that of the Duke of Northumberland is 11,452,000; that of the Marquis of Westminster is $1,355,000; that of the Duke of Buccleugh is |i, 210,000. The English nobility alone, num- bering about four hundred peers, not including Irish and Scotch, receive an annual income of $26,026,000. The annual income of the English gentrj-, not reckon- ing Irish and Scotch, including baronets, knights, country and other gentlemen, is $256,250,000, or more than one-sixth of the aggregate income of all classes of the British empire, England, Ireland and Scotland, which is about $14,520,000,000. The civil list or annual appropriations for the royal household, fixed on William IV., was $2,468,400. This grant to William IV. was a reform ; as it appears that the annual average of the civil list from 1760, the accession of George III. to the demise of George IV. was $6,364,600. The annual incomes of persons employed under the British Government is $34,673,200.' With more capital at their command than an^^ other nation, they were capable of taking advantage of business opportunities as they arose, and turning them to their own profit. By 1850 conditions had arisen which added immeasurably to the profits which might be derived from their 'Recent and Existing Commerce, p. 92. -Simmond's Science and Commerce, p. 8. ^pui^jjc RETURN TO FREE TRADE. iron industries. The period of railroad and steamship building, which began about 1840, by 1850 had so attracted the attention of capitalists that it was considered a great field for future speculations and the in- vestment of capital, by those possessed of vast wealth. The building of locomotives, tenders, the making of iron and steel rails, and other mate- rials to be used in the construction, required extensive plants and the investment of large capital. England with her iron ore adjacent to her coal fields; with her iron furnaces, experienced artisans, engineers and manufacturers, was better equipped for entering upon this new industry, than any other country. America, the British colonies, all new countries and even the Continent of Europe looked to English capitalists to furnish money, and to English manufacturers for a large portion of the materials. The magnitude of the English iron industry from 1854 to 1857 is shown in a paper published in the Mining Record, under the direction of Mr. R. Hunt, in connection with the Museum of Practical Geology of Eondon. Total Produce of Pig-iron in Great Britain. Engi,and. Tons. Northumberland 63,250 Durham, 284,500 Yorkshire 296,838 Lancashire, 1.233 Cumberland, 30.515 Derbyshire, ." . 112,160 Shropshire, 117. 141 North Staffordshire, I34.057 South Staffordshire and Worcestershire 657,295 Northamptonshire, 11,500 Gloucestershire, 23,882 Somersetshire, 300 Wales, North, 37. 049 Wales, South, anthracite districts 63,440 Wales, South, bituminous districts 907,287 Scotland, 918,000 Ireland, 1,000 Total produce in Great Britain and Ireland 3.659.447 The quantity of iron ore raised in all parts of the United Kingdom in 1857, and used in the production of pig-iron, was found, from the same returns, to be 9,573.- 281 tons. For smelting which, there were in active operation in England 333 blast-furnaces Wales, 170 " Scotland 124 " Ireland, I " " Total, . 62S ENGLAND UNDER FREE TRADE. The mean average price of the pig-iron, "mixed muubers, " deducted from all the sales of the year, was £2, los. 2d. ; which gives the market value of the pig- iron made as /12, 838, 560 per annum. If we assume that the make of the iron has increased in the same rate since 1S57, it must now amount to 4,250,000 tons. In connection with the above, we insert the following table from Mr. Kenyon Blackwell's paper on the "Iron Industrj' of Great Britain," read before the Society of Arts. It gives the estimated production of crude iron in the various countries: Tons. Great Britain, 3,000,000 France, 750,000 United States, 750,000 Prussia 300,000 Austria, 250,000 Belgium, Russia Sweden Various German States, Other countries, . . . Tons. 200,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 300,000 Total, 6,000,00c The following table gives the annual production of steel iu various countries : England — Cast steel, . . Bar steel, . . . Spring steel, .... 10, Tons. Tons. 23,000 France, 15,000 7,000 Prussia, 5.453 Austria, 13.037 United States 10,000 Total, In referring to the above, it will be seen that Great Britain produces as much crude iron as all other countries put together ; and a great portion of that iron, being converted into bars and plates, indicates a large and important article of production — an article of immense value to the country, of great demand at home and abroad, and justly entitled not only to improvements and economy iu its manufacture, but to the generous support of a liberal and enlightened government.' In considering the causes which contributed to the growth of English indu.stry, and the expansion of their trade between 1850 and 1S70, the railroad building which took place not only in England^ but throughout the world, must not be lost sight of. In 1850 there were 6600 miles of railroad in the United Kingdom, representing an invested capital of $440,- 000,000, with annual receipts of $66,250,000 ; while by 1870, the number of miles had reached 15,000, with an invested capital of $2,650,000,000, with receipts of $200,000,000 per annum. It was during this period that Mr. Thomas Brassey, perhaps the most famous and largest railroad con- tractor that ever lived, was building railroads in England and on the Con- tinent. At one time the concerns with which he was a&sociated had in their employ in all of their departments 80,000 laborers, in the production of material and the construction of railroads in many countries. In 1865 there were built in England eighty locomotives for the East India railroad. At this time the English manufacturer could make locomotives, 'The Tariff Question, by Bigelow, Appendix No i. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. I rails and appliances more cheaply than they could be supplied from the Continent. The magnitude of the iron industry in England, during this time, and the enormous profits which must have arisen from it in its rela- tion to railroads alone, may be estimated from the number of miles con- structed during this period throughout the world. The following summary of the railroads in existence in 1866 shows the large amount of business that must have fallen to the English manufac- turers during the twenty years preceding that date, the period within which they were constructed: Miles of Railroads in Operation in 1866. North American, 39,414.1 West Indies, 410.3 South American, 1,041.9 Total American 40,866.3 Europe 50,117.5 Asia, 3,660.5 Africa 375.4 Australia, 607.7 Total of the world, 95,627. The magnitude of the textile industries in 1 856 is shown by the fol- lowing extract from a paper on the ' ' Progress of Textile Manufactures in Great Britain," read March 6, 1861, before the Society of Arts, London, by Alexander Redgrave, one of her Majesty's inspectors of factories : There are four classes of raw products convertible into textile fabrics; these are cotton, wool and worsted; flax, hemp and its tribe, and silk. Wool and worsted, klthough the same material, are of a different natilre, and require to be manufactured in a different manner. They are, therefore, treated of separately. It is usual to divide the textile fabrics into five classes. The cotton trade represents more than one-half of the whole of the textile fabrics. The woolen manufacture, once the chief textile industry of the country, ranks second in importance. Worsted, which is obtained by separating the long fibre of the wool from the shorter staple, ranks as the tliird. Flax is fourth, and silk is the fifth and last. There are various methods of exliibiting the extent of these manufactures, in some of which, perhaps, the order in which I have enumerated them might be varied ; but taking the general importance and probable value of the several branches of manufacture, the order in which tliey have been named will be found the most correct. Statistics have been procured at intervals by the inspectors of factories with reference to the establishments under their supervision, viz., those in which either of the raw materials enumerated are spun or manufactured. No account has ever been taken of the print-works, bleaching and dyeing works, lace factories, etc., which are excluded from the operation of the Factory Acts ; and the following figures refer, therefore, to those establishments only in which the first processe.ss of manu- facture up to and including the weaving are carried on by aid of water or steam- power : ENGLAND UNDER FREE TRADE. Cotton, . Wool, . Worsted, Flax, . . Silk, . . 2,210 1,505 525 417 460 97.132 25,901 14.904 18,322 5,176 161,435 28,010,217 1,786,972 1,324,549 1,288,043 1,093,799 298,847 14,453 36,956 7,689 9,260 367,205 Number of Persons Employed. 379,213 79,091 87,794 80,262 56,137 682,497 As I have before stated, the above figures refer only to persons employed in estab- lishments subject to the provisions of the Factory Acts, amounting to 682,497; and I have estimated, after making various calculations and consulting the best authorities, that there are 887,369 persons employed upon textile fabrics in establishments not under the provisions of the Factory Acts; which two classes of persons have dependent upon them at least 3,000,000 of unemployed persons; representing a total of 4,568,082 persons dependent upon the textile fabrics for their maintenance— being in the pro- portion of 16 per cent, or one-sixth of the population. But there are others, though not directly employed upon the fabrics themselves, equally dependent upon the pros- perity of textile manufactures for their subsistence. For instance: Those engaged in the procuring of coal (at least 3,000,000 tons are consumed per annum in factories, print-works, etc.) ; those engaged in the procuring of iron, engine and machine makers ; those engaged in the leather trade, in the manufacture of grease, in the procuring of oil, dry wares, paper, skips or baskets, and of various minor articles used in the manufacturing establishments; those employed in warehouses, etc., etc. At a moderate computation, I reckon that the above persons and their families would raise the number of those dependent upon the textile fabrics to 20 per cent, or one-fifth of the population. Such is the manufacturing power of British factories. I regret that the means do not exist for comparing all of these statements with the statistics of foreign countries. Although in some countries accurate accounts are taken by the government of the various occupations of the people, and the size and extent of industrial establishments, yet so nmch of that which is performed under the factory system in England forms a part of a domestic system abroad, that it is not easy to institute a comparison with foreign countries; and I ^m obliged, therefore, to limit comparison to "cotton fabrics," for which I have obtained the following statements of the principal countries in Europe: Countries. No. of Factories. No. of Spindles. No. of Persons Employed. Austria, Bavaria, Belgium 202 18 169 2,394 132 70 134 132 30 1,500,000 558,700 600,000 3.457,552 194,290 1,400,000 604,646 1,112,625 440,000 30 12 12 244 5 50 12 20 020 000 000 579 201 000 000 000 Saxony Switzerland The smaller States of Germany, . . 3,281 9,867,813 393,800 Great Britain and Ireland, .... 2,210 28,010,217 379,213 RETURN TO FREE TRADE. The above number of spindles— say, in round numbers, 10,000,000— are known to be in operation in certain countries in Europe, being those most engaged in industrial pursuits, and containing an aggregate population of 160,000,000. If to the remaining countries, containing a population of 55,000,000, we give 4,000,000 spindles — which is a very large estimate for Spain, Portugal, Itah-, Turkey, Greece, Denmark, Holland, etc.— it will be found that the Continent of Europe gives emploj'ment to 14,000,000 spindles. To this number must be added the probable number in operation in America, which has been estimated not to exceed 7,000,000. There will then be a total of 21,000,000 owi of England, tended by every variety of race, each with their diSerent characteristics and habits; while in Great Britain alone there are 28,000,000, tended by industrious, intelligent and steady operatives. The following shows the value of the various textile fabrics manufactured in this country in 1S56 : Character of Fabrics. Estimated Value of Goods Mauufactured. Value Exported. Estimated Value Consumed in this Country. Cotton, Wool /55, 298, 778 23,942,976 12,715,569 15,100,000 18,900,000 ^38,283,770 5,985,744 6,415,569 6,262,528 2,966,938 ^17,015,008 17,975,232 6,300,000 Worsted, Silk,' :;;.■;;;;: 8,837,412 15,933.062 125,957,323 59,914,609 66,060,7141 Mr. Gladstone stated in one of his speeches, speaking of the period from 1854 to 1870, that British trade "grew by leaps and bounds." Every free trade book is filled with the most glowiiig accounts of the expansion of their industries during this period, attributing it all, of course, to the adoption of free trade. They ignore all those elements which were the prime catises of such expansion. They, of course, con- ceal the fact that it was a period of universal business and commer- cial activity in all countries. The constant extension of machinery and the application of discoveries in science, the accumulation of wealth, the building of railroads, were revolutionizing the commercial affairs of all civilized nations. These causes created a demand for commodities which England was best able to supplj-. That ability had arisen from a fitness which had been reached under the policy of protection. Wherever protec- tive barriers were removed in other countries, her markets were extended and her trade increased. In all instances where .she had greater facilities for supplying the new demands which had arisen, her markets were extended. In all instances, where on account of superior skill and longer experience the English manufacturers were better able to supply goods than other countries, they .secured the trade. It was the supremacy which had been acquired by long years of experience, and by new inventions, that enabled the Engli.sh people during this period to extend their foreign commerce and increase the outptit of their factories to such a great extent. In i860, ' The Tariff Question, by Bigelow, Appendix, 108. ENGLAND UNDER FREE TRADE. the mechanics, especially of the United States, and nearly of the whole world, were using tools made in England. The superior quality and repu- tation which they had acquired gave them a preference over all others, It has been said that in i860 a large percentage of the merchandise on sale in the stores of the United States and of all the British colonies and possessions were the productions of English factories. The free trader boasting of the expansion of their trade, ignores all scientific discoveries and appliances in chemistry, electricity, pneumatics, hydraulics, and mechanics. What was really accomplished by scientific means is placed to the credit of free trade. It was the building of railroads which made the market for English iron, that increased this branch of commerce, and not the adoption of free trade in 1846. Her trade would have grown if she had continued her protective policy, just as it had grown and expanded for one hundred years prior to 1846. The advocates of free trade have kept constantly before the world, and pictured in most glittering terms, the increase in their exports and imports during this period. Mr. Newmarch, in 1878, recognizing the absurd lengths to which the praise of free trade was being carried, said: Before entering upon the details of this inquiry, it is perhaps necessary to say, as a preliminary remark, that in treating of this vast extension of industry and foreign trade in this country, during the last twenty or thirty years, it is not for a moment intended to affirm that the whole of these extensions, or even the larger part of them, are due to free trade alone. It is a conclusion of common observation and common sense, that the progress of population, invention, science, and resources, have all most powerfully contributed to the producing and competing power of the country.' In the succeeding chapter it is proposed to take up the other side and show that, in the midst of the expansion of trade which was going on, the increase of imports had begun that system of undermining their domestic industries, which during the last twenty-five years has been dis- placing labor, diminishing profits and destroying the industrial life of the nation. > Journal, XLI-, Part 2, June, 1878, of the Statistical Society, Fair Trade Journal, Vol. I, p. 158. CHAPTER IV. Free Trade and English Industries. That was our real idea of " free trade " — " all the trade to myself ! " You find now that by "competition " other people can manage to sell something as well as you — and now we call for protection again. Wretches ! — Ruskin. The Bimiinghani Daily Times has unearthed the following advertisement, from the Times of 1849, headed : What does free trade mean ? It means : Using French boots and shoes, and leaving the English shoemaker to starve. Using French gloves, and sending the Worcester glovemakers to the work- house. Using Geneva clocks and watches, and ruining the Clerkenwell watchmakers. Preferring Brazilian sugar, and ruining our own West Indian Colonies. Using French silks, and pauperizing Spitalfields. Admitting Polish and American corn, and ruining our own farmers. This is free trade. There is not another nation on the face of the earth besides England, so stupid as to tolerate it. There were prophets in those days. The second part of the period under consideration begins about the year 1874 and closes with the year 1894, a term of twenty years, during which it may be said that all the dogmas and alleged doctrines of free trade have been put to a sharp test in England. During this period, the Continental countries reached such a development of their industries that they had become strong and vigorous competitors of Great Britain, not only in neutral markets but in the home market, as well. It is during this time also, that we find the only test of the actual workings of free trade in a great manufacttiring countrj', when subject to vigorous competition. How else could the test of the efficacy of free trade Ik- applied ? It certainly is not in those industries in which a nation holds a monopoly. The United States requires no protection to cotton raising, because it can be grown in abundance and so cheaply that it is not sul> jected to the competition of the importation of cotton grown in other countries ; but should the time ever come when American cotton manu- facturers could be supplied with raw cotton from Egypt, Asia or South America, at a lower price than it could be profitably grown in the Southern States, then the question would present itself of the necessity of protection to this product. Free trade under these circumstances would determine the necessity of imposing a protective tariiT, and the injurious effects of free imports could easily be ascertained. The experience of the United Kingdom under free trade during the pa.st twenty-five years has furnished (224) FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. the world with an example of its actual operation, and has subjected the system to a more thorough test than has been applied to it in any other country. The advocates of protection are now able to point specifically to the effect of free imports upon the industries of the greatest commercial nation in the world. It is most interesting to trace the rise and growth of industries on the Continent of Europe, and through the official reports of the statistical de- partment of the British Government, the steady year- by-year advance which has been made in the imports into England of those agricultural products of the United States, South America, the Continent of Europe and Asia, which have been poured in to feed the English people, undermining and supplanting the agricultural interests. We are able now to count, year b\- 3ear, the increase of imports into England, of woolens, cotton goods, silks, and numerous other wares and articles, which are displacing English-made goods, reducing the profits of the manufacturers, silencing machinery, driving the capitalists and manufacturers out of the country to invest their money and remove their plants to those countries where they are shielded by the fostering care of protective tariffs. The student of economics to-day is able definiteh^ to point out facts which during the earlier part of the free trade movement could not be obtained. That which at first rested wholly on prophecy and conjecture is at last exposed to the crucial test of actual experience. Protectionists are now invading the stronghold of free trade, and there finding the facts which completely annihilate its alleged principles and expose its fallacies. For the first time in two centuries the industrial progress of England has been arrested; although while she was under protection her industries were subjected to short periods of business depressions, arising often from over-speculation and other causes which exist among those people who engage in vast undertakings, and respond to great stimulating influences in their enterprises. The panic following the Napoleonic wars was the natural consequence of the inflation. Other panics of similar character visited the country, but there has not been in the history of the world a depression of such long duration as the one w^hich has existed in England since 1876. It has been continuous, unabating and ever present, slight fluctuations in special trades have not checked the downward tendency, which has continued year by year. During this time profits of manufac- tures ha\"e been reduced to the lowest possible margin, and in many instances absolutely wiped out. Plants of whole branches of indus- try have become of questionable value. Repairs have been neglected. Old machinery has been used in many in.stances where there has not been sufficient confidence in a revival of business to warrant the purchase of new. Salaries of clerks, employees and salesmen have been universally reduced. The wages of artisans, for the first time in over a century, have been scaled dowr. In addition to this, only partial employment, three or '5 IJETURN TO FBEE TRADE. four days a week, has been found, where hitherto, and especially under protection, full time was made. Industries have been destroyed, manu- facturers bankrupted, and artisans either driven out of the country or reduced to pauperism. A large part of the people, nearly 5,000.000, are subjected to a condition of pauperism, or semi-pauperism. The agricul- tural industry of the country which for centuries afforded comfortable and profitable means of subsistence for a large portion of the population, is practically ruined. There has been no instance in the history of any country in modern times where such degradation, misery and poverty can be found. There is no country where such universal complaint of hard times is made. The important point to be considered is the fact that it is due to no exceptional or temporary business crisis, but has become the settled permanent condition lasting for nearly a quarter of a century, with no hope of improvement so long as free trade exists in England. It is to this period and to the conditions which have been brought about under free trade, that the attention of the reader is especially called. The free trade books, which have been circulated through the world, are devoted to the accounts of the growth of the foreign trade of Great Britain during the period immediately following the adoption of free trade; while they studiously avoid a disclosure of those conditions which have followed increased competing imports into England. Since 1 860 the world has been kept well informed upon the external trade of the United Kingdom. A record of its exports and imports is kept by the Board of Trade, which is the statistical" department of the government. This department publishes a Statistical Abstract of the exports and imports of the United Kingdom ; a similar work on the trade between the United Kingdom and foreign countries, and another on the trade with her colonies and possessions. The vast foreign trade of the countn,' has constantly been pointed to as an evidence of its flourishing condition. Without stopping to anal5'ze or classify imports, many people have taken for granted that their increase was an indication of prosperity-. The increase of such imports, especially since 1865, has overturned all the calculations of Mr. Cobden and his associates, and accomplished a result which was whollj' unexpected. On the one hand, the decline of exports of domestic productions .since 1874 has added further evidence of the decay of that industrial system which at the close of her protective period was so pre-eminent and powerful. While we are able to gather much information from the official records of the British government, which points to the ultimate ruin of the United Kingdom as a producing countrj*, we are unable from lack of official information to disclose its worst features. The free trade element which has controlled the British government during the past fifty years, has witheld from the world means of investigation which are acces.sible in the United States. It has been the policy of the United States government, in connection with an enumeration of its population FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. e\-ery ten years, to investigate the condition of its industries, and every phase of the industrial life of its people, while free trade England confines herself practically to an enumeration of her population, leaving the evi- dence of the growth or decay of her industries to the guess work of statis- ticians, who by estimates and unfair comparisons are able to produce almost an)' result desired. In 1885 the situation had become so alarm- ing and the people had become so restless that something had to be done. Parliament appointed a commission to inquire into the causes of the decline of trade. This commission took evidence during a portion of the years 1885 and 1886. While it was controlled by the free trade element of the country and as far as possible prevented a thorough in- vestigation of the economic conditions and the specific effect of free trade upon the industries of the country , sufficient facts were disclosed by the evidence of manufacturers and artisans in relation to the principal branches of manufacturing and trade to show the effects of the system of free imports. The disclosures of the effect of the importations of agricultural produce were astounding. Government experts were called before the commission and presented statistical tables and information from various departments. Reports from representatives and consuls upon the condition of trade and industries in other countries, were received. Questions were submitted to the chambers of commerce, principal businessmen's associations and labor organizations,- calling for answers upon the conditions of trade, industries and wages, during a period of twenty years, between 1864 and 1884. While the Final Report of this commission has been published and commented upon, the evidence given before it and the facts contained in the answers referred to, have not received the attention to which their importance entitles them. It is principallj^ from the proceedings of this commission that the writer has drawn his information upon the condition of British industries, trade and commerce. Silk Industry. So long as protection lasted, Macclesfield flourished. — Testimony before the Royal Commission . In writing his introduction to the second edition of the " Progress of the Nation," in 1846, Mr. G. R. Porter, speaking of the silk industrs', said : ' ' The progress of improvement in our silk manufacture is still impeded by a protective duty of 15 per cent laid upon foreign production, and our tariff continues to present some other deformities. ' ' The declara- tion that protection hinders and obstructs the expansion and growth of an industry, was one of the prime reasons given by the advocates of free trade for going the full length of repealing all protective tariffs. It was to the silk industry that Mr. Huskisson referred in the passage, quoted above, in which he urged parliament to " unbind the shackles "of protection, " per- mit it to take unrestrained its own course, " " expose it to the wholesome RETURN TO FREE TRADE. breezes of competition," remove " oppressive protection , " and " the talent, the genius, the enterprise, the capital, the industrj- of this great people will do the rest." The steady growth and expansion of this industry under the influ- ences of protection up to i860 have already been pointed out. From 1826 to 1846, it was shielded from foreign competition by an ad valorem duty of 30 per cent. In the legislation of 1846 the duty was reduced to an average of 15 per cent, which was continued until i860, at the time of the negotia- tion of the Reciprocity Treaty with France. The ruin of this industry by the adoption of free trade affords a striking example of the unsoundness and imbecility of free trade maxims. The ' ' shackles ' ' with which it was bound were thrown off. It was permitted " to take unrestrained its own course." It was exposed "to the wholesome breezes of competition." " The talent, the genius, the enterprise, the capital, and the industry " of the English silk producers were given full opportunity to develop and expand this industry to the highest degree of perfection. After being " burdened " and its improvement " impeded " by protection (as the free traders asserted), it was now given an opportunity to exhibit results under the stimulating influence of free trade. What has been the result ? In i860 the indu.strj' was in a most flourishing condition. Not only in popu- lous districts, but in almost every village in the midland counties, it was giving employment to people and adding an important part to the indus- trial life of the kingdom. In i860 it gave employment to 160,000 people. Counting three persons to a family it may be fairly estimated that 480,000 persons found their means of support in this industry. It appeared from the evidence of John Newton, given before the Rojal Commission, that in 1885, the number of hands employed had been reduced to 60,000. Up to this time then 100,000 artisans had been displaced by foreign importations and the goods which they had formerly made in England were giving support to laborers on the Continent. The decline did not stop here. It appeared by the census of factorj' inspectors of 1890, that the number of persons employed in this industry was only 41,277.' Another evidence of the decline of this industry is found in the de- creased consumption of raw silk, which was reduced in value from $32- 530,600 in i860 to $7,912,605 in 1875, and to $6,096,610 in 1890. No sooner were the duties removed than the flooding of English markets with French fabrics began. The importations for home consumption were $14,134,525 in i860, and by 1870 they had reached the enormous sum of $74,660,150, and in 1890 they were $51,915,765. Exposed to the competition of Continental rivals the English manufacturers had not only been prevented from extending their trade and selling the'ir goods in foreign markets, but their own home market had been surrendered to foreigners. It is now a conceded fact that the withdrawal of protection was the cause ' The Financial Reform Alnmnae for 1894. FKEE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTBIES of the ruin of this industry. The chief centres of silk manufactures that were so prosperous and thriving in iS6o have been ruined. Macclesfield gave employment to 14,000 people in 1859. By 1885 the number had been reduced to 5000. In Manchester the industry su.stained forty fac- tories, which by 1886 had been reduced to five. Instead of employing 30,000 people, as was the case in 1S60, the number had been reduced by 1 886 to 3000. Previous to the adoption of free trade there were between 5000 and 6000 dyers in England employed in the silk dyeing trade. The number had been reduced to 1200, by 1886. John Newton, a silk dyer connected with the trade, in his evidence, said: "It is the cost of labor that has entirely killed the silk trade in Manchester. ' ' ' Henry Birchenough, a silk manufacturer of Macclesfield, in his evidence before the Royal Commission, .said: Competition is pressing us increasingly, more especially from countries which produce most cheaply; from Switzerland and from Germany. Our profit is perpetu- ally cut down. The price is controlled by the merchant who buys and then sells to the retailer or shipper, and who also buys from the foreign manufacturers, placing us directh- in competition with them. That operates to bring our prices down to our competitors in trade. Some ten or fifteen years since our chief competitor was France. During the last ten years Germany and Switzerland have come into the field. I attribute the difference in price, in the first place, to the rate of wages; and in the second place, to a considerable difference in the charge for general expenses. The Italians, for instance, who work under the very cheapest conditions, have been able to compete successfully with all countries, France, Germany-, England and Switzerland in plain fabrics. They can make such goods by power looms. They work about twelve hours in the day and employ young girls at low wages. Their loom sheds are small structures put up at a very light expense.'' The following evidence of witnesses before the Royal Commission on Industry in 1885, discloses the practical operation of free trade principles upon this industry: Peter Malkin, silk weaver from Macclesfield, said: I have been acquainted with the weaving branch of the silk trade since the year 1842, four j'ears previous to the repeal of the Com Laws. About this time, nameh-, the year 1842, it was concluded that there were in and about Macclesfield, between 4000 and 5000 hand looms at work, and the trade in every department was busy. In 1S49, a book list of prices (wages), was formulated by twelve manufacturers and twelve weavers. Comparing the prices that are paid to the weaver now and what he received ten years ago, and to what the book list of 1849 testifies, I .should sa}- that the reduc- tions generally which have taken place are 15, 25 and 30 per cent. But to revert to Macclesfield as to how it fared after the French treaty came into operation, it would be correct to say that for many years subsequently the whole trade of the town was prostrated, and it got the opprobrious name applied to it, through its sad condition, of the " doomed town," and down to 1S6S there were, according to statistics obtained at the time, 1300 houses empty out of 7000. During the last seven years five mills have closed in Macclesfield, and one very ' Royal Commission, Report 11, Part I, p. 2S9. -Id., p. 276. EETVHN TO FREE TRADE. important mill. There are a great number of operatives out of work. I have made particular inquiries about the wages that they receive, and they average inside between 9f. and los., and outside somewhere about 7^. and ys. 6d. or lower. If the cost of production should go so low as to equal the cost of production ou the Continent, we then should be in a fair condition for sustaining our trade. But a question occurs to me as to whether we should be able to go down sufficiently low for that; but if we are unable to do so, then trade must go.' Bastiat .said that free trade is a .self-leveling proces.s. This is trtie, but it always levels down, and never levels up. It reduces a country to the same wage rate and mode of living as its competitors. The struggle does not cease here, but goes on. The downward course is not arrested until one or the other is exhausted and surrenders. The practical opera- tion of this principle upon which the success of one country over another practicing free trade is achieved, furnishes the most vital objection to the system. Under universal free trade the warfare becomes more intense, the survivor in the struggle mu,st necessarily be that country whose capitalists will accept the smallest profits and whose laborers will consent to live on the lowest wages and practice self-denial to the fullest extent. This system of degradation is a part of that economic policy b)- which one country- secures an advantage over another through what is so beautifully termed " economy of production." The witness further said: Our decline in the silk trade has been gradual since 1S60. This is not, as it were, a passing depression, it is a continued depression since i860, with the exception of 1870, and it has been gradual since 1876 to the present period. I attribute the depression to the large increase of importation of silk goods which has taken place. A great number of people have gone to America, to Paterson, which is called the Macclesfield of America; they have gone there and the population has doubled within the last twenty years. Q. Now we will go to the question of wages, you gave us a very interesting answer which I want to ask you about, namely, that low wages always, in your opinion, appear to create a diminution of the work that was to be done? A. It did appear to me to be so. The lowering of wages in any branch of industry, especi- ally if it be a lowering relatively to the general rate of wages throughout the country, under the circimistances of the pressure of competition, always lowers the skill and ability of the work people employed in that trade. The low wages in the silk trade mean the depression and gradual deterioration of the industry in the silk trade, and of its power to compete with skilled industry in other countries. Where a low renm- neration is offered there cannot be the same inducement to put forth skill and industr5' on the part of those engaged in the trade. Therefore, it strikes at the very root of the spirit of the traders and the workers. So lous: as pivtection lasted, Macclesfield flourished. Tho.se economic writers who, in the seclusion of their closets, furnished the world with the speculative reasoning which lias formed the basis of free trade, were undoubtedly sincere men; but they left so many elements of human nature out of their calculations, that they were ' Royal Commission. Report III. p. 269. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. necessarily led into many errors which would not have been committed if they had written in recent years, and been able, from their own observation, to watch the practical operation of what was believed by them to be sound principles. The proposition that the strife of free competition would give encouragement and strength to the combatants, was announced as a mere prophecy before it had been tried. Experience has proven that, instead of acting as a stimulus, instead of giving new life and energy, free trade acts as a narcotic, deadens the nerves, and destroys hope and confidence. James Twemlow, silk weaver, of Macclesfield, said: There was one question put with respect to the poverty of the town, as to which I can say that it never was in such a state before. It so happens that I went to the Union Workhouse last Monday, and made inquiries as to the number of weavers on the books, and that were inside. I did so with reference to statements that had been made that there was no great depression, and no great calls upon the funds of the Union ; I found that there are more weavers in the Macclesfield Union now, who are able to work if they could get work, outside, than ever there were before ; and that there are more applications for relief than there ever has been for the last twenty- five years. Besides that, taking the official evidence that is given from books and from experience, there are scores of families that will suffer any privation, beyond all question, before they will apply for relief in any shape or form. Q. Do you see any increasing tendency to emigration on the part of skilled work- people in Macclesfield ? A. Yes; young men that have learued their trade get off as fast as they can to America; that is the principal place where they are going to. They get 50 or 60 per cent more for their work than we get at Macclesfield.' Robert Clark, Macclesfield silk weaver, said on examination : When I find that all the countries iu the world close their markets to us, and are not allowing our manufactured goods to go in without a duty, and they are better situated than us so far as silk is concerned, I say it is time that we bethought ourselves to see whether we could not secure our own market by putting on some small tariff that would contriljute to the revenue, and also be a little protection to the trade which is suffering under this foreign competition. There are many trades that are suffering. If my income is threatened, which is yi. M. to 9^. a week, and I have no purchasing power, and if you limit the trades of the country to two or three, and I cannot pur- chase of those other trades, the depression becomes general. With regard to the example of putting a tax on corn, I say that if I am benefited by protection, every other trade that is suffering from foreign competition ought to be considered as well as myself, unless we get universal free trade. It would give employment to people if we had universal free trade; but the tendency seems to be that every country fosters their own trade and their home products; and the French manufacturer floods our market with his surplus produce. If I had the means to do it, I would scarcely go home again. I would go right off to America myself; but I have not the means. Of course I have no friends in America who would advance the money. That is what enables the people to go over from Macclesfield; it is not the money that they have themselves; their friends in Paterson send them over money, and it is in that way that hundreds have gone out, and it is in that way that they are going out at the present moment.' ' Royal Commission, Report III, p. 280. BETURN TO FREE TRADE. Mr. J. Wright, president of the Macclesfield Chamber of Commerce, said: I have come to the conclusion that unless we can have free trade pure and simple, or on the other hand we revert to a protective policy, the silk trade is doomed to die out in this country. Technical education has been instanced and we have heard to-day tliat Lyons has been the home of technical education for years past. That being the case, I ask myself the question why is it that Germany, Switzerland and Italy are taking away trade from Lyons and from France, because in Italy they have not enjoyed to the same extent technical education — therefore, if we rely upon technical education in this country to resuscitate the silk trade I think we may well point to Lyons and ask why it is that it has not been retained there. It is on account of the cheap labor; that is self-evident when I say that in the 18,000 silk looms now employed in the neighborhood of Lake Como, the work people only earn from 8d. to grf. English money a day, for fourteen hoiurs per day. Q. Then is your remedy for-the depression here to get cheap labor? A. No, I consider that labor is cheap enough in this countrj-; we are not now hampered with any want of cheap labor in our own trade, but the depression has brovight that state of things about entirely. We find everj' year that the Continental market is being gradually closed against us, and we cannot for the life of us find out any fresh markets. ' If the witness had lived in the United States during the recent agita- tion of the tariff question, he would have learned of those "markets of the world," which Mr. Cleveland and his associates have discovered for the American manufacturers to rush into as soon as they adopt free trade. The witness further said: There is no lack of enterprise, considering the great depression we have suffered of late years; but when there have been years of almost suffering, and a downward tendency ever since the Cobden Treaty, people begin to lose heart as thej- lose money. I may say to gentlemen who do not accept my opinion on this question, that we do not like even mentioning the word " protection," but we do not realh- see any chance of a revival of English trade in this country unless this increasing and severe com- petition from abroad is met with something like retaliatory duties, or a revised tariff. I only see one remedy. In i86r, when there were, I think, upwards of forty silk manufacturers in the neighborhood of Manchester, which is eighteen miles from Macclesfield, I went down upon a deputation from Macclesfield to urge the Manchester manufacturers not to consent to the conditions of the Cobden Treaty. There were twenty-nine manufacturers at the time who signed the Cobden Treaty, and I believe only two of them are in existence as tradesmen to-day; and those gentlemen, and all connected with the inauguration of that treaty in Manchester, would tell the Com- missioners to-day that they regretted having done what they did at the time, and that they believe that it has been fatal to the silk trade of England; and that had Mr. Cobden been alive, those gentlemen who knew him personally feel that he would have been one of the very first to have considered that a great error had been made.'- The foregoing evidence is most important from a strictl}' economic point of view. It utterly annihilates one of the cardinal scientific dogmas of free trade. The chief argument used by Mr. Cobden and his associates ' Koyal Commission, Report III., p. 283. ' Id., Report II., Part I., p. 287. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH IXDVSTIiJES. to induce the silk manufacturers of England to give their approval to free trade was, that the effect of free competition would stimulate them to the exercise of such a high degree of skill that they could outstrip all rivals; that free trade instead of pulling them down would lift them up. It is important to know that the question of wages, after all, lies at the bottom of the whole controversj-. High wages, it seems, do not bring cheap goods, but low wages do. The excessive competition which forces a reduction of wages, and a loss of profit, instead of stimulating to new exertions, operates to destroy ability to compete. As Mr. Wright says, " the people begin to lose heart as they lose money." The suffering and degradation wrought by the destruction of this industry-, is treated with callous indifference by the advocates of free trade. The ' ' cheap loaf" has not conipen.sated the artisan for the reduction in his wages. Cheapness is here exemplified. As almshouses were being filled, and the ruin of this industry progressed, the free trade parrot-like chatter was heard, "try something else." This was the only relief offered, when there was nothing else to try. October 19, 1890, a special commissioner of the Manchester newspaper. The Umpire, visited Macclesfield and Congleton to investigate the situa- tion. At the close of an article headed, "Working for Death," after reviewing the terrible hardships and suffering of the work people and showing that wages of men were ten shillings ($2.40) a week, and women were working for six and seven shillings a week. He said : Is it worth while to continue at the work? I asked a cutter. "I don't know whether it is worth while, ' ' he answered, ' ' but what must we do ? We are in it, and must stick at it. We have to make our wives and children stick too. It is wrong and I know it, but we cannot help ourselves. It is brutal, sir, nothing short of it ; but, God knows, we cannot help ourselves." In conclusion the writer of the article said : And isn't the British lion trying to put down some slave traffic somewhere ? Truly, we English are about the finest lot of pharisaical humbugs on the face of this fair earth. It's sickening to think of, though we ax? a truly pious people. We go to our .several little Bethels on Sunday, and thank God that we are not as other men, and on the other six days of the week we grind down the poor, and the unfortunate, and the helpless, until life is a hell, and death a welcome exit from starvation and misery, and degradation, and disgrace. I say, a man who depends upon such remuneration as I have just mentioned above, for his daily bread, does not live in the true sense of the word — he exists ; nothing more. Cotton Industry. The owners of cotton mills in Manchester were more directly respon- sible for riveting the fetters of free trade on the English people, than any other body of men. They had become rich, powerful and arrogant, through the vast accumulation of wealth acquired in this trade. Their pre-eminence arose largely from having first employed machinery, and by IIETURN TO FREE TRADE. prohibiting its export secured to themselves a monopoly of its use. It was believed by Mr. McCulloch and other eminent authorities, that the advantages which they possessed in 1846, could be maintained, and through their ability to produce a vast surplus for export, that foreign markets would be so flooded with this fabric, that the rise of cotton factories in other countries would be prevented. This end could, undoubt- edly, have been accomplished, had the United States and the Continent joined in the free trade policy with England, and exposed their capitalists and artisans to the raids which would have been made upon them by the cotton lords of Manchester. Cobden and his associates formed a low estimate of the patriotism and ability of the statesmen and people of those countries. While the cotton industry of England is to-day more vast than that of any other countrj', during the past twenty-five years it has shown very marked evidences of a decline. For a time, it held abso- lutely its home market and found no rivals in those countries equally accessible to all. English manufacturers had reached such a degree of skill and economy in production, having more capital, the most efficient machinery, and skillful artisans, that they were enabled to invade those countries which had put up protective barriers, and carry on a sharp competition against protected industries. The struggle for supremacy in this industry has been called the battle of fabrics. The English manufacturers on one side, seeking by diplomacy, intrigue, and inter- meddling in the affairs of foreign states, to prevent legislation favorable to the existence of domestic industries, reaped large p"rofits from sales in their colonies and in neutral markets, where there were none to contest prices, but sold at small profits, and even at a loss in other locali- ties, to harass, cripple and bankrupt those who were seeking to supply the home trade. The smooth and beautiful theories of speculative economic writers have played no part in the cut-throat policy that has been pursued. The conspiracy against civilization and humanity, entered into by the cotton manufacturers of England, was the most far- reaching and gigantic of its kind ever formed. The agriculturists at home were first marked for destruction, and through false pretences and the most infamous frauds ever practiced on a people, were induced to abandon the only policy under which they could prosper. The ruin of the agricultural interests of England has inflicted a more lasting and greater injury upon the people of that country, than would have followed the complete annihilation of the cotton industry. The definite purpose entered upon to make ' ' cheapness ' ' the basis of the industrial life of the English people has culminated in a degree of misery- and degradation among the English laborers, not to be foinid in any other civilized com- munity. The cotton industry was to be built up by sacrificing the agri- culturists of the realm, and by condemning the artisans of England to a wage rate which could not possibly rise above the means of subsistence. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. In bringing about " cheapness " the poHcy of free trade has been a success, but as a means of securing thrift, enterprise and prosperity it has proven a failure. The senseless talk about benefiting the consumers and letting the producers take care of themselves has worked out its legitimate end in ruining the producers, who form the great body of consumers. The home market has been in part destroyed by reducing and keeping at a low point the purchasing power of the great mass of the English people. Even the cotton industry, the one most likely to thrive under free trade condi- tions, has been seriously affected by the results which have followed the teachings of the Manchester School. Continental rivals, with an abund- ance of accumulated capital, machinery equally efficient with that used in Great Britain, with densely populated centres of skilled artisans working at low wages and during long hours, have entered the contest for supre- macy in neutral markets, and to some extent invaded England herself. But a more serious problem than this has recently been presented. One which is shaking the confidence of many Englishmen in the wisdom of free trade, one which is creating consternation and alarm in the cotton manu- facturing centres of Western Europe. Cotton manufacturing is being established in China, Japan and India. The millions of Asiatic laborers who can be employed for a few cents a day are being trained in spinning and weaving. The surplus capital of Western Europe is finding invest- ment in these countries. Vast cotton factories have been constructed and equipped with the best machinery and all modern appliances, and, under the direction and control of experienced Europeans, they are producing cotton fabrics at a marvelously low cost. These markets, which have so long been exclusively controlled by English manufacturers, are being transferred to their new rivals. Present indications point to such an ex- pansion and increase of production under the conditions existing in Asia, that the time may come when nothing but protective tariffs will save Eng- land from the complete annihilation of this industry by goods made by the cunning, apt and ingenious people of the East. Even those free traders in England who have been so solicitous for the welfare of the consumers are alarmed at the situation. According to strict free trade notions such an event would prove a blessing, rather than a misfortune. Yet the evidence of English manufacturers, given before the Royal Commission, shows that such a fallacy has seen its best days even in England. Should the development of the cotton industry in the East go no farther than to supply their home markets, which seems to be verj^ probable, it would result to a serious injurj' to England. " In 1889 British East Indies absorbed 42.76 per cent of exported Brit- ish manufactured cotton goods, and 19.26 per cent of exported British yarn, whilst China and the far East took 13. 18 per cent of manufactured cotton goods and 14.15 per cent of yarn." ' - Manchester Courier. RETURN ro FREE TRADE. The menacing feature of the development of the cotton industry in Asia was set forth in the evidence of Mr. George Lord, member of the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, before the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade, February 17, 1886, as follows: Q. Have you anything to say with regard to the present position of the cotton trade in this country, and its course during the last fifteen or twenty years, or as to the causes of the depression which has been complained of ? A. I have some interesting tables here with regard to the subject of competition from Bombay mills. My partner in Bombaj- made up, with the assistance of others, at the end of September last, a most complete statement down to that date, of the mills in India, from which it appears that there were then ninety-two mills in existence. I should say that when I arrived in Bombay, in 1857, the first mills had just been started there. There were only two mills there at that time, and since then they have gone on in- creasing very rapidly. In September last there were ninety-two mills altogether. It was difficult to get information with regard to five of them, but I have very detailed information with regard to the other eighty-seven mills; the spindles at work then were 2,145,000, and there were 16,537 looms. In the tables that I have put in, table C shows that out of those 92 mills there were in the Bombay Presidency 68, namely, in the city of Bombay itself, 49, and 19 in the Mofussil, that is in the Presi- dency of Bombay. With regard to your lordship's question as to the competition, I have here, which I will hand in, a table marked C of the exports of British and Bombay yarns to China and Japan, from the year 1S67 up to the thirty-first of December, 1885, the end of last year (delivering in the same). The first year in- which Bombay figured largely as an exporter of yarn to China and Japan, is 1876, when she sent 16,216 bales, and the increase has been gradual and rapid until 1885, last year, when she sent 173,000 bales, more than ten times as much; and, in the meantime, England had sent to the same markets, China and Japan, in 1876, 73,765 bales, whilst last year only 80,000 bales were sent, so that there is an increase of only 7000 bales of English yarn in ten years, whilst Bombay had increased from 16,000 to 173,000. Mr. Houldsworth has called my attention to the fact that in the year 1S80 the export of English yarn had risen to 106,000 bales, so that since 1880 there has been a falling off of 26,000. Q. How has it been with regard to the Bombay mills? A. The Bombay mills in that period have grown from i5,ooo to 173,000 bales, so that you may take it at once that that is one cause of our depression. I hand in another table, D, which I received last week from my partner in Bombay, of the shipments of piece goods and yarns together from the Bombay mills, and that shows that of the yarn spun in Bombay 75 per cent was exported amongst other markets, principally to China and Japan, and only 25 per cent of Bombay spun yarn was used in India proper; whilst piece goods the reverse was the case, only 27 per cent was exported and 73 per cent was used in India. From one of the tables that I have put in, table F, we find how large a customer India is. Of the total exports of cotton goods and yarns (for this purpose I leave out such things as lace, thread and so on, and simply take cotton goods, calicoes and yarns) the total export in the year 1884 was 65,000,000 pounds, and of that India took 20,000,000 pounds, China 6,000,000 pounds; and of the total in 1885 of 60,000,000, India took 19,000,000 pounds, which is one-third of the whole; the falling off in 1885 is owing partly to the lower prices.' The growth of this industry in Japan since 1886 will be pointed out later. Some very interesting facts with reference to the present conditio'n of cotton manufacturing in England were given by Samuel Andrew, I Report II., Part I., p. 182. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. representative of the Oldham Cotton Spinners' Association, before the Royal Commission. Q. Are there any special causes wfiich tend to prevent our producing either as cheaply or as well as our foreign competitors ? A. I do not know that there are any special causes. I could not allege any for the moment. I believe that they certainly get cheaper labor abroad. Q. To what countries are you alluding? A. In the old city •of Venice, and in the immediate neighborhood, I have been told that there have been several large cotton spinning mills and manufactories established within recent j-ears, and I am told that in those mills they work all the hours that it is possible to work, 132 hours a week ; but I may tell you that I have returns from one of those mills show- ing the hanks produced per spindle. I have had the counts given to me and I know that there is no spindle made in England that can produce such a number of hanks in the time that it has to work here in England. For instance, I find that in Venice they are producing thirties counts, and they are producing fifty and sixty hanks per spindle per week. That is more than we can do, for we think ourselves well off if we pro- duce about twenty-eight. That must have a very great influence upon the cost of pro- duction. It is the pace that kills, and if these people are producing at a larger rate than we can do on account of our number of hours being limited, that is an element of danger to our trade, so far as it goes. Q. Do you think that the duties charged upon our goods in foreign countries has an)- effect upon our trade ? A. No doubt it has to some extent, because we have been seeking all along for a great number of years to get such tariff charges reduced. There can be no doubt that our trade is suffering very greatly from over-production, but it is not that we are producing more than the world really requires, but that we are pro- ducing more than the world can really afford to pay for, and this points to the importance of lessening the cost of production to the last possible degree.' Protection looks to the welfare of the consumer by preserving home industries, maintaining good wages, thereby enhancing the purchasing power of the masses ; while free trade seeks to reduce the cost of prodtic- tion by cutting wages, thereby diminishing spendable incomes and making the buyers poor. If English n^ufacturers would pay more attention to the home market b}^ protecting and increasing the wealth of Englishmen, there would be less necessity for reducing wages to compete with the Con- tinent, and less complaint of the poverty of customers. The witness further said : Within the past few weeks we have been making an effort to reduce wages, and the cause of our making that stand has been the very unremunerative state of the trade, and that as the wages, notwithstanding that they have been reduced to some extent, have not been reduced in anything like the proportion in which the profits of the manufacturers have been reduced. We consider that it is one of those things which the operatives should consider more favorably than they have considered it up to the present. Q. Is there any other means of reducing the cost of production ? A. I do not think there is at present. I believe that everything has been done in the shape of economy in the cotton mills. Everything has been done to reduce the cost of production to reach a degree of cheapness to undersell competitors. Profits have been sur- rendered, wages have been reduced, and 3'et they mtist be driven down • Report II., Part I., p. i.ij. RErUHN TO FREE TRADE. still lower. To whom is such an industry profitable ? Not to the capi- talist, not to the wage earner, and if not to these, certainly not to the nation. The witness continued : Q. Is there any competition at Oldham between one company and another? A. Practically there is no competition, because the lines that enter Oldham agree not to outbid each other. They agree to charge a certain price from a certain point, whichever company is to bring the traffic. So it appears that even in the cotton industry, protection in the United States is not the "mother of trusts." Free trade in England has not relieved the people from combinations of this character. The following evidence of numerous experienced cotton manufacturers, upon the various phases of the question of competition, and the growth of industries in other countries, will lead the reader at once to conclude that it will be wise for the people of the United States to preser\'e their home market, rather than to subject their industries to the life-and-death struggle which has raged in England since the advent of free trade. The very existence of the cotton industry in Great Britain, with all her vast facili- ties for production is threatened. It is absolutely certain that the people of the United States paying much higher wages, could not exist for a single moment under free trade ; exposed to an inundation of foreign fabrics, such as would be absolutely certain to take place upon the removal of protective tariffs. The evidence is so pointed and clear, that comment is scarcely necessary. Thomas Stuttard, member of the firm of James Stuttard & Son, cotton spinners, carrying on business at several large mills, gave the fol- lowing evidence before the Commission: Q. Would you say that the business is now in a condition of prosperity or depres- sion ? A. Last year it was certainly in a state jfl^.great depression, at the present time one-half of it is in very great depression, that "is, the spinning branch. It has mani- fested itself by the falling off in the demand for goods and by the fact of the enormous number of looms which have been stopped by the bad prices and by the unprofitable- ness of the work. The Manchester papers mention that 50,000 to 100,000 looms had been stopped at various times during the year 1SS5. The number of men employed has diminished. There has been a reduction in wages in spinning of 5 per cent at Oldham. Two or three years ago there was a reduction in the wages paid for weaving. There has been a greater falling off (in trade) in the home market than there has been in the foreign market. Q. How do you account for that? A. In the home trade, by the- impoverishment of the land-owning class and farming class.' ' ' By the impoverishment of the land-owning class. ' ' What an admis- sion from a cotton mantifacturer ! Less than fortj- 3'ears ago it was b)- the impoverishment of this class that the cotton lords were to be made rich. The farmers were to be drummed out of the country. Now the>- are needed for customers to sustain a decaying industry. It has continued to suffer by foreign competition in the cotton trade generally, to the extent, probably, of one tenth part of the whole consumption. Foreign goods come ' Second Rep., Part I., p. 167. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. into the home market in competition with us. Gray and bleached calicoes, dyed, printed and fancy fabrics, and especially cotton velvets, they come from France, Bel- gium and Germany. A few have come from America, but not to any great extent. The goods which we used to make for Germany have lessened in sale year by year, and we only sell comparatively small quantities, and those go mostly to Hamburg, a free town. O. Are there any classes of goods that you are acquainted with, with regard to which the foreigner, either German or French, can send the same article into this country cheaper than it can be made in this country ? A. If the manufacturers in any part of the Continent, say either Germany, France or Belgium, were placed in the competitive circumstances in which the Lancashire manufacturers have been placed the last twelve months, with the necessity that they would be under to sell at a slight loss the same as we do in Lancashire; and if the}' were to sell their goods without any profit or. any return toward the capital invested in the business, I have but little doubt but what those foreign makers could easily send goods into Manchester itself at lower prices than the Manchester manufacturers can make them. Foreign competi- tion will undoubtedly grow each year with increasing force. Q. Then I under- stand that you consider that the foreign manufacturer probably is in better condition to turn out cheaper goods than we are in this country? A. He is in a very much better condition for fighting us. If I, for example, want to make an impression in a neutral country and have to fight opponents there, I can fight them a great deal better if I am tolerably well off than if I am not. Under the present system many of the manufacturers in this country are getting poorer and poorer ; they have not the backbone; and when we are told to improve our style and employ new designers, and all that sort of thing, it is only a very limited few of us who can afford to indulge in that luxury. The foreign manufacturers are better off than English manufacturers. In the first place, they have a certain market in their own country for their own goods. Yet this was the advice the Anti-Corn Law League gave to the farmers in 1854, to adopt more scientific methods. It failed there as it will fail now. This is the only remedy the professional free trader offers. The witness, speaking of the strength of foreign manufacturers, said: There is no outside competition of any moment, and if they choose to send any of their surplus goods into Great Britain or into neutral markets, they are sure almost to present some little variations from the current British work, and may thus command a sale. Q. Are you in favor of anything being done in this country to place duties on foreign manufactures that come into England ? A. Personally, most decidedly. I should simply do it not only as a matter of justice, and not to create a monopoly for the manufacturers, but simply to place the foreigners on a basis of equality with our native manufacturers. The workers of this country have to find the taxes of the country and that sort of thing, and it is only right and just that the foreigners should pay on imported foreign labor just as much as would equal that amount. If we can domains employment for our work people, by a small 10 ^eep ithm our ow per cent dutv, that is a thing to be much desired. I have conversed with many of our operators and they would be quite willing to pay a farthing more a loaf for their bread and have constant employment, and thus have a little more money. In full work we employ between 1000 and iioo work people, but latterly about 800 to 850. Q. At the present moment are the weavers in your own mills earning an average of 20i. a week ? A. No. Q. Would it be 15^. a week ? A. I think so, though we have a good deal standing more or less, for lack of work. Q. (Chairman.) I think RETURN TO FREE TRADE. you have a letter you wish to lay before the Commission ? A. I was requested by one of our customers to read this letter. It is from George Morris, a merchant who trades to the West Indies, South America, the Mauritius and elsewhere. With regard to the cotton trade depression he says: " What Lancashire is suffering from mostly now is the smallness or absence of profits altogether; this is best illustrated by a case of actual fact. A manufacturer of fine shirtings, cambrics, etc., told me that twenty or thirty years ago we used to make half a crown a piece profit regularly, but then our goods went to the United States, Germany, Russia, and even Spain; now they are nearly all shut out, except the finest qualities which are used by the rich people in these countries and where the duty is no object. Now nearly all our stuff goes to the far East, and we often do not make even a penny a piece on them. The duties imposed in this country are, unfortunately, nearly all on the productions of our best customers, such as coffee, tea, wine and tobacco, coming from countries where ' they spin not neither do they weave, '_ but our policy is driving them to both. The feeling is decidedh' growing that such duties should be taken off, and even the total abolition of the tea duty is advocated, because China is one of ovu" best customers. Duties should rather be put upon the productions of our competitors, of which a striking example is shown in the great injury done to the Lancashire trade by the free importation of beet root sugar. This has seriously curtailed the demand for our goods from the sugar-cane producing countries, such as the West Indies, Brazil, Mauritius, Java, Manilla, etc., where the proportion of colored and printed goods taken is largely in excess of gray goods; whereas the exports to India and China consist of a very large proportion of gray goods, and consequently find less labor and profit for our people. The government of this country must have a revenue of some ^go,ooo,ooo or ^100,000,000 per annum, and this can only come out of the labor, profits and rents of the people, consequently, any fiscal system which dimin- ishes the incomes of the people must certainly tend to diminish the revenue. The diminution in revenue from the excise is steadily going on, which shows that the con- dition of the working classes is not nearly so good as it was twelve or twenty years ago, and this is owing to reduced wages and short time working, some factories and works not having doue more than three or four days a week during the whole of last year, and a good many mills being totally closed for a part of the year. The diminution in commercial salaries in this city is very marked, being generally 25 or 30 per cent, and in some cases even 40 per cent less than twelve years ago. The decrease in the large number of men who formerly enjoyed salaries of ^1000 a year as buyers, salesmen, cashiers, or managers of departments, is strikingly illustrative of the decline in the cotton trade." The foregoing facts are strikingly illustrative of the principle that a policy having for its chief end "cheapness" cannot reditce its wage- earners to that free trade basis of bare subsistence, without dragging every phase of social life and branch of employment down toward the same level. The warfare of competition under free trade strikes at every household, every trade, industry and profession; it spares no one, and operates not only as a blight on enterprise and a check on industrial prog- ress, but in its leveling process dooms every one to share in its miseries and to contribute to its ultimate end. James Mawdsley, representative of the Amalgamated Association of Operatives Cotton Spinners, of the Di.strict of Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cheshire and Derbyshire, was examined and .said; Q. Suppose we in England adopted the same hours as they have in Gennany and FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. France, and the same wages, do you think we should make our goods cheaper than we do at the present moment ? A. I think that is a simple truism. Q. Then to that extent there is no doubt that the foreigner being free to work longer hours, and having a lower rate of wages, has a clear advantage from these circumstances in the price of the article he turns out ? A. Yes, that is clearly so. I have objection to men working as long hours as they like. It is a physical and moral objection, and not an economical objection.' William Schulze, merchant aud manufacturer at Galashields, having bu.siness connections with the whole of Europe, the United States, and South America, also to a small extent with India and Australia, was examined and said: Trade is not flourishing, manufacturers are not nearly sufficiently employed, we can get no profits; there is a considerable falling off iu demand. It is due in my opinion, partially to foreign couutries advancing considerably in their capacitj' of pro- ducing , and also it is due to the high tariifs which we are paying for sending our goods into other countries. But with the advancing capacity for production the tariff has not been gradually reduced; on the contrary, I know of no case where tariffs have at all been reduced. Whenever there has been a change it has gone against us. I am speaking of Germany, Austria, Russia, Spain, Italy and the United States. I think those are the principal countries. In other countries there is no production to speak of, and consequently we are not under the same diiSculties with regard to them. Q. With regard to the increased production of goods in other countries, which have been displacing ours, is it a production founded upon fair and equal competition, or a pro- duction artificially nourished by their tarifi's ? A. It is artificially nourished by their tariffs. 2 •» ' ' Artificially nourished, ' ' that is shielded from destruction by the laws of the land. A foreign rival is required to pay a certain sum at the custom house for the privilege of invading the country, and attacking the life of a home industry; and the sum to be paid, called a duty, is fixed at such an amount that the undertaking is made unprofitable. If this is an "artificial" regulation, then the laws which protect a man's property against the outlaw are also artificial. If British industries had a little of the same kind of nourishment, they might have more strength, live longer and flourish. Why should not a nation favor its own citizens against strangers in trade as well as in everything else? The witness further said: They could not compete with us on equal grounds; there may be exceptions, but as a rule not. The cause of the increased production in these foreign couutries is the maintenance by them of heavy tariffs against our goods, under which their own indus- tries are artificially fostered and ours discouraged. The longer a protective tariff is maintained against us by any country, the stronger its manufacturers become to com- pete with us on equal terms. Germany and France, and perhaps one or two other Continental countries, are competing more with us in neutral markets than they were some few years ago. They are competing with us successfull}'. That is on equal terms, of course, in neutral markets, because of their growing capacity. O. It has been, as you are aware, asserted by a certain school of political economists, that a nation maintaining a protective system cannot compete on equal terms in neutral 1 Second Report, Part I., p. 172. 2 Id., p. 190. 16 England's protected . RETURN TO FREE TRADE. markets with a nation maintaining the system of free imports. Does j-our experience confirm or contradict that doctrine? A. It confirms it to a certain extent only. I mentioned before that the capacities of production of foreign nations are increasing and they are more able to export their goods also. Q. In spite of their protective system ? A. Yes, in spite of their protective system. Q. Which we have been assured would forever prevent their doing so; but in spite of that assertion I understand you to say that they are competing with us now more successfully every year in neutral mar- kets? A. Quite so; that is the case. It is a common assertion of free traders that protected industries are weak and sickly. By preserving their home market under protection Continental nations, with their cheap labor, have a decided advantage over England. Their manufacturers have a large market secured to them and manufacture a surphis for foreign trade. Their surplus meets English goods in neutral markets. If they paid higher wages than are paid in England it would so enhance the cost of their goods that they would fail in the struggle. The manufacturers who pay the lowest wages, other things being equal, will control neutral markets. This is the reason why Germany and France, although protectionist countries, must pay low wages, so long as they depend on foreign trade. The United States must enter foreign markets on the same terms. The witness now proceeds to confirm what has already been pointed out, that the Manchester manufacturers sacrificed the agriculturists for the purpose of furnishing the artisans with cheaper food, that wages might be kept down. This was the economic effect of such policy as understood by the advocates of free trade. Mr. Gladstone recognized the insuflSciency of the principle of cheap food to elevate the masses of the people when he said: ' ' One of the fallacies which was employed on the hustings was the cry of cheap bread. That cry of cheap bread, considered by itself, means nothing that is necessary or beneficial to the laboring classes." ' The witness further said: Q. It has been maintained, as you are aware, that England has an advantage in cheapness of production over those countries, bj' reason of her system of free imports of food? A. Yes. O. Germany, you are quite aware, has now taxed food for some six years; has there been any effect apparent during that six years in the weakening of the competitive force of the German manufacturers in consequence? A. I think not. German competition is certainly stronger against us than it was six years ago. Q. Is it not the fact that the only way in which free imports of food enable the maiuifac- turers of one nation to beat the manufacturers of another is by the population living more cheaply, and working for lower wages? A. Of course that seems to be natural; it could not operate in any other way than that. If cheap food did cheapen produc- tion of manufactories, the only way in which it could operate in that way would be by reducing the price of labor. (By Professor Bonamy Price.) Q. Under protection, may wages rise ? A. Of course they have more chance to rise. Q. Do low prices generally make low wages? A. As a rule. ' Hansard, Vol. 61, p. 273. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. Those who have read the writings of Professor Price will appreciate how he must have felt when he received the above answers. The experi- ence of business men overthrow the fine-spun theories of the free trade professors in every instance. Joshua Rawlinson, secretary of the North and Northeast Lancashire Cotton Spinners' Association, which is a federation of the Employers' Association of Blackburn, Preston and Burnley; also director of three limited liability companies having cotton mills in Burnley, was examined, and said: Q. What do you consider to be the present condition of the cotton trade; do you call it prosperous or the reverse? A. It has been very much depressed; in fact, the present depression may be said to have commenced in the year of 1S76. The year of 1S77 was worse than 1S76, and 1S78 was worse than either of them. The effect of the depression in those years was to reduce the price of labor. In June of that year, the wages in both the spinning and weaving departments were reduced 10 per cent, after a strike of nine weeks' duration, which extended from Preston to Burnley, Blackburn, Accriugton and intervening districts. In April, 1S79, a further reduction of 5 per cent was made. In December, 1S83, a reduction of 5 per cent was again made in the weaving department, and this caused another strike in Blackburn, Darwen and Padi- hain, which lasted nine weeks. The weavers in the Preston and Burnley districts accepted the reduction. At the present time the wages paid in North and Northeast Lancashire are, therefore, 10 per cent below the level of 187S. In the course of that reduction there had been two prolonged strikes. In the town of Burnley there are 1400 looms and 53,400 spindles standing idle at the present time; that is relating to machinery solely, and there are empty mills and sheds in the town capable of holding 5869 looms and 126,000 spindles, which only need equipping with machinery to be set to work. In the Blackburn district, I am informed, that there are 6700 looms and 186,000 spindles standing idle, and that mills have been burnt down, or pulled dowu, and not rebuilt withiu the last few years, capable of holding 330,000 spindles. Q. What effect does this have upon the rents obtained upon mills and sheds ? A. The rents obtainable for mills and sheds have fallen very greatly during the last two years. Spinning mills in Blackburn cannot be let at any price, and I am informed that a fire- proof spinning mill, containing iS.ooo spindles, will be let rent free, if the tenant vrM pay rates and taxes, and keep the building and machinery in repair.' Q. What do you consider to be the cause of this depression ? A. They are very numerous. In fact, there are a combination of causes. The fall in prices has greatly injured the cotton trade, because it is so largely dependent upon the export trade for its prosperity. Of cotton productions four-fifths are sent abroad, and hence, the smaller return made for foreign products has had a great effect in lessening the buying power of our customers abroad, because they have got such a small return for the raw mate- rials they have sent us, that their buying power is very much lessened. Q. Do you attribute the depression, to any extent, to the increase in the cotton machinery abroad ? A. Yes, I think that a very great cause of depression is the extension of cotton machinery in Europe, America and India. Many of our former customers now manu- facture their own goods. The higher wages and the shorter hours of this country do undoubtedly tend to give our competitors a great advantage over us. I think that the shortened hours and higher wages have made our labor more productive in proportion to the time spent upon it ; at the same time, it (the productive capacity) is increasing in other countries by the improvements of their machinery; hence, were they ' Second Rep., Part I-, p. 203 RETURN TO FREE TRADE. to pay lower wages and work longer hours, they are bound to have some advautage over us. Within forty years from the time when the cotton manufacturers of Manchester asked for the repeal of all protective regulations, and invited foreign rivals to a contest under free trade, we find many of the most experienced and able among them pleading for a return to protection. Conditions have changed. In 1846 they were practically without rivals. By 1886, under the fostering care of protective tariffs, the best markets in the world were being supplied by domestic producers, with facilities for production so extensive that a portion of the surplus was selling in Eng- land. It is a significant fact that in order to meet such aggressions, to hold their home market, and to prevent a much larger loss than they had already suffered, from taking place in neutral markets, the wages of Eng- lish cotton spinners and weavers have not only been reduced, but the profits of employers have sunk so low that the business has ceased to yield a fair return or to invite the investment of capital. The palmy days of the cotton industries are over. The great profits which were made through the monopoly of markets have disappeared. They have been subjected at last to that "struggle for existence," that "survival of the fittest" to which agriculture, the silk and many other industries were subjected immediately after the introduction of free trade. When the situation is fully understood it is an easj' matter to explain the vigorous action of their .sympathetic free trade friends in the United States. Frcu trade in the United States would surrender the valuable market of 70,000,000 of people in America to foreigners that their trade may ht; restored and their declining fortunes revived. During the last t\vent>- years the English cotton manufacturers have looked forward to an event of this character as the great sotu-ce of relief from their condition. The official statistics of the British Government disclo.se a condition of imports and exports which is certainly not encouraging. The imports of fully manufactured cotton goods for home consumption in i860 were $3,098,- 035. By 1875 they had increased to $5,400,290, and in 1890, to $9,838,495. While this amount seems siuall when compared with the large production in their own mills, yet it deprives British labor and capital of a market to that extent, wlrich might be held under a moderate protective duty. If these goods which are being purchased were being made in England, it would cer- tainly set in motion the idle machinery which the witnesses have described and give employment to many laborers who are working on short time. While imports have been increasing the exports of their domestic produc- tions have declined froiu $307,558,500 in 1872-3-4, to $297,641,943, or 3.3 per cent in 1890- 1-2. The exports of domestic yarn during the same period declined from $78,517,151 to $55,353,343- Notwith- standing this decline the United Kingdom is .still the greatest cotton manu- facturing country on the globe. Yet the indications are that it has FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. already reached its highest point. Its progress has not only been arrested, but it is tending toward decay. The growth of the cotton industry throughout the world shows that there is no prospect of British manufac- turers regaining their lost markets in Europe and the United States. The annual consumption of raw cotton in Great Britain, the Continent of Europe, and the United States respectively, from 1841 to 1889, as shown by Thomas EUerson's annual circular, was as follows: Average Per Annum in Millions of Pounds. 1841-45 1851-55 .856-60 1861-65 1866-70 1871-75 .87^80 1881-85 188^89 Great Britain Continent of Europe, . . . 521-3 267.2 152.5 75°- 1 947.3 627.4 35S.8 9335 628.6 973-8 381.9 2009.1 "Ts I44I.I 1508.7 :sio.i 904.4 941.0 ,482.9 36:5.7 4on 2 Great Britain (increased) from 1841-45 to 1886-89, 189. i percent. Continent of Europe " " " " " 465.1 " United States " " " " " 493 " Increase From 1856 to 1889. Great Britain, 59.3 per cent. Continent of Europe, 140- 7 United States, 152. i The following very complete analysis of the cotton trade of Great Britain is taken from the Fair Trade Journal, Vol. vi, pages 189-90, Jan- uary 23, 1891. THE COTTON TRADE. A Statistical Analysis of the Board op Trade Returns. By Sisbon S. Rigg. I take the following figures for the last twenty years, 1870-S9, from my compiled table of each year, taken separately and balanced to the yard and pound: The total quantities of cotton manufactured goods exported from the United Kingdom to the foreign countries in millions of yards. To Europe and the United States. 1S85-89 1870-74. Germany, 342 France, 451 Portugal 344 Spain 72 Austria 74 United States 581 ' Holland, 202 Belgium 53 Italy, 356 Greece 151 2626 S85-89. Inc. Dec. 194 148 177 274 333 II 53 19 31 43 224 357 214 12 297 244 407 51 165 14 RETUMN TO FREE TRADE. To Africa and Turkey. 1870-74. Turkey, 1295 Egypt Morocco, West Coast of Africa, . Philippine Isles, China Japan 1271 73 105 2744 To AsiJ 1837 585-S9. 1529 675 171 462 304 1916 305 To AMERICA. Foreign West Indies, .... 39S 447 Mexico, 165 1 78 United States of Colombia, . 479 257 Venezuela 69 149 Peru, 154 13S Chili 306 306 Brazil .... S30 1039 Uruguay, 96 176 Argentine Republic 245 450 2742 3140 205 636 To Countries Not Fully Detailed. 1S85-89. 6 56 59 Dec. 596 238 Russia, . . 5 Norway and Sweden, . . .(d) 55 Denmark, (a) 11 Bulgaria, Roumania, 75 Tunis (a) 4 Algeria East Africa (a) 6 Madagascar, (d) Persia, (b) 3 Dutch Possessions in India, Central America, .... (d) 27 Ecuador, Pacific Isles 2 Other countries not detailed, . 153 Decimals of the above Millions: 361 S72 511 10,310 ii,68i 1,371 (a) signifies one year, (b) two years, (c) three years and (d) four years. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. To British Possessions. 1870-74. Gibraltar 148 Malta, 95 West Africa, 135 South Africa, 99 Mauritius 54 Bomba}- and Sciiide, , . . .1118 Madras, 195 Bengal and Burmah, .... 3359 Straits Settlements, 462 Cejlon J65 Hong Kong 536 Australasia, 200 North America, 215 West India Islands, 201 Aden, Honduras, not detailed fully, decimals of above, . 20 7,002 Total, 17,312 lOI 6 I S3 48 I4S 50 26 360S 2490 66(j 465 5362 2003 638 176 72 665 129 532 332 159 12,487 6,856 The total quantities of cotton yarn exported from the United Kingdom to foreign countries in millions of pounds: Russia, Germany 194 Holland, 214 Italy, Austria, Sweden and Norway, .... Denmark Belgium, France 596 Turkey 86 Roumania, 18 Egypt, 35 China 4 Japan, 46 Not detailed 18 70-74. .885-89. „e Dec. 16 II 5 194 172 22 214 201 13 93 42 51 16 13 3 14 22 8 14 23 9 9 70 61 26 63 3 7 101 15 37 19 20 24 20 106 60 52 34 I4S A jialysis of cnfioit RETURN TO FREE TRADE. To British Possessions. 1870-74. 1SS5-89. British India, 132 336 Straits Settlements 11 14 Hong Koug 49 44 Not detailed, 32 8 224 302 Total, 1027 1259 Value of Our Total Cotton Manufactures Exported in Millions. Yards ^277 Pounds 76 Thread, hosiery, lace, etc., ... 21 ISS5-89. Quantities 1S85-89 at 1871^74 Vak ^254 .^386 58 93 37 ^374 Average Price Per Yard. Plain, Printed and dyed, Diflference, 3.41a'. 4-770'. i.36rf. 2.26^. 0.911/. The value of cloth exported 1885-89 over 1870-74 shows a decrease of 51 per cent. Statistics relative to our home trade in cotton goods are very meagre, but one-sixth or one-fifth part of our export trade may be somewhere about the amount. I should think the increased trade between 1S70-89 will be fully equal to, pr more than, our increase of population, thirty -one to thirty-eight millions, 22>^ per cent. The number of cotton factories, etc., in the United Kingdom are given thus: No. of Cotton Factories. ^^fpTnXr'^ Looms. Persons Employed. X' 2,483 2,635 33,995,221 40,120,451 440,676 550,955 450,087 504,069 Our total consumption of raw cotton, in all kinds, in millions of pounds: 1870-74. .875-79- 1SS0-S4. .SS5-89. Net import of raw cotton, 6268 lbs. 6174 lbs. 7379 lbs. 7352 lbs. The distribution of American cotton, from the Cotton Brokers' Annual Statement,. September 23, 1890: United Kingdom. France. North Europe. United States. Countries. 1870-75-Bales, . 1885-90- " . Increase per cent. 1,897 2,835 49-4 261 436 67.0 393 1,004 155-4 92-5 113 344 204.4 'Las t year given in 88 9 abstract. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. From Messrs. Ellison's Annual Review of the Cotton Trade, I take consumption of every kind of raw cotton, yearly average in millions: United Kingdom. Continent. United States. Total. 1871-75 • • lbs. 1881-84 . . lbs. Increase per cent, 1,229 1,489 21.2 S56 1.320 54-2 68.7 2,609 3,690 41.4 The Board of Trade returns give: Cotton consumed in India in million pounds: 1880, 84. 8 lbs.; 1890, 392.0 lbs.; increased per cent, 362.2. Export quantities of English and Indian yarn compared in million pounds: Export of English yarn to all countries and British possessions: 1880, 215 lbs.; 1S90, 252 lbs.; increase per cent, 17.2. Export of Indian yarn to Hong Kong, China, and Japan: 1880, 25 lbs.; 1888, 113 lbs.; increase per cent, 352.0. The following will show that Germany, as a competitor in textile goods, is not far behind, and that her progress is vastly more rapid: German Textile Exports. Quantities. Value. 1887. iSSS. 1SS8. Cotton yams, 100 kilogrammes 91,500 64,067 marks. 17,442,000 Cotton cloth, 100 kilogrammes, 108,000 289,242 " 186,348,000 Woolen yam, 100 kilogrammes 41,400 68,813 " 42,847,000 Woolen cloth, 100 kilogrammes, 169,300 233,064 " 189,748,000 Silk cloth, 100 kilogrammes, 16,500 66,271 " 183,436,000 Total, • . . 619,821,000 Mark equal to i.f. , .... ^30,991,050 British manufacture of woolen and silk together exported to foreign countries and our possessions, amounted in 1877, to ^27,500,000, in 18S9, to ^24,500,000, while our imports of the same amounted to ^24,500,000, while Germany imports ^5,000,000, of which /;'4, 500,000 is for yarn. Thus we have Germany importing ^'500,000 to our import of ^21,500,000 of manufacture in its finished state. Which mills, under these circumstances, theirs or ours, are likely to pay best, and in which will most employ- ment be found for the work people ? The above cotton analysis shows that in spite of the increased population and increased individual requirements throughout the world, the effect of the foreign tariffs of Europe and of the United States upon our cotton trade with them has caused it steadily to go downwards, and if it had not been for our trade to the East, the cotton trade of this country would have most seriously declined. It shows the misjudgment and complete failure of Cobden and his dreams, that instead of free trade or exchange trade with these countries we to-day buy from the Continent and United States some sixty million pounds of competing manufactures (twenty-nine million pounds textile) and eighty million pounds of competing produce, while on the other hand they dole out to us the very smallest pittance of their trade, and none if they could possibly help it. Could a more suicidal policy on our part have ever been invented ? If it were a fact that our free " competing " imports enabled us to produce cheaper, how is it, in RETURN TO FREE TRADE. spite of our trade in the East, that our proportion of the consumption of the world's cotton crops is so rapidly declining? I am told on the very best authority that while one-third of the mill machinery we make in this country was formerly for abroad, to-day it is two-thirds for abroad. Regarding our textile trade with the United States and the Continent, with their high tariffs, longer hours, and the Continental cheap labor, no permanent good and full justice will be done until tariff is met by tariff of exactly the same amount. In the meantime the best we can do is to " commercialh- " federate our Empire. India, with its population of two hundred and sixty-three millions, takes an import from us of thirty-one million pounds, while Australia, with three and three-quarter millions, takes twenty-three million pounds. I feel sure it could not enhance prices except by its prosperous results ; but all efforts in this direction, unless accompanied with the connnercial aspect, are comparatively useless to our textiles. See the above cotton analysis. Australasia has increased her takings from two hundred million yards to five hundred and thirty-two million yards ; while North America has declined from two hundred and fifteen to one hundred and twenty-nine millions (five years' period). Sir Lyon Playfair, in defence of our present system, has lately said to his league constituents respecting the McKinley Tariff Bill : If they be right in principle and successful in practice, the whole commercial policy of this country is founded on a gigantic error, and must lead to our ruin as an industrial nation. I mention that he was never nearer the truth than when he said this, especially when we find that statistics, analyzed, from whatever point you take them, show our present policy to be so completely disastrous to our country. Has this country, or to be more correct, has the Cobden Club all the wisdom, and the United States, and the rest of the whole world put together none ? The depression in the cotton trade of Great Britain, as disclosed by the Royal Commission in 1885 and 1886, has continued until the present time. On August 30, 1889, the Fair Trade Journal published the follow- ing stubborn facts with regard to the industry. Stoppage of Machinery at Blackburn — 2500 Operatives Idle. The serious depression in the cotton trade was made further manifest yesterday, when another series of temporary stoppage of spindles and looms, even more numerous than those recorded a week ago, took place at Blackburn. Messrs. Thomas Dugdalc Brothers' two mills, one at Witton and the other at Livesey, and the Primrose and Waterfall Mills, run by Messrs. John Fish, Limited, all suspended operations for a time, in consequence of the depression. The first-named firm, Messrs. Dugdale Brothers, have altogether 86,000 spindles and 1600 looms idle, whilst Mes.srs. John Fish, Limited, have 74,968 spindles and 1760 looms stopped, making a total at these four mills alone of 150,968 spindles and 3360 looms. In addition to these, many other firms have looms and spindles stopped, though to a much smaller degree, and yesterday our Blackburn correspondent was officially informed that in Blackburn alone there are, at the present time, no fewer than 8000 looms standing inactive, and that in the weaving branch of the cotton trade, without reckoning the spinning, there is the large number of 2500 weavers out of employment. As regards the spinning branch of the trade, the num- ber of spindles stopped in the town is computed at not far short of 200,000.' ■ Trade Jo Vol. IV, p. 609. FEEE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. Again on September 4, 1891, the Fair Trade Journal, after an account of the losses sustained by those joint stock companies, which made reports upon their condition, said : From which statement may be summarized that the nine companies show a loss of /i4,395 during the past three months, as against a profit of ^'iSo2 ; or a net loss of /1 2,593 on the whole. Or, again, taking the first six companies— concerning which alone the whole of the particulars are given— we have the result that the working of 250,496 twist spindles and 324,582 weft spindles, together with the plant capital of ^429, 876 eventuated in the net loss, during a brief three months, of ^9328. So much for the "companies." Private firms are, of course, under no obligation to publish their returns ; but we are assured by those who know, that the results would be much the same. — IVaich Cotton ." The foregoing most reliable information with reference to the leading industrj^ of the United Kingdom, certainly makes a poor .showing for free trade. While cotton manufacturing is flourishing and increasing in every locality where it is given the stimulus of a protective tariff, it is declining under free trade in England. This industry was stronger and more fitted to sun'ive the competition of free trade than any other. The evidences of decline which we find existing during the past twenty years, are there- fore more significant. Apart from the question of the effect which free imports are having on this industry, the tendency throughout the world of natious to build up home industries, give employment to their own labor and capital and provide themselves with clothing, makes it more necessary than ever that the people of the United States preserve their home market. The delusion of free traders that the people of the United States can at once capture the markets of the world, which are a subject of warfare among the strong and powerful contestants of Europe, is fully exposed by the facts which have been stated. If the cotton manu- facturers of England, with their long experience, economy of production, advantages in ftiel, means of transportation, efficient machinery and cheap labor, can be driven to the wall and suffer as they are suffering, from the excessive competition which is being carried on, how then can the people of the United States, who pay high wages, hope to survive such a contest even at home, to .say nothing of winning a share of the markets of the world. It is a fact well known to English cotton manufacturers, that as long as the United States pays higher wages than are paid in England, it will be absolutely powerless to maintain itself under low ad valorem duties, much less under free trade. Isaac Watts, chairman of the Cotton Manu- facturing As.sociation of Manchester, states in his article on cotton, in the ' ' Encyclopedia Britannica, " " That if America be thought to possess any superiority over England in the great facility and cheapness with which the raw material may be provided, such advantage is more than counter- balanced in other respects and especially as regards labor. ' ' RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Woolen Industry. " The staple manufactures of Bradford and the district have of late years fallen off. Some of the old staple manufacturers have lost their heart and died off." — Evi- dence of Henry Mitchell. The woolen industry of Great Britain was the first to receive protec- tion when Edward III. invited to England John Kemp and his weavers and dyers from Holland. From that time on, gradually, but steadily, the industry grew and thrived under the patronage of the govern- ment, until it held the first place among English manufactures. By the extensive use of cotton fabrics, following the invention of machinery, it gradually dropped to the second place ; but its progress was steady and continuous until after the adoption of free trade. All through the protective period it was vigorous and flottrishing. It is a significant fact that since it has been subjected to aggressive foreign competition under the free trade policy, the most alarming complaints have filled the country as to its fate in the future. Notwithstanding the superior advantages in the way of machinery, abundant capital, long experi- ence and low wages, the official returns of the Board of Trade disclose some very significant external facts which have a direct bearing upon its present condition. In 1846, when protective duties were repealed and it was exposed to competing imports, the supremacy was such that the total imports of woolen manufactures into England for home consumption were only $1,327,250. By i860 they had reached $5,910,415. It was between this time and 1875 that imports began to be felt in the home market. They had reached $20,440,675 in 1875, and $38,980,755 in 1890, an increase of 90.7 per cent in fifteen years. It is a most astonish- ing fact that the English people are paying the Continent this vast sum of money to support foreign labor, when, were it not for free trade, every dollar paid for these goods might be retained in England to furnish employment for a large number of those who now depend upon public charity. It is surprising that while imports have been so increasing, the exports of domestic productions have declined from $134,223,504 1872-3-4, to $94,619,550 in 1890-1-2, or 29.5 per cent. The English people consume at home woolen goods made in foreign countries of nearly one-half the value of those which they export. The imports into England of fully manufactured goods for home consumption increased from $5,910,415 in i860, to $38,980,755 in 1890, an increase of 559.5 per cent, while during the same time the exports of woolen goods made in English factories increa.sed from $60,749,569 in 1860-1-2, to $94,619,550 in 1890-1-2, or only 55.7 per cent. Another quarter of a centurj' of this kind of progress under free trade will place the woolen industry in the same position as the silk industry and agri- cultural interests of the country. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. While the imports of woolen and worsted j'am for use in home fac- tories increased from $2,351,400 in 1S60, to $8,577,470 in 1890, or 264 per cent, the exports of these domestics yarns declined from $28,436,985 in 1872-3-4, to $20,094,812 in 1S90-1-2, or 28 percent. The increase in the number of woolen, worsted and shoddy factories, during a period of sixteen years, and of the number of persons employed in these industries during the same time, was as follows: Factories in 1874, 2617; in 1S90, 2671, an increase of onty 54. The persons employed in 1874 were 280,133; "^ 1890, 301,556, an increase of 21,423.' The evidence given before the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade and Industrj- discloses the condition under which this industry is being carried on. The following is taken from the evidence of an experienced manufacturer of Bradford: Henry Mitchell, for twenty years member of the Chamber of Com- merce of Bradford, said: There has generally been a falling off in trade with foreign countries. The greatest falling off has been in the case of Germany. Germany formerly took from us at least ^3, 000, 000 a year in stuff goods, and at the present time it is not /'joo.ooo. In stuff goods it is not more than one-tenth of what it was at the period to which I have referred (between 1870 and 1875). Although there has been a very large decline in exports of manufactured goods to Germany, there has been a very large increase in e.xports of yarn and semi-raw materials to that country. Germany has been very largely increasing their own production. They now supply their own consumption almost exclusively, and they are also becoming rather severe com- petitors with us in some of the neutral markets; especially in the United States of America and in South America, and to some extent in the British Colonies. It is worthy of note that between 1870 and 1875, Germany had returned to free trade, and imports largely increased, to the great detri- ment of their home industries and that in 1879 the policy of protection was restored, with the result stated by the witness. The United States are very large customers of ours. Going back to thirteen years ago there has been a decline in the export of worsted stuffs proper from over ^3,091,000 to ;ii'i,ooo,ooo; that is to say, we are only sending at the present time about one-third of the amount we sent twelve or thirteen years ago. The value of it has been considerably reduced, but the quantity, I should think, would be about one-half ; the value about one-third. During the last twenty years trade has varied. We had a very high state of prosperity in our district, during the American war, of course, for exceptional causes, which continued until 1865. Then during the Franco-German war, we had also a very high state of prosperity, and our manufacturers, as a rule, were making large profits. I should say that business continued to be fairly profitable until 1874 or 1875, since then there has been a very heav}' loss in some branches of industry, and the value of all kinds of property has very seriously declined, I should say, at least one-third since 1875. There has been an enonuous increase in those industries in several countries. In France there has certainly been a very large increase, in Germany probably a still larger increase, and in the United States of America an enormous increase, during the last ten or twelve years. >The Financial Reform Almanac for 1894, p. 118. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Q. Have you any theory to explain that, or any facts by which you can explain it? A. With regard to the United States of America of course, the principal cause is the high tariff. The rate of wages (in England), I should say, is about lo per cent, lower than it was in 1875. As compared with ten years before that, they are not much changed. In the amount of capital invested, the number of mills and establishments for carrying on business in the staple industries, there has been considerable falling off. The rate of profits on all our staple goods has been very small indeed, and in many instances, very serious losses have been sustained. ' The foregoing admission that wages in this indtistrj' were reduced about 10 per cent, between 1875 and 1885 to the level of 1864, becomes more significant from the fact, that the wages which prevailed even in 1875 were almost to a starvation point, and more than 50 per cent below the wages paid in the United States. The wages of persons employed in this industry, as disclosed by a report made bj' Mr. Robert Giffen, Statistician of the Board of Trade, to the Commission on Labor in 1894, was as follows: WOOLEN MILLS. Annual. Per Week. Men, $292.00 $5-63 Women, 167.00 3.22 Children 100.50 1.93 WORSTED MILLS. Men $294.00 $5-67 Women, 151.00 2.89 Children, 80.00 1.57 The above figures given by Mr. Giffen were disputed by the president of the Bradford Labor Union, who stated before the Royal Commission on Labor, that the average wages of this district (Bradford) for weavers was 95., or $2. 16 per week. The accuracy of this statement was questioned and a committee of well-known citizens appointed to ascertain the real facts. After a painstaking and expensive investigation, they reported that for 1891 the average week's earnings were 135. 40'. (about $3.08 per week).^ The foregoing facts show the utter unreliability of estimates and statistics which emanate from such free traders as Mr. Gifien. It is common for free traders to exaggerate the wages paid in England. The element of partial employment is usually left entirely out of their calcula- tions, which make the actual earnings appear much larger than they really are, but in any event, even if it should be conceded that Mr. Giffeu's estimate is correct, it presents a wage rate which is a disgrace to any civilized country, and condemns that fiscal policy under which there is no 1 Royal Commission, Report II., Pari I., p. 124. -' Robert P. Porter, in the New York Sumlav Press, October 28, 1894. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. possibility of an increase, but which as competition becomes more intense, will necessitate still further reductions. We find the following statement made by Mr. Porter, giving some comparison of the magnitude of this industry, and showing its ability to ruin the woolen industry of the United States under free competition or low tariff duties; Here is an interesting comparison between the six States which employ the greatest number of hands in woolen manufacturing and the six West Riding woolen, worsted and shoddy centres which I have visited this week. This should give some idea of the concentration of this industry in England: English Towns. Total number employed in woolen and worsted industry, 1891. Bradford, . . . ' 45.2i6 Leeds 16,767 Huddersfield 15.659 Halifax 14,2:6 Dewsbury (approximately) 10,000 Batley, " .... 8,000 American States. Total number employed in woolen and worsted industry, 1891. Pennsylvania, 55.354 Massachusetts, 43.03S New York, 37.992 Rhode Island 19.3^5 Connecticut i3.o47 New Hampshire, 9,400 What We Would Compete With. Here we find in six centres, all within a radius of about ten miles, nearly 110,000 persons engaged in these industries, a number exceeding the total number employed in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts combined, or of New York, Rhode Island, Con- necticut and New Jersey. And yet we look upon the woolen industry of these States as of considerable importance to the States and the nation at large. Destroy or cripple them and the result would indeed be unhappy. Do the free traders of Massachusetts, for example, know that the number employed in the woolen and worsted industries of this city of Bradford is greater than those similarly employed in the whole State of Massachusetts? It is this concentration of industry in one spot that gives the English a tremendous advantage over the United States. Here we see it again: 1S91: West Riding of Yorkshire, total number employed, wool and worsted, 218,202. 1S90: The United States, scattered in forty-two States and Territories, total number employed, wool and worsted, 219,132. Facing the real facts thus, how is it possible for the American manufacturer to begin to compete with the British producer ? Mr. Porter further says: In a published speech the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of Hudders- field this week declared that the Honorable William L. Wilson had never heard of Huddersfield until he had read the speech of Sir Albert Rollit before the Chamber of Commerce of that important centre of cloth manufacture. If this be true, it only illustrates the ignorance of the most intelligent of our tariff reformers in relation of the character and extent of the competition to which they have exposed American labor and industry. Huddersfield is by no means the most important of the English cloth towns, and yet it employs 250 more people in that industry than the State of Connecticut, and within about 350 of the number employed in the State of Rhode Island, the fourth largest woolen manufacturing State of the Union. Should we c pare the town of Huddersfield, which Mr. Wilson had never heard of, to his own State RETURN TO FREE TRADE. of West Virginia, in the manufacture of woolen, it would appear as follows: Hudders- field, 15,659 hands ; West Virginia, 307 hands. The effect of wages in controlling cost of production and thus strengthening the ability of the manufacturer to compete with rivals, is disclosed in the following extract from the evidence of Mr. Henry Mitchell: There is no doubt that one reason why the French beat us in those higher classes of goods is that labor forms a very important element in the cost of those goods. As much more work and care are required in every process of the manufacture of them, no doubt they have some advantage in cheaper labor and longer hours of work. The French have so far not been able to compete with us in cheaper kinds of goods for women's wear, nor in men's wool goods. This is shown very clearly in the goods which they export to this country ; whilst we are taking about ^7,000,000 worth of wool manufacture, mainly from France, they are all high class goods intended for women's wear, with the exception of about ^300,000 in men's wear; so that we have, practically, the monopoly of the men's wear goods, and also of the lower priced goods for women's wear. The staple manufactures of Bradford and the districts have of late years fallen off considerably. Some of the old staple manufacturers have lost their heart and died off. There was not sufficient demand to keep the machinery a going. In some class of fancy goods, especially, the Germans beat us both in style and cost. I do not think they beat us in ordinary staple goods. It is because the labor is considerably cheaper in Germany and their hours of labor are seventj'-two per week, against ours of fifty- six and a quarter, that may be one reason. Q. Would the same remark apply to the United States? A. No, labor is much higher in the United States. Q. Do they beat us in any article in cost? A. None whatever, and they are never likely to be serious competitors with us. The opinion of this experienced manufacturer that the United States is never likelj' " to be a serious competitor" with English manufacturers, so long as the high wage rate prevails, is a confirmation of the contention of protectionists in the United States. It is to be hoped that we shall never be compelled to reduce the wages of our men to $3.08 a week in order to fight for foreign markets, and to defend ourselves against an inundation of goods from the Bradford district. Yet, it is absolutely certain that this would be necessary ttnder the system of free imports in order that American factories might exist. The following extract from the testimony of the same witness, especially upon the effect of the reduction of duties on woolen goods by the United States Congress in 1883, shows how favorable a slight modifi- cation in this tariff became to the Engli.sh manufacturer. Q. You have spoken again of the power of competition of France and Germany; has that, in your opinion, been diminished by their tariflf system during the last eight or ten years? A. The competition in neutral markets has considerably increased dur- ing the last few years. Q. The way in which the United States has affected the Brad- ford manufactures, has been by excluding our productions from their own immense market ? A. That is so. Q. Is that exclusion, in your opinion, an increa.sing exclusion ? A. The duties have been slightly reduced during the last few years, and the result of that reduction has been a considerable increase in our business with America. It is FREE TRADE AND ENQLISB INDUSTRIES. not a large reduction, it is about lo or 15 per cent, and they have also reduced the duty on yarns, which has led to a very considerable increase on imported yarns.' The reduction in duties in the United States referred to by the witness was by the revision of the tariff which took place in 1883, which resulted in increased importations, especially of woolen goods, into the United States, and seriously crippled this branch of industry. The importations continued to increase until they were checked by the higher duties im- posed by the McKinley bill in 1890. They were $35,776,559 i" 1885, as appears from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, for 1894, $52,564,942 in 1889, and at the close of the fiscal year, June 30, 1890, they reached $56,582,432. The McKinley bill took effecf October i, 1890. By June 30, 1891 , the imports of these articles dropped to $41 ,060,- 080, and to $35,565,879 by June 30, 1892, in the short space of two years saving to the laborers and manufacturers of the United States $21 ,016,553, which would otherwise have gone into the pockets of foreigners. Between the passage of the McKinley bill and October 6, 1892, twenty-six woolen mills were constructed in the United States, which exceeded one-half the number which had been built in England during the sixteen years prior to 1890. The results of this measure will be treated more full)' in a later chapter. Mr. Henry Mitchell further said: In spinning merino wool the French are, to a considerable extent, using English- made inventions. I believe that England is superior to any country in our textile machinery. Q. As there seems to be no difficulty in spinning this material in Eng- land, into which country it is imported and re-exported into France, we have not yet reached the root of the matter, namely, the reason why the English, who are in pos- session of the best machinery and the best basis of trade as regards the raw material, have not hitlierto been equally successful with the French in the spinning of this Colonial wool ? A. I can only give the reason which I have already stated; in the first place, that in France they have some advantage in their cheap labor, which forms a ver\' large element in the cost of these goods, and they also have an advantage in the longer hours, and the long experience which they have had in the manufacture of these goods, and also in the very careful way in which they manipulate them and dye them and finish them. O. Can you conceive it possible, judging from what you have already mentioned with regard to the Bradford spinning trade, that any sane man would invest ^100,000 in a spinning mill to compete with a neighbor nearer the London market than him- self, who was allowed to work seventy-two hours a week, whilst he was restricted to fifty-six and one-half hours? A. Under present conditions, I should say that he certainly would not do it. Linen Industry. The linen industry of the United Kingdom is also engaged in a life-and- death struggle. In i860- 1-2 their exports of linen manufactures amounted to $22,985,099. The sales to foreign countries increased and reached $37,746,907 in 1872-3-4. By this time the indu.stry had seen its best days. Exports began to decline and were reduced to $26,513,777 in 1890-1-2, a ■ Royal Commission. Report II, Part I, p. 130. 17 ■Irs/titi-'trrf RETURN TO FREE TRADE. decline of 29.8 per cent from 1872-3-4. Up to 1875 the domestic manu- factures held such absolute supremacy at home that imports of these fabrics amounted only to $837,260. Imports continued to increase until 1890, when they amounted to $2,162,780, an increase of 158 per cent in fifteen years. Fifteen or twenty years more of the same ratio of decline in exports and increase of imports will bring the linen industry of Eng- land to a deplorable condition. Free trade has, then, resulted in arresting further expansion of this industry and sent it on the downward road of cheapness. The economic conditions under which this industry is strug- gling for existence, and proving its right to live, are set forth in the following evidence of two most competent manufacturers given before the commission referred to. Mr. R. H. Reade, manager and director of the York Street Flax Spinning Company, Belfast, said: The linen trade and industry of Belfast is in an unsatisfactorj^ condition as regards the profits of capital. I will show 3'ou what the value of our linen trade has been. France and Germany have interfered verj' much with our yarns and weaving trade. Of the Continental exports against Colonial exports, and what the trade has been in neutral markets, taking the United States as an example. Our Colonial exports of linen in 1870 were ^■405,000 ; in 1884 they were ^663,000, or an increase of 65 per cent. Our other foreign exports were, in 1S70, ^6,842,000, and in 1884 the}' were ^4,516,000, or a decrease of 33 per cent. Tliese are values I am speaking of altogether; so, of course, as a matter of fact, the quantity of our Colonial exports has increased in a higher ratio, while the volume in our other foreign exports has diminished in a lower ratio than that percentage; probably 20 per cent is to be allowed for that. Our Continental imports of both yarns and linens in 1870 were only ^£"189,000 ; they, how- ever, rose in 1871 to ^446,000, and in 18S4 the value was ;^537,ooo. Although the values have diminished, that would show an increase upon the values of 1S70 of 20O. percent. Our total exports to the Continent, of yarns and linens in 1870, were ^1,691,000 — that is, to the Continental countries which we consider competing coun- tries, such as Belgium, France and Germany; Russia is also to some extent a com- peting country. Our total exports in 1S70 to those four countries were ^1,691,000, and in 18S4 they were ^1,194,000, or a decrease of 30 per cent. Now, deahng with neutral markets, I am taking the United States of America for example; in the year 1870 the imports into the United States of America of British linens, including the Irish, were ^"3, 100,000. In 1884, they were ^2,699,000, a falling off of 12'/^ per cent in value. Now in 1S70 the imports into the United States from Germany, Belgium, Austria, France and Russia amounted to ;^i2l,ooo, and in 1884 it was ^6So,ooo, show- ing an increase of five and a half times. It is accounted for to some small extent by the superiority of their designs. There are certain fabrics into which colors can be introduced, in which I think the Continental people have surpassed us, but the extent of that particular branch of the linen trade is not large. I attribute their success as competitors with us mainly to their being able to produce more cheaply than we can. They have the raw material at their doors in Belgium, Germany and Austria. They grow as nmch flax there as tliey use, or nearly as much flax as they use; tliey have got cheaper labor and they have longer hours. They can produce the lower cla.ss of goods more cheaply than we can, but in the finer goods we are more skilled, and we have some special advantages in the way of bleaching which they do not possess, which give us the advantage of bleached linen, shirtings, table Hneus and handker- chiefs; if they are wanted to be pure white.' • Royal Commissiou, Report II, I'^irl I., p. 260. FREE TEADE AND EXGLISR IXDUSTRIES. Mr. Richardson, president of the Chamber of Commerce in Belfast, and also member of the House of Richardson Bros., in Belfast, said : In 1S71 there were S66,ocx3 spindles in Ireland; in 1S85 there were the same number; in 1871 in England there were 269,000; iu 1S85 there were 117,000 in Eng- land; in 1S71 there were 317,000 in Scotland; and in 1885 there were 220,000 in Scot- land. In 1S61 there were 344,000 spindles in England, 279,000 in Scotland, and 593,000 in Ireland. In 1S60 the number of spindles in France was 500,000, and in 1878, which is the last year I have been able to get, they had the same number, namely, 500,000. As regards Germany, there were 138,000 in 1862, and 318,000 in 1877, the last year that we have. And it is very likely they have doubled since that time. Now Austria and Hungary in 1862 had 150,000 spindles, and in 1SS2 they had 488,000. That shows that in those countries there was a very considerable increase in the number of spindles, and we presume they are supplying their own wants. They are competing with us in neutral markets. The linen manufacturer openly disposes of his goods to a merchant, who also buys from foreign countries, and so practically controls the price paid for the goods. He would buy in the cheapest market. American buyers of linen now regularly visit Belgium, Germany and Austria, as well as Scotland and Ireland, for the purpose of making their purchases. We export yarns to Germany, Spain, Italy, Holland, Belgium and France. To Germany, in the five years from 1865 to 1870, we exported to the value of ^3,672,000. In the next five years we exported to the value of ^3,063,000, showing a decrease of 17 per cent. In the five years from 1875 to 18S0, we exported /"i, 278,000, showing a decrease of 59 per cent. In the five years from 1S80 to 1885, the amount was ^1,110,- 000, showing a decrease of 13 per cent. To Spain we exported in the five years from 1865 to 1870, ^3,243,000. In the five years from 1S70 to 1875, /'3, 037, 000, showing a decrease of 6 per cent. In the five years from 1S75 to 1880, /"i, 956,000, showing a decrease of 36 per cent. In the five years from 1880 to 1885, jf 1,350,000, showing a decrease of 31 per cent. To Italy we exported in the five years from 1865 to 1870, /952,ooo. In the five years from 1870 to 1875, ^466,000, showing a decrease of 51 per cent. In the five years from 1S75 to 1880, ^267,000, showing a decrease of 47 per cent. In the five years from 1S80 to 1S85, ^157,000, showing a decrease of 41 per cent. To Holland we exported in the five years from 1865 to 1870, ^1,110,000. In the five years from 1870 to 1875, ;^i,237,ooo, showing an increase of 11 percent. In the five years from 1875 to 1880, /"749,ooo, showing a decrease of 40 per cent, and in the five years from 1880 to 18S5, ^567,000, showing a decrease of 25 per cent. To Belgium we exported in the five years from 1865 to 1870 ^704,000. In the five years from 1870 to 1875, jf6S8,ooo, showing a decrease of 4 per cent. In the five }'ears from J 875 to 1880, ^'604,000, showing a decrease of 12 per cent. In the five years from 1880 to 1S85, .^756,000, showing an increase of 25 per cent. To France we exported in the five years from 1865 to 1870, /■!, 200,000. In the five years from 1870 to 18751 .^566,000, showing a decrease of 53 per cent. In the five j-ears from 1S75 to 1880, jf 797,000, showing an increase of 41 per cent, and iu the five years from iSSo to 1885, ;^866,ooo, showing an increase of 9 per cent.' In connection with the foregoing evidence it should be noted that the report of the Chamber of Commerce, of Belfast, states that " the present rate of wages is slightly below the average of the last twenty years." From another linen manufacturer comes a similar report. The Chamber • Royal Commission, Report II, Part I., p. 260. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. of Commerce of Dundee, stated in its answers to questions submitted b}' the Royal Connnission that, "the rate of wages is at present lower than it has been for the past ten or twelve years, and also slighth- lower than the average of the past twenty years. This is general. It applies to both skilled and unskilled labor. ' ' The Linen Merchants' Association of Belfast, also .stated in their report to the Royal Commission that wages are slightly below the average of the last twenty years. It is per- fecth- apparent that it was only by a reduction of wages to the level of 1864 that English and Irish manufacturers have been able to main- tain themselves in the home market and to prevent being to a greater extent driven out of the markets of the world. A reduction of wages is the inevitable and necessary result of ruinous competition. The effort to make cheap goods, the effort to hold markets to which the English manu- facturers have been subjected during the last twenty years, has destroyed profits and brought about a condition from which it will be impossible for the English manufacturers to extricate themselves, so long as their home market is thrown open as a prize to be contested for by rivals. It is a fact worthy of consideration that while this industr>' is expand- ing and improving in every countrj' where it is given the security of a protective tariff, that it is declining under free ■ trade in England. The following extracts from eminent authorities are worthy of careful con- sideration by the linen manufacturers of the United States, and those countries which are practicing the policy of protection : Mulhall — "During the last twenty years of this centurj- the linen industry of Germany has increased 300 per cent." Nineteenth Centur}-, June, 1883 — " During the last twenty years the linen industry of Great Britain has decreased 18 per cent." British Statistical Abstract, 1S82 — " During the last ten years the exports of linen yarn from England have decreased steadily everj^ >'ear, until they are less than half what they were a decade ago." Nineteenth Century- — "The shares of the leading flax mills in Ger- many are 20 and 22 per cent above par. The shares of the ten principal flax mills in Belfast are 58 per cent below par." ' Jute Industry. Up to recent years British and Scotch manufacturers held a monopoly of the jute trade. The building of the mills in India, Germany, Austria and Italy, has brought into the market of the world, such strong rivals that the trade has been completely revolutionized. The following evidence of jute manufacturers di.scloses a condition which ought to satisfy Ameri- can manufacturers that their own home market, as long as it can be preserved by protective tariffs, is more desirable than an\- .share of foreign trade, which they might obtain by accepting the invitation of free traders, * Fair Trade Jowrnal, Vol. Ill, p. 65. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDliSTEIES. to adopt the policy of free imports. It is perfectly apparent that a removal of duties, or even a reduction to a low ad valorem rate would result in the closing of every jute mill in the United States and an absolute surrender of the United States market to aliens. Mr. Julius Weinbnrg, of the Dundee Chamber of Commerce, jute manufacturer, said; The jute trade has been in an unsatisfactory condition for three or four years. I attribute that condition to more mills being erected, both in India and on the Con- tinent of Europe, in addition to those already existing in Dundee. The production is larger than there is a demand for. Formerly jute was manufactured into what is called gunny cloth in India, which is used entirely for Indian consumption. It remained in that way until the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. Before that time nobody in India thought that jute goods could be sent elsewhere, because the>- would have to go around the Cape. In the year 1S73 there were four mills existing in India, altogether, and they sold their productions at home. Now there are twent\- mills in India, having an aggregate of Sooo looms, and 150,000 spindles. Those mills not only produce what is wanted in India, but they have entirely taken away some of the mo.st important markets we formerly had in Dundee, such as .\ustralia, the Cape of Good Hope for wool packs, and also San Francisco for grain bags. They have not only done that, but they have also sent large quantities of goods to neutral markets, even to the west coast of South America, Valparaiso, for instance, and they have also of late years, sent large quantities to .\merica, which hitherto was the most important market we had in Dundee. In fact, the United States took about 50 per cent of all that was produced in Dundee. Wages are a great deal cheaper in India than they are in Dundee; in fact a spinner in Calcutta makes less than half what a spinner does here. He earns 3.V. ^d. (93 cents) a week of fifty-four hours, whereas in Dundee we pay from 8i. to los. (|2.oo to I2.50) a week of fifty-six hours. That is one reason of the bad state of Dundee trade. Ninety-three cents a week in Calcutta and from two dollars to two dollars and fifty cents a week in Dundee! This is the wage rate with which free trade would compel American labor to compete. Do American farmers desire to ship their grain in bags made by labor receiving such pay: What a market for American beef and pork such laborers would furnish ! The family of one American artisan affords a better market to our farmers than a whole community of such laborers could possibly give. Dundee laborers could scarcely afford to eat wheat at ten cents a bushel. Do the American farmers desire to depend on such customers ? The witness continued as follows: In Germany they have about twenty-three mills going for the manufacture of jute; of those twenty-three mills fourteen were started in the year of 1SS3; before that time there were only about ten, the first of them being started in 1S60. The rates of duty we have already furnished to the commission. In some countries, such as Austria, the duty has been entirely prohibitive; we used to do a very large trade— my own firm did a very large business in Austria, and it can do nothing at all now, the trade being entirely killed. Very nearly is the same with Russia and some other markets, including Italy, all owing to these very heavy duties.' 1 Royal Commission. Report n.. Part I., p. 218. • RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Mr. Walker, of the Dundee Chamber of Commerce, said: When the mills first started at Calcutta and began to compete with us they took the heavy trade from us, and we cannot compete with them. We simply altered our machinery so as to make it suitable for the goods we were introducing into Germany and Russia. Germany was the best market w'e had, with the exception of America; and after going on in that way for some time those foreign countries began, first of all Italy, and then Germany and Austria, and lastly Russia, to put on very lieavy duties. Those duties did not tell at first so adversely, because they had to put up their works to produce the goods. My firm used to send out between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 yards to Germany alone. Russia was a very large market for us, but in the last two years, since they have built these mills and put on these high duties which, in the case of Germany, equal 27 per cent, and in the case of Russia 112 percent, my firm have almost entirely lost this trade. In 1882 we exported 47,000,000 yards to Germany; m 1S83 that number had decreased to 35,000,000, and in 1SS4 it had decreased to 27,000,- 000, while last year it was down to 19,000,000.' Lace Industry. The import of lace goods into the United Kingdom for home con- sumption was very insignificant in 1S60, amounting to only $277,805, but by 1875 it had increased to $1,940,030. Since that date it has become quite considerable, amounting to $4,538,235 in 1890, an increase since 1875 of 134 per cent. While on the other hand, the exports of domestic productions declined from $13,610,398 in 1881-2-3, to $10,000,368 in 1890-1-2, or 23 per cent. The causes which have contributed to this result are free trade in England and protection in other countries. Rival industries have been built up under protection on the Continent, which have grown so strong that they are invading English markets and driving English manufacturers out of the foreign trade. The English people are still clinging to the policy of free trade, and seeing their own industry undermined and ruined. The evidence of lace manufacturers given before the Royal Com- mission, contained many pointed facts upon the advantages of protection, showing how the industry has been built up in Gennany, employment given to German artisans and a business created which could not have been brought into existence, excepting under the influence of protective tariffs. The following evidence also discloses the reasons why advocates of free trade in the American Congress and elsewhere, attack specific duties with such bitterness. It is a well-known fact that ad valorem duties are favorable to that system of under-valuation and fraud, by which the advantage given by protection is either neutralized or destroyed. Mr. Frederic Carver, from the Nottingham Chamber of Commerce, said: From 1S73 to the beginning of 1879, we suffered in like manner with tlie rest of the country, in fact I think we were suifering as badly as any place could be, from ' Ro\aI Commission, Report II, Part I., p. 211). FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. the special causes at work to prevent our producing, first, as well as foreign countries, and secondly, as cheaply as foreign countries. The increase of foreign competition can only be shown, I think, or be fairly estimated by the continuous growth in Ger- many and elsewhere of machinery, which has recently taken place. Prior to 1879, I believe I am justified in saying that there was scarcely a lace machine in Germany whatever. In 1879 a duty was put upon Nottingham manufactured goods of sucl: character that it at once induced a number of manufacturers in this country, seeing that those duties were almost prohibitory, manufacturers who had difficulties with their workingmen especially, to say, "Well, that being the case, this great duty which they now put upon Nottingham manufactured goods offers a great advantage, and therefore I will take at least some portion, if not the whole, of my plant to Germany;" and the consequence is, at the present time we see a number of Nottingham manufac- turers, who actually have establishments at Plauen, and are making goods which, if it were not for the protective duties that were created for them bj- Germany, would be made in Nottingham. The German tariff being a specific tariff, that at once shut out what the Nottingham and other English goods, I think, are especially noted for, that is, aiming to make a low class, cheap, and effective article; and we find, unfortunately, that wherever these specific tariffs exist, they always have the same result. Unfor- tunately this process which was initiated in some measure by Austria, has been followed by Germany, and it has been followed by France, and always with the same results, our trade ceasing and our manufacturing decreasing. The tariff in Germany was neither more nor less than a means to tempt machinery from this side to locate itself in Germany. That attempt has been very successful; and at the present time we find that Germany can not only make all the lace curtains they want, but they are now offering certain goods in this market, and in neutral markets, in competition with English manufacturers. I think the evidence carries conviction with it, that if it were not for the immense advantage that they enjoy in the price of labor, they would never be able to compete successfully with us in this market. Russia is another country with which we have lost a considerable amount of business; that is owing to the same operation.! 1 Royal Commission, Repolt II, Part I, p. 234. CHAPTER V. Free Trade and English Industries— (Cow^'/wKfa'). Metal Industries. The following quotation throws light on the condition of the metal industries in Great Britain: An analysis of last year's exports reveals an all round decline, which is very unsatisfactory. Between the years iSSo and 1885 the total exports from Germany increased about 25 percent, say from 992,000 tons to 1,232,505 tons, which found its way to China, India, the River Platte, United States and Australia. In steel and iron wire this competition has been felt most keenly, for whilst the total exports from England in 1S83 were 62,784 tons, those from Germany amounted to 203,627 tons, and in 18S2 they were 227,416 tons. For a time the Germans even succeeded in be3ting our English makers on their own ground. Btit this led to such a reduction in wire drawers' zvagcs as rectified this anomaly; but for exports we are often at a disadvan- tage when competing with them. The increase of production in Germany will be manifest from the following figures: .879. 18S0. .881. 1882. Production of iron wire, .... Production of steel wire, . . . Tons. 188,902 4.034 Tons. loiSoo Tons. 1i:Ss Tons. 254,018 124,003 The great extension in steel wire is, no doubt, due to the large development of ' ' Basic ' ' process. We may anticipate that this competition will increase, and it may be necessary for the English manufacturer most seriously to consider in what way he can meet and overcome it. There is no shutting our eyes to the fact that we are somewhat heavily handicapped in the race. Wages are lower, even after making all fair allowance for the greater efficiency of British labor, but the system of tonnage rates and payment by the piece, in contrast to day labor on the Continent, accounts for a considerable portion of the difference. ' It has come to this, that the British iron and steel manufacturers are reducing wages in order to prevent their home trades from being trans- ferred to Continental countries. It was urged, when free trade was adopted, that under its ' ' .stimulating breezes " the natural advantage of having coal and iron lying side bj' side (fuel and raw material), aided by the genius, ability, wealth and mechanical skill of the English people, the supremacy acquired during .so many years of protection would be maintained. A high degree of skill has been met by a high degree of skill. Capital has ' Extract from the Aunual Melal Circular of Messrs. W. Fallows & Co., of Liverpool, dated Jan. 9, 1895. (264) FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. been pitted against capital. Coal and iron are found lying side by side in many countries. Sir Lowtliian Bell, president of the Iron Trade Association of Great Britain, said before the Royal Commission:' In Germany, France, Luxembourg, new fields of iron ore have been discovered, very analogous in point of character to those vphich had led to such great develop- ment of the iron trade in Cleveland (England) and elsewhere. The whole constitutes an immense deposit of iron stone, which begins in Luxembourg, and, passing through Alsace, enters France, running through about 150 miles in length of the country by a lew miles in width. Q. Why should we not have supplied that which was so wanted abroad ? A. We could not supply it and send it to Germany, because in that country they were able to make iron and deliver it at a given point in Germany more cheaply than we could have made it here and deliver it at the same point. In addition to the freight and other charges of transports, there are heavy import duties to pay on entering the German Empire. The same observations made in respect to Germany are also more or less applicable to other European countries. The monopoly of the British iron-masters is broken. Mr. Bell, speaking further of the reduction of prices and expansion of the industry, said: There was a considerable increase in the make of iron between 1870 and 1875. I have here the prices of Cleveland iron from 1870 to 1879; this kind of pig iron brought 505. and 30'. in 1870, 49J. 8(/. in 1871, and 1872 795. id. 1872 and 1873 were years that I mentioned before as being exceptionally good ones; in 1873 it was 109^. 2d.\ in 1S74, -JOS. iid.\ in 1S75, 54^. and 6d.\ in 1876, 47^. and iod.\ in 1877 42^. and id.\ in 1878, 39?. and id., and in 1879, 34s. and 4(/. The make of the whole world, as nearly as I have been able to estimate it, was 11,565,000 tons in 1870. The monopoly of the iron trade held by the English masters at this time enabled them to take advantage of conditions, fix prices to suit them- selves and reap enormous profits. To be sure, an unusual demand arose at this time irom extensive railroad building and other causes, yet no increase in the cost of production occurred excepting a slight advance in wages, yet the profits were very large. The ability of a country holding a monopoly of a trade to take advantage of such conditions and levy a tribute on the buyers of the world, was well understood bj' the free trade party in 1846, and was the chief cause of their desire to make Eng- land the sole manufacturing nation of the world. As competition arose prices declined. Had other countries neglected to build up their industries under protection, England would have continued to "suck in gold, gold, gold," as Mrs. Trollope said. Notwithstanding the constant harping about protection's raising prices, through the rival industries which have been reared under its influence, the consumers of the world are undoubt- edly getting cheaper iron than they could ever have hoped for under free trade monopoly. ' Second Report Part I. pp. 41-42. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Mr. Bell continues : In the year of 1872, which was the commencement of two or three years of high prices, the make had risen to 14,345,000 tons. After 1S79 an extraordinary change became apparent in the volume of make (of the world), for during the ensuing five years the average make was close on iS,ooo,ooo tons, and in one of them, 1SS3, it rose to 21,663,000 tons, or nearly 50 per cent on what it was in 1879. The make in the United States has increased from 1SS4, 131 per cent on the make of 1870. That of the rest of the world in 1884 is 237.9 above that year. The production of Great Britain rose between 1S70 and 1S83 from 5,963,000 tons to 8,529,000 tons, but the foreign quantity rose from 5.602,000 tons to 12,534,000 tons. The iron industrj' of the United Kingdom has not only received a set-back in the development of the industrj^ in other countries by the loss of foreign trade, but by maintaining open ports the consumers of England are making large purchases abroad. The increase of imports for home consumption of some of the leading metal manufactures from i S60 to 1 890, were as follows: i860. 1890. I423.565 297,160 300,810 220,335 668, 1 10 1 1,372,375 279.785 453.060 13,843,200 2,220,835 Brass, Bronze, etc., Copper Total, jSi, 909,980 118,189,255 I While the imports have been increasing, as disclosed by the foregoing figures, since 1874 the exports of domestic productions have declined. In 1872-3-4 the total exports of iron and steel manufactures were $143,- 520,242. During the following twenty years of marvelous development in other countries, as competition increased the exports declined to $118,- 908,362 in 1890-1-2, a decrease of 17. i percent. It has already been pointed out that from the beginning of railroad building in 1850 to 1874, the British iron-masters supplied the world with the larger portion of materials for their construction. The export of railroad iron of all sorts from the United Kingdom in 1872-3-4 was $50,470,966; by 1890-1-2 it had declined to $20, 136,125. It will be remembered that the first steel rails were made in the United States about 1867, when protective duties were first imposed for the purpose of giving employment to American labor in making them for American railways. A similar decline has taken place in British hardware and cutlery, which amounted to $24,052,361 in 1872-3-4, and to $12,477,912 in 1880-1-2, a decline of 48 per cent. In connection with the foregoing, the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade and Industry', becomes very interesting. The witnesses point out in specific detail the causes which have brought FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. about the decline of various branches of this industry in the United King- dom. The reduction in wages which have been made to enable them to resist the invasion of their home market and to hold foreign trade, shows clearly that the cost of labor in production is the very basis of successful compe- tition. Another fact is brought out verj' clearly, that were it not for pro- tective tariffs imposed by the United States, we should be using imported hardware and cutlery, our railway trains would be drawn by foreign-made locomotives, over rails made in England or on the Continent. The advantage of iron and coal, without protective tariffs, would not have enabled us to develop the vast iron and steel industry which has now become one of the great sources of our industrial prosperity. The attention of the reader is now called to the testimony of numerous witnesses examined before the Royal Commission: James Willis Dixon, president of the Chamber of Commerce, SheSield, was examined and said : ' Q. Do you notice in ShetEeld any symptoms of what may be called depression ? A. Certainly. There are many houses to let, the value of land has gone down verj- considerably, and the value of house property has gone down from 30 to 40 per cent. The value of land has gone down 40 per cent at least outside the town, although in the centre of the town it remains, perhaps, about the same. The steel rail trade has left the town, and last year, speaking of the Limited Com- panies, their value has depreciated two million pounds sterling. There is not any fresh building going on. I should like to say that I consider it about at a standstill at the present moment; it was never so difficult to let houses or to sell land. It is attributable to the want of more profitable orders coming into Sheffield, and I think to the decline of trade. If you ask me what the cause of the decline of trade is, I could perhaps give a few reasons. I know some glass cutters who have failed, parti)' owing to the competition from the importation of German glass. The Germans export iron and steel rails and tires and axles to Italy and Spain, and to other countries where there are low markets, and orders often go there in consequence. Speaking generally, of course, when the agricultural interest of this country is de- pressed the Sheffield trade is depressed in proportion, and I believe that the agricultural interest is very greatly depressed, owing in a great measure to the low price of cereals, as corn may be brought into this country at a rate of carriage which is very small. I know this, because my travelers are all over the agricultural districts of England and Scotland, and, of course, I am hearing about every day from them, and the general cry is, the depression of trade. Then there are the American duties. I had a fine trade with America about twenty-five years ago, a magnificent trade. I had an agent there who was paid ^400 a year, to keep stock there, and who did a big business. It is all gone and I do not send dd. worth to the United States to-day. And other firms are similarly situated with myself. I had a very large Canadian trade. Four or five years ago I did several thousands a year with Canada, but the Canadians put on the duties, and I do not do a thousand now with Canada. That is another reason for the depression of trade in Sheffield. Then the French have altered their duties from ad valorem to specific for many Shefiield things. I know that in my village of Wadsley, where they make Wadsley flat backs, which is a com'mon knife which used to go so largely in France, they have great destitution in that callage. I live in that village and I came up from there on 1 Royal Commissiou, Second Report, Part I., p. 18. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Monday to London, and my wife said to me as I was coming awaj', "Several of the families are so very poor, will you allow me to order soup to be made for this village ? " The reason is the alteration of duties in France. Then with regard to Spain, we can- not get in there at all. The Russians, too, have closed their markets. They are making their own steel rails now. By the Board of Trade returns I see that the colony of Natal we were doing five years ago ^8,000,000 worth, but they are not doing ^4,000,000 worth to-day. I had a fine trade there, but it is about closed. The Ger- mans are cutting the Shefliield cut-glass industry out. They come over to this country and buy the patterns and they come back and sell glass here at half price. I consider that the trades-unions in Sheffield hamper trade and keep up the rate of wages abnor- mally, and keep up the price of labor more than it would be if there were not trades- unions; and, of course, that handicaps the Sheffield manufacturer considerably against foreign competition, and that is a very serious thing. Q. As you are aware we are- frequently told that if any country imposes an import duty on manufactures it raises the cost of manufacture in the country imposing it ? I am anxious to know whether that has been the case in Germany? A. I believe that has a great tendency to keep out my goods from Germany. O. But could you say whether it has tended to increase the cost of production in Germany, and so to lessen German competition in England?- A. It has not lessened German competition, it has increased it. I used to do a splendicj. trade in Britannia metal in Germany twenty years ago. I could go and sell five hundred waiters in a day, whereas, I could not sell one now. The competition is. keener (in England). I have seen the Germans coming here in shoals. I can only tell you this, that I have more German people coming here, and I buy more German goods, myself, and I find the people that I know in business are buying more German goods. There are merchants in the city of London who used to buy goods for the colonies and for foreign countries in England ten years ago, but the)' now go and buy in Germany goods apparently equal, and at a much less price, and the orders are to buy German goods and not to buy English goods, and so they beat us. This is an important fact to be considered, because trade of this char- acter is not disclosed by the official records of imports and exports of the United Kingdom. Goods purchased bj' British jobbers on the Continent and resold in other countries are shipped direct from the countr>- in which they are produced to the place of destination. An increasing trade of this character can be carried on without giving employment to English labor. As productive industries are made unprofitable at home by excessive com- petition and poverty of customers; as domestic industries are .supplanted and die off, capital instead ®f going into other pursuits at home, seeks the foreign trade of btiying in one country to sell in another, which Adam Smith regarded as the least profitable trade for a nation. I. T. Smith, director and general manager of the Barrow Hematite Steel Company, said on examination : ' The export of steel rails practically ceased to the United States ten or twelve years ago; it was in consequence of the high duties that existed in the United States. Pro^ tection has enableil the Americans to hold their own market as against English com- petition up to two months ago, when we broke through it with an order we then obtained; and we had to pay upon those rails f 17 of duty, and &s. freight, tliat is J19. The duty is now $17, it was in fact I27 only a moderate period ago; the duty has been reduced several times, but always kept .at such a point that we have been unable to compete with them until just recently. ' Royal Commission, Second Report, I'art I., p. 59. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. This is a confirmation of the statement of Mr. James M. Swank, secre- tar}^ of the Iron and Steel Association of America, that our duties on steel rails were no higher than they ought to be. The attacks which have been made on the steel rail producers of the United States have emanated from the steel rail trust of Europe, designed solely to destroy the industry in America that a market might be provided for the produce of the labor and capital of aliens. The reduction in prices which followed the establish- ment of the steel rail industry in the United States together with the employment which it has furnished to labor, fully vindicates the policy which closed our markets to foreign-made rails. O. Can 3'ou give us any information with regard to the association which we understand has been formed for the purpose of distributing the orders received for the manufacture of rails? A. I had something to do with the organization of that association, and the conduct of it since. It was formed two years ago, at which time ste^l rails were being sold at less than £1^ per ton at the works. The quantity of rails that were required then had fallen off to about one-third of what it had been in previous years. We were all of us working nothing like half time, the competition became so keen that we got down to less than ^4 a ton at the works. After some time the makers in England, all except one firm, agreed to join the association, and it was decided to endeavor to associate the Belgians and Germans with us, as being the only two countries that exported rails. It ended, after taking the figures of three j-ears, of the exports from the three countries, that Great Britain kept 66 per cent of the entire export trade. Belgium had 7 per cent and Germany had 27 per cent. We have since modified the division a very little, and given Germany i or 2 per cent more, and Belgium yi per cent; but in effect this country has reserved two-thirds of the export trade. The next thing that we had to do, having agreed upon what proportion each country was to have of the orders of the world, was to agree amongst oiirselves how we should divide those orders, and we thereupon assessed the capabilities of each work, each compain' representing a certain number of parts out of one hundred parts. The effect of this has been that we have gone on for two j'ears dividing the orders in something like a proper proportion, and we have maintained a price of £4 13J. a ton at the works, it having been when we began, ^^4. From the foregoing facts it appears that the destruction of the steel rail indu.stry of the United States, through a repeal of our protective tariffs, would commit the American consumers to the tender mercies of a gigantic foreign steel rail trust, in which the great European countries are united. If through the annihilation of steel rail production in the United States, the steel rail trust is destroyed, we should certainly be no better off, .so far as this class of trusts is concerned ; hence, it appears that trusts must be dealt with through a different class of legislation. Mr. Smith testified further that, ' ' In the steel works during the last four years, I should think the wages have gone down 20 per cent, they are that amount less now than they were. The amount of employment in this particular branch of trade only keep the men at work half the time, and their work is less per day now than it was four or five years ago. ' ' RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Charles Belk, master cutler of Sheffield, said: I believe that we are quite capable of holding our own in neutral markets with the Americans and Germans. Certain markets, to some extent, have been closed against us within the past twenty years. To a large extent the markets of the United States, and France and Germany. The market of the United States has been closed for the benefit of the home producer ; the same has been the case in Germany, and to a large extent in France also. In many of the trades the workmen also have been compelled, by the pressure of circumstances, to accept lower rates of wages, but on the other hand, in other trades there is no material reduction in the rates ; and in the latter, the lack of employ- ment is largely compensated by the exceptional cheapness, at the present time, of all the necessaries of life. In the commoner and inferior kinds of productions there is a competition which is appreciable. I think it is attributable largely to the fact that in Germany the workmen work for lower wages and they work longer hours. The protective duties imposed by the United States, have been the cause, to a great extent, of the decreasing amount of Sheffield goods that went there. I will not say that the United States has benefited by the imposition of those duties, but it is certain that Sheffield has suffered from the imposition of those duties. ^ The report of the Chamber of Commerce from Sheffield states : Formerly a most lucrative trade was carried on with the United States, which drew very large supplies of goods from this district. The duties, however, which have been placed upon these goods have for the present, at any rate, extinguished the trade, except where great excellenceof quality renders the cost no object. From Germany the lower qualities of goods made in this district have been almost entirely shut out by duties, and the same remarks apply to France and to Italy. Thomas Edward Vickers, engaged for many j'ears'in .the crucible bar and sheet steel trade, and also in the manufacture of steel for ordnance, marine and locomotive works, was examined and said :" A number of years ago there was a very large export from Sheffield of steel in bars and sheets, for the manufacture of tools of all classes. My business in this trade was chiefly with America, and is nearly extinct now. The loss is not only with America, but with other markets, and they have gained nothing else in return. O. What was the cause of your losing those markets? A. The high duties against us. The amount of trade in bar and sheet steel with America, in 1864, of my firm, was /83,ocio; last year our whole business with America was under ^4000 in value. Again, our trade with that country in railway material amounted to /ioo,ooo in 1873, and last year it did not reach £1000. This manufacture afforded employment for colliers, steel converters, steel melters, and their furnace men, crucible makers, clay getters, filters, foremen, rod and sheet rollers, sheet shearers, and a large number of other men connected with the inspection, packing, etc., of the steel. Q. Have those men who were so employed lost their employment? A. Many have lost their employment. Q. A further explanation of their diminished employment is, that a new process was .substituted for the old, which does not require so much labor; is that your view? A. Not at all, it is because the trade has entirely gone away from us. If we could recover our old business with America we should givi- employment again to this class of men. Q. Are you able to compete with America in neutral markets? A. Certainly; I do not at all believe in American workmen being superior to English workmen, as some people choose to say, and therefore 1 Royal Commission, Secoud Report, Part I., p. 74. ' Id., p. 108. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. able to manufacture at a lower cost. My idea is that no help can be given to trade excepting by utilizing our colonies, and making some federation by which we get free trade with our colonies, and tax other countries which do not give us free trade. The development of the manufactories in the colonies, has not been so great as within the United States. It certainly could not be because the manufactures in the United States have been fostered by their tariffs. The development in Ger- many has been greatly accelerated by the adoption of a distinctive protection policy. Q. I am anxious to obtain your opinion as to whether this large inducement which is offered, by the operation of the high tariffs, has deflected the movement of capital and skill, which otherwise would have gone from this country to our colonies, to the United States, and so developed America at the expense of our own colonies? A. I think it must have done so. There has been a very great emigration from Sheffield to the United States, very little to Germany, and to Russia very slight. The emigrants to America remain there. I have only heard of individuals returning. The new steel industries of America will be chiefly established upon skill imported from Sheffield. The United States manufacturers cannot compete with us outside of the States. The manufacture of steel in the United States must simply be for their own market, which was for many years the most valuable market we had. Their highly paid labor necessarily involves expensive manufacture. The United States cannot compete with us in Canada, although they are next door. We receive no competition from the United States in Australia, or in India, or in any other colon}'. The reader will note the important fact brought out bj' the foregoing evidence, that wages enter so largely into iron manufacturing that the high wages paid in the United States stand in the way of successful com- petition with England ; that the only way by which we can hold our own markets against England under free trade, to say nothing about getting a share of foreign trade, would be by a radical reduction of the wages of American labor. Stewart Uttley, practical file smith and general secretary of Sheffield's Trades Council, said: One of the principal matters which appears to affect our trade, and likely to affect our trade in Sheffield in future, is that of spurious goods and false marks. Since the introduction of the Bessemer process there has been brought into the market a cheap class of steel used for purposes where a keen cutting edge is not required, but admitted by most competent judges to be practically unfitted for many of the purposes for which, in consequence of the great difference in price between it, and the best crucible steel, it is used. This matter of imposition is so glaring that Dr. Webster, the American Consul for Sheffield, in his report to the American Gov- ernment for 1884, makes special reference to it in the following terms: "It is an open secret that thousands of tons of Bessemer are sold annually as cast steel for the home as well as the foreign market." He stated, "that a steel manufacturer had boasted that he bought steel at $50, and sold it for $250. ' ' The Consul also refers to the ancient practice of the Sheffield Cutler's Co., of enforcing the public destruction of any cutlery which was found to be of material inferior to what it professed to be. These remarks are supported by the statement of Sir Henry Bessemer, that at least one-half of the crucible steel made in SheflSeld was made from Bessemer scraps. This scrap is worth at the best from /4 to /5 per ton, when crucible steel ought to contain a large proportion of the best Swedish bar iron, worth about ^15 per ton. On table-knife blades and butchers' blades there are four systems of producing the RETURN TO FREE TRADE. blades. First, the forging b}^ hand, which is the system adopted by all respectable firms for their best goods, and in many instances for the commoner qualities; secondly, forging by machinery, commonly called "goffing;" thirdlj', flying or stamping out of common Bessemer sheet steel ; and fourthly, the system of producing the blades from casting from common pig-iron. As every practical man knows that the finest properties of a blade consists in its elasticity and evenness of temper, and accompanied with a proper bevel from back to edge, and as the more a blade is hammered the more elastic and uniform in temper it becomes, it naturally follows that the blade which has been subjected to the most careful hammering and the greatest care in shaping, is by far the best. The goffed blades are very inferior in shape and finish, and not receiving the care which as a rule are received by those forged by hand, cannot possibly be as good. As regards filed blades, the material out of which they are made, as a rule, is very inferior, the shape imperfect, and being subjected to little or no hammering, are lacking in all the properties of a good blade. This would not matter so much, were it not for the practice which so largely prevails of marking the blade "Warranted Shear," or "Cast Steel. Sheffield," when they really are made from Bessemer with the obvious intention of deceiving the purchaser, as it is a well-known fact that shear and cast steel are the very best for blades, and SheflSeld, possessing the reputation for producing both steel and blades, customers observing the mark are induced to buy, but for all practical purposes they are useless. Mr. Robert Holmshaw, another member of the above-named society, and a Sheffield artisan, testified on the same day that, "The last instance in which an inferior quality of goods was destroyed in Sheffield would be thirty-five years ago, and that was destroyed in what was called 'Paradise Square. ' ' ' Thus it appears from the evidence of these experienced arti- sans of Sheffield, that the effect of the excessive competition to which manufacturers of this famous manufacturing centre have been subjected, is enforcing the use of poor material, and the making of an inferior qual- ity of goods. It is such practical experience as this which the advocates of protection are now enabled to invoke to disprove that free trade dogma which was announced by Mr. Cobden and his associates, and which has been persistently urged, especially by theoretical writers, that free trade or free competition, operated as a stimulus to the production of superior goods and finer quality. It appears that the desire to under.sell, to hold markets and outstrip competitors, indtices the perpetration of frauds upon customers, which are unknown among those producers who, under the shield of protective regulations, are enabled to regard something besides mere "cheapness' ' as a basis upon which manufacturing may be carried on. In regard to the rate of wages Mr. Uttley said that the rate of wages for skilled artisans in Sheffield was lo per cent lower than they had been for five years before. He says: "Now the generality of the men earn at the present time, from iSs. to about 22.?. a week for piece work." Mr. Robert Knight, general secretary to the Boiler Makers' and Iron Shipbuilders' Society, gave the following testimony : Q. What do you say with regard to the condition of the industry in which you arc interested? A. It is in a most deplorable condition. The work has fallen off FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. to that extent that we have fully one-third of our members, who are usually engaged in ship-building, out of employment at the present time. The number last year (out of employment) was 3927 in January, 6727 in June, and 9046 in December, showing an average of 6681 out of employment during the whole year, being 23)4 per cent of the society. At the end of March, 27 per cent of our members were out of employ- ment, as compared with 25 per cent of December of last year. O. What are the causes to which you attribute the present depression, and the depressions which have from time to time succeeded one another? A. There is not the slightest doubt with refer- ence to ship-building, but what it has been over-production ; it applies to the whole country. . Q. What is the remedy to which you look? A. The principal remedies, or one of the remedies, which I should suggest, would be the taking away of the large surplus labor that we have, to our colonies, and it is possible to do so, especially the ones from the agricultural districts. It would considerably assist the labor market if that was done. Some few years ago a number of small farms were turned into large farms, and on account of the breaking up of small farms and throwing them into large farms, there was the displacement of a large number of hands; not only the small farmers themselves but the people were driven away from their homes, some driven into the towns, and others driven to emigrate, and also the laboring classes of men, such as wheelwrights and mechanics of different kinds, were driven from the country villages into the towns as a rule. In the boiler-making line with which I am connected, also which belongs to the same society, we have very often a demand for our men to go to America and Australia, and to different colonies, where they have found employment, and many of their friends have followed them. Q. How are your wages at the present time, as compared with any previous time that you may have in your memory? A. The piece rates would be something like 40 per cent below what they were four years ago. The day rates would be reduced something like 10 per cent, I should think, taking them all around over the last three or four years. The day rates are fully t}4 per cent lower than they were ten year ago. I am including the whole of the society, which will include boiler-makers and riveters. If I was to take day rates that are paid in the ship-building yards, it would be more than 7)4 per cent. I dare say that the day rates would be fully 15 per cent below what they were ten years ago in the ship-building yards. All those men who are out of employment, about one-third of our society, are skilled mechanical workmen. The actual amount of earnings is 40 per cent below what it was a few years ago. The increase of facilities in the yards affects one class of men only, that is the platers. The angle-ironsmith, it does not affect him in the least ; the riveter, it does not affect him in the least ; and the caulker, it does not affect him in the slightest degree; the only one that is affected by the facilities in the yard for doing the work, is the plater. Q. Would it not be better for those 9000 men who are out of employment at the present time, if they cannot get 6d. an hour, would it not be better for them to take 4(!'.,than to be idle and going about the streets doing nothing? A. If they were to offer to work at 2if. an hour, it would make no difference, for there is not the work for them to do. There is the fact that on the Tyne at the present moment, there are 120 vessels lying up with nothing to do, and no one in the world would build vessels if they have not got work for them. If the men were to offer to-day to work for 2d. per hour, the employers would not lay out a lot of money in building vessels. The revolution which has taken place in the iron and steel industry during the past twenty-five years, has increased the necessity of maintain- ing the policy of protection in the United States. The Continent of iS ployme. Pt-oductive capacity of British dustries. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Europe to-daj' has a vast surplus production for sale. Neutral markets are being contested for under the sharpest competition ever known. British industries are engaged in a life-and-death struggle under free trade. With the best markets in the world closed in great part to their productions, with neutral markets being divided and large sales being made iu their home market, it is safe to say that unless the market of the United States is thrown open to them their trade has seen its best daj'S. The result which would follow such an event is perfecth' well understood by the British manufacturers. Their facilities for production are so vast, that without building a new furnace they could fully supply the American market. Speaking of their productive capacity, Mr. Mulhall in his "Dictionary of Statistics," states that the iron furnaces of Great Britain had a productive capacity of 16,900,000 tons in 1885, while their actual production was only 7,500,000 tons. The English manufacturers reached their highest production in 1882, which was 8,586,680 tons. With a capacity double their highest annual production, why should English free traders and their allies be advising the people of the United States to adopt free trade and capture the markets of the world , when Great Britain practicing free trade, with unlimited quantities of iron ore and fuel lying at the doors of their factories, with abundant capital, with long experi- ence, with skilled artisans and low wages, are running their furnaces at less than one-half their capacity ? The question suggests itself, if there are any markets of the world which are not already pre-empted, whj^ do not English manufacturers rush in and make the capture themselves? Chemical Industry. ' ' The only waj' to compete witli Germany, particularly, would be by a reduction of wages." — Testimony 0/ W. Charles Althusen before Royal Commission. The imports of chemicals into the United Kingdom, which were $1,702,405 in i860, increased year by year until they reached $5,961,660 in 1890 for home consumption. The loss of foreign markets, however, from foreign competition, has inflicted a severe blow upon the industry. The following evidence upon the condition of the chemical industry of the United Kingdom is very important in many respects. In the first place, the long business experience, ability and candor of the witness gives such weight to his expressions upon certain economic propositions that they command the most careful consideration. The injurious effect of free competition upon the industries of a country, is clearly proven. Low wages are shown to be the only means 15j^ which England, under free trade, can resist foreign competition and fight the industrial battle in which .she is engaged. Another fact pointed out is, the very slight improvement in wages which has taken place in this industry between 1855 and 1885. The reductions which were made between 1876 and 18S5 disclose the fact that English manufacturers have been attempting to FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. accomplish b}- a reduction of wages what might have been secured through protective tariffs. They have reached a point where their home market can be held onl}- by sacrificing the comfort and prosperity of their wage- earners. This is not only occurring, but the profits of manufacturers are being wiped out and industries destroyed. It is a most significant fact that after forty years' experience with free trade the witness, who was an eminent tariff reformer with Richard Cobden, should arrive at the conclusion that free trade is a failure, and that reciprocity treaties would have been more beneficial to their interests. Charles Althusen, who has been in business since 1840 as a member of the firm of Charles Atwood & Co. , chemical manufacturers, said : I may remark that I have always taken a great interest in tariff reform, first with a view of bringing about the removal of restrictions in this countrj-, and sub- sequently I was actively engaged in promoting tariff reforms abroad. I visited France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain and Belgium, and from the support I received from Her Majesty's Ministers, some good resulted from my exertions. I cannot hesitate to state now that had commercial treaties been entered into before our Corn Laws were repealed, our commercial relations with foreign nations would have been very much better than they are at present. I am able to speak more particularly with regard to the chemical trade. Upon the whole, it is not satisfactory. It is the consequence of over-trading and competition. Q. Does that competition come from abroad or from home? A. Latterly it has come from abroad, to a very consider- able extent; not that we have had as yet any very large imports into this country, but the Germans, particularly, have taken our markets away from us. The first shipment of chemicals to Germany was made by me in 1835, to within a few years the exports were constantly increasing, but now the Germans produce about 120,000 tons of soda ash animallj-, which is more than sufficient to supply their wants. O. Do you consider we are in a position in this country to compete successfully with foreign countries as regards chemicals? A. I think we can compete, so far as it concerns the cost of raw materials. I think we are, upon the whole, upon an equality except with regard to labor. The rate of wages has fallen this last year owing to the compulsory retirement of some of the manufacturers ; the trade began to be so unproductive that several works have been closed. I have ascertained the wages paid in Prussia, which are from 50 to 100 per cent below our rates, though the hours of working here are fifty-four against seventy hours per week in Germany. Q. Have there been many works closed in consequence of the depression? A. I do not recollect the precise number of works, but I think five or six have been closed on the banks of the Tyne. Q. What do you look to as the best means to be taken for improving the condition of the trade, especially in that business? A. In the first place, bad trade cannot fail to lessen production, and this, probably, will increase the price of the articles which have to be sold. The only way to compete with Germany particularly, would be by a reduction of wages, but how that is to be brought about is the difficulty. That it must come is to me perfectly clear, because when employers cannot sell their productions at a profit, they will in the course of time, be unable to pay the wages now required by the men. I have no hesitation in saying that if the cost of labor is lessened our chance of competition will be ver\' greatly improved. Taking the article soda, for instance, the cost is entirely composed of labor, except for the royalties paid for coals and salt, and at each stage the wages are at present higher than our competitors abroad have to pay. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. The markets for our productions have been seriousU' affected bj- the operation of foreign tariffs. The raising of duties in every country lias the effect of lessening our sales. Having always taken a great interest in reforms of foreign tariffs, Mr. Cobden asked me to go to Paris with him, and the reduction of the then existing duties on chemicals was to a great extent placed in my hands, in connection with Mr. Muspratt, of Liverpool. The duties fixed by the tariffs then arranged gave us temporarily, a considerable trade with France; but, the French since then, have lessened the cost of production, and our exports of chemicals to that countrj- have consequently ceased, solely excepting small quantities of bleaching powder. The present duty on soda surpasses 33 per cent on its value. Q. You are aware, I suppose, that there was a great increase in German duties in 1879; did that affect your branch of the trade? A. It has affected us to a con- siderable extent, but I think we are more affected by the Germans having become our competitors. The German manufacturers made fortunes, and as a consequence they greatly enlarged their establishments. They send a considerable quantity of their products to America, where we had the entire market in former years. Q. Are the Americans making much progress in their chemical manufactories? A. They are attempting to do it, and they may succeed, but their high wages are against them. ' The opinion of the witness that the United States can never become a competitor with England and Continental countries, so long as the pres- ent high wage rate is maintained, corroborates the oft repeated statements of American manufacturers. The opinion of one such witness should outweigh the speculations of those theoretical writers who have become the advocates of a policy which has been condemned by the experience of business men. Paper Industry. The paper industry is not an exception to the general rule which is shown to prevail with regard to all British industries. With their ports open to receive the surplus products of the Continent, they have suffered as all free trade countries must suffer when so exposed. The imports into England in i860 were only $511,900. No sooner had the duty been removed than imports began to increase. In 1875 they amounted to $4,767,540 for home consumption, and by 1890 they had reached $9,201,640. During this time the exports of paper made in English factories increased from $4,540,170 in 1S72-3-4, to $7,508,987 in 1890-1-2. By 1890 they had reached the point under free trade, where they were buying more paper than they were selling. This is certainly a result which was never contemplated by Mr. Cobden and his associates. The situation of the industry was disclosed by the follow- ing evidence before the Royal Commission. Frederick Pratt Barlow, paper manufacturer in Hertfordshire, was examined and gave evidence as follows: I should like to supplement the evidence by giving an account of my tour this last fortnight in Germany. This Easter some eminent Scotch papermakers and I ' Royal Cimiinis.sioii, Report HI, p. 264. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH IXnVSTRIES. went across in order to try and discover the reason of all this foreign competition, and why the Germans were able to compete with us so successfully. We visited seventeen mills on the Rhine and in Saxony and Bohemia. The papers we saw being made, and which were sold in Germany itself, appeared to be fetching very good prices, indeed; I mean prices which we should consider good for similar papers in England. But in every mill we saw them making paper for the English market, and these papers were being shipped to London or to India, or to the colo- nies, at prices far below the prices at which the same papers were selling in Ger- many and in Bohemia. They seemed to look upon England, as one man expressed to me, as a sort of rubbish heap on to which he could shoot all of his surplus products by getting rid of so much a week, at cost price or a little below. He explained that he was able to keep down the expenses of the mill, and so make a handsome profit on the paper that he sold in his own market, where it could not be disturbed at all by British competition. There was one particular paper which we were shown, that was selling in Berlin for three-pence, and the same paper was selling in London for two-pence, notwithstanding its coming from the furthest end of Saxony, by rail and river, and consequently being trans-shipped no less than three times. At one mill — I was not at that particular mill — they told my friend with glee that they were making English postal cards for the English Government. The wages we found to be about half what we would pay for similar labor in Eng- land, that is to say, a skilled workman was getting ^s. 6ci. a day, against six shil- lings; material seemed to be about the same in both countries, our coals and chemicals being cheaper, and their wood and straw possibly were cheaper, but not to any great extent. We found in the mills we visited from two to five machines. Much as we would expect to find in a similar number of mills in England, the machines varied from sixty inches up to one hundred and twenty inches in breadth. Some manufacturers seemed to keep one or two of their machines going entirely for the English market. All through, as far as we could see, they tried to keep their output always up to the maximum. It makes all the difference to the profit when the utmost is obtained out of the plant in the course of a week. Q. What do you consider is the part of their system which affects us most? A. The protective duty on the finished article. Q. How would you propose to meet that? A. I should like to see a countervailing duty of the same amount. In Germany the protective duty is equivalent to a half -penny a pound on the paper. It amounts to 33 per cent on the cheapest papers that are exported from Germany. The effect of the protective tariff was to give them the entire command of their own home trade. This has induced them to begin the large works which they possess at the present time. Q. The effect of that has been to enable them in consequence of their securing a steady market, greatly to increase the field of their productive skill, and of course to improve and economize the production? A. No doubt. Q. And that therefore tends to make them stronger in international competition? A. Yes. Q. Might we not assume that the same effect could be produced here; might we not assume that if the paper trade of this country were placed in secure posses- sion of the home market, by an adequate import duty, the effect would be to give more constant employment to those engaged in the trade? A. That is what we maintain. Q. It would, therefore, increase the magnitude of our operations and the economy of our production? A. I think so. Q. And do not the Germans complain of import duties on those chemicals as being a very serious burden on their manu- facture? A. No. We asked them that question, and they did not seem to consider it a very serious matter. Q. Then you would not agree with this consul's report, in which he says, that those chemicals would have a very sensible influence upon the cost of production of paper, and that the taxing of them is a positive disadvantage, so much so that the working people mix chloride of lime, alum, caustic soda and RETURN TO FREE TRADE. ultramarine? A. We did not hear them complaiu of that. All about Dresden there are chemical factories on a large scale now. ' G. Chater, Jr., said : Q. The high class of papers are all made of English manufacture, are they not? A. We suffer a great deal from the Austrian competition in writing paper. The English manufacturers make as good paper as the Austrians, and better, but they cannot afford to make it at the same price. Q. Do you suffer from American competition at all? A. Not directly. We suffer from American competition in some of the neutral markets, such as South America — they are trying to develop a trade with South America.' Q. \Vhat do you say to this ; I had a paper placed in my hands a few days ago, and I was informed that the paper was manufactured in America ; that the type was manufactured in America ; that the ink with w^hich it was printed was made in America; that the machine with which it was printed was also made in America; and it was really spoken of very gratefullj' ; could you give us any idea whether the English manufacturers could make the same quality of paper? A. Yes, undoubtedly. 2 The questioner should also have added that not one of these things could have occurred had it not been for the system of protection to home. indu.stries practiced in America. The evidence of other witnesses shows that Belgium has also become a competitor. France and the United States are supplying their own markets. England finds herself in the situation, under free trade, of sur- rendering a large part of her home market to aliens, while neutral markets are being largely divided by the surplus production of- protectionist countries. It is not at all surprising that an experience of this character should incline British paper manufacturers to see the folly of free trade, and the wi.sdom of protection. Agriculture. . . . a bold peasantry, their country's pride. When once destroyed can never be supplied. In a protest presented by the peers against the repeal of the Corn Laws, on June 25, 1846, the following reasons were given for their oppo- sition to the measure:^ 1. Free trade will make this country dependent upon foreign countries for the supply of food. 2. There is no security or probability of other countries' adopting it. 3. It may be the cause of throwing lands out of cultivation. 4. It is unjust to landed interest, which is subject to exclusive burdens for purposes of general advantage. 5. The loss will fall most heavily on tenant farmers, and through them on agricultural laborers. 6. Similar results will befall tradesmen who mainly dcpeml on the custom of those engaged in agriculture. I Koyal Commission, Final Report, p. 13. 2 id., p. 10. ^l-'air Trade Jourual, Vol. II. p. 15. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. There were men in those daj-s who foresaw the result which would follow the abandonment of the policy of protection. The true states- men of the time, as experience has proven, were protectionists, and resisted b^' all honorable means the rash and shortsighted policy pro- posed by Mr. Cobden. The peers looked upon the question from the standpoint of a broad and enlightened statesmanship. They dealt with the question as one affecting the whole realm. They believed in preserv- ing and fostering the agricultural interests, as well as the manufacturing and every other. Their predictions were so well founded that after the lapse of forty years it is proven to have been a very conservative state- ment of the case. They underestimated the ruin of the agriculturists which followed. So long as protection lasted the agricultural interests of England had kept pace with the constantly increasing population. Up to 1846 the English farmers had supplied the home markets with the produce of their farms, in exchange for clothing, implements and wares of the English factories. By this interchange of commodities which was carried on, the rural population sustaining the cities, and the cities contributing to the prosperity of the agriculturists, for more than two centuries a flourishing and steadily improving condition had been maintained. The advantages of this policy to a country were fully demonstrated by the long experience of the English people. The valuable home market which so long had been maintained for manufacturing centres was not appreciated by the commercial classes until recently, when they have been able definitely to measure their own losses by the gradual decay and disappearance of the rural population. The experience of the English people in dealing with this important branch of production furnishes one of the most striking examples of the folly of free trade. From the removal of protection to agriculture in 1849, year by year until the present time, the imports of farm products have increa.sed. The agricultural population has steadily decreased, until the tenant farmers are almost wholly driven out of the country, and the land is being cultivated by common laborers, who live in the most miserable hovels, relying for subsistence on meagre earnings and public charities. Land has so depreciated in value that, in many cases, the poorer soil will not rent for enough to pay the tax rate. All improve- ment has ceased, and the country is fast approaching the condition pictured by Mrs. Trollope in her "Life of Michael Armstrong." The merchants in the country villages, carpenters, blacksmiths, bricklayers, stone-masons, and in fact the whole rural popiilation, have suffered loss by the injuries which have been inflicted upon the farmers. As land passed out of cultivation, as improvements cea.sed, as profits were destroyed, and the spendable income of the cultivators of the soil was cut down, an immeasurable injury was inflicted upon the whole country. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. In 1836, while protection prevailed, the imports of farm products for home consumption amounted to only $4,243,225. After the adoption of free trade in 1846, they increased to $219,592,085 in i860, continuing until by 1890, there were brought into the United Kingdom from foreign countries and consumed there the enormous sum of $599,728,940. Nearly every dollar in value of the products included in these figures might, under protection, have been produced in the United Kingdom, and would have given employment and support to a vast population. The imports of wheat alone increased in value from $43,454,340 in 1859, to $150,338,265 in 1880. A greater quantity imported in 1890, was of the value of $117,250,550. To this should be added the imports of flour of $11,908,990 in 1859, and $44,883,080 in 1890. The following table shows the number of acres planted with wheat in the United Kingdom during periods of five years, and the number of people supported on home-grown wheat from 1855 to 1859, and from 1885 to 1889. It discloses the fact that 1,679,618 acres had gone out of wheat cultivation and 10,500,000 fewer people were consuming home-grown wheat than at the time when free trade was adopted. If the same number of acres were cultivated now as in 1855, it would feed 22,000,000 of peo- ple, whereas only 12,000,000 are being fed on domestic wheat. Average area iu Number of persous Quinquennial period. wheat acres. supplied. 1S55 to 1859 4,128,972 22,500,CXX> 1885 to 1889, 2,449,354 12,000,000 Decreased, 1,679,618 Decreased, 10,500,000 From 1841 to 1849, out of a population in Great Britain of 19,592,824, 17,004, 118 were fed on home-grown wheat, and 2,588,706 on imported wheat, as estimated by Mr. Porter. The home-grown wheat compared with the consumption imported, given iu quarters iu 1845 and 1887, was as follows: AVERAGE FOR THREE YEARS. 1845. 1887. Quarters. Quarters. Home-grown, 16,203,571 7,982,740 Import of foreign, less export, 1,103,346 16,319,706 17,306,917 24,302,446 Population, 28,300,094 37. 09'. 564 Per head, 279 lbs. 314 lbs. The decrease in the cultivated area continues steadily year by year, as shown by the Statistical Abstract of Great Britain, comparing 1882 with 1892. The number of acres cultivated in the several crops named, were as follows: FBEE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. Grains. 1SS2. 1S92. Wheat, 3,003,960 2,219,839 Barley, 2,255,269 2,036,810 Oats,. 2,833,865 2,997,545 Rye, 56,553 4S, 103 Beans, 436,882 311.31° Peas 246,851 194,424 Total, 8,833,380 7.808,031 Decrease in ten years, 1,025,349 In 1895, as shown by the agricultural returns, the acreage of wheat was 1,417,641, a decrease from 1892 of 802,198 acres. Green Crops. Potatoes 541,064 525,361 Turnips and swedes, 2,024,326 1,937,163 Mangolds, 333,645 361,235 Cabbage, kohl, rabi or rape, i49,94i 150,992 Vetches or tares, 265,857 198,678 Other green crops except clover and grass, . 160,827 96,148 Total, 3,475,660 3,269,570 Decrease in ten years, 106,090 acres. Permanent pasture, 14,821,675 16,358,150 Increase in ten years, 1,536,475 acres. The increase in permanent pasture has been made without an increase in stock-raising which would make such change necessary. The land thrown out of cultivation is put down in the Abstract under the head of "permanent pasture," when in fact it is simply adding year by year acres to waste land. The acres which have gone out of cultivation furnish only slight evidence of the decline of the industry. The system of free imports has made farming so unprofitable that land-owners have ceased to make improvements. The soil is running out and in many localities becoming unproductive. Instead of free trade's acting as a stimulus and compelling the adoption of better methods of cultivation, it has acted as a blight and hindrance to improvements. The cultivators of the soil can- not afford to invest money in machinery and labor, for the purpose of competing with other countries. It is only nece.ssary in this connection to point out some of the prin- cipal imports of agricultural produce which have brought about this con- dition. The imports of barley, oats, rye, peas, beans, buckwheat'and maize added to those of wheat bring the total imports of grains in 1 890 up to $219,075,260. The reader should study carefully Table No. 12 of the imports of agricultural products for home consumption into the United RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Kingdom in 1890, in order to appreciate fully their magnitude and variety. Of dairy products the imports were as follows: Butter in 1846, amounted to only $1,863,635. By 1890, butter, including margarine, had reached $66,563,400. The imports of cheese during the same period had increased from $2,533,805 to $23,996,635. The above statements relate to the imports for home consumption. No reshipments are included in the figures given. It would be out of place in this connection to attempt to enumerate the articles contained in the table referred to. The facts presented by it account for the disasters which have overtaken the tenant farmers of the country, and undermined, and in a great part ruined what at one time was a very important industry. The increase of imports caused a decrease in the cultivated area, which resulted in a decrease iu the employment of labor, and a diminu- tion in the agricultural population. The Minority Report of the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade in 1886, contained a table showing the percentage of the whole population employed in agriculture, taken from the census figuresof 1851, 1861, 1871 and 1881. The decline was gradual and steady, and had reached the following point in 18S1 : Population. 1851. Employed in Agriculture. Population. 1881. Employed in Agriculture Bnlgand and Wales, . Scotland Ireland, 17,927,609 2,888,742 6,552..l85 20.9 per ct. or 3,746.868 22.7 ; ;; 655,744 48.4 3.171.354 26,061,736 3.745.485 5.144,983 11.5 per ct. or 2,997,100 Total, 27,368,738 7.573,966 34,952,204 In 1881, 5,643.547 Total decrease in num ber of persons employed in agriculture from 1851 to 1881, 1,930,419 7,573.9661 The agricultural population of England and Wales, as shown by the census of 1891, was less than 1,518,914, or 5.25 per cent of the whole population. Mr. Arnold White in "The Destitute Alien," says, "With our existing population of 29,000,000, the proportion (of the agri- cultural class) is only one in every nineteen. ' ' The Fifth and Final Report of the Royal Commission on Labor,' shows that the number of agricul- tural laborers in England a:nd Wales in 1891 had decreased 20 percent in twenty years; that the decrease in Scotland was nearly 27 and in Ireland 45 per cent during the same period, and that in 1891, of the total number of persons over ten years of age engaged in agriculture in England and Wales, nearly three-fourths or 73. i per cent were common laborers. In Scotland, this class con.stituted 62.5 per cent and in Ireland 30. 7 per cent. ' Minority Report of Roy.il Commission on Depression of Trade, binal Rep., Royal Com on Trade and Industries, p. 70. 2 part I., pages 201*3. of June, 1S94. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. The decrease in the rural population has been going on, while there has been an increase in the whole population of the kingdom. More specific results which have followed the adoption of free trade, are very fully set forth in the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade in 1885. Sir James Caird, K. C. B., senior land commissioner of England, was examined and gave evidence as follows: Q. Have you made any inquiry into the loss sustained in recent years by land- owners and farmers in this country, and as to how such loss may have influenced the general depression of trade? A. I have, and I may state that those inquiries have extended over Great Britain with the exception of some few counties. Begin- ning with Northumberland and the adjoining counties, and part of the borders of Scotland, the answer is, that on the farms which are chiefly arable the landlords' loss of spendable income is 40 per cent. The spendable income, as I would define it, would be what was left after meeting the usual charges upon the estate, and therefore, an)' reduction of rent, or other loss of rent, would mean a diminution of the spendable income. First, 40 per cent loss on farms, which are chiefly arable ; secondly, upon farms which are half pasture and half arable, 30 per cent. On hill farms, where it is all moor or grass, 20 per cent, that is with regard to landlords. With regard to the tenant, in the first case, that is chiefly arable farms, capital ordi- narily lost, and no income as a matter of fact from the farm. On the first class the chiefly arable farms, the tenants' loss is 40 percent; on the second class, 25 per cent; and very little income; and on the third class, 10 per cent, and very little income. With regard to wages, they have fallen 15 per cent from what they were ten years ago, to something like what they were at the beginning of the twenty years to which we have been referring. The rates (taxes), have increased, especially on the present reduced letting value, that is to say, if you were dealing with a farm yielding ;^5oo a year formerly, and it is now only worth .^300, of course if the rates remained the same over the whole district, they must press more heavily on the ^300 than on the .2^500. The rates are higher in proportion to the rent. The next county is Durham and North Riding, of Yorkshire ; the loss of the landlord's spendable income is put down at 25 per cent; the tenants show 30 per cent of spendable income. With regard to wages, there has been 10 per cent reduc- tion. In the counties of Yorkshire and Durham, the landlords have 30 per cent reduc- tion, and the tenants 50 per cent reduction, and wages have been reduced 10 per cent. In Staffordshire and Shropshire, the landlords have lost 25 per cent from the reduction of rent and expenditure to assist the tenants, and expenditure beyond the usual expenditure on the estate, and the tenants have lost 40 per cent. The land- lords have had 33 per cent, and the tenants 75 per cent reduction in spendable income. With regard to wages, a reduction of 10 per cent has been made, and a further fall of 5 per cent is expected. Now coming to part of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Bradfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire, the landlords' spendable income has diminished fully 30 per cent, and the tenants' capital from 20 to 60 per cent. The tenants' capital throughout the country has been reduced in ten years in Great Britain by jfSl, 000,000 (1405,000,000), and their spendable income by ;fi7,59o,ooo()f87, 900,000). Wages have fallen in the last two years from 10 to 20 per cent. In Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge and Huntington, and what are called the High- lands, which means really rising pieces of ground in the fens, which were islands cultutf iti England. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. in the ancient times and are now called Highlands, the landlords have dimin- ished in income 40 per cent in the fens, and 33 per cent in the Highlands. The tenants have scarcely any profits. The expenditure is largely reduced in order to keep up their working power. Seven farms of 2200 acres in the fens in four parishes, let at a reduction of 47 per cent from that of ten years ago. A farm of 1000 acres, which then let for /750, does not now yield the landlord as much as he paid iu rates and taxes, and farms have fallen into the landlords' hands which have produced neither rent nor interest. Farms are ' ' flogged, ' ' which means that they are very much run out. Their working stock is reduced and not renewed. In Hertfordshire the landlords have had 25 per cent reduction, and the tenants' capital is 40, 50, 60 and even 100 per cent less. In York, Lincoln, Norfolk, Leicester, Warwick, Northampton, Bucks, Oxford and Surrey, the spendable power of the landlords has been reduced 40 per cent on the average; the tenants have lost largely of their capital and they have no profits; and their spending power is not half what it was ten years ago, and is taken, most of it, out of capital. Wages have fallen from 15 to 20 per cent below what they were five years ago. In Kent and Sussex the loss of spendable income to landlords is put down at 25 per cent, and the tenants no profits. All the trade in the country towns is in great depression from the impoverished state of landlord, tenant and laborer. In Cumberland, Westmoreland, North Lancashire, West Northumberland and the borders of Scotland, after the drop in prices last year, the rents could not be made, and the landlords have abated from 10 to 20 per cent. The tenants rather holding on, than selling out at the great sacrifice of the present crisis. But if no improvement in price takes place we have not seen the worst. The poorer class of arable lands will not pay for cultivation, and this kind of land not being favorable to grass, there is a great loss of produce. The wages of men and boys have fallen from 20 to 30 per cent. In Shropshire, Staffordshire, Hertfordshire, Montgomery,, Worcester, Warwick, the landlords' loss of spendable income from reduction of rent is 25 per cent, and the diminished value of timber for sale, and the increased expenditure on drainage, etc., 10 per cent, making together a loss of spendable income by landlords of 35 per cent, and the tenants' income has been diminished 50 per cent. The wages of the laborers have been reduced from 7 to 10 per cent, and the farmers employ less labor. In Gloucestershire and the neighboring counties, the landlords have had 25 per cent reduction of rent, and the tenants 50 per cent diminished income, and the wages are lower by from 10 to 12 per cent. Now coming to Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and Dorset, the loss to landlords in the north and west of Dartmoor, on the poorer land, is from 25 to 30 per cent, on the better land, on the south and east of Dartmoor, from 15 to 20 per cent, and the tenants are living on their capital on the poorer land, while there is 30 to 50 per cent less than the usual expenditure by the tenants on the richer land. Wages have not fallen until two years ago, and then the fall was 10 per cent, but labor is less employed and farms show this in reduced condition. Taking the evidence as far as I have given it, it embraces nearly the whole of England. With regard to Scotland, taking the whole of the northern counties from Aber- deen northwest, the landlords' loss is put down at 30 per cent, and the tenants' at more than 30 per cent. With regard to wages, they have fallen 10 per cent. In Perthshire, Forfar and Fife, the landlords have lost from 25 to 33 per cent, which is increased to 50 and 60 per cent by the large demand for improvements. Their power of spending is reduced by from 50 to 60 per cent, and the tenants have lost the whole of their spendable income. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. In Dumfries, Midlothian and Argyle, and the western and southwestern coun- ties, the landlords have less spendable income by from 20 to 30, to 35 per cent, and the tenants have lost all their spendable income. Their power to spend is lessened by one-half. There has not been much reduction in agricultural wages; but in the case of masons, joiners, etc., they are 25 per cent down. The present as compared with ten years ago as deduced by me from those figures Which I have already given, would show on an average that the landlords have lost 30 per cent, the tenants 60 per cent, and the laborers 10 per cent. And putting that into figures it brings out that on ^£'65,000,000 of the rental of the United King- dom, the landlords' loss of 30 per cent would be equal tp about ^"20,000,000 (jfioo, - 000,000) ; and the tenants' 60 per cent, inasmuch as their income may be taken -at half the rental, would be just the same, that is to say, 60 per cent, or half the rental, is also ^20,000,000 (| 100, 000, 000). With regard to the laborers, there was a difficulty in estimating the amount of reduction.' The estimate made by Mr. Caird, "bringsout" the income "for labor at ^28,000,000, and 10 per cent reduction upon that would be ^'2,800,000 ($14,000,000), and the total loss to the landed interest in spendable income for the last year comes out in that way to ;^42, 800,000 ($214,000,000). Q. Are you able to compare the amount of the home and the foreign supply of wheat soon after the commencement of the free trade system, with what it has become in recent years? A. In 1852, after the commencement of free trade and the conclusion of the potato famine in Ireland, and when the gold discoveries in Cali- fornia and Australia had been made, the produce of wheat in the United Kingdom was 69,000,000 cwt., and of foreign imports 18,000,000 cwt. ,and that showed a supply per head of the population of the United Kingdom of that date of 348 pounds. That is for the whole of the United Kingdom. In 1S83, which was the year of our largest import of wheat, the production of wheat in the United Kingdom had fallen from 69,000,000 cwt., to 39, 500, 000 cwt. , and the foreign had increased from 18,000,000 cwt., to 84,000,000 cwt., making (a total consumption) of 87,000,000 cwt. in 1852, and 124,000,000 cwt. in 18S3, and the proportion per head of the population in 1883 was 400 pounds instead of 348 pounds. Then in 18S5 the home production of wheat has still further fallen to 37,500,000 cwt., and the foreign imports had somewhat fallen from what they were in 1883, but still were 80,000,000 cwt., making a total consumption of 117,000,000 cwt., and a supply per head of the population of 364 pounds. Compared with the whole value of the wheat crop in 1874, which was an average wheat crop, and at the average price of the preceding twenty-five years since the intro- duction of free trade, during which time the average was 6.f. ()d. a bushel, the farmers' loss in quantity and quality, and price in the ten following years, eight of which were bad seasons, works out ^fiyi, 000,000 (1855,000,000), or ^17,000,000 a year on the average (or 185,500,000). There has been some compensation for this, in addi- tion to other stock and crops, namely: there have been 100,000 acres more barley and oats, worth /8oo,ooo, and 936 more cattle, worth ;^I2 each, ;fii,232,ooo; but the reduction of 3, 100,000 sheep at 30.S., diminishes the gain by ^4,650,000, making altogether a gain of ^^7, 382, 000 to be deducted from the loss annually on wheat of /17, 100,000, showing a net loss to the farmers on the wheat crop alone in these ten yeais of ^97, 100,000 (1485,500,000). Q. Can you form any average of what the consumption per head of the popula- tion is? A. It has been generally taken at nearly six bushels per head, which would be from 340 to 360 pounds. ' Royal Commission, Second Report, Part I., p. 293. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Mr. McCulIoch, an eminent authority, estimated the consumption per head of wheat before 1S50 and 1851, at eight bushels per head of population. The estimate of Mr. Porter was, from six to eight bushels. It is a common trick of free trade statisticians to assume a large increase in the consumption of wheat per head of the population, from the in- creased imports, leaving entirely out of their calculation, the decline in the home production; and attempting thereby, to make it appear that there has been an increase in consumption per capita, thus showing an improved condition of tlie English people. Joseph Martin, tenant farmer in the Isle of Ely, in the Fen District, was examined and said : I hold 2, 300 acres, 500 of which are my owu. It is impossible to say what have been the losses to the farming interests during the last eight years. The tenant suffered the most severely in the years of 1S7S-81 ; many were totally ruined, others crippled for life, all more or less experienced heavy losses, and it certainly short- ened the days of several. I have no doubt that it caused three of my neighbors in the parish to commit suicide. During the last three or four years the landlords have made great reductions, even under the existence of leases, varying from 10 to 30 per cent, and frequently have only received the rent by instalments. I have known several instances in which receipts have been given in full for the year's rent, when no rent has been paid, considering it wi.ser to keep a tenant without rent than have the land on hand. In this parish, consisting of 17,000 acres, I con- sider the loss to the landlords alone in shape of rent is 20.y.per acre. In the year 1874 the Earl of Hardwick had a sale, at which a piece of land was sold for /600, and a little more than five years since that land was resold for ..^300. My father sold a farm to the late Archbishop Musgrove, about twenty-five years ago, at £22, an acre, and last year it was sold for .,^5 an acre. I also have a statement of a farm of three hundred acres near Ely, which one family had had in their possession since 1S23. A few years since ;^i6,ooo was offered for the property; for family purposes, how- ever, it was mortgaged to the extent of ^9,000. A few years ago it was sold for the sum of ;C5.2oo and that was all that could be realized. There is an estate belong- ing to my sister which was let at 30^. an acre in the year of 1857. The lease expired in 18S2; we could not let it except at \os. an acre and even then could not let one farm and I have them all on hand now. I could tell you of innumerable instances here, farms formerly let at about 2,0s. have now come down to 15^. and los. One farm that my father had for fifty years and after his death I gave 305. an acre for, is now let at 16.J. an acre and good land too; there are thousands of acres which the landlords are occupying because they cannot let them. ' John Coleman, manager of estates, was examined and said: The enormous increase in the number of bankruptcies and settlements with creditors is quite sufficient evidence. Many more are hanging on whilst anything remains, taking all they can out of the land, and living to a large extent upon what should be the landlord's capital, namely, the resources of the soil.' S. B. L. Dru.se, chancery barri.ster and .secretary of the F'armers' Club, was examined and said: ' Then only the other day at the Fanners' Club we had a paper read ou farm machinery, and the writer of that paper, an agricultural engineer, said "There has ' Royal Commission, Third Report, p. 48. = la., p. 52. 3 id., p. 64. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. recently been a marked want of purchasing power in the agricultural world wl has had a serious influence for the worse on agricultural engineering. In fact, the British farmer has had so little money to spend in purchasing new and reinstating old machinery that the home trade has practically gone to the dogs, and of late years the English engineers have had to look to foreign countries for their custom ers. " There are individual cases of local traders in villages and small towns within my own knowledge, who have been absolutely obliged to give up their busi ness entirely through the depression. The local trades people, more especially those in large towns, as well as blacksmiths, wheelwrights and others, in the villages whose principal customers were the farmers, had also suffered losses. The small village shopkeepers, whose principal customers were the laborers, had not suffered so much Then again, clergymen have suffered very much, especially clergj-men whose incomes were derived from glebes. Of course, if a clerg>-man has his income largely curtailed in that way, his expenditures would also be curtailed. William J. Harris, farmer in Devonshire, was examined and said : I have valued the produce of the farms of England and Wales. I do not include Ireland and Scotland, because I have only valued Ireland quite recently, and Scotland I have not yet finished. I have valued this produce on different con- ditions altogether from the valuations made by Sir James Caird and others, and I find that the produce of England and Wales at the current values of the past year amount to ^120,000,000 sterling. My letter in the Economist newspaper on the eighth of August, last year, will show to the members of this Commission exactly how the valuation was made. I should reduce this valuation to ^75,000,000 if tillage farming had in most part to be abandoned, Q. That is at the present prices? A. Yes, at the present prices. I do not look for any advance. Q. What should you say was the difference in value between the food produced in this country fifteen years ago and now? A. I calculated that there was about ^{^40, 000, 000 worth more food produced in England and Wales alone from twelve to fifteen years ago, com- pared with what there is at the present time. I happened to have read Sir James Caird's evidence, and I see he puts the decrease at ^^42, Soo, 000, compared with ten years ago. His valuation is really of the produce of the United Kingdom; in my valuation the difference would be rather more than Sir James Caird's. Q. Do you consider that the depression in trade which is now said to exist is largely dependent upon this decrease in the value of our agricultural productions? A. Very largely. I believe that the production of ^£'50, 000, 000 sterling from our own soil is equal in importance to the working classes to the export of ;f8o,ooo,ooo sterling worth of manufactures to foreign countries. Q. Will you tell the commission in what way you make out this estimate? A. I consider that an export of ;^8o, 000, 000 worth of manufactured goods would require an import of more than ^^30, 000, 000 worth of raw material on the average, and would, therefore, only leave ^^50,000,000 to the benefit of this country, whereas the production of ,^50,000,000 worth more food in this country would lead to the pro- ceeds being spent in the country, and would, therefore, be equivalent to the other sum. ' In estimating the effect of free trade on the country the decline in the value of land should be taken into consideration as well as the loss of profits and incomes. The following brief extract from the Fair Trade Journal shows the loss sustained by the nation in this respect : According to statistics published by Mr. Giflen, the capital value of the land in the United Kingdom is 1691 millions sterling. This appears to be only its ' Royal Commission, Third Report, p. 81. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. agricultural value, productions other than from the surface iucreasiug the capital value considerably. In 1882 lands were valued at 1880 millious, so this shows a decrease of 189 millions occasioned by the ruinous competition with foreign countries in the grain supply, reduction of rents, unoccupied farms, and the increase of area laid down in grass for stock-raising purposes, which was formerly used for cereals, now imported and also at prices which would not compensate the British farmer for his outlay. ' "In proportion as a greater share of the capital of any country is emfiloyed in agriculture, the greater will be the quantity of productive labor which it puts into motion within a countrj'. The capital which is employed in the trade of exportation has the least effect of any. ' ' '^ Stating it in another form, it may be said, in proportion as the capital of a country is withdrawn from employment in agriculture the quantity of productive labor put in motion will be diminished. It has been universally recognized that agriculture affords the best means of support and subsistence and is the most essential of all industries. From the earliest time the application of labor to land has formed the basis of pro- duction. A policy which had for its definite purpose the destruction of an industry so vast and important, could only operate to undermine the very basis of the wealth and prosperity of the country. The experience of the English people during the past forty years has demonstrated the advantages of agriculture, even in a country densely populated and in which tillage is carried on at greater expense than in foreign countries, having the advantage of new virgin soils. The early expressions of Mr. Gladstone, especially in the speech addressed to the Agricultural Society of Chester in 1858, shows that he gave assent to the free trade policy without correctly measuring its results. He said, "Whatever else may come and go, this at least we know, that no vicissitude of time or change can displace agriculture from the position it has ever held, and ever must hold, from the very first state of the generations of man until the last day of the crack of doom itself. ' ' Mr. Gladstone spoke at a time when agriculture in England was brought to such a degree of perfection that the well cultivated fields and gardens attracted general attention. Ralph Waldo E^merson gave the following glowing description of rural England upon his visit to that country about 18.50: England is a garden. Under an ash-colored sky the fields have been combed and rolled till they appear to have been finished with a pencil instead of a plough. The solidity of the structures that compose the towns speaks the indu.stry of ages. Nothing is left as it is made. Rivers, hills, valleys, the sea itself, feel the hand of a master. The long habitation of a powerful and ingenious race has turned every rood of land to its best u.se, has found all the capabilities, the arable soil, the quarry of the rocks, the highways, the by-ways, the fords, the navigable waters, and the new arts of intercourse meet you everywhere; so that England is a huge phalanstery, where all that man wants is provided within the precincts. 1 Fair Trade Journal, Vol. VI., p. 590. • Adam Smitli's " Wealth of Nations," Book II, chap. 5. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. What a contrast is presented by Sir James Caird and the other witnesses before the Royal Commission. In less than forty years of free trade millions of acres have gone out of cultivation. The land is half and poorly tilled and "is fast degenerating into prairie, while the power- ful and ingenious race of husbandmen have been turned into unskilled and starving drudges in the towns, or paupers in the work-house." The sturdy yeomanry, from which England's armies were recruited and which so long formed the pride and stability of the realm, have either been reduced to a most miserable condition, or have been driven to other countries to seek habitations where governments respect men and have regard for the welfare of their own citizens. England alone places a premium on emigration; she alone seeks to drive out her defenders. When free trade was adopted, the Manchester manufacturers made their choice between free trade and the rural population. The loss of rural population has deprived them of their best customers, and now they are complaining of the poverty of their buyers at home. An Australian newspaper, in speaking of the policy of the English government, said: The mother countr>' offers a premium for national decay, and sedulously culti- vates the dry rot of greed, which makes money take the place of men, and which crowds the sinewy peasant out of the land to make room for the stunted cotton spinner; .... and as she sows the wind so she will reap the whirlwind. The gradual extinction of the producing classes of Britain must inevitably end in the l)ottomless pit of national ruin. There is not room in this world of strife and ;ij;gression for a nation of shop-keepers. Purelj^ on a basis of national economy, independent of humane con- siderations, the destruction of English agriculture has proven most unwise. The yearly consumption of about $600,000,000 of agricultural produce which might be raised on English soil, is an absolute loss of that amount to the United Kingdom. Deducting the proportion which would go to the government in tax rates, at least $500,000,000 would be added to the spend- able income, and increase the purchasing power of the English people. Were this vast sum annually added to the produce of the soil of the coun- try, it would increase the value of real estate, induce improvement, and thereby add to the permanent wealth. Eocal merchants, mechanics, farm laborers, tenant farmers and landowners would be made prosperous. The purchasing power of the nation so enhanced, would improve the home market for every consumable commodity and impart life and vigor and prosperity to every workshop and factory in the Kingdom. Mr. William J. Harris itttered a sound economic opinion when he stated before the Royal Commission that he believed that the production of $250,000,000 of food in England was equivalent to the production of $400,000,000 of maiuifactured goods to the v/orking classes, estimating at $150,000,000 the sum expended for the production of raw materials to sustain manufactures, and considering the fact that the profits derived therefrom are divided RETURN TO FREE TRADE. among so few. It should be borne in mind that the exports from England of the three great branches of manufacturing in 1890, were as follows: Cotton, $297,641,943; woolens, $94,619,000; iron, $193,000,000. Total, $585,260,943. This is less than the imports of competing agricultural products. The ability of the English people to produce at home sufficient farm product to feed their own people under proper regulations, cannot be seriouslj' questioned. The example aiforded by France, Germany, Bel- gium and Holland, in sustaining agriculture by a system of protective tariffs, furnishes a complete answer to those who question the proposition. France is one of the greatest agricultural countries in the world, standing third in the production of wheat. The large amount of agricultural pro- duce imported into England from the Continent each year shows conclu- sively what might be accomplished in England by giving the same protection and encouragement to the industry as has been accorded by those countries. Upon this proposition the Fair Trade Journal quoted the opinion of Mr. Mitchell as follows; Only two years ago Mr. Mulhall told us in his "Few Years of National Growth" that "with the growth of population the ratio of imported food" (which he estimated at 38 per cent of our total consumption) "must increase, not that the United Kingdom could not produce food for forty or fifty millions of people, but that agriculture is so cosily and unprofitable an industry that it is neglected for other pursuits." One of the main contentions of that most misleading article is in the words of Mr. Mulhall himself, "that the more we import the cheaper is food and so much the better fed are the working classes," a doctrine, the logical conclusion from which would seem to be that the sooner British agriculture perished, the better for the nation ! This doctrine, however, which has been loudly enough proclaimed by prominent free traders, would seem to have been somewhat discredited of late, since even the Cobden Club has, we are told, begun to take thought for the interests of agriculture.' The following table gives the area and population of the United Kingdom, compared with six of the United States, from which the reader will form a clearer idea of the proportionate size of the United Kingdom. The population of the United Kingdom is given for 1891, and the States for 1890: Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of " Man, and Channel Islands, . Massachusetts . N\-\v Yoik New Jersey, Delaware Maryland, Total ; 1890 1890 8,040 47,620 7,455 44.985 1,960 9,860 1890 1880 119,920 291-3 315-0 278.5 126.0 193-8 1 16.9 96.0 105-7 35,241,482 38,104,975 2,238,943 5.997,853 1.444.933 5,258,014 168,493 1,042,390 16,150,626 13,361,514 'Fair Trade Journal, Vol. IV., p. 4. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. Of this area in the United Kingdom the land is divided as follows: I Arable, . . Woodland, Unimproved, Total, Wales. Scotland. 60.0 3-5 72.0 1.6 26.4 Total United Kingdom, 617 3-8 34-5 While under improved methods of cultivation, the soil of every country on the inhabitable globe is being made to increase in its yield, the yearly production of the United Kingdom is declining. While the land is being neglected, England counts among her exports in 1893, manure to the value of $11,547,105. Instead of buying fertilizers and attempting to keep the soil up to its former richness, it is permitted to grow poorer and less productive. The results which have followed free trade have more than justified the wise and patriotic action of Disreali, Lord George Bentinck, the Marquis of Granby and their associates, who so ably defended the cause of protection against the frenzy and imbecility of the Anti-Corn Law League. General Trades. The limits of this work will not admit of a full treatment of the evi- dence given before the Royal Commission, showing the universal and widespread results of free trade in England. Sufficient facts, however, have been presented relating to the chief industries of the country, to satisfy the reader that there is scarcely a department of production exempt from the downward tendency which the parsimonious policy of "cheap- ness " has brought to the country. The following evidence, relating to general trades and business, is added to that heretofore quoted. Henry L. Muller and William Wiley Lord, representing the Cham- ber of Commerce of Birmingham, general merchants and exporters, said on examination: A considerably smaller number of guns are now produced in Birmingham, in fact, military trade is almost nothing to what it was. Most of the governments that Birmingham used to supply make their guns themselves now ; they have laid plants down of their own. I am speaking of military guns, small arms. (Mr. Lord. ) Those are largely manufactured by gigantic establishments in the United States, but sporting guns are still made largely in Birmingham. Guns that would be used by sportsmen, as of the higher class, and in other case of guns that are exported of small value, £1 each or 155., or something like that; those largely RETURN TO FREE TRADE. go from Belgium in the present day, and the demand for ours have fallen off in consequence of the Belgian competition for the commoner kinds.i Q. Have the Belgians any natural advantages for making guns, which thej' could compete with the English? (Mr. Lord.) A. It is a matter of cheap labor. I attribute the falling off in trade to the duties imposed by foreign countries. Foreign tariffs have generally injured the Birmingham trade most decidedl}', for instance, in Spain. Q. You spoke did you not, of the American entering into competition with guns? A. No, not competition. I say in order to supply their own wants. There is Amer- ican competition in guns. The American competition in small arms is more a question of terms. Belgium and the United States are protective nations, this fact has not prevented the development of competition which has been injurious to us. Both Belgian and American guns and small arm makers, have succeeded in quite equaling us, and quite beating us ; but under the protective system thej' have not been prevented in any wa}', in my opinion, from competing with us. There is great competition in home trade and neutral markets, in such articles as wire, nails and buttons from Germany. The Germans beat us in those articles in the home trade, for price ; and yet, the Germans have adopted protection, in no respect has it weakened their com- petition. In my opinion, it has improved their position, because it enables them by the duties that are launched against foreign competition to send their .surplus productions to this country, and to sell them at a less rate than the majority of their productions are sold at home. The effect of the protective system, which has placed them in command of their home market, has enabled them to sell the surplus of their productions at lower prices and to strengthen their competition with us in neutral markets. The trade with Germany has been decreased owing to the improved workmanship on the part of the Germans. I attribute it to the general advance of manufacturing in Germany. I was there about a month ago, and various things were shown me that they now make in Germany, which they formerly used to import from England.' George Gribble, representative of Messrs. Cook, Sons & Co., dealers in all classes of goods that are used for the clothing of men, women or children — all textile fabrics, cotton, woolen and silks, was examined and said: If I might be allowed to say so with respect to our woolen dress trade, whereas at one time the bulk of the goods that we sold for ladies' dresses was made in this country, now by far the larger portion come from France and Germany. We have an English woolen dress department, and a French woolen dress department, which also includes Germany for woolen goods. Whereas our English department used to be by far the larger of the two, our foreign department is now quite four times as large as the English department, and the same remark will apply to ribbons. At one time we had an English ribbon department, and a French ribbon department, but we found that the English ribbons would not compete with the foreign ribbons, and we have now done away with our English ribbon department altogether, and the bulk of our ribbon trade is done in foreign ribbons now. And the same remark will apply to knit woolen goods, which are largely made in Leicester, and which, at one time, we used to buy in Leice,ster, and now the whole of those goods come from Germany. We find that they can be brought from Berlin to London almost at the same price per carriage as it would cost to bring them from Leicester. Of course the French and Germans compete verj' much with us now in the colonies, for the same reason that they do in this country, because they make more suitable ' Royal Commission. Second Report, Part I., p. 15. FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. goods, and also because they are cheaper. There are a great many goods that we make in this country a great deal better than the French and Germans do. We have thirty departments in our warehouse, and I ca-n only point to five in which the French beat us. They are ribbons, silks, woolen dress materials, knit goods and gloves. ' It is then, in those goods in which the largest amount of labor enters that the French and Germans, by reason of lower wages and longer hours, are able to outstrip their English rivals. The following brief extracts taken from reports of Chambers of Com- merce and Commercial Associations, to the Royal Commission on Trade and Industry, touching certain trades which have not been referred to in the evidence quoted, and also supplementing what has already preceded with additional facts, embrace all the information from such sources that the limited space devoted to this division of the subject will permit. Exeter — Chamber of Commerce. Paper trade. The principal, in fact the only cause of the decline of the paper trade is foreign competition. The depression has since 1875 been uniform. No profit whatever is now got from a great portion of the trade. There are thirteen paper mills now left, as against fifteen in 1870. The Factory Act affects the paper trade injuriously in competition with the foreigner, as we lose twelve hours a week as compared with him. Fall in prices is due to foreign competition. ■' , Glasgow- Mason. -Chamber of Commerce. Memorandum of Mr. Stephens Machinery, both spinning and weaving, has been largely exported from this country to the Continent. In manj' instances the same class of machines are run there, twelve, fifteen and twenty-two hours per day, against that of nine hours in this country, thus rendering it utterly impossible for the home manufacturer to compete successfully either in neutral markets abroad, or even at home, against the free importations from the Continent.' Yet this is the sort of competition the free traders of the United States would compel American labor to meet. Huddersfield — Chamber of Commerce. Woolen and worsted manu- factures, dyeing and finishing. Cotton spinning and doubling. Woolen yarn spinning. Chemical manufactures and machine making. Letter of Mr. Charles Moon. Answer to Question 10. As proof of the deplorable state this trade has been in for the last ten or fifteen years, we must respectfully beg to inform you, we hold a list of over fifty firms of spinners who have been ruined and brought into bankruptcy court during that period. This list can be produced for your perusal if required. The sole cause, we think, of the unprofitableness in the yarn trade is brought about by the large imports of foreign yarn, which is monthly increasing and gradually beat- ing down the home spinner in our own markets. While we are debarred by high tariffs from exporting coarse yarns, our machines are eminently adapted for produc- ing cheaply. The foreign spinner comes here, in times of depression, and realizes • Royal Commission, Second Report, Part I., p. 135. = First Rep., Appendix A. 3 jd. KKTVRX TO FREE TliADE. his yarns at under-cost of production, to the great loss and embarrassment of the home spinners. We also wish to bring before the notice of your council, the large and ever- increasing importation of yarns spun in Saxony, and known by the name o' "Crisp" and "Imitation." . This class of yarn appears to be imported as largely as wool yarn, but there appears no classification of these yarns, in the returns pub- lished by the board of trade, a state of things, we think, which ought to be rem- edied. Another proof of the very serious state of trade here is to be found in the depreciated value of carding and spinning machinery. Good machines, and for all practical purposes, equal to new, if brought into the market, will only realize some 30 or 40 per cent of their cost price. Mill propertj' is also in a similar posi- tion. One noted firm of spinners here has recently bought 40,000 or 50,000 pounds of German yarn, while their own spinning machinery is standing. We, therefore, think you ought seriously to take into considerations those facts when framing your replies to the questions sent \'ou to answer by the Royal Commission on Trade Depression.' Liverpool — Answers by representative watch manufacturer : Watch manufacturing was formerly of special importance ; it is now of very little importance in Liverpool. Thirty years ago the amount of capital invested was probably ^200,000 to .,^300,000. Probably iSoo operatives were employed in the various branches. At present I do not think there are two hundred, mostly old men and (none or) few apprentices being taken. The bulk of the operatives before dying suffered greatly, became casual dock laborers, and entirely sunk in the social scale. 2 • Under a free trade maxim they were to find employment in some more profitable industry. This furni.shes an admirable illustration of the actual operation of free trade. It .shows how difficult it is to transfer artisans from one trade to another, especially under excessive compe- tition to which all industries are subjected by the over-production which is taking place in all branches of trade. Thirty years ago four-fifths of the large number of watches made in Liverpool was exported to the United States — this trade has been entirely killed by the increased American tariff. In fact, it maybe said that, whatever an English watch can be sold for abroad, it is thus excluded or crippled, while the home market is flooded with American and Swiss surplus stocks. It began when the United States seriously raised their tariff, and is at its lowest point now, if it does not go any lower. Manchester— Cotton industry. The great and rapid increase in pro- duction of manufactures of other countries, which formerly were .supplied by Great Britain, is shown by the following evidence: "Increased competition at home and abroad, in every market, a nmch larger number of firms or distributors, more .sellers, but few buyers." The failure of British Colonies and foreign States to support the free trade policy of G Britain. The system entirely broke down on conditi hold that (■stem which rsl K<.'port, .Al>|R- ide. . . . Under .such 1 twenty-five years' trial. FEEE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. and which has in certain occupations been so detrimental to many thousands of artisans and traders should at least be thoroughly investigated. And unless vast numbers of industrious artisans must of necessity be sacrificed for the advantage of the country, their unfortunate and unmerited position should lead to some change in the relation of customs duties, that shall give a fair field for the industry of loyal citizens, who have not done anything to forfeit the considera- tion and good will of their fellow countrymen. Carriage Building. Foreign carriages and harness brought into England duty free, in direct com- petition with English manufacturers. Sheffield. The coal trade, the iron trade and products thereof, the steel trade and products thereof, including files and saws, the cutlery and edge tool trade, the silver, electro- plate, and Britannia metal trades. Foreign competition is also a serious matter in most of the trades carried on in this district. Formerly a most lucrative trade was carried on with the United States, which drew very large supplies from this district. The duties, however, which have been placed upon these goods have, for the present at any rate, extinguished the trade, except where great excellence of quality renders the cost no object. From Germany the lowest quality of goods made in this district have been almost entirely shut out by duties, and the same remarks apply to France, to Spain and to Italy. Leather Trade Association of London. A very considerable falling off in production, particularly from 1880 to 1885, both in volume and gross value; profits almost nil; great diminution in capital employed and employment of labor. The imports of tanned leather increased steadily from 1866 to 1884; in 1866, 76,487 cwts. to 686,393 cwts. in 1884, while exports have only increased from 38,900 cwts. to 177,484 cwts. Take raw hides during the same period, and we see the following results: In 1866 we imported 1,056,643 (less re-exported 2:8,929), 837,714; in 1884, 1,217,744 (less re-exported 481,954) 735,793. This shows that our tanners are working in about 102,000 less raw hides than they were twenty years since. This, taken in connection with our own large increase in population, and the increase and development of our colonies and other markets, proves how much of the trade of the world is slipping away from us. Foreign competition. The imports of finished leather of all descriptions have increased rapidly since 1880, and exports have not increased, thus showing how much we have to complain of in foreign tariffs. We could hold our own against all competition and sell in all markets were these ports as free to the English leather as ours are to foreign. Secure us free ports, or allow us to supply ourselves. There are causes at work that affect the trade, viz., higher wages than the Conti- nental workmen get, and shorter hours of labor, and excessive rates in taxes, through our sanitary laws being more severe. The results are, of course, beneficial to the community, but they none the less operate in favor of increasing the cost of production. 1 The reports of the Chambers of Commerce, and of the associations of business men from the cities and industrial centres of the United Kingdom, 1 Royal Commission, Second Report, Part I., p. 412. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. representing the various branches of productive, distributive and com- mercial industries and callings, were of the same import as the evidence quoted. The universal opinions expressed were to the effect that three causes were operating to undermine the industries of the country : 1. Foreign tariffs under which nations are building up and maintain- ing manufacturing industries, which supply their own market to the exclusion of British goods. 2. Foreign competition in neutral markets. 3. Foreign competition of agricultural products, and fully or partly manufactured goods in the home market. The commission submitted Majority and Minority reports to parlia- ment, together with the individual opinions of members who dis.sented from certain paragraphs of the reports, and upon some questions involved gave their individual opinions. One fact of great importance was con- curred in by all members of the commission. It was conceded, that the condition of trade and industries disclosed by the evidence arose from no exceptional or temporary depression. The Minority Report states, "that it has arisen in the main from causes which appear to us to be of not a temporary, but of a permanent character." The witnesses were not describing calamities which have befallen their industries by a temporary panic or crisis, arising from over-specu- lation and over-trading, but from cau.ses which have appeared under that system of free imports which has exposed every branch of production to the assault of strong and powerful competitors on the Continent. An examination of the records of the Board of Trade discloses the fact that, as imports of agricultural produce fully and partly manufactured, goods have increased, the depression has been intensified and the pinching hard times have been more severely felt. That portion of the Minority Report which points out the classes of people affected by the industrial revolution which is taking place, is most significant of the future of the United Kingdom as a producing country. It reads as follows : 33. The classes who enjoy fixed incomes, or incomes derived from foreign investments, or from property not connected with productive industries, appear to have little ground of complaint; on the contrary, they profit by the remarkable cheapness of commodities. Those who are engaged in the import trade, find little, if any, contraction of its volume, though they have suffered from the continuous fall of prices. Those engaged in the retail distribution of commodities, whether of home pro- duction, or manufacture, or imported, make little complaint, except in specially depres,sed districts; they have, indeed, in many cases been able to realize very full profits, in consequence of the extremely low prices at which their wholesale pur- chases have been made. 34. There are many evidences that a large accumulation of capital has been in progress even during the period of depression. In a country possessing vast foreign investments, and a great international buying, selling and carrying trade, this may well happen, whilst the earnings of FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. its industries and the employment of its population are either stagnant or posi- tively declining. But the diminished value of real estate, and of industrial investments, and the loss of capital sustained by farmers and other traders, must be set ofl against the accumulations from other sources, before any accurate judgment can be formed as to the increase of the aggregate wealth of the country. 35. The complaints proceed chiefly from the classes interested in production : 1. From the owners of agricultural land, and of works, buildings, or mines, who have suffered a great reduction of income, and a serious diminution of capi- tal vahie of their property. 2. From those who conduct productive industries, such as farmers, manufac- turers and those engaged in the mining and building trades. These all complain of the restriction or total absence of profit and in many cases of a contraction of demand which enforces upon them a reduced and therefore more costly production. 3. From the artisans and laborers of whom considerable numbers in some dis- tricts are entirely unemployed whilst a much larger number have onlv partial or intermittent work in consequence of which their actual earnings are greatly dimin- ished, though there has apparently been no general or considerable reduction of the rate of wages. 36. The losses both in the shape of reduced income and diminished value of principal which have been suffered by the owners of property are so completely a consequence of the unprofitableness of the industries for which their property serves as a basis that it would be useless to consider them separately. Their amount is, however, as distinct and disastrous a diminution of the wealth and wages fund of the nation, as the like loss suffered by any other class would be. 39. The relative decline of some of our greatest national industries during the past ten or twelve years in proportion to the population of the country, is shown in many ways in the figures which have been placed before us, and in the evidence we have received : 1. In the progressive decline of agricultural employment, and of the condition and production of the soil. 2. In the marked cessation, during the same period, of the wonted increase in the proportion of our population employed in textile manufactures. 3. In the diminishing proportion of the world's production of cotton, wool, flax and silk, which is manufactured in this country. 4. In the increased value of our imports of finished manufactures during a period in which (a) prices have fallen very greatly; (b) the value of our exports of the like articles has seriously declined ; (c) a large amount of labor and machinery in this country suited to their production has remained unemployed or only partially employed. 5. In the increasing proportion of our exports which consists of coal, steam engines and machinery ; and the diminishing proportion which consists of finished manufactures, which not only require coal, steam engines and machinery for their production, but much valuable skilled labor besides. Referring to the effect of tariffs in foreign countries the report says : 123. Nor can any efforts of producers, however intelligent or energetic, lessen these difficulties; for every improvement made by them is at once appropriated by their protected foreign competitors, through the purchase of English machinery, and the engagement for a time of English superintendents. On the contrary, it is inevitable that any industry which is engaged in a hope- less struggle against insuperable difficulties, must sooner or later fall into a condi- tion of languor, and of decreasing ability to meet competition. Those engaged in betubjX to free trade. it lose heart and hope ; capital and talent are gradually withdrawn from it ; and as it offers reduced remuneration and a diminished prospect of advancement to skilled labor, the quality of the labor employed in it tends continually to decline, and its productions deteriorate. 124. The depression, then, so far as it arises from the permanent and growing; causes just named, cannot fail to recur, after each interval of relief, with equal or increasing force; and this must be endured, unless the nation shall determine to counterwork bj- active measures the disturbing influences which are artificially produced by foreign legislation. The commission was divided in stating its opinions upon the reme- dies which should be adopted to cure the existing evils from which the productive industries of the country were suffering and to restore internal prosperitj'. The Minority Report recommended a return to a protective tariff, while the free trade members of the commission in the Majority Report, still adhered to the policy of free trade ; yet in framing paragraph 82, they distinctly repudiated the doctrine of free trade in the following language : As regards the future, should any symptoms present themselves that foreign competition is becoming more effective in this respect, it must be for the country and the workman himself to decide whether the advantages of the shorter hours compensate for the increased cost of production or diminished output. We believe that they do and on social as well as economical grounds, we should regret to see any curtailment of the leisure and freedom which the workman now enjoys. No advantages which could be expected to accrue to the commerce of the country would, in our opinion, compensate for such a change. The evidence given before them, of the calamities Which had been brought to the laboring masses by Mr. Cobden's policy of "cheapness," was so appalling that the sense of justice of every member of this important official body, was aroused with the exception of one. The grinding-down process which forms the economic basis of the theory of free trade, is such an important element that Bonamy Price, the eminent free trade economist, who was a member of the commission, dissented from the paragraph quoted, in the following language : I beg to express my dissent from paragraph 82. It contains a specific repudia- tion of the great doctrine of free trade. Shorter hours of labor do not, and cannot, compensate to a nation for increased cost of production or diminished output. They tax the community with dearer goods, in order to confer special advantages on the working man. They protect him, and that is a direct repudiation of free trade. The country is sentenced to dearer and fewer goods. This declaration of Professor Price is a confirmation of the opinion of those believing in the doctrine of protection, that the practical opera- tion of the principles of free trade is inimical to the laboring masses, having for its specific purpose the maintenance of the lowest possible wage scale, in order to assure cheap production. While sufficient proof is found in the evidence of manufacturers, busi- ness men and laborers, and in the reports from the various organizations FREE TRADE AND ENGLISH INDUSTRIES. presented to the commission to condemn Cobdenism, the specific question of the relative benefits which might be derived from protection or free trade was evaded, so far as possible, by the free trade members who controlled and directed the action of the commission. That this was purposely done, there is not the slightest question. It has been the design of the Cobden Club and the advocates of free trade in recent years so far as possible to cover up and misrepresent the real causes which are operating to undermine the industries of the country. The failure to specifically direct the inves- tigation which was held, to economic problems, was charged by the Fair Trade Journal to be a part of the free trade plan. Members of the Cobden Club and the representatives of the free trade party refused to participate in the investigation and expose the policy to a vigorous attack by protec- tionists. The Fair Trade Journal on June 4, 1886, said: Lord Derby, speaking as chairman of the Cobden Club banquet in 18S2, said in effect "That we must by all means avoid even an examination into the working of our fiscal system for fear foreign States should imagine that we entertain doubts. ' ' Mr. Gladstone, in his famous speeches at Leeds in 1881, gave expression to the same sentiment. Mr. Mundella in the House of Commons, and if we mistake not. Lord Granville in the House of Lords, and various other Liberal politicians have, on different occasions, re-echoed the same notion. The refusal to join in the Royal Commission on Trade was only the outcome of this feeling.' I Vol. I, p. 266. CHAPTER VI. The Free Trade Policy a Failure. To illustrate the growing discontent with the free trade system the following quotations from the writings and speeches of eminent English- men are given : Free trade has produced exactly the effect that was prophesied in 1S46, both on trade and agriculture. That is to say, free trade for years succeeded because it failed, and is noiv failing becuase it has at last succeeded. — E. S. Cayle. Our free trade friends attribute our commercial advance in former years to free trade. To what do they attribute our commercial decline at the present time?— Digby W. Cayley. I am a rabid fair trader, a protectionist if you like, because the work-people of this country are starving in the streets, undersold by foreign labor. — Mr. Cunning- ham Grahame. With regard to free trade, they had the old nostrum trotted out, that they should buy in the cheapest markets, regardless of consequences. If this absolute cheapness were good, then let them import Oriental labor, let them encourage the sweating system, and approve of the slave trade. —George Shipton, President Trades" Union Congress, 1888. ., In case of war, no navy in the world can protect the huge stream of food which pours every day into this country. — Admiral Close, February, 1889. There can be no doubt that we are suffering from the operations of foreign tariffs. Let us boldly say that if these duties continue, England will have to retaliate.— The late Samuel Morley, when M. P. for Bristol. It is a marvel the people of England have submitted to free trade so long, and it will not be long before there will be a marked change.— Lord Carnarvon, in Australia, 1SS7. Great as are the benefits of cheap food, they nmst be weighed against the disadvantages of paralyzing, more or less, the greatest of our home industries. — Lord Armstrong. He would go so far as to say that should the system of foreign export bounties be continued any further, he would, as the remedy, meet such unfair competition by means of counter\'ailing duties. — Mr. Wilson, M. P. In a few years the (luestion of protection in England will be one of the most burning questions with which they have to deal.— Lord H. Bruce, M. P. What Mr. Gladstone considers the discipline which the Almighty has appointed for us, Carlyle, with deeper insight regards as a voice of earthly profit and loss. "We have," he says, "Hell in England- the hell of not making mone)'. We coldly see the all-conquering sons of toil sit enchanted by the millions in their Poor Law Bastile, as if this were nature's law— mumbling to ourselves some vague janglement of laissez faire supply and demand, cash payment the one nexus of man to man : free trade, competition, and devil take the hindmost, our latest gospel yet preached. " — Fair Trade Journal, Vol. VI, page 5o. (300) FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. I have believed in free trade all my life, but my fear is that it will not last. It prospered when all its conditions were in our favor, but this does not prove that it will prosper when the conditions are extensively changed. — Cardinal Manning. This question of the protection of the industries of Ireland is one of vital importance for the nation. We have to consider the interest of the artisans of the towns and of the laborers in the country, and, as I have already stated, it is my firm belief that it will be impossible for us to keep this portion of the laboring classes at home and in comfort without protection to Irish industries. It is a problem which requires the utmost exertion on our parts to solve. The life of Ireland is dependent upon the preservation of her bone and sinew. Our population has diminished at the rate of a million a decade during the past forty years; it is time that it should be put a stop to, and that it should be possible for the laborers, the artisans and mechanics of Ireland, to live, thrive and prosper at home. —Charles Stewart Parnell, as reported in the Dublin Freeman's Journal, of August 22, 18S5. Turn your eyes where you will, survey any branch of English industry you like, you will find mortal disease. The self-satisfied Radical philosopher will tell you it is nothing ; they point to the great volume of British trade. Yes, the volume of British trade is still large, but it is a volume which is no longer profitable It is working and struggling: so do the muscles and nerves of the body of a man who has been hanged, twitch and work violently for a short time after the operation. But death is there all the same, life has utterly departed, and suddenly comes the rigor mortis. Well, with this state of British industr)', what do you find going on? You find foreign iron, foreign wool, foreign silk, and cotton pouring into the country, flooding you, drowning you, sinking you, swamping you; your labor market is congested, wages have sunk below the level of life, the misery in our large towns is too frightful to contemplate, and emigration or starvation is the remedy which the Radical offers you with the most undisturbed complacencj'. But what produced this state of things? Free imports? I am not sure. I should like an inquiry ; but I suspect free imports of the murder of our industries, much in the same way as if I found a man standing over a corpse and plunging his knife into it. I should suspect that man of homicide, and I should recommend a coroner's inquest and a trial by jury. — Randolph Churchill, Blackpool, 1884. The onl}' mode in which a country can save itself from being a loser by the revenue duties imposed by other countries on its commodities is, to impose corre- sponding revenue duties on theirs. — John Stuart Mill's "Principles of Political Economy, ' ' Book V. I know Canada ; you do not. I know the marvelous change which has occurred since she adopted a protective tariff ; the proposals of the Fair- Trade League to have free trade with our colonies and dependencies, and protection against the rest of the world, were in the highest sense patriotic. — Sir John Macdonald, Prime Min- ister of Canada, when waited on by Manchester free trade advocates, during a visit to England. Just as Mr. Bright now piles up his abusive epithets, so in former days the freetraders piled up their profuse prophecies. — Pall Mall Gazette, November, 1887. It is a striking fact that during the past twenty years, 67 per cent of our emi- grants have gone to the (most protected country in the world) United States, and only 27 'i per cent to our own colonies. — Final Report of the Royal Commission, p. 66. We are obliged to govern our wages and our cost under the influence of foreign markets. I am quite satisfied that in a trade that had to contend with foreign competition fluctuation of wages were absolutely necessary. We had the modern glove trade. It has gone to Germany, and we have no glove trade left. The result was that the glove hands came down to nearly half what they formerly had. They RETURN TO FREE TRADE. made for 2id- what they used to make for 2S. T,d. , and then they could get no em- ployment, and the trade has nearly died out. That was not a satisfactory state of things and one could hardly blame an individual who took advantage of the outrage- ous license afforded by the working classes of their own country, and who in 1863 established "a factory in Saxony, where we employ 700 Germans." It was not fair- trade for a man to take Nottingham looms to the Continent to be worked by foreigners, and the produce to have free access to the Nottingham market just as if the work had been done in Nottingham. — Vincent. The rage for manufacture and commerce at the expense of agriculture is a disease which has been the eventual ruin of ever>' nation that has suffered from it. Nor can we hope to escape the consequences of its deadly ravages, unless by retracing our footsteps before it is too late. — Reynold's Weekly Newspaper, Sep- tember 16, 1888. It is all very well to be the storehouse of the world, and even its carriers, but the basis of our living, as a people, should be found in agriculture and the home trade. The great industry of agriculture is slowly, but apparently surely, dying of inanition and exhaustion, while our genuine home trade is being cut down, if not killed, by foreign imports. — Kemp's Mercantile Gazette, February 29, 1888. If a really serious war broke out, in which one or more of the great naval powers endeavored to intervene between ourselves and the sources of our food supplies, there would be a famine in this country in a week. This is a fact which has never sufficiently impressed itself upon the imaginations of the English people, or upon the intellects of our statesmen. But it is a fact, nevertheless. — Shipping Gazette, 1S89. The opinion expressed by the Royal Commission in its report to par- liament in 1886, that the depression in trade and industries was due to no exceptional or temporary causes has been confirmed by the experience of recent years which have followed. That system of free trade, or free imports, which in 1885 was sapping the vitals of British indu.stries, was the essential cause of the loss of profits, reduced wages, lack of employ- ment and universal stagnation in business. Since 1885 the increase in the imports of competing commodities which has taken place has intensi- fied the suffering which to such an extent prevails among the masses of the people. It has prolonged and made more severe that life-and-death struggle which has been raging in every branch of productive industry, since the effect of free trade began to be felt. Notwithstanding the brazen tricks which have been played with fig- ures and statistics by members of the Cobden Club, the truth can no longer be suppressed ; the world can no longer be deceived by those state- ments which have been put out proclaiming the pro.sperity of the United ■ Kingdom and the benefits of free trade. They have persistently exhib- ited the large imports and exports of the country as an evidence of its prosperity. After piling up long columns of figures showing the exter- nal trade of the country, they at once concluded that this of itself proved their case. Such arguments can only deceive tho.se who have failed to study the character of the trade embodied in the imports and exports. A year of good trade is often compared with a year of bad trade, and the result put out as an indication of industrial growth. FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. The writer has compiled an analysis of the external trade of the country, from the official returns of the statistical department of the gov- ernment. Great care has been exercised in classifying and preparing the several tables and the closest scrutiny of their accuracy is invited. The amounts are reduced to United States money for convenience, reckon- ing a pound sterling at $5.00; a pound sterling in fact representing about $4.86 in United States coin. The figures for the years 1836 and 1846 were taken from Macgregor's Commercial Statistics, compiled by him from the official records of the government, he, having been for many years, member of the statistical department. The tables which show a classification of the imports and exports are numbered from twelve to twenty-two, and will be found at the close of this chapter. The articles imported are classified under two heads ; (i) Compet- ing imports, or the imports of those articles of the produce of foreign countries, the like of which might be produced in the United Kingdom. (2) Non-competing imports, or tho.se articles the like of which cannot be produced in the United Kingdom. Competing imports are classified as follows : Table No. 12 shows the agricultural produce of foreign countries, consumed by the English people in 1836, 1846, 1856, i860, 1865, 1870, 1875, 1880, 1885 and 1890. Table No. 1 3 shows the fully manufactured articles produced in other countries imported and consumed by the English people, in each of the years named. Table No. 14 shows the imports into England of partly manufactured articles, retained for home consumption, in the several years. The non-competing articles are set forth in the following tables for the years stated. Table No. 15 enumerates the imports of raw materials imported for home consumption. Table No. 16 specifies those food products, the like of which cannot be grown in England, and. Table No. 17 gives a list of the imports of dutiable articles. For the purpose of bringing before the reader a clearer statement of the importations of the United Kingdom during the years mentioned, a summary (Table No. 9, page 304), is here presented of the several tables of imports named above, together with the percentage of increase of the various classes from 1870 to 1890. This table (9) also shows total imports, re-exports and amounts retained for home consumption. It has been the constant boast of free trade writers, that the imports into the United Kingdom had more than doubled between i860 and 1890. The purchase by the English people in 1890, of $2,103,000,000 of the produce of other countries, discloses a vast foreign trade in importations. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Table No. 9. Schedule Showing a Summary of Imports for Hotne Consumption into the with Total Imports and Re-exports of Foreign and Colonial Produce Schedule No. 12. Total imports of agricultural produce Total imports of agricultural produce re-ex- Total imports of agricultural produce re- ned for home consumption Schedule No. ij. Total imports of fully manufactured articles, Total imports of fully manufactured articles ■exported Total imports of fully manufactured articles retained for home consumption, Schedule No. 14. Total imports of partially manufactured Total im'ports of partially manufactured rticles re-exported tal imports of partially manufactured rticles retained for home consumption, . Schedule No. 15. . Total imports of raw materials, Total imports of raw materials re-exported, Total imports of raw materials retained for home consumption, Schedule No 16. Total imports of food products, Total imports of food products re-exported. Total imports of food products retained for home consumption Schedule No. IT. Total imports of dutiable articles, Total imports of dutiable articles re-ex- Total in'iports of dutiable articles retained for home consumption Total competing imports, Schedules Nos. 12, 13 and 14, Total competing imports, re-exported, Sched- ules Nos. 12. 13 and 14 Total competing imports retained for home consumption. Schedules Nos. 12, 13 and 14, Total non-competing imports, Schedules Nos. 15, 16 and 17 Total non-competing imports, reexported. Schedules Nos 15, 16 and 17 . Total non-competing imports retained for home consumption. Schedules Nos. 15, 16 and 17 Total classified imports Total unclassified imports Total imports per statistical abstract COMPETING IMPORTS. 6,996,135 $ 29,331,160 $157,565,450 2,752,910 1,467,975 2,431,570 4.243."5 27,863,185 155,137,070 8,062,815 14.731,710 48,772,900 3,722,425 5,785.260 13,072,455 5,037,510 8,946,450 42,917,475 1,807,040 5,150,265 62,380,685 .,849,265 2,203,855 7,523,730 1,209,620 2,948,795 54,856,955 NON-COMPETING IIMPORTS. ^e^^% •r8;??J;BS 378.963.355 32.331,770 27,618,365 115,874,000 327.859.690 35.593.610 7.493.285 45,287,315 7,258,855 78,409,745 10,430,415 29,590,720 38,705,405 68,184,110 44,490,3'io 56,172,875 83,788,295 14,024,725 ",953,310 21,785,78s 31.472,425 44,219,538 62,002,510 SUMMARY. 214.493.625 28,341.295 188,681,510 23l.359.6i5 47.307.480 278,667,095 49.213.135 9.457.090 39.758.430 245.463.335 47.977.000 198,798,943 294.676,470 365!288'4So 268,719,035 I 350,202,330 23,027,755 21,420,085 252,911,500 I 329,619.310 541,161,395 i 655,534,075 84,547,970 I 116,763,525 - ,.- 1,430 I 1,005,736,405 52,840,340 I 46,917,960 862,720,770 1,052.654,365 FPEE TRADE POLICV A FAILURE. United Kingdom, from Schedules Nos. /2, /j, z/, /j, r6 arid rj, together for the Years Stated. 1870. 1875. Increase or 1890. Decrease Per Cent 1870 to 1890. COMPETING IMPORTS. 1209,732,985 ! $284,401,010 1460,999,665 ] $596,295,c .0,346,655 8,224,465 14,892,355 274,054,355 452,775,200 581 499.930 174, •■6,735 233,790,000 259,654,770 11,797,020 22,448,8.5 31,842,585 164.221,335 200,823,045 227,762,180 142,939.620 .53.2.9,4.5 ..255,855 *537)987.78o | $616,601,770 Increase, 14,340,210 17,971,935 , Increase, 523.647.570 598,629,835 \ Increase, 253, .360 30,115,210 222,768,150 159,764,840 2.,68o,i65 138 084,675 309,190,415 : Increase, 77.6 34, .50.325 \ Increase, 189.5 275,040,090 Increase, 67.5 178,521,530 Increase, 66.2 28,491,485 Increase, .86.6 .50,030,045 Increase, 53.9 NON-COMPETING IMPORTS. 160,897,850 163,91:, S45 ' Increase, 503,599,420 508,126,335 429,851,295 505.4.4,945 Decrease, .35,533,480 185,120,265 163,623,070 >,785 55,296,070 52,709,015 95,322,795 i .29,786,800 i 110,915.650 '43,654,075 34.554,270 33.733, 1.388,285 4'4,04.,I75 565,927,145 837,729,285 1,009,170,150 950,835,950 22,048,230 32,083,585 48,072,540 67,990,795 66,.35,585 393.707,6.5 535.744,075 779,138,605 940,269,370 884,500,795 896,630,170 9I2,47.,950 981,602,160 977,3.1,425 849,677,090 2.34.785,870 .83,054,065 235.243,755 234,466.420 212,799,060 66<,845,290 1.310,671.345 44,690.080 .,355,36. ,425 729,543,590 .,5.6.287,465 746,332,010 '■^5^;|i^:^^ .,869,697,885 742,350,600 636,799,045 .,800,513,070 54.326,705 ..854.839.775 Increase, Decrease, 1,104,313,715 Increase, 95.1 80,613,745 I Increase, 151. 3 1,023,699.970 I Increase, 91. i 917,082,030 Increase, .5 703,064.040 Decrease, 3.6 Increase, 36. , .fd Increase, 38.7 RETURN TO FREE TRADE. But instead of this being an evidence of prosperity, it is the most positive proof of national decaj^ when the fact is revealed that nearlj^ one-half of this vast sum, or $1,023,669,000 consisted of competing articles, the like of which might have been produced in England under the policy of protection, and furnished employment for labor and the investment of capital at home. This vast sum of consumable commodities con- sted of, Agricultural produce, . . . Fully manufactured articles, Partly manufactured articles. $598,629,835 275,040,090 150,030,045 Total, $1,023,699,970 The reader should carefully study the tables, from which the sum- mary Table 9 is taken. The percentage of increase and decrease of the various classes of articles from 1870 to 1890, shows a most significant result. While during the twenty years from 1870 to 1890, competing imports retained for home consumption increased 91. i per cent, the im- ports of non-competing articles retained for home consumption during the same period decreased 3.6 per cent. While the imports of fully manufac- tured goods increased 67.5 per cent, the imports of raw materials decreased 7. i per cent. No more positive evidence could be presented of the causes which are undermining the productive industries of the coun- try. While the increase of competing commodities is displacing articles which otherwise would be made in English factories, a relative decline in the consumption of raw materials not only shows that the export trade is not proportionately increasing, but is proof of decaying industries. Such results existing under free trade confirm the views of protectionists in all parts of the world, upon the necessary and inevitable effect of free trade upon the industries of a country, when subjected to sharp compe- tition. When the policy of free trade was entered upon, the British peo- ple not only held a monopoly of foreign markets, but from their farms and factories were supplying the wants of their people at home. In 1846 the imports of fully manufactured goods for home consumption amounted to only $8,946,000; of partly manufactured goods, $2,948,000. The insig- nificance of these amounts is shown by a comparison with the vast quan- tities of similar domestic articles exported. In 1836, the imports of agricultural produce for home consumption amounted to $4,243,000. In 1846, the foreign purchases were larger because of the failure of the potato crop and the wheat harvest. The steady increase of imports of competing commodities, year by year, shows how the undermining pro- cess gradually went on, until in 1872 the turning point came and the effect became so noticeable that complaints of hard times were universally heard. The cau-ses which have led to the chronic depression of trade FREE THADE I'OLIC which exists in the United Kingdom, cannot be mistaken. The increase of competing imports has continued up to the present time. A nation which pursues the policj' of bujdng in foreign countries, articles which might be produced at home, when its own labor is idle and suffering for want of work, when its capital is seeking investment in foreign countries cannot be said to be exercising a proper degree of care for the welfare of its own people. No amount of sophistry can show that the masses of the English people are benefited by the large purchases of competing imports which are taking place. The British glove makers cannot be benefited by the importation of $8,000,000 worth of gloves, nor the silk workers by $51,000,000 of manufactured silk; nor the spinners and weavers in the woolen mills by the purchase of $38,000,000 of woolen goods and $S, 577,000 of woolen and worsted yarn ; nor the farmers of England by the importa- tion of $598,000,000 of agricultural produce, and so one might go through the whole list of competing, consumable commodities, finding that over $1,000,000,000, are annually paid for articles that are brought into the country solely becau.se, as is shown before the Royal Commission on Industries, they can be produced cheaper in other countries. Sir Edward Sullivan says on this point: In every branch of British industry' the products of foreign labour are driving out the products of English labour. Employment and wages are fast failing. Agri- cultural labourers are competing for work at 105. and 95. a week.' Those who live by labour say, "Why stand we here idle all the day? Why doth no man hire us? How is it, that in the largest consuming community in the world, with consumption daily and hourly increasing, the work of the producers is daily and hourly decreas- ing?" "Why can't we get work?" say the workers, and the answer is coming back to them with hourly increasing distinctness, "Because the foreigner is doing your work." "Why, then, does the foreigner do our work?" asks the English worker. ' ' Because he works for less wages, ' ' says the free trader ; ' ' because he works longer hours, because he is more thrifty, because he produces cheaper. ' ' But again asks the English workman, "If we work for less wages and longer hour.s, and are more thrifty, and produce cheaper, shall we keep our work?" "No, indeed," replies the free trader, "the foreigner will work for still lower wages and still longer hours, and be still more thrifty, and produce cheaper still. It is entirely a question of cost, and in cost they can always beat you." "Then we must be protected or leave the country, ' ' say the English workers. ' ' Leave the country you may, ' ' replies the free trader. ' ' In fact, it is probably the verj' best thing 3'ou can do; but protected you never shall be — not indeed, unless you make it a condition of giving your vote. If you say I will only vote for those who will advocate protection to labour, then, of course, the question assumes an entirely different aspect. Under those altered circumstances protection might become as necessary to us as it is to you." Well, it is not quite impossible that the English workers may see the question in this light also. They may make the promise of protection to native industry the condition of giving their vote, and then what a scuttle we shall see. Hey, Presto! and ninety-nine out of every hundred free traders would become protectionists before you could say Jack Robinson! It is a fact, deny it who can, that this question of protection is only a question of the popular RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Table No. io. Summary Schedule Showing a Summary of the Exports of Domestic Productions, together with Re-exports of Foreigyi and 1. Cotton manufacture, per Schedule No. 1 8 2. Linen manufacture, per Schedule No. i8, 3. Jute manufacture, per Schedule No. 18 4. Silk manufacture, per Schedule No. j8, 5. Woolen manufacture, per Schedule No. 18, 6. Total textile fabrics, per Schedule No. 18 7. Iron and steel manufacture, per Schedule No. 19 8. HardA'are and cutlery manufacture, per Schedule No. 19 9. Copper manufacture, per Schedule No. 19, 10. Miscellaneous metal manufacture, per Schedule No. 19, 11. Total metal manufacture, per Sched- ule No. 19 12. Earthen and china ware manufac- ture, per Schedule No. ig 13. Glass manufacture, per Schedule No. 19 14. Total exports, per Schedule No. 19, . 15. Miscellaneous manufacture, per Schedule No. 20 16. Bleaching and raw materials, per Schedule No. 21 17. Food products, per Schedule No. 22, . 18. Total classified exports of domestic produce 19. Total re-exports, per Statistical Ab- 20. Total unclassified exports, ...... Ji. Total exports.per Statistical Abstract, Annual 1862. Annual Annual Average 1866, .17, 1868. Annual .87.. Annual Average .872, .873, .874. Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. 183, 7S3.:!?. 220,4.0,889 283,107,762 279,2.1,535 307,558.500 22,985,099 39.731,292 40,214,165 35.920,502 37,746,907 650,450 1,519,471 2,540,365 4,265,36. 7,928,500 7.078.265 7,143,603 5,709,406 7,689,335 .0,1.8,146 60,749,569 90,384,249 102,614,142 ..9, .94,284 134.223.504 275,246.654 359,189,504 434,185,840 446,281,017 497,575,557 58,757,305 68,326,865 78,288,532 105,548,609 143.520,242 16,769,408 17,802,945 .7,545.226 "9,258,953 24,052.361 13.495.521 17,645.574 14.337,792 . .5,188,363 29,436,094 16,088,05s 15.833.531 ,.,„« 17.302,759 28,828,788 104,855,765 119,989,232 127,474,309 .69,432,019 2.2,489,449 6,235.701 7,081,821 8,391,065 8,842,390 10,349,603 3ii45.6So 3,777.296 3,998,185 4,328,490 6,080,239 114,237.146 130.848,349 .39,863,559 182,602,899 228,919,29. 65.561.443 77,446,502 81,193,216 90,635,473 141,322,878 135.290,053 159,091.484 196,020,1.5 215,243,021 296,091,7.4 24.538,669 24,382,705 24,720,927 31,602,579 36,3.4,827 614,873.965 750.958,544 875,983,657 966^64,989 1,200,224,267 'll^'^^\ 259,110.810 238,2.5.566 39,945,252 253,438,980 54,3"4,9I4 %-\^% 8i7,»3.305 1.047.255,999 1,154.144.475 1.274,118,883 1,538,740,105 FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. OF Total Exports. from ike United Kingdom, from Schedules Nos. i8, ig, 20, 2i ajid Colonial Produce, and Total Exports. \ Increase Percent i860 to 1874. Annual Average 187s, 1876, 1877. 1878,^1879, Annual Average 1S81, 1882, 18S3. Annual Average "«;^8r' Annual Average 1887. 1888. 1889. Annual 1S92. Decrease or Increase JPer Cent 1874 to 1892. Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. 67.3 284,155,707 280,746.203 319,653.346 285,689,968 297.838,23c 297.641.943 Decrease, ... 3.3 64.2 31.213.330 28,073.202 28,757.559 25,667,187 27.971.034 26,513.777'Decrease, . . . 29.8 1,118.9 7.517.768 9,679.261 12,091,926 10,286,133 11.448.848 12,871.403 Increase, . ■ .62.3 42.9 8,723,728 9.418,035 12,805,506 10,609,909 12.496.359 9,382,200 Decrease, • ■ ■ 7-3 120. 9 96,010,009 83.089,345 92,021,440 97.869,930 103,187,541 94.619,550 Decrease, • • ■ 29.5 80.8 427,620,542 411,006,046 465,329.677 430.123.127 452.942.012 441,028,873 Decrease, . ..1..4 144-3 95.796.645 88.785,597 122,169,680 99.764.398 118,271,056 118,908.362 Decrease, . . .17.1 43-4 I8.475.6i8 16,411,810 19,574,010 14.733.653 '5.131.250 12,477,912 Decrease, . . .48.1 I9.I 15.383.753 15,854,804 17,233.529 15,417.127 14,953.005 20,238,658 Increase, . . . 25.8 81.5 26,349.487 23,973.657 29.338,883 34.596,392 35.130.039 41,715.042 Increase, . • ■ 44.7 102.6 156,005,503 145.025.868 188,3.6,102 164.511.570 183.485.350 193,339.974 Decrease, . . . 9.0 66.0 9.138,395 9.432,820 11,409,758 10,406,868 11,685,501 11,909,60c Increase, . . . 15-1 93-3 4,732,066 4,100,696 5,208,782 4.980,594 5.462,840 4,940.259 Decrease, . . . 18.7 .00.4 169,875.964 158.559.3S4 204,934.642 179,899,032 200,633,691 210,189,833 Decrease, . . . 8.2 I15.6 124,262,781 125.397.796 148,550,013 132,711.412 139,918,242 146,997,755 Increase, . . . 4.0 I18.9 233.627.361 227,716,085 276,264,670 268,275,942 287.222.189 335,025,97s Increase, ■ ■ 12-5 4S.0 34,016,788 37.704,908 52,615,12. 50.303,965 53.6.5.709 56,289,007 Increase, . ■ 550 95-2 989.403.436 960,384219 1,147.694.123 1.061,313.478 1.134,331,843;l.lS9.53l.446 Decrease, ■ • -9 63-5 92.0 11.1^6;^?! 288,734.295, 323.152,080 52,017,635 44,443.062 295,894,663 316,748,480 40,127,449^ 41,304.852 318,605.350 40,206,874 Increase, Decrease, ;;L':8 88.3 1.317,891,575 1,301,136,1491,515,289,2651,397,335,5901,492,385,175 1.548,343.679 increase. . . .6 BErURN TO FREE TRADE. Free traders proclaim with glee that England can be supplied by foreign workers with everything she consumes, cheaper than she can be supplied by English workers at home; and the free traders are right. There is scarcely any- thing that cannot be produced cheaper in some part of the world by foreign labour than it can be produced at home by English labour; and freight and transport are so' low that there is scarcel}- a single article, raw or manufactured, that will not pay- carriage to an English market. England need produce nothing, she can be supplied th everything she requires from abroad ; but if the wealth of a country is the value of what it produces, the wealth of England must decrease as the value of her production diminishes; and let the "figure-men" say what they like, the wealth of the country has diminished, is diminishing and will continue to diminish with accelerated speed. If English consumers are to be supplied by foreign producers, how are English producers to live? How can they buy if they have not got any money? and how are they to get money if they don't earn any wages? and how are they to earn any wages if they don't get any work? How can they consume unless they first produce? Did the folly of man ever conceive more suicidal nonsense than a scheme for supplying an industrial community of 34,000,000 with everything they consume from abroad cheaper than they can produce it themselves? It is simply a scheme for depriving our working men of work. It is only political economists run riot who could have conceived it. "Happy work-people," says the free trader, "you do not realize the enormous blessing we have bestowed on you; we have made work a question of secondary importance to you; we have put you into a position in which you can actually buy cheaper than you can produce. It is true you have no work, but then everj-thing is cheap. Think what your position would have been if you had no work and everything was dear!" It does not occur to them that live and let live is the necessary condition of prosperity ; that people are better off when what they require is at a fair price, and they have the money to buy it, than when it is below cost price, and they have no money to buy at all.' The fact has already been mentioned that it has been a common practice of free trade writers to point to the increase of exports of their domestic productions /ro7n i860 to 1874, and to conceal from the world their decline /ro;^ iSj^ to the present time. The writer has also prepared a classification of the exports of the United Kingdom from i860 to 1892, reduced to averages of periods of three years each, from which the reader can study their growth and de- cline, during the whole period embraced within the .schedules. Schedule No. 18 exhibits the exports of textile fabrics. Schedtile No. 19, the exports of manufactures of iron and steel, and other metals, earthen and china ware, and glass. Schedule No. 20, of miscellaneous manufactured articles. Schedule No. 21, bleaching materials, raw materials, coal, machinery and commodities used in manufacturing by other countries. Schedule No. 22 shows the exports of miscellaneous domestic products. Table No. 10 exhibits the summary of the schedules of exports, together with percentages of increase from 1 860 to i S70 ; also showing the increase or FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. decline of the several classes embraced within the schedules from 1872 to 1892. While the exports of domestic products increased 95.2 percent from i860 to 1872, there was a decline of nine-tenths of one per cent during the next twenty j-ears from 1872 to 1892. The large amount of exports of foreign and colonial products, amounting to $318,605,000 in 1891 and 1892, discloses the large proportion of exports of the produce of the labor of other countries which enter into their sales. Taking the total exports, we find that while they increased 88.3 per cent from i860 to 1874, during the next twenty years there was an increase of only six-tenths of one per cent. During the twenty years closing with the year 1892, the exports of textile fabrics declined 11. 4 per cent. Manufactures of iron and steel, and other articles, embraced in Schedule No. 19, declined 8.2 per cent, while there was an increase to the extent of 12.5 per cent in the articles embraced within Schedule No. 20, consisting principally of machinery and coal. Many causes operated to bring about the result disclosed by the figures given, and are still producing their effect. In the finst place, the most prosperous and highly civilized countries of the globe, by developing and maintaining home industries through the system of protection, are pro- viding their own people with goods which they formerly purchased in England, thus closing some of the be.st markets to British w^ares. Again, the vast industrial growth which has taken place on the Continent in recent years, has so increased the productive capacity of its vast popula- tion that large sales are being made not only in the United Kingdom but in the British colonies and po.ssessions, as well as in the markets of non- manufacturing countries, hence, by this division of foreign markets, a large portion which British manufacturers would otherwi.se control, has fallen into the hands of rivals. This condition which has ari.sen in recent years, together with the tendency throughout the world toward a contin- uation of the policy of protection, and the probability of all the British colonies and po.ssessions, and even Asia and South America, engaging in manufacturing has proven the necessity for the revival of the home mar- ket, which has been neglected under the policy of free trade. It may be urged that the decline in exports is to be accounted for in part by the fall in prices which has taken place. While this to a certain extent, is true, an examination of the records of exports by quantities, will not show a growth corresponding with that of other countries, or alter the main fact that the export trade of the country has relatively declined between 1874 and the present time, when compared with any similar period during the past century. A schedule of imports made up by quan- tities, would exhibit an increase in the imports of competing commodities much larger than is .shown in the tables given. Inasmuch as the com- parison between imports and exports of the United Kingdom and those of other countries are all made by values, all being affected alike by the decline in prices, the comparisons are perfectly fair. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Table No. ii. Shoci'hijf Comparative Growth of the Foreign Trade of the Countries named below, frofn 1854. to 1874, from 18J4. to i8go, and from 1S34. ''" i8go. Compiled from a Return made to the British Parliament, February 18, i8gi, and from the Statistical Abstract of the United Kingdom. (^Reduced to U. S. Money at $5 to a Pound Sterling. ) Growth of Imports. 1. Belgium, 2. Sweden, 3. Spain, , 4. Russia, . 5. Holland, 6. Norway, 7. Portugal, 8. Frauce, 9. England, 10. Denmark, 11. United States 12. Austria, 13. Germany 1124,390,000 21,850,000 40,675,000 55,700,000 141,060,000 15.555,000 20,855,000 341,840,000 761,945,000 31,780,000 310,005,000 104,365,000 1 170,000,000 1874. ;f45t, 715,000 82,580,000 101,750,000 373,270,000 271,420,000 51,605,000 33,165,000 884,503,000 1,850,415,000 64,775,000 591,045,000 342,875,000 1, 177,050,000 1890. Pfti SS^ii Sa|2 1637,830,000 262 41.2 104,465,000 277 26.5 179,565,000 1.50 ^-6.5 203,325,000 570 ^*45.5 538,220,000 90 98.3 1 57,960,000 232 12.3 78,705,000 59 137-3 i 1,090,480,000 158 23-3 2,103,460,000 142 13-7 1 85,285,000 103 31-7 i 822,200,COO 90 39-1 254,470,000 228 = 25.8 1,431,175,000 592 21.6 Growth oi! Exports. 1. Russia, . . . 2. Belgium, . . 3. Sweden, . . 4. Holland, . . 5. Spain, 6. United States 7. Norway, 8. Austria, . 9. England, . 10. France, 11. Denmark, 12. Portugal, . 13. Germany, foi, 725,000 142,695,000 22,005,000 121,010,000 49,925,000 246,670,000 11,780,000 109,010,000 579,105,000 357,535,000 21,880,000 16,230,000 ' 180,000,000 1341,840,000 414,040,000 62,505,000 211,240,000 92,000,000 610,710,000 33,665,000 293,110,000 I ,488,250,000 940,420,000 49,970,000 29,445,000 588,275,000 $352,550,000 560 589,630,000 190 84,545,000 184 450,685,000 • 74 186,485,000 84 893,570,000 147 36,415,000 185 321 405,000 168 1,641,260,000 1 56 968,040,000 ;s 64,955,000 48,600,000 Si 1,212,000,000 227 Growth of Imports and Exports Combined. 1. Russia, . . . 2. Belgium, . . 3. Sweden, . . 4. Spain, . . . 5. Holland, . 6. Norway, . . 7. France, . . 8. Portugal, 9. United States 10. England, . . 11. Denmark, 12. Austria, . . 13. Germany, . 1107,425,000 267,085,000 43,855.000 90,600,000 262,070,000 27,335.000 674.375,000 37,135,000 556,675,000 1,341,050,000 53,660,000 213,375,000 ' 350,000,000 |7iS,iio,ooo 865,755,000 145,085,000 193,750,000 482,660,000 85,270,000 1,824,920,000 62,610,000 1.201,755,000 3,338,665,000 114,745,000 635,985,000 1,765,325,000 1555,875,000 564 1,227,460,000 224 189,010,000 230 366,050,000 113 988,905,000 81 94.375.000 211 2,058,520,000 161 127,305,000 72 1,715.770,000 "5 3,744,720,000 124 150,240,000 114 575,875,000 198 2,643.175,000 404 '29.2 41.8 30.3 104.9 10.7 12.8 103.3 42.8 12.2 30.9 '9-5 49-7 412.7 378.1 341-5 265.0 281.6 272.6 277-4 219.0 176. 1 168.4 165.2 143.8 741-9 581.6 313-2 2842 272.4 273-5 262.3 209.1 1948 183-4 170.S 196.9 1994 573-3 417-5 359-6 33'-o 304.0 2773 245-3 205.2 242.8 208.2 179.2 180.0 169-9 6552 I-rom Mnlhall's Dictionary of Statistics, p. 137. for 1850. ' Decrea.se per < i only lo special imports and exports, which do not represent total trade. Decrea.se per cent 1874 to 1890, but FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. The arguments so frequently used by free traders, that those coun- tries practicing the policy of protection cannot participate in foreign trade, is fully refuted by the experience of the leading commercial nations of the world since 1854. Under free trade a nation becomes impoverished; the purchasing power of its people diminishes, and with reduced wages, incomes and profits, it is unable to purchase as largely of those commodi- ties the like of which cannot be produced at home, as a nation whose peo- ple through increased employment and greater internal prosperity, have a larger spendable income. If the growth of foreign trade is made the test of the increasing prosperity and wealth of a nation, protective countries do not suffer from the comparison. The character of the literature published by the Cobden Club, for the purpose of deceiving the world, as to the magnitude and growth of British trade in comparison with other countries, is well illustrated in "Free Trade and English Commerce," written by Mongredien, and pub- lished in 1888, in which we are told, ^ Of this enormous expansion of her foreign commerce, England owes the greatest to her adoption of free trade. The development of her commercial intercourse with the rest of the world since the repeal of the Corn Laws iu 1S46 and of the Navigation Laws in 1S49 is marvellous. In 1840 our combined imports and exports were ^172,000,000; in 187S they were ;^6 11,000,000. True that, in most countries, some increase of foreign trade has taken place within the same period, but in many cases it has only been slight, and in no instance has it progressed in anything like the same ratio (pp. 35-37). The above statement untrue at the time it was first published, had grown more palpably false in 1888, when it was continued in the last edition of the publication. The book containing this statement has been circulated throughout the United States to give the impression that the foreign trade of Great Britain has experienced a larger development than that of any other country. It was put out by the Cobden Club, whose officers must have been fully apprised of the facts contained in the schedule of the Growth of Trade of the Thirteen Leading Nations of the World. Table No. 11, page 312, shows the growth of foreign trade of the thirteen nations named. The total foreign trade of Russia and Austria, is not given. Neither the Board of Trade returns nor the Statistical Abstract of the United Kingdom from which the table is compiled, gives the general trade of these two countries, hence, a fair comparison of the trade of these with the other countries, is not made. It is a significant fact that from 1874 to 1890, as well as from 1854 to 1890, the foreign trade of the United Kingdom exhibits a smaller degree of increase than a majority of the countries named. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Bringing the foreign trade of the United States and Great Britain down to 1892, we get the following result: Imports: United Kingdom, . . United States, .... Exports: United Kingdom, . . United States Exports and Imports gether: United Kingdom, . . United States, . . . . j!i,S5o,4i5>ooo 591,045,000 1,488,250,000 610,710,000 3,338,665,000 1,201,755,000 12,113,970,000 861,875,000 1,483,200,000 1,073,205,000 Inc. 14 % Inc. 46 % Dec. y^ % Inc. 75 % Inc. 7 % Inc. 61 % It should be noted that every country included within Table No. 1 1 , to a larger or smaller degree protects its domestic industries, with the exception of England. While the foreign trade of England during very recent years, when compared with former years, has declined, the other nations mentioned have experienced a marvelous growth, with the excep- tion of France. It is a well-known fact that the French nation has not pressed itself into foreign trade with the same vigor as Germany, England and other countries. The great prosperity and wealth of France, as will be pointed out later, rests upon the care with which dqmestic trade is encouraged and cultivated. While Table No. 1 1 , is presented as evidence refuting the free trade argument that the policy of protection restricts and prevents a nation from engaging in foreign commerce, it is by no means contended that the magnitude of the external trade of a country is to be taken as the only evidence of its prosperty. We have in England an illustration of the fact that a nation may build up a large one-sided trade and participate, to a great extent, in foreign commerce, and at the same time have its countr\- filled with idle artisans and its domestic industries impoverished and in a state of decay. While the $1,000,000,000 of competing commodities consumed in England each year swell the volume of its foreign trade, the>- displace labor, drive capital out of the country and produce poverty and degradation at home ; when if the same commodities were produced in the United Kingdom, the foreign trade would be le.ssened, yet that unregistered home trade, which does not appear in official records of exports and imports, would be so increased that prosperity, industry and comfort, would take the place of impoverishment, idleness and want. The experience of the British people during the past quarter of .1 century, has demonstrated the utter falsity of every free trade maxim announced as the basis of the creed. As has been pointed out, it \\as FREE TRADE POLICY urged most vigorously by Mr. Cobden and his associates, that in case an English industry was found to be unable to compete with foreign labor, that the capital invested in such indiistry, and the laborers who were being employed, would be at once transferred to some profitable employ- ment at home. During the recent agitation of the tariff question in the United States, notwithstanding the fact that this proposition has been proven to be untrue, it has been reiterated and urged upon the American jieople with a degree of apparent candor, which is most scandalous. The agriculturists of England, instead of finding employment in cities and towns, have been driven to foreign countries. They have sought relief from almshouses and in emigration. The silk weavers of Maccles- field who clung to the declining and decaying industry until they were unable to supply themselves with funds to reach the protectionist city of Paterson, N. J., were reduced to pauperism and forced to drag out a miserable exi.stence in the "Doomed Town." The evidence before the Royal Commission shows that the watchmakers of England .shared the same fate, and so it has been. With an already overcrowded population, as industries have been ruined by large importations of competing products, the country has been filled with a surplus of labor unable to find employ- ment. The Minority Report of the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade and Indu.stry, made special reference to this point as follows: Whilst the amount of labor employed in agriculture ha.s greatly declined during the years 1874-18S5, it is noteworthy that the number of persons employed in textile manufactures has, during the same period, not only failed to increase at the usual rate, but has, for the first time, diminished in proportion to the popula- tion of the country; there has, therefore, been no absorption by the textile industries of the labor displaced from agriculture, and we have no evidence to show that it has found emplo3'ment in any other productive industry. ' The facts presented, together with the opinions of the members of the commission who signed this report, ought to set at rest this proposi- tion ; yet it matters not what the facts are, nor what the experience of nations has been upon this or any other economic proposition, the advo- cates of free trade will in the future, as they have in the past, persistently ignore the actual experiences of man and continue to urge the usual fal- lacies of the school. The champions of free trade are certainly wise in one respect; by refusing to consider facts and resting their case on the alleged infallibility of theories, they are enabled to pursue a course of argument that under no other circumstances has been resorted to by intelligent men. The Final Report of the Royal Commission, brought out the important fact that during twenty years preceding 1886, "67 per cent of the emigrants from the United Kingdom, went to the United States, the most highly protected country in the world, and only 2-j% per cent found homes in our colonies. ' ' Immigrants arriving in the United • Royal Commissiou, Final Report (Minority), p. 43. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. States from Great Britain and Ireland, from June 30, 1878, to June 30, 1888, were as follows: England Fiscal Year. and Scotland. from Great Ireland. from United Wales. Britain. Kingdom. 1879, .... 24,729 5,225 29,954 20,013 49,967 1880 60,633 12,640 73.273 7 ',603 144.876 1881, . . . 66.204 15,168 .81,372 72.342 153,714 1882, .... 84,050 18,937 102,987 76,432 179,419 1S83, .... 64,742 76,601 81,486 158,087 1884 56,890 9,060 65,950 63.344 129,294 18S5, .... 48,487 9,226 67,713 51,795 109,508 1886, .... 50,803 12,126 62,929 49,619 112,548 1887, .... 74,679 18,699 93.378 68,370 161,748 '^^^ 83,132 24.396 107,528 72.238 180,766 Total, . 614,349 137,336 751,685 628,242 1-379,927 The total immigration during this time, from Europe into the United States was, 4,320,676. The total population of Europe is esti- mated at 301,700,000. The population of the United Kingdom in 1881 was 35,246,526; thus the British Isles, with 11 per cent of the population of Europe, .sent us 32 per cent of our immigration from Europe during the ten years named, and not including in this the verj' heavy immigration through Canada. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the chief cause which has driven out of England so many of her skilled artisans, ingenious and enterprising citizens, has been that fiscal policj' which reduces prices to the lowest level, which destroys profits, and as profits disappear, drives down wages to a starvation point. They have left the country to escape a train of causes which are calculated to "arrest and destroy the progress and well-being of the nation, striking as it does in turn, directly and indirectly at every class of society, and every depart- ment of industry." If the free trade theories had been carried out, and if for each import of goods a corresponding export of home-made articles had occurred in exchange therefor, the loss to the nation in spendable income would not have been so great as it is; but when "the imported article destroys an equivalent market for home labor, an entirely different situa- tion is presented." Excessive competing imports add to the impoverisli- meiit of the country, and cause a permanent and constant increase in the number of unemployed laborers. The experience in England, as well as other countries, since i860, has overthrown this cardinal principle of free trade. As has been pointed out, many Engli.shinen were converted to the theory under a belief that as imports increased, exports to the same amount would necessarily be required to be given in exchange for those goods FBEE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. purchased of other countries. The experience of the United Kingdom during the past thirty j'ears needs only to be cited to expose this fallacy. While imports have been increasing during the whole free trade period, since 1874 exports have been declining. The balance of trade each year has gone against the country, as exhibited in the following table, compiled from the Statistical Abstract of the United Kingdom: Experience of United Kingdom for the Last Thirty Years. Imports. Exports. Excess of Imports over Exports. 1864 fl, 375. 000,000 $1,063,000,000 1312,000.000 1865, 1.355.000 1,476,000 1,376,000 1,475.000 1,477,000 1,516,000 i,6=;5,ooo 1,773.000 i,856,o 1,850,000 1,870,000 1,876,000 1,972,000 1,844,000 1,815,000 2,056,000 1,985,000 2,065,000 2,134,000 1,950,000 1,855,000 1,749.000 1, 811,000 1,938,000 2,136,000 2,103,000 2,177,000 2,119,000 2,023,000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 OJO 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 1,094.000 1,195,000 1,129,000 1,139,000 1,185,000 1,220,000 1.418,000 1,573.000 1.555.000 1,488,000 1.408,000 1,284,000 1.262.00.. 1,244,000 I,4^2,OCO I.4S5.000 1.533.000 1,526,000 1,480.000 1,357.000 1,345,000 1,406,000 1,493.000 1.578,000 1,641,000 1,546,000 1,458,000 1,386,000 coo 000 GOO 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 261,000 281,000 247,000 336,000 292,000 296,000 237,000 200,000 301.000 362,000 462,000 592,000 710,000 617,000 571,000 624,000 500,000 608^000 470,000 498,000 404,000 405,000 445,000 558.000 462.000 63i,«« 661,000 637,000 1866; I.S67 1868 1869 ... 000 000 000 J87I 000 1872, 000 T873 000 1875, 1876, ;1S::..::::: 1879. 000 000 000 000 1881; 18S2, 18S3 000 18S4 ... 1 886 18S7, 1888, . ^889, 1S90, 1891, -A 1892, . • 1893 000 000 000 000 The question arises how was the balance of trade of $637,000,000 in 1893 paid? That the people of the United Kingdom purchased of other countries that amount more than they sold, cannot be questioned. To the value of imports is added freight charges, commissions, and profits of importers, yet this would not account for the difference in value of $637,- 000,000. There still remains a large amount which must be settled, either by the export of coin, or in some other way. The British people having large sums invested in foreign countries, either as holders of securities, or as owners in business enterprises, have a large amount of interest and profits coming to them from outside. Now, in.stead of ship- ping money every year from different parts of the world, as long as the EETUBK TO FREE TRADE. ance of trade is against the United Kingdom, the interest and profits due Englishmen are set off against the amount due each year for the pur- chase of goods. In this way the balance of trade is indirectly settled with money. So long as the incomes from foreign investments are suffi- cient to pay the excess for imports over exports, the precious metals would not be exported. Imports are increasing and exports relatively declining. What then is to happen when there is still a balance left to be paid after adjusting all .such dealings? The contention of the free traders was .stated by the Times, as fol- lows : ' ' We do not get foreign goods for nothing and we do not pay for them with money, we pay for them with goods which the foreigner takes in exchange, and those goods are made or produced by our own labor." No one has yet claimed that the English or any other people get goods for nothing. It is admitted by all that they are paid for in some waj\ The protectionists have maintained that the adverse balance is not paid for or settled with goods, but with money. The Fair Trade Journal of October 12, 1888,' in discussing this question said, "Mr. Medley has admitted that the foreigner is paid by securities, instead of British goods, and by doing so, he has most certainly -surrendered the position which he, and the late Mr. Mongredien and the Times have labored .so hard to establish." This admission does not help their case, the fact that in order to prevent the coin from being taken out of the country, foreign securities would be sold or returned to settle the balance of trade, is proof of the position so long held by protectionists. The adverse balance then would represent goods purchased abroad with the accumulated capital of the country. Although gold might be retained, the wealth of the country would be exhausted to buy articles which might be made at home. This admission, coming from Mr. Medley, one of the secretaries of the Cobden Club, and one who, with Sir Thomas Farrer, has of late been its chief defender, is very important. It yields one of the most vital points in the controversy. It is not improbable that it may be found that Mr. Medley has stated the cause of the return of United States securities which has occurred during the past two years. An exchange of accumulated wealth for consumable commodities is not proving a paying business, especially when the com- modities received di.splace home production. The theories now being presented by free traders, to show how adverse balances are paid, are of little importance, so long as it has been demonstrated, and is now admitted, that the "goods for goods" theory is unsound. The utter failure of the original proposition presented by those who introduced the free trade policy, is most damaging to their cause. Those foreign investors, then each year, receive their interest by means of the agricultural produce and manufactured goods which are brought into FREE TRADE POLICY Kiigland and sold to the English people. The whole bodj^ of foreign ini tors, witli the exception of the small contributions which the)' make to the English Government in taxes, and the small amount of commodities consumed by them, might as well be residents of foreign countries. They add nothing to the productive wealth of the kingdom. While their capital is each year estimated as a part of the wealth of England, it is sustaining and supporting industries in other countries. In 1846 John Macgregor in his "Commercial Statistics " in describing the condition of Holland when her foreign trade was being taken from her; when she was pursuing that " liberal policy " of free trade which is so frequently spoken of by certain economic writers; when her home industries were being crippled by British and French competition, said of her: During the progress of the decline of Holland, the low rate of interest, and the difficulty of investing money to any profit in the country, diverted a great part of her specie and capital in the way of loans or to be invested in the manufactures, trade, or securities of foreign States. This circumstance has seldom been proper!}- appreciated, as an exhaustive cause weakening the power and energy of Holland, while it nourished the growing industry and trade of those countries which received the capital that left the United Provinces for want of employment. There can be no greater symptom of decay than the want of employment for capital in a country where it had long previously been actively and profitably invested. All commercial States and cities which have declined, exhibited previously this symptom of approaching decay. Holland, from 1670 to 1814, affords an example from which, on this subject, as well as many others, useful instruction may be gathered.' History is repeating itself. Ever)- word uttered by Mr. Macgregor with reference to Holland, can truthfully be said of England to-day. The same changes are taking place in England which Mr. Macgregor points out, and unless arrested, the same end will be reached. Holland changed her policy at the close of the Napoleonic wars, and by a sy.stem of protection to agriculture, she is to-day supplying England with large quantities of food, although the cultivation of the soil is car- ried on under great difficulties. The people of a decaying nation may for a long time live on past accumulations without exhibiting any very striking outward signs of the change which is taking place. The gradual year by year absorption of savings must ultimately destroy private fortunes and reduce the middle cla.sses to a lower level. Vast wealth in the hands of a few citizens, while it makes an outward show of opulence, may indicate past acquisi- tions rather than present prosperity. When the Roman Empire was decaying the wealth of the world was centred in the hands of its rulers while its fields were being cultivated by slaves. The free trade writers point to the foreign investments of English capital as an indication of vast accumulated wealth and prosperity when in fact it indicates indus- trial decline. 'Vol. I., p. 831. SETUIiX TO FREE TRADE. England is the only countr3' in the world that boasts of the num- ber of foreign investments and vast sums of the capital of her people which are devoted to sustaining industries and employment of labor in foreign States. The protected industries of the United States and the Con- tinent have attracted British capital, while it is being withdrawn from industries at home. Capital withdrawn from productive industries, in the United Kingdom, is being u,sed on the Continent to build up strong competitors, who manufacture goods formerly made in England and force their surplus into neutral channels, thus increasing competition which must ultimately capture a still larger share of the world's markets. Prosperous countries, like prosperous cities and villages, and enterprising men, bor- row capital to engage in busine.ss. Unprosperous countries send their capital into foreign parts to seek borrowers. Professor Bonamy Price speaking upon this question said, "There remains lastly to notice one more powerful begetter of impoverishment, loans granted to foreign coun- tries. For a period now extending beyond ten j'ears, the}- have been given away with a profusion truly astonishing." In earlier times it was a national benefit to invest English capital in the building of rail- ways which opened means of communication, and developed countries to receive British goods. The withdrawal of capital from the productive industries of the country, for investment in competing countries, can but add to those causes which are undermining their conunercial supremacy. The removal of whole manufacturing plants to the United States and protective countries on the Continent, is a part of the emigration of capital which accompanies labor seeking conditions under which profita- ble industries may be carried on. It seems that the protectionists of England are beginning to learn who pays the duty. It is a cardinal principle of Cobdenism that the tariff is a tax, and enhances the price of commodities to the extent of the duty levied. This was the idea of President Cleveland when he urged in his message that the duty was added to the price. It seems that he has not learned that English manufacturers, in order to hold markets, reduce their prices as tariffs in the United States are imposed or raised. This accounts for the fact that prices did not rise after the passage of the McKinley law. British manufacturers sold to us cheaper in order to hold our markets. Although this scheme was i-.i part suc- cessful in holding trade, it prevented the manufacturers of the United States from increasing wages and fully an.swers the taunting argument of free traders that although duties were made higher, there was not a corresponding advance in wages. How could there be when the foreign competitor lowered the prices of his wares, and still waged his war against our industries. This question is fully and ably di.scussed in the following article which appeared in the Fair Trade Journal, March i, 1889: FKEE TRADE POLICY A FAJLUBE. 'Who pays the import duty ever the burni questi and one of the chief wheels on which the free trade controversy must always turn. We have, of course, never left our readers in the dark, that the solution lies in discarding all hard and fast lines, and contenting ourselves with the fact, that the consumer may or may not pay them according to circumstances. If the possibilities of producing sufficient for home use at home be great, then the probabilities of the foreign producer who seeks a market being obliged to pay part or the whole of any im- port duty levied there, is the greater. There is, indeed, a manifest inconsistency in free traders complaining, as all do, of hostile tariffs, if it were accurate that it is the consuming importers who are injured. If it be true that an import duty neces- .sarily raises the price to the extent of the dutyormore,assomeassert, it follows that the foreign exporter will continue to get his previous free-on-board price, and, except as far as higher prices sometimes involve a proportionate restriction of purchases is therefore not damnified. But we venture to say that such is not the experience of exporting manufacturers and merchants when they have to arrange their prices to allow for duties imposed by their customers abroad. They find themselves either as a rule shut out or compelled to lower their quotations and doubtless also- the case of manufactures — to lower the quality or intrinsic value of the exports to meet the reduced price. A remarkable confirmation of this truth reaches us thii week from the Forest of Dean in the report of a speech recently made at the half yearly meeting of the coal and iron ore owners and of those interested as renters of mineral and landed properties from the woods and forests. In response to the toast of "Manufacturing Industries, " the two speakers who replied touched specially on the tin plate trade which is one of the few industries in the kingdom undergoing considerable development, simply because — from its nature — it is not exposed to the action of unrestricted foreign competition in the home market. But, thanks to the hostile tariffs, its development in other quarters is not quite so happy. Taylor, who was one of those who responded, said : ' ' There is no trade in the world that could show such remarkable figures. He did not refer to prices, but through good times and bad, the tin plate trade had gone on developing steadily and regularly for twenty years past. Each year showed an improvement upon the previous one. He wished makers would only be content to let it remain so. They had no competitors, and in such a case would be able to com- mand their own price. [Hear, hear.] The only dark cloud was in America, in consequence — so far as they were concerned — of the unfortunate election of General Harrison. As the presidential election had turned out, all prospect of the very high tariff of 55. per box on imported tin boxes being taken off, had vanished; and the prospects now were that the duty would be increased. Party influences were being brought to bear in favor of so raising the duty as to shut out English manufactures of tin from a chance of America. He argued, however that might be, England had held the trade in her own hands for fifteen years past, and if new difficulties arose they must be prepared to deal with them. [Hear, hear. ] In the meantime it was most sincerely to be hoped that the efforts now being made would be frus- trated, and that the better feeling of the country would be looked to. It was monstrous that such a very large industry should be crushed, just for the sake of gain for the tin manufacturer of the United States. [Hear, hear. ] T/iere was fro doubt that English manufacturers would have to reduce the cost 0/ production if they were to maintain their hold of the American trade, and he knew of no other source from which relief could be got than the rate of wages. ' ' From this language it will be seen that the speaker is manifestly a free trader, and his evidence is therefore all the more valuable. He still clings to the idea that protection in the United States is kept up for the benefit of the manufacturers of tin plate, omitting to call attention to the fact that the better employment of labor is RETURN TO FREE TRADE. always the condition precedent of prosperity to the manufacturers themselves. And yet at the same time he practically confesses that the consumers of tin plate in the United States are not those who pay the import duties — or, in other words, that the prices are not proportionately raised by the duties — for, "to maintain their hold of the American trade, ' ' Mr. Taylor says that the cost of production must be reduced, i. e., prices lowered to pay the American duty; and to effect this, "he knew of no other source from which relief could be got than the rate of wages. " Surely, if this language be not significant, we know not what is.' The practice of reducing the cost of production and lowering prices, in order to sell goods in protectionist countries was followed by the British manufacturers as early as 1843. It is a part of the system of industrial warfare, which has constantly been waged against the labor and capital of other countries. In speaking of the French ordinance in 1843. Mr. Gladstone said: It imposed an additional duty on the importation of linen 3-arns; that addi- tional duty must be paid by somebody; it is, in part, paid by the French consumer, it is in part paid, perhaps, in premium to the smuggler, but it is also paid in gteal part by the mamifacturers. By its effect his profits are diminished, and his pozver to pay ivages was diminished. It is true that yarns continue to be made, but why? 'Becanse people must live, because the operatives from the abundance of the supply of labor as compared with the demand for it, must work for zvhat their employers call afford to give. I will not go into any detail with respect to the operation of the tariff of Germany, but I apprehend that it is much the same. ... I under- stand that the increase of duties by the German tariff, which before the change were excessively high, and which are now enormously high, has not had the effect of stopping the exportations from this country, but still it has necessarily had the effect of diminishing profits and wages in this country, and has" injured thereby our operative population. — "Hansard," Vol. 66, pp. 503-4.2 The policy of legislating for the benefit of the consumer, and ha^•ing no regard for the welfare of the producer, has been fully tested during the past forty years. The absolute ruin which must visit any nation \\hicli commits itself to this unwise course is demonstrated by the results which have followed. The fallacious argument of free traders that it is the wisest policy to remove all restrictions in order to buy in the cheapest market, must share the fate of all free trade principles. The following very clear and able treatment of the question appeared in the Fair Trade Journal, December 19, 1890: The benefit of consumers, who are the larger class, at the expense of producers, who are the smaller class, conduces to the welfare and enrichment of the nation. Is this so? Now the agriculturists are a limited class, the consumers of agricultural produce are the whole nation ; therefore, according to this view, to supersede all native agricultural produce by the importation of cheaper foreign agricultural produce would be a benefit to the nation at large. The whole male portion of the population wear hats; the whole female portion, bonnets; the makers of hats and bonnets are a limited class; the wearers, the whole nation; therefore to supersede the entire home manufacture of hats and bonnets by means of the importation ot cheap foreign hats and bonnets would be a national boon. The entire population. 1 Kail- Trade Journal, Vol IV., p. 290. =l"air Trade Journal, Vol. V., p. 471. FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. \ male and female, wear boots and shoes; the makers of boots and shoes area limited class; the wearers, the whole nation ; therefore to supersede the entire home boot and shoe making business by the importation of Cheaper foreign boots and shoes would be a boon and a source of wealth to the nation at large. And thus we might proceed through the whole category of trade, extinguishing one after another, the silk manufacture, the cotton manufacture, the woolen manufacture, the linen manufac- ture, the iron and steel industries,, the china, glass, and crockery industries, etc. , from regard to the benefit of consumers, who form in all these cases the larger portion of the population, and then, when all this was done, what would be the result? According to the doctrine of the free trade school, the nation ought then to be in possession of unexampled prosperity and enormous wealth, having been enriched time after time by each successive boon of foreign cheapness. Would it be so? The stern reality which would confront us would be something verv' different. Rent of land and of houses would at once cease, and the occupiers of land and of houses would be paupers. Shares in railways, waterworks, gasworks, and canals would no longer be worth a sixpence. Every British investment would be worthless. The payment of wages would be a thing of the past. Local rates might be demanded for local purposes, but there would be no answer to the demand. Imperial taxation would yield no revenue; and the government of the country, carried on by its instrumentality, would be at an end. The nation would be bankrupt. Now, why should these results occur? Because the sole source of a nation's income is industrial production. Industrial production being destroyed, the nation's income would be annihilated. The only exception would be that of income arising from foreign investments, and that would speedily disappear. Such then would be the effect of carrying out in practice to its utmost limit the theory that the benefit of consumers, the larger class, at the expense of the producers, the smaller class, is a national gain. If the theory were true, the result would be an enormous accession to the wealth of the nation. But the actual result is national ruin. This result proves the absolute falsehood of the theor}\ It may be said that to suppose the destruction of all these industries is to suppose an impossibility. But that does not affect the validity of the argument. The argument itself is both legitimate and conclusive; and by showing what would be the practical results of the theory if applied to all the industries of the country, it merely exhibits the character and the tendencies of that theory more distinctly than could be done if it were applied only to a single industry. The extinction of all the industries of a country annihilates the income of that country; the extinction of each particular industry annihilates a portion of its income. So also with the partial instead of the total extinction of an industry. If foreign silks, for instance, are sold in the English market lo per cent cheaper than home-made silks, while common opinion supposes that the country gains lo per cent by their purchase, the fact is that, while the country saves lo per cent in expenditure, it loses loo per cent in income, thus incurring a net loss of 90 per cent by the transaction. Production represents income ; consumption, expenditure; and a country which legislates in the interest of consumers is in the position of a man who, in order to enrich himself, devises a scheme by which he reduces his expenditure by /700 per annuui, but, at the same time, reduces his income by /'700 or /Soo per annum. Is the plan a very wise one? Yet the late Sir Robert Peel was himself deceived by this fallacy, and urged it in support of the free trade measures which he was passing. The theory, notwithstanding the extensive belief which it commands, is a baseless superstition ; and, on whatever other foundation free trade may rest, let it never be defended on the false ground that by benefiting the con- sumer at the expense of the producer it benefits the nation at large. The interests of consumers are not paramount to those of producers ; but the interests of producers I RETURN TO FREE TRADE. are most certainly paramount to those of consumers; it is production which is the support and mainstay of a country and the encouragement, the judicious encourage- ment, and safe-guarding of produ4 per cent, and the same amount of reduction at present, working at the reduced rate." Monifieth— Amalgamated Society of Engineers, Machinists, etc. ' ' We are paid here by the week. At rates varying from 1 5.V. for unskilled to 25.^. for skilled labor. From 24.^. in 1865, to 2-]s. in 1876, falling from that time until 1878 to 256-; again rising to 28-^. in 1883; then falling again to 255. in 1885." > Second Report, Royal Commission ou Depression of Trade and Industry, .\ppendix D, Part II. FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. Preston — Iron working, including fitters, turners, engineers, pattern- makers and smiths. "Almost wholly by time. Average rate about 28.^. per week. Practically no change since 1864." Preston — Second Branch. "Prominent symptoms of the depression are the large quantities of people out of work and no possibility of getting work. Wages average about 28.f. per week. Very little change in wages since 1864." Shipley — The engineering and machine making trade, in connection with woolen and worsted manufacture. The existing depression is due to the closing of the most important of the foreign markets by hostile tariffs, and a reduction of the purchasing power of our own coun- trymen. The general average of wages is about 285. 6d. for society men; non-society men about 24s. Wages are about the same as they were twenty years ago. They would average 2S. or 3.1. higher from about 1869 to 1873, but they have since gone down to their old level. Sunderland — Marine engine building, and all engineering work apper- taining to shipping. "Wages have been in 1864 about 275. per week. They increased to 345. in 1874, and since then up to the present they have fluctuated between 31.9. and 2js. per week." Plumstead — Steam engines and tools, for the manufacture of steam engines, likewise all classes of machiner>'. "We are paid 8d. an hour, and .some are on piece work. Wages are about the same this last thirty > cars. Ayr — Boiler-making and Iron Ship Builders' Society, and bridge and lank makers. "Average time pay is 6d. per hour. In 1882 and 1883 we attained our highest rate of wages, but at present our rate of wages is even lower than at any time previous, both on time and piece-work." Liverpool — Boiler-making and iron ship building. "Skilled work- men from 28s. to 345. per week. Unskilled workmen 205. to 24.?. per week. Piece work about 15 per cent less than 1864." Stockton-on-Tees — Boiler-making, iron ship building and bridge roof and gas holder building. "Ship builder's wages are 10 per cent less now than at any time we know. ' ' Waterford — Boiler-making and iron ship building. "Wages by week 275. , 15.?., 12^.; ID per cent reduction." Birkenhead — Iron moulding. "Paid by the week at 34'.?. per week of fifty-four hours. Wages are the same now as twenty years ago. ' ' Huddersfield — Iron moulding. "Wages from ^d. to -jd. per hour according to skill. No change in rate of wages for twenty years." Swansea — Iron founding. "In 1865 the wages in the town averaged /,i IS.; now ^i los. ; but at present in the country places it is quite different. Some men are working for as little as i7.«. 6d. per week." Halifax — Coachmakers. "Wages are no more now than they were twenty years ago." RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Leeds — Coachmakers' Societ}-. "Wages have decreased." Oldham — Engineering and mechanical blacksmith. "Skilled labor average wages per da}', sj'. ^d. Unskilled, 35'. ^d. No change whatever on time work." Walsall — Chain, Cartgearand Case Framemakers' Association. "As far as we can calculate the average payment for a %veek's work done would be about \S,s., but from 1870 to 1S75 that wage would be 245. for the same work done. ' ' Callington — Operative Stone Masons' Friendly Societj'. "Work by the piece. For piece-work 30 per cent lower. ' ' Dalton-in-Furness — Friendlj' Society of Operative Stone Masons. "The wages per hour are 6y2 to ^yid. For piece-work the rate has been reduced one-half exactly. For day or hour work the rate is very near what it was twenty years ago. There have been fluctuations, sometimes higher, sometimes lower, but the last few years never lower than thej' are at present. ' ' Buxton — Carpenters and joiners. "Wages yj^d., jd., 6}id. For time work in 1875, the wages were 33.?.'per week for forty-nine and one- half hours. In 1877, were dropped to the present price, 30.J. per week, forty-nine and one-half hours." London — The United Cocoanut Fibre Mat and Matting Weavers' Society. " Work by piece. There has been a reduction of 30 per cent. Ashton-under-Lyrae — Power Loom Weavers' Association. Cotton manufactures. "All piece-work. In this district there has been a gen- eral reduction of 15 per cent in the price paid for weaving, in some cases as much as 33 per cent. ' ' Todmorden — Power loom, cotton weaving. "Work by the piece at about an average of 15 to 20 per cent below the wages paid for weaving for twenty years preceding 1878. Blackburn — Power loom overlookers in cotton mills. "We have suffered a reduction of 10 per cent." Congleton — Ribbon trimming and band weaving. Ribbon Weavers' Friendly Society. "The rate of i860, except for three years, 1870-73, never reached. Any price offered has been accepted lately." Shaw — ^Cotton industry. Card and Blowing-room Association. "The male portion are all paid by the week, but there are so many prices paid that I cannot particularize them for you, only on the following scale: some at 26s. per week; some, 235. per week; some, 2i.t. id.; some, 205., and some at 18.?. There have been three reductions in our trade during the last twenty years, at 5 per cent on every occasion. Mossley — Cotton trade. Strippers and grinders. Male and female. Card and Blowing-room Operatives' As.sociation. "Wages per week 18^. Reduction 1 5 per cent. ' ' FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. Leicestershire — Sock and Top Society. Children's socks. About iioo skilled workmen eniplo)-ed. Female adults about one hundred. Between thirteen and eighteen years, 300 female workers. About seven hundred men wholly out of employment and the remainder partly. Female workers in the same proportion. From 1865 to 1875 we obtained three advances in our wages, of an average of 11 per cent each time, besides abolishing a system of frame rents, which was a gain to the workmen of about 4s. per week. Since 1875 we have had two reductions in wages of an average of 10 per cent each. I should say the increase left us for piece-work is about ds. per week, to a quick hand In the old time our wag^ were wretchedly low, and with all our commercial prosperity of the last twenty-five years, we could now only barely live if we had plenty of work. Leicester — Elastic Web Weavers' Association. "The rate of wages is quite 50 per cent lower in piece-work; time work being only recently introduced, has not changed materially. Aberdare — The Amalgamated Society of Boot and Shoemakers. "The wages by the week are from 15.V. to z^s., and a lot of boys and girls employed at from 75. to los. We had only one change of wages and that was in 1872. We had a rise of 15 per cent, but since it has been taken back and more with it with most of them. We are only three that claim the wages of 1872 at the present time." London — United Society of Journeymen Curriers. "Wages in piece- work and hour work from 6d. to -jd. an hour. Not much change in twenty years. In some cases men are working for less than ever." Preston — Letter-press printing. ' 'Jobbing houses pay 305. per week. Newspapers are all piece-work. Piece-work on newspapers same now as twenty years ago. ' ' Scarsborough — Letter-press printing. "By the week wages 205. and 285. Wages have increased from 24.?. to a minimum of 285. per week. ' ' Sunderland — Sunderland Branch of Typographical Association Letter-press Printers. ' ' Wages by the week 26.?. The change in wages of the printing profession during the last twenty years is scarcely worth mentioning; is. a week advance." Typton — West Bromwich, Oldbury, Typton, Cosley, Amalgamated Association of Miners. "Men employed in and about coal and iron stone mines. During the last twenty years the wages have varied at different periods, namely, from 4.?. 6d. per day, to ^s. per day, and to y. 8d. and 3^. 4d. per day." London— Dressmakers, Milliners and Mantle Makers' Society. "Wages have risen from 6s. to 185. per week. Wages paid twenty years ago were from 6s. to 1 25. per week. At the present time some employers are offering less wages to those who will accept them." Dublin— Flint Glassmakers' Society of Great Britain and Ireland. "The few men employed in Dublin at the flint glass trade at the present RETURN TO FREE TRADE. time are in a starving state, their weekly pay being but 135. per week, with four and five children to keep, and pay 3^. a week for one room." "By the piece, the workmen receive less than they did six years ago for the same time. The rate of wages has gone down very much within the last twenty years; men could earn £2, they are now getting 1 5,> . per week. ' ' Sunderland— Window Glass Workers' Assembly No. 3504. All those engaged in the manufactureof glass, viz. , blowers, gatherers and flatteners are paid by the piece. Warehousemen are paid 20s. to 265. per week. Have had from 30 to 40 per cent reduction. The most prominent symptoms are the English markets overstocked with foreign manufactured glass which is sold at a very low price, consequently the English consumer buys the cheapest article in the market at the lowest price, hence the depression in the English window glass trade. Edinburgh — Trades' Council, representing twenty-five trade societies. "The average wage for skillful male labor for the whole year is 22.?. per week. In many trades there has been an apparent increase of wages, but the real wages are lower now than for many years. Leicester — Cabinet-makers and wood carvers. The work here is paid for by the hour, by piece, and by lump. The general rate is "jd. per hour, but there are more receiving less than that. (a) Owing to a larger introduction of machinery I don't think the piece-work is any better paid for, if so well as it was, because at every fresh innovation or improve- ment to lessen labor a corresponding amount is deducted from the price paid for the article. (b) For time work there is a considerable advance in the lasl twenty years, for whereas men used to receive about 24s. to 28.S. per week of about fifty -eight hours, they now get at least 32.?. or 34.S. for fifty -six hours. In this I am referring to the better class of men, for there are plenty working at from £1 to 285. per week, and thankful to get even that. Bath and Combe Down— Alliance Cabinet Makers' A.ssociation. Cabinet-makers, carvers and turners. The number of hours worked by us in this district is about six per week less than twenty years ago; it was about sixty per week then, now it is fifty-four in some shops, in others fifty-six. As a rule we are paid by the piece. In some instances by the hour and also by the week. The present rate of wages varies from 245. to 30J. per week. There has been very little change in the rate of wages for time work during the last twenty years, not more than 2S. per week has it increased since that^ime. (a) With regard to piece-work, it is regulated according to the amount of work done by the machines, which is very considerable. In some instances the machine does one-half the work. The total production per week is above the average of the last twenty years. The commission also called upon the Chambers of Commerce and Business Men's Associations to state whether the wages " for skilled labor and unskilled labor is al)ove or below the average of the last twenty years. ' ' FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. The following answers ' were received from some of the principal Chambers of Commerce of manufacturing centres: Bately — "The rate of wages about the same." Belfast — "The present rate of wages is slightly below the average of the last twenty years. ' ' Birmingham — "For skilled the same, but unskilled labor is below the average for the last twenty years. ' ' Bristall (near Leeds) — "Skilled and unskilled labor is below the average for the last twenty years. ' ' Cleckheatou — "The rate of wages in our textile factories is main- tained at fair average, while the rate in the industries enumerated in No. 6 ^machinery, card clothing, leather, coal and iron, chemicals, build- ing), is under the average." Dudley — ' ' For skilled labor the average is somewhat less. ' ' Dundee — "The rate of wages is at present lower than it has been for the past ten or twelve years, and also slighty lower than the average of the past twenty years. This is general, but it applies both to the skilled and unskilled labor. ' ' Huddersfield — "The shorter hours for labor of all kinds and, owing to more efficient machinery, the increased quantity and quality of the work turned out by each workman, have much to do with this question." This wool manufacturing centre evades the question. Liverpool^Watchmaking. "The wages have been pretty well wiped out, because the great bulk of the operatives have been wiped out of the trade. " Luton — "Above for the manufacture of straw hats, etc.; below for the making of straw plaits." Manchester — "The rate of wages should be taken in connection with the purchasing power of the wages. Having regard to this, the workman is at the present time better remunerated than ever he has been in the past." North Staffordshire — "Coal and iron are paying a lower rate of wages now than they have averaged for the past twenty 3'ears. " Ossett — "Skilled labor is at a lower price now than at any time dur- ing the last twenty years. Unskilled labor is plentiful now, and consid- erably below any time durin^the last twenty years." Sunderland — "The rate of wages both for skilled and unskilled labor is above the average of the last twenty years, except in the glass bottle trade, in which the wages are below the average." Coventry — "The rate of wages in the watch trade, as applied to skilled labor, is something below the average of the last twenty years. The rate of wages paid in the ribbon trade is much below the average. ' ' 1 Royal Commission, First Report, Appendix A. RETUJiN TO FREE TRADE. Newcastle. The actual present rate of wages for skilled labor is lower than it was four or five years ago; it is still, however, not below the average of the last twenty years, par- ticularly if the shorter hours worked are taken into account, and if the unprece- dented cheapness of all the necessaries of life are allowed for, the remuneration for the quantity of labor expended by skilled operatives is now above the average of the last twenty years. Tidmorden — Iron moulders. ' ' Iron moulders at present are receiving 345. per week of fifty-four hours. From 1875 to 1877 we were receiving 365. per week. In 1855 moulders in this branch were receiving 34.^. per week. ' ' Warington — Iron moulders. "Wages 34.?. per week of fifty-four hours. Twenty years ago the same wages as now." Glasgow — Shipwrights. "In 1865 time work ^i i6s. In 1885, ^i 10.?. ^yid., being 305. ^]4d- at present for fifty-four hours per week, the lowest amount for the last fourteen years, and 55. j^zd. less per week than we received twentj' years ago. ' ' Adrossam — As.sociated Blacksmiths' Society "Wages from 22s. to 2'js. per week; 15 per cent reduction for time work." Renifrew — Associated Blacksmiths' Society. "Piece-work rate has fallen 35 per cent in the last twenty j-ears. Time work much the same. ' ' Carlisle — Coachmaking. "Wages per week 2o.f. to 30.?. Reduction of 2s. per week." Dublin — Coachmaking. "The minimum rate of wages all round is about 20s. 6d. per week. Piece prices are very much reduced and time work also." Dundee — Coach building. "All paid by the week. Body-makers 20s. to 29^. per week. Carriage makers, 23.?. to 2'js. per week. Wheel makers, 20.?. to 295. per week." "Coach smiths, 24.?. to 31.?. per week ; vise-men or coach fitters, i-]s.\.o 2t,s. per week; trimmers, 20.S-. to 29,?. per week; painters, 20^-. to 295. perw^eek. " lyondon — "Unskilled labor occupies a much worse position worthy of the special study of the Royal Commission. The influx of families from agricultural districts, has caused the supply of this class of labor to exceed the demand. ' ' Sheffield, It is very difficult to e.stimate the rate of wages for skilled and unskilled labor for an average of twenty years, especially when it has, as is tlie case under con- sideration, covered violent fluctuations in trade ; but in the opinion of this Chamber, the present rate of wages in relation to the services rendered, and to the quality and quantity of work produced is, if measured by money payments, very nearly equal to the average of the last twenty years. The working classes do not suffer so much from a reduction in the rate of wages as from the reduction in the lumiber of hours during which they can be employed, although, in some branches of the trade, the rate of wages has, no doubt, been reduced. "Short work," however, is their FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. greatest grievance, and this is of course brought about by the present state of depression. Tyne Ports — "Seamen's wages are below the average of the last twenty years. ' ' The following answers were received from the principal commercial associations of the United Kingdom:' Belfast — Linen Merchants Associations. "Slightly below the aver- age of the last twenty years, which include some inflated years immed- iateh' succeeding the termination of the American war." North of England Iron Manufacturers' Association— "Skilled and unskilled below the average." Leather Trade Association — "Skilled labor is about the same as the average twenty years since." It should be borne in mind that the reduction in wages which took place between 1876 and 1885 was not caused by any .sudden depression in trade, of short duration, but that it came about gradually through a period of about ten years following the Franco-Prussian war, and was accom- panied year by year by the increase of the imports into England of com- peting commodities, together with the increased rivalry and competition in neutral markets. The English manufacturers were compelled to reduce wages not only to hold their own markets, but to prevent a larger portion of their home trade from being taken from them. This is fully estab- lished by the evidence that has been quoted from the silk, cotton, woolen, iron, lace and other manufactures. This important fact that the Eng- lish people have been compelled to reduce wages to meet Continental competition, exposes the sophistry of those arguments of the free trade writers in which they attempt to .show that high wages mean cheap production. It should be borne in mind that the competition to which England is subjected is not of un.skilled hand-workmen, but that to-day nearly 200,000,000 people in Europe are struggling for commercial supremacy, provided with all modern improvements and appliances. The cost of raw material is about the same to all nations. It is only a small item when compared with labor cost. Another item which should be taken into consideration, in estimat- ing the effect of free trade on the laboring masses, is the ab.solute loss of employment which has been sustained. The Minority Report of the Royal Commi.ssion on Depression of Trade and Industry' stated : We think the insufficiency of employment is the most serious feature of the exist- ing depression; and it is an important, indeed an anxious question, ivhether, in the face of the ever-increasing restrictions placed upon our industry by foreign tariffs, and the ever-increasing invasion of our home market by foreign productions admitted dutyfree, we shall be able to command a sufficiency of employment for our rapidly growing population. ■Royal Commissiou on Depression of Trade and Industry, First Report, Appendix B. EETURK ro FREE TRADE. In 1882 Mr. Robert GifFen, the chief statistician of the free trade party and the head of the statistical department of the government, published a com- parison of wages between 1832 and 1882, from which the following is taken: OCCCPATIO.N. I Wages Fifty Years Ago. .832. Carpenters, Bricklayers, Masons, . . Miners (per day), Mancliester, Glasgow, . MancliesltT, Glasgow, . . Manchester, Glasgow, . . Staffordshire, 5. d. 34 o 26 o 36 o 27 o 29 10 23 S 4 o A considerable advance is shown by the above estimate, but the reader will note, however, that Mr. GifFen was compelled to go back half a century in order to find a basis from which .such results could be reached. Even though the rates given in 1832 are conceded to be accu- rate, they become of less importance, because free trade was only in part adopted in 1846, and not until about i860 was protection withdrawn from all industries. This leaves fourteen years of protection in textile and metals, following 1832, and twenty-eight years of protection to the silk and many other industries embraced within the period covered. It has been proven by very tru.stworthy authorities that the figures presented by Mr. Giffen for 1832 are too low, and those given for 1882 are in many in-stances too high. The publication of Mr. Giffen 's tables brought out investigations and precipitated a sharp controv.ersy upon the question as to whether there had been an advance or decline in wages and earnings. This question was under di.scussion at the Industrial Remuneration Conference in 1886, when the following table was presented by Mr. J. G. Hutchinson, to prove the inaccuracy of Mr. Giffen's tables, especially for 1832: Cotton spinners, Porter, 3S Cotton weavers, [ Syinouds, 14 Woolen spinners, Woolen weavers Woolen dressers, Flaxmen, Flaxwomen, Coal miners, per day, Symonds, Iron-founders, Machine makers, Carpenters, Greenwich 32 6 Carpenters, country, average, . . 22 6 Masons, Greenwich, 3' 6 Masons, country, average, ... 24 Bricklayers, Greenwich, .... 28 Bricklayers, country, average. Bevan, 19 o 13 o 20 10 19 9 13 o 4 9 39 S 27 o 39 8 FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. In discussing this question before the Industrial Remuneration Con ference, Mr. Benjamin Jones, of the Co-operative Wholesale Societj', said: Mr. Hey, of the iron founders, had been at the trouble of taking from the books of that association the average wages from the year 1855 to the present time, and had entered into careful details as to deductions made for holidays, short time, sicknes! and so on. After these deductions, Mr. Hey had ascertained that for the ten years 1S55-65, the net wages of iron founders throughout the kingdom were £\ 45. dd. per week; for the ten years, 1865-75, £^ 5-S- ^rf.; and for the ten years, 1875-85, £1 s,s. 5!id. Where, then, was the increase of wages which Mr. Giffen had estimated? ' The whole question is reviewed by Mr. Jones, in an article published in the Times in which the unfair methods resorted to, and the inaccuracies of Mr. Giffen are exposed, as follows: Since Mr. Giffen read his paper I have attempted, so far as my limited oppor tunities would permit, to ascertain the accuracy of his comparative statistics, and I find they are the reverse of satisfactorj'. First, in the "Miscellaneous Statistics of the United Kingdom, " published about fifty years ago under the direction of Mr. Potter, there are numerous statements of the rates of wages current at that time. Mr. Giffen has only culled one here and one there, and apparently those only which told the most in favor of his conclusions. Secondly, the figures he does give, both for the past and the present, are in some cases misleading, and are not to be depended upon; and thirdly, he has entirely overlooked circumstances adversely affecting the working classes at the present time, while, apparently, he has very carefully reckoned up everything that would put a rosy color upon their present condition. In fact, he appears to have gone on the principle of using black ink for the past and red ink for the present. The following instances may be given of his inaccuracies: He says the wages of car- penters at Manchester fifty j-ears ago were 24s., and now they are 34J., the increase being 42 per cent. The early wage is accurate; but, from inquiries made for me at Manches- ter, I find that the general wage now paid there is not 34J. but 3IJ. lod., which reduces the percentage from 42 to 32, or a reduction of nearly one-fourth. From this has to be deducted the adverse circumstance that, while in the former period carpenters were on weekly wages, at the latter period they are on hourly wages and are stopped off their work at any moment by changes of weather, the consequence being that they are compelled to lose more time now than formerly, which prevents them earning their full nominal wages. Again, take bricklayers' laborers in Manchester. The "Miscel- laneous Statistics" show that in 1825 they were getting j6s. per week. Information supplied to me from Manchester shows that they now get 21s. yi. per week, subject to the disadvantage of hourly pay as against weekly. The increase here is 5 s. yi. per week, or 32 per cent. Mr. Giffen fixes the wages of these men at 12^. per week fifty years ago, and at 22i'. now, or an increase of 83 per cent. In Londonderry the wages of laborers in 1832 were 8.y. per week. At present they are from \2S. to \$s. a week, the same hours being worked as previously, or an average of 13.1. dd. This gives an increase of 68 per cent. Mr. Giffen gives the figures as 8.r. and i6i., or 100 per cent increase. He also gives the wages of London dock companies' laborers in 1S33 as 15^. per week. A reference to the "Miscellaneous Statistics " shows that there were three rates, viz., \^s., \bs. 6a'., and \%s.\ but Mr. Giffen ignores the two higher figures. A final instance of his inaccuracy is to be found in his comparison of seamen's wages. According to the "Miscellaneous Statistics of the United Kingdom," the wages of seamen in sailing ships in 1833 were, from the first of April to the first of October, £2 \os. per month, and from the first of October to the first of April, £1 \os. per month, 1 Report, p. 67. HETUIiX TO FREE TRADE. Ill average of £2> P^'' month. The wages of able seamen in sailing ships in ; varied from 55.S. lo 655., or just about the same as in 1833. There is no advance of wages here shown, and there are, I believe, no shorter hours worked by these men; but the shipping statistics show that a given number of men have to work double the tonnage they worked thirty years ago. The way Mr. Giffen treats this industry is to ignore the rate of wages paid Mty years ago; to ignore the double work performed bj the men now as against thirty years ago; to ignore a comparison between able seamen in sailing ships now as against an earlier period; and to satisfy himself by comparing the wages of seamen in sailing ships in 1850 with the wages of seamen in steamships onl)' in 1S83. The result is that he brings out a delusive increase in wages of seamen of 25 to 70 per cent, when in fact there had in that particular class been none at all, although double tonnage was being worked by every man. Again Mr. Jones write.s: Now let us consider the rates of wages fifty years ago as given in the " Miscella- neous Statistics of the United Kingdom," and compare them with those obtaining at the present time, but which Mr. Giffen had either overlooked or ignored, (i) A gen- tleman in Londonderry tells me that coachmakers there get on an average 235. per week. In 1832 the Blue-book shows they were getting 20s. This is an increase of 15 per cent onlj-. (2) The "Miscellaneous Statistics" show power loom weavers at Manchester in 1832 getting 13.?. to 165. lod., or an average of 14s. iid. per week. Information supplied me from Manchester shows that the power loom weavers now average 155. dd. per week, or onlj- a trifle over the pay of fifty years ago. Card-room jobbers in 1832 received 14.J. 6d. to 17^. per week. They now receive 15^. to i8i., or barely 5 per cent increase. {3) A relative over seventy years of age tells me that throstle spinners got gj. per week over fifty years ago and get i\s. per week now, and cotton mixers got 18.?. per week then and only 165. per week now. (4) I find ina book, "Arts and Artisans," publi-shed in 1839 by J. C. Symons, an Assistant Commissioner on the Haudloom Inquiry, that it is stated on the authority of Mr. W, Dixon, one of the largest proprietors of collieries in Great Britain, that the average earnings of col- liers at the Govaii collieries in 1S33 were 45. per day often hours, with house and coal free. This, too, was the lowest rate that prevailed from 1824 to 1837, with the excep- tion of the year 183 1, when the rate was 35. iid., and during these fourteen years the wages ran at one time to over ss. per day. A gentleman in Glasgow sends me word that the wages of colliers at the present time average 3.!. 6ri. per day of ten hours, or 15 per cent less than the wages of fifty years ago. (5) Coming to London, the assis- tant secretary to the Ironfouuders' Association tells me that the wages in their trade fifty years ago were from 32^. to 38J. per week, or an average of 35.5. (6) Now their aver- age wages are 385. per week, being an increase of about 8 per cent. The London com- positors received wages in 1833 on the basis of 36.S. per week for bookwork. In 1SS3 the same rate of wages prevailed. (7) In connection, too. with tlie shorter hours of labor worked now by some of the trades, such as the building trades, it must be pointed out that while fifty years ago they could live within a short distance of their work, and so lose very little time in getting to it, they now have to spend fully the time gained by shorter hours of labor in traveling to and from home and work. Moreover, they have to pay railway fares, and they have al.so to pay increased house rents.' The efforts on the part of Mr. Giffen and members of the Cobden Club, to prove that the wage-earners of the United Kingdom were receiv- ing higher wages nnder free trade than they had received in former j-ears under protection, called forth an article from the vShcfflcld Daily Telegram 1 Fair Trade Journal. Vol I . p. i.~ FREE TRADE POLICr A FAILURE. on Wednesday, January i8, 1885, in which the "labor statistics" for Slieffield, published by the Board of Trade, were analyzed, and the inac- curacies of free trade statisticians exposed. The country had been for some time deluged with articles in free trade newspapers, designed to show that an appalling state of affairs existed in England under protection. The Daily Telegram said: We had searched and searched again for some vestige of a record of that ghostly era, but we had searched in vain. Solemnized as we were by a haunting vision of a skeleton generation " with sallow lantern-jaws," we peered into the dark epoch — 181 1- 1836 — when, according to one veracious politician, Sheffielders nmst have worked at their benches in their bones, so we naturally hailed the laborious work of so great a statistician, and so unimpeachable a Liberal with a feeling of relief. " Here," said we, " here between these two blue covers— here, if anywhere, we shall come upon those appalling twenty-five years when the people had no bread, and were, in consequence, reduced to phantasms — mere screeds of phosphorescent vapor." Cau- tiously and with such a hush of apprehension as Blue Beard's wife felt, we have opened the supposed skeleton closet, but unlike the lady, we have seen no skeletons. What we have seen is this. Our working cutlers were earning from " 15.?. to 405. weekly;" our file cutters, " iS.y. to 255.; " our file grinders, "355. to 455.;" our saw handle makers, "305. to 40s. in five years out of six, and 305. in the odd year;" our saw makers, "40^." in the period of 1810-26, and "305. to 40s." in the period of 1830-33; our steel melters, "£5 per week" in 1798, in 1810, 1822, 1S26, "^4 io.s." in 1829, 1830 and 1833; our grinders, "£l" per week in 1810, "£5" in 1822. "£6" in 1826, "£5 los." in 1829, "£5 " in 1830, and "^5 " in 1S33. These facts are printed in official type, under the head of "Average Weekly Earnings of Workmen." Here, reader, behold how poverty deepened under " a continual bread famine! " "If you have tears, prepare to shed them now." Now it was no other than Mr. Giffen who once startled us by saying that "fift\' years ago our English working people had only bacon, and very little of that, in the shape of animal food." His words were positive and uncompromising, for he added, "They got no other meat. " His words went through all the public papers, and young free traders sighed to think that their fathers "got no other meat" than now and then a suippet of bacon. That was sad; so sad it was that it seemed to explain why, in four consecutive years the skies wept and sorrowed so incontinenth- as to drown the harvests. But it occurred to us that we must have been living in some other planet "fifty years ago" — supposing Mr. Giffen correct in his statements. He spoke in the autumn of 1883, therefore his "got no other meat" referred to 1833. Now in that year, 1833, "our grinders had ^5 per week, our steel melters £4, our saw and saw handle makers 305. to 40s.," and although no figures are given for cutlers, file cutters and file grinders, in 1833 we find, on Mr. Giffen's own .showing, that in 1832 they were in clover, What 1833 was like hereabouts is plainly set forth in the Sheffield Annual Register— & compilation of facts issued from the .same office as the ghastly picture of the "continual bread famine," which lasted from 18 11 to 1836 inclusive: — "November 9, 1833. Hardware Trade: We have heard with much pleasure from several quarters that the trade of the town is now generally brisk, and there exists an unusual degree of satisfaction both among the masters and workmen." There is much more to the same effect, but this is enough. "An unusual degree of satisfaction both among mas- ters and workmen" .shows that the .spectral starvelings of that period of famine could, like Mark Tapley, be "jolly" under all circumstances. Depression in trade, and absolute deprivation of meat, had no power to depress them. Of course they could have had "no meat," for Mr. Giffen has said so, but they had in one day (November BET CRN TO FREE TRADE. 28) "300 tons of cheese" at Sheffield fair, and they had, some of them 30^. , some 35^., some 40^., some 80^., and some lOOS. per week, and upon such poor pittances as those they contrived to support "the famine" with Christian fortitude and philosophic resig- nation. The Sheffielders of 1833 bore up wonderfully under their afflictions. They were not an exceedingly great multitude, but they had — shadows as they were— about ^100,000 in the savings bank; for in those doleful days even the ghosts saved money and banked it. It is pleasant to know these things; it helps one to breathe more freely. ' Members of the Cobden Club attempt to console British laborers with the free trade dogma, stated as follows by Mr. Giffen, that "what con- cerns them most was not money wages, but real wages, and it was quite possible that with money wages falling, their real condition might improve, owing to the increased fall in the price of the principal com- modities which they consume." The facts revealed by the evidence before the Royal Commission on Trade and Industry, show that in many instances money wages were lessened through actual reductions, but more universally through lack of employment. The dogmatic free trader comes forward with his fine-spim theory that this is compensated for by a decline in the prices of consumable commodities. Under this contention it is asserted that on the whole his condition is improved when compared with former years. This was one of the questions discussed before the Industrial Remuneration Conference. Mr. J. B. Hutchinson read a paper before the conference upon this question, in which he compared the pur- chasing power of a week's earnings of cotton spinners in 1804, 1814, 1833, and 1836, and of 1876. Upon the earlier period he'cited the follow- ing table from Porter's "Progress of the Nation:" Work Turned Off by One . Prices from Greenwich Hos- pital Records. Quantities which a Week's Net Spinner per Week. Wages per Week. n Harning^s^would o:s Lbs. Nos. Gross. Pieces. Net Flour per Sack. Flesh per lb. V^Su?^ Lbs. of Flesh. .. d. ■ :r. d. d. d. IS04 12 i8o 60 27 6 32 6 74 83 6 to 7 62 K 67 6 31 36 6 74 S3 6 to 7 124 73 '*,/ 72 ^t 74 8 175 200 90 74 70 6 90 ■833 22M 180 g^ 21 33 8 6q 6 *7 , 19 200 42 9 69 45 267 85 = The sack of flour is takeU at 280 lbs. The above is the result of an average of several men's work at the diflFerent periods. As a comparison with the above, the average earnings of cotton .spinners at Manchester in 1876, from Bevan's Industrial Classes and Industrial Statistics, was given as follows: 1S85. Fair Trade Journal, Vol. III., p. 184 FREE TRADE POLICV A FAILURE. Year. Wages. Flour per Sack, Flesh per Lb 1876 285. Ad. 43.?. 4a'. lod. Lbs. of Flour. Lbs. of Flesh. 182 34 Mr. Hutchinson said: From this it is evident that not only were a spinner's wages in 1833 higher than in 1876, but the purchasing power of his earnings was considerably in his favor also. We do not deem it necessary to multiply examples, but we will give below some additional evidence to show that the wages given for 1833 were not the highest for that time.' It appears from the foregoing that during the period of protection from 1804 to 1833, the net weekly earnings of spinners increased from 2,25. bd. to 425. gd., while the purchasing power of his earnings also increased. While in 1833 the weekly wage would purchase from 210 to 267 pounds of flour, and from sixty-seven to eighty-five pounds of meat, in 1876 it had been reduced to 285. a week, and would purchase only 182 pounds of flour and thirty-four pounds of meat. It should be borne in mind that the rate given by Bevau in 1876 was ascertained before the decline in wages took place as shown by the evidence before the Royal Commission on Trade and Industry. In considering the purchasing power of the weekly earnings of an English artisan, the questimi of increased rent should not be lost sight of. Mr. Robert Giffen, in attempting to show the condition of the labor- ing classes in 1884, in comparison with 1832, stated that, "House rents may be considered to be now, one and a half times more than they were fifty years ago. Miss Edith Simcox, in a paper read before the Industrial Remunera- tion Conference" pointed out the error committed by Mr. Giffen, by citing a report published in the Journal of the Statistical Society in 1840, giving an investigation which was made upon personal visits to 5000 working class dwellings in the neighborhood of Westminster, of which the average rental was 2s. iid., and that a similar inquiry was made by the Pall Mall Gazette in 1885, of 763 tenements in the same locality, which showed an average rental of 8s. 2d. , which is nearly three times the rent of the former period, instead of one and a half times, as stated by Mr. Giffen. While it is undoubtedly true, that some improvement has been made in recent years in the dwellings of the laboring people, yet they remain as a whole, in a miserable and unwholesome condition, and that the wages earned are insufficient to afford better accommodations cannot be denied. If the wage-earners of the United Kingdom could afford better houses, it would induce improvements in tenements, but so long as the blighting influence of free trade prevents increased earnings, no 1 Report of Industrial Remuneration Conference, p. 50. 2 Report, pp. 103 and 104, RETURN TO FREE TRA DE. inducements will be oiTered to property owners to furnish better tene- ments and dwellings. The question of prices and cheap clothing was touched upon by Mr. Burns, by whom the real truth of the cheap clothing argument so often advanced by free traders was very clearly set forth as follows : With regard to the purchasing power of motiey, meat was at least 50 per cent dearer than it was twenty-five years ago. It was, however, true that boots were cheaper ! It used to be said, " There is nothing like leather ; " but the shoemaker of the present day appeared to have reversed that saying by substituting another, "There is nothing like brown paper ; " and he gave them plenty of it. What was said of boots applied to clothing, such as moleskins and corduroys, which, although decreased 25 per cent in price, had diminished 125 per cent in quality. In fact, the clothes sold to the working classes at the shoddy shops were similar to the goods supplied to the natives on the banks of the Niger and the Congo, where he had been. He remem- bered seeing a native on the banks of the Niger washing some of his clothes. They had recently been brought from England, and bj- the time he had rinsed the water, blue and size out of them, there was very little left for him to wear. ' The alleged advantage which the Briti.sh artisan has over the Amer- ican in the way of cheap clothing, has found a place in the free trade literature of recent campaigns in the United States. The free trade agi- tator has attempted to make it appear that although English laborers receive lower wages, they wear all wool and very durable clothing, pur- chased at a comparatively small price. Taking into consideration the increase in rents, the advance in cer- tain necessaries, making all allowances for a decline in prices of other commodities, the low wages and lack of employment leave the skilled artisan of the country in a most miserable condition with the chances in favor of his dying in an almshouse. While there has been an advance of 50 per cent in rent, the price of butcher's meat and eggs, has risen from ID to 40 per cent since 1840. Bread, butter and vegetables remain about the same, and the price of tea, coffee, sugar, soap, syrups, mar- malades and clothing has declined. His wages have either stood still or declined, when measured by the week; but when measured by actual earnings they have declined through a lack of employment. A careful examination of the literature and discussions bearing upon this phase of economic conditions ought to satisfy any candid reader that the mass of British laborers are in a more deplorable condition and confronted with a more serious problem as to their future welfare than at an>- time in recent years. It is a most brazen piece of deception to contend that tlirongh the reduced price of the necessaries of life, British artisans and laborers are nearly or quite as well off as those of the United States. The mere reduction in the cost of a few necessaries of life, only in part compensates FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. for the man}- other elements which drag them down and bind them to a hopeless and increasing condition of industrial servitude. A decline in prices may benefit the laborers of a nation, if it is not brought about at the expense of their own incomes. But when the sacrifice in earnings is proportion atety greater, and outweighs such advantages, on the whole, he suffers a loss. Under protection in the United States the wage-earners have enjoyed a gradual advance in money wages since 1859, and an increase in real wages by its greater purchasing power, through a decline in prices, besides a constantly increasing field of employment through the expansion of industries. This is one of the greatest triumphs of the system of protection. In England free trade has brought a degree of reduced wages and lack of employment, which more than overbalances the enlarged purchasing power of money. This is the fixed and permanent condition of those who are able to get work, while there is an ever increasing body of laborers unable to find employment, subsisting on private and public charities, with all hope gone of ever see- ing better days under free trade. We are fortunately able to give recent official expressions upon this question. A Labor Commission was appointed by parliament in 1891, which during the following three years investigated numerous questions affecting the laborers of the country. The investigation of strikes, lock- outs, relations of employers and employed, labor legislation, and many other phases of the question was quite thorough, both as to England and foreign countries. Upon the question of the present wage rate the reports of the investigation are quite complete as to all general trades. They also contain a very full statement of the wages of women in nearly all industries. The report does not disclose as thorough an investigation into the wages of those engaged in the textile indu.stries, hardware, cut- lery, and various competing industries aiTecte'd by the system of free imports. Yet, .sufficient is given to show a lower wage rate in all employ- ments than has been reported by United States Consuls and private individuals who had made statements upon the question with the excep- tion, of course, of those manufacturers who have removed their plants to the United States and furnished either to Congressional investigating committees or to the press statements of wages which were paid by them in both countries. The reader will find a statement of the wages paid in the various trades as reported by this Commission, in the table of com- parative wages. While a few instances of advance in wages within the past few years are mentioned as having taken place in certain localities and trades, yet it does not appear by the final report which contains a summary of the investigation of wages that any .specific inquiry was made upon the question of advance or decline in wages, neither was a special investiga- tion made into a comparison of the present wage rate with that of former RETURN TO FREE TRADE. times. In this respect the investigation differed from the one held in 1SS5, which specifically inquired into the changes which had taken place during a period of twenty years, from 1864 to 1SS4. It appeared from the report that about the 3'ear 1891, there took place advances in the wages of carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers, plas- terers and stonemasons in a number of districts. The report states: "In the majority of these trades there have been recent advances in wages which are attributed to trade union efforts and in some cases to the effect of strikes. ' ' ' The advance spoken of was not shown to be universal, or of any con- siderable amount. After taking this into consideration a comparison of the wages of this class of skilled laborers in 1892, with former periods is. as follows: Weekly Earnings in the Following Occupations. Occupations. Bricklayers, .... Masons, Carpenters, .... Painters Plumbers, Compositors — Job work, . . . Morning paper. Evening paper, I684 756 8 46 II 52 I7 20 to $7 68 6 48 to 7 20 6 48 to 7 20 6 24 to 6 96 6 48 to 7 20 I780 7 74 7 68 7 43 7 80 7 44 10 14 8 28 The wages for 1833 are taken from Porter's "Progress of the Na- tion. ' ' ^ The wages of carpenters, bricklayers, and plumbers were those paid by the Greenwich Hospital. It should be stated, however, that the wages paid at Greenwich Hospital were perhaps higher than the general average of the country. Those for 1853 are taken from the "Charter of the Nations,"^ being the wages paid "by one of the largest building firms in Lancashire. ' ' Those for 1 892 are the average wages given by the Royal Commission on Labor for the United Kingdom.* In addition to the low wages of this class of artisans they suffer from certain deductions and lack of employment. Upon this point the Commis- sion stated:^ "Brickmakers, bricklayers, and stonemasons appear to suffer most in this respect, and are .said to be employed six months in the year and stopped in wet weather, or to be fairly well employed in the summer and subject to starvation in the winter. Similar complaints were made with regard to painters." :. on Labor, I'-inal Report. Part II., page 283. al Report. Part II., p. 282. Md., p. 285. i Pp. 443 and I, FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. It also appeared that other trades, such as coopers, depended upon the prosperity of other industries for steadj- work. Railroad fare and cost of tools were complained of as deductions affecting these trades. It appeared also that there was an advance in wages in mining iron and quarrying from 1887 to 1892, although there was less day's work and the yearly earnings would not show the same increase as the day rate. Through the perfection of labor organizations in certain districts the wages of lithographers were also advanced. It is a notable fact that the few instances of recent advances in wages reported by the commission were due to the efforts of labor organizations and were confined to those trades which are not directly subjected to the degrading influences of the free import of competing commodities. It should be borne in mind that blacksmiths, bricklayers, masons, carpenters, painters, plumbers and compositors are subjected only to the competition of those mechanics engaged in similar occupations; while those artisans working in iron and textile industries must hold their places against other laborers who are bidding for the same jobs, and at the same time there is another force operating to bear down and keep down their wages. They are compelled to sell the produce of their labor in competition with similar articles made by the labor of all countries not only in foreign markets but at home. As Brassey says: The rate of wages in England is limited by the necessity of competition with foreign manufacturers. Employers in England, as elsewhere, only employ labor on the assumption that they can realize a profit by their business ; and in the engineering trade, in consequence of the impossibility of increasing the cost of production without losing our trade in the neutral markets, it has not until lately been possible to make an advance of wages. On the other hand, the active competition between the numer- ous bodies of manufacturers in the country has reduced profits to a rate so moderate that, if it were to be further reduced, the trade would no longer oflFer any inducements for the investment of capital.' The foregoing statement was written about the year 1871. It proves that wherever we get an expression from an experienced busi- ness man, we find that the cost of labor is such a large element in man- ufacturing that the price at which articles must be sold when placed on the markets of the world controls the wages which the employer must paj'. "While this is true of those employments subjected to such competi- tion it does not apply to the same extent to those skilled mechanics named in the above table, who enjoy a degree of natural protection. Carpenters, bricklayers, etc., of England are thoroughly organized into strong unions, the members of which practically monopolize the work in their several districts. They are able to limit the members of the organ- izations, and to control the work which falls within their several occu- pations in the various cities and districts of the country. Yet it appears ' Work and Wages, p. 155 affected JiETUBN TO FBEE TRADE. ml 2 J JU H o ^ ^ g| ■37U?J - i s S-CO'^'S roCvwS •'5> 'S :S.'i?.'§'R^>R'S'a'g'g.S'RS-8>S 'S 'R8 3000000000000000 o 00 I'S'ig'g-RS^S.S.S % %?. saffliS inn's i,ii.i?, ?= 5s S222°22S222S£222 2 S2 S,8'8 8'S>S-vS->S-?-2-S"S.g8f!.2 ^^ ?? ooooooo?o|oo|ooo o II i222222222222222 2 Z2 5ll^S^SKsi FREE TBADE POLICY A FAILURE. I that the influences which have operated against all classes of labor since the adoption of free trade have prevented any material advance in the wage rate of this class of workmen. Even in ship-building with all the superior facilities and advantages which are possessed by the English people, wages of ship-builders are substantially the same as they were in 1851. The table opposite show- ing the wages in ship-yards from 1851 to 1894 is very conclusive. The rates paid in the ship-yards of the Milwall Iron Works were furnished Brassey from the books of the concern. The wages given for 1894 are reported by the Hon. Thomas Horan, Consular Agent of the United States Government in June, 1894, upon investigation made by him into the wages paid at that time in Sunderland ship-yards. Those for 1892 were taken from the recent report of the Royal Commission on Labor. The Royal Commission on Labor in referring to the wages paid in the cotton and woolen industry, said: The difficulty which attends any attempt to summarize the evidence received with regard to wages is rendered peculiarly great in the textile trades by the complexity of the processes involved in them and the consequent great division of labor and multiplicity of classes of workers. Amongst these classes it is only with regard to the v^ages of zveavers and spinners in the cotton and woolen industries that the informa- tion received is sufficiently full to form the basis of any general statements. And even ill these cases it must be borne in mind that as pointed out by the witnesses themselves the averages given are merely more or less rough approximations. Since the wages earned by each operative depend not only upon his or her own skill and industry, but also upon the size and the number of machines tended, and the speed at which they run ; upon the quality of material supplied and the nature of the goods to be pro- duced, and upon the number of assistants required and the wages paid to them. So far as information with regard to the wages of these four classes of workers can be obtained from either oral or written evidence it is shown in the four following tables : Table I. Return op Wages of Weavers in the Cotton Industry. District. — Lancashire. Northeast Lancashire, Burnley, ..... Blackburn Haslingden, .... Adult males and females Wages per V7eek. In this connection it may be well to contrast the wages disclosed by the above table with the wages paid to the same class of labor in 1852 in 1 Final Report, Part II., p. 235. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. an establishment in Manchester employing nearly looo hands in weav- ing cotton goods, which was taken from the books of the concern and set forth in the ' ' Charter of the Nations, ' ' as follows : Warpers 24^. to 255. . . $5.76 to $6.00 Drawers-in .... iS^-. to 265. . . 4.32 to 6.24 Weavers 225. . . 5.28 Overlookers .... 25^. . . 6.00' With reference to the wages of cotton spinners in 1892, the Labor Commission saj's: "Very little evidence was given with regard to the wages of spinners in the cotton industry, and it will be noticed in the following table that when rates of wages have been quoted for spinners in the oral or written evidence, these were for districts other than those for which the wages of weavers have been quoted." Table II. Retusns of Wages of Spinners in the Cotton Industry. District of Lancashire. Class of Workmen. Wages per Week. Lancashire and parts of adjoining counties, Bolton Minders, men only, i 6 31 f8.4o 9.00 7-44' It should be noted that the commission makes reference only to the highest paid class of male workers in any department of the textile industry, and in only a few districts. And this based as stated upon "verj' little evidence." If we go back to the "Progress of the Nations," page 194, we find that Mr. Porter gives the average wages paid to cotton spinners in England in the years stated below as follows: [804 [814 1833 325. 6d. to 36J. 6d. 445. 6d. to 60s. 33^. id. to 425. gd. $ 7.80 to $ 8.76 10.68 to 14.40 8.08 to 10.26 The foregoing from Mr. Porter's work shows the wages of spinners to have been higher in 1833 than at the present time. We find also in the report of the Labor Commission the following table of wages earned by women in the cotton industry in the United Kingdom : ' r. 175. = Final Report, Part II,, p. 235, FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. Tablb of Wages Earnp Women in the Cotton Industry. Class of Work Weavers, Spinners, Skilled hands, Piece-work, heavy frame, " single frame, One heavy and one light frame, Li,c;ht frame, coupled, . . single, . . . Spinners ! Bridgeton, Glasgow, Lancashire and Cheshire, . |2.oo and ; 4.84 2-33 Card-room, Card-room workers. Calico weavers. Cotton spinners, Lancashire and Cheshire, Bridgeton Johnstone, Lancashire and Cheshire, Lanark, Kilmarnock, ..... Lanark Johnstone, 342 From $2 3.60 2.94 " 3 2.16 3-42 2 3.12 2 2,64 " 2 2.40 2. a.40 I There is no evidence presented in the final report of the commis- sion which proves that any material advance has been made in the wages of operatives in the cotton industry, when the wages which have pre- vailed during the past ten years is compared with earlier periods. The condition which brought about the reductions in wages as disclosed by the evidence before the Royal Commission on Trade and Industry in 1885 have continued, and it is fair to conclude that the wage rate which pre- vailed prior to such reductions has not been restored. The third table referred to by the commission relates to the wages of woolen weavers in 1892. It is as follows: Table III. Returns of Wages of Weavers in the Wooi Royal Commission on I,abor, Final Report, Part II., p. 487. 23 RETURN TO FREE TRADE. The Huddersfield Weavers' Association gives the average wage of adult weavers in full employment as from i8^. to 24s. (I4.32 to I5.76) and during slack time as from los. to 16^., (I2.40 to 153.84). The average of these various rates has been taken as the average rate of earnings of an adult weaver during the year. The arithmetic means of the wages quoted for fully employed male and female weavers in this district by Mr. Thomson and Messrs. Armitage and Cleland, are 2o.f. and 21s. loyid. (I4.80 and I5.25) respectively, and this seems to show that the arithmetic mean of the rates quoted above for weavers in full employment, viz., 21s. (I5.04) is a fair average. The most conflicting evidence given with regard to the rate of wages had reference to the Bradford district. It was stated by Mr. Drew that the average rate of a weaver's earnings in this district was gj. (I2.16) a week, but according to the returns from 118 employers in response to an inquiry issued by a joint committee appointed by the Bradford Chamber of Commerce to investigate this question, the average earnings of a weaver for the year 1891 were 13.J. 3.8401^. ($3. 18). Two other witnesses representing the Bradford Power Loom Weavers' Association stated, however, that this average was too high, and this society stated in the written answers to the schedule of questions that wages range from 55. to 15.S. (|i.2o to f3.6o) weekly, according to the state of trade. A representative of the West Riding of York.shire Weavers' Association stated that los. ($2.40) would be a fair average for a weaver's wages throughout the year in the Batley and heavy woolen weaving district, but this average is probably rather too low, as the Weavers' Association for this district quotes 12s. ($2.88) as "a conunon rate of earnings, " ' The foregoing statement shows what was revealed in the Bradford and Batley districts b)' a fuller investigatiiDU of the question. The controversj- raised by Mr. Drew, president of the Bradford and Di.strict Labor Union, who in his testimony before the commission stated that the average wages of weavers in this district would no.t; exceed 95. ($2. 16 ) per week, resulted in the appointment of a committee consisting of seven members of the Bradford Chamber of Commerce, which had challenged Mr. Drew's statement, and an equal number of representatives of the working classes selected by the Yorkshire Weavers' Association, the Power Loom Overlookers' Association, and the Trades and Labor Coun- cils. The committee immediately entered upon its investigation, and addressed circulars, from which they received replies representing 11,779 weavers, in 1890, and 11,625 in 1891, bearing on the question. When the returns were all in, chartered accountants, basing their calcula- tions upon the returns, reported that the average wages of weavers per week in 1890, was 13.?. s.SSo'. (about $3.24). For 1S91 13.?. 3.84(/. (about $3.18). The labor representative on the commission urged that ilic result of the inquiry did not fairly represent the situation. That the inquiry was confined to only 11,779 weavers, when in fact there were o\er 30,000 in the district. Again, that the replies were received from those employers who had been most prosperous in business, had the .smallest percentage of broken time and paid the highest rate of wages, while these who withheld information by failing to reply to the communication of the investigating committee were those who paid the lowest wages. ' Royal Commission on Labor, Final Report, Pari II., p. 236. FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. In referring to the attitude of the weavers upon this question, Mr. Tibbittssaid: At a public meeting held on Sunday last under the auspices of the Bradford and District Labor Union, the president of that organization, by way of discrediting the report of the committee of inquiry, stated that he had received returns from upwards of one thousand weavers as to the wages received by them for the first five weeks of the present year. These returns, he intimated, although he did not make a positive statement to that effect, disclosed average weekly earnings of less than gi. (|2.i6). He had previously explained that his testimony before the Royal Commission that the average wages did not exceed 95-. per week was not intended to apply to weavers of worsted coatings, and at the Sunday meeting he neglected to state whether weavers of that class of goods were included in the one thousand individual returns received by him. The natural inference is that those returns were confined to weavers of other fabrics than worsted coatings, who, as a rule, undoubtedly received lower wages than are paid in the worsted trade. At the same time it must be admitted that these individual returns raise additional doubts as to the accuracy of the estimates submitted by the committee of inciuir3'. A thorough and impartial investigation of the subject will, it is believed, show that the actual average wages are somewhere between the extremes that have been named (fe. 18 and $2. 16). There is little reason, however, to expect that such an inves- tigation will be had in the near future, unless it is conducted under the immediate supervision of the government. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that, so far concerns the Bradford trade, an inquiry conjointly conducted by employers and employes is not likely to bring out the truth. In connection with this subject, it may be stated that a large majority of the weavers employed in the Bradford trade are women. The average earnings of male weavers, however, are not claimed to be any greater than those of females. As a rule, each weaver minds two looms. The president of the committee of inquiry testified before the Royal Commission that "three-loom weavers are ver>- rare." There is, however, reason to believe that the number of three-loom weavers has been materially increased in this district since the McKinley tariff went into eSect. ' With reference to the wages of spinners in the woolen mills we have the following, from the Royal Commission:' "The evidence given with regard to the wages of spinners in the woolen and worsted industries is less satisfactory than that with regard to any of the three classes already dealt with. So far as any information has been obtained, it is contained in the following table: Table IV. Returns of Wages of Spinners in the Woolen Industry. Huddersfield Batley and the " hea\'j- woolen " district, Class for which Mean is Given. Wages per Week Spinners, men only, Spinners, chiefly women and girls, s. d. 25 o |6.oo 23 6 5.64 9 6 2.28 1 Report of Hon. John A. Tibbitts, United States Consul of Bradford District, Feb. 19, 1892. U. S. Consul Report, No. 140. May, 1892, p. 182. = Royal Commission on I,abor, Final Report, Part II., p. 236. RETUEiV TO FREE TRADE. 9 °^ S s s s s b li. U< b ^ e 11 w '^ g E S E E E ° £ S S £ £ b b b b &< b S 1 I £ ^ fi S FREE TBADE POLICY A FAILURE. The table on page 356 shows the wages earned by women in the woolen industrj'. It is no reflection on the good faith of the Ro}-al Commission on Labor to state that the average rates of wages presented in their report to parliament, especiallj' in the textile and iron industries, are higher than a full and fair investigation of the facts would have' revealed. The commission was made up largely of free traders. A disposition is shown all through to make as favorable a showing as possible for the countrj-. The commission apparentlj' accepted the replies which were received from employers and employed and from such returns made up their esti- mates, without attempting to investigate those who withheld their answers. Again, it was fully established that the estimates of wage rates presented by free trade statisticians, especially in the textile afid all com- peting industries, was much higher than those actually prevailing. The investigation referred to proved that the wages of weavers were actually about one-half of the figures presented by Mr. Giffen, of the Board of Trade. With a sharp controversy existing at the present time in Eng- land as to the actual rate of wages paid in competing industries, it is very difficult to arrive at the truth. With an official investigating committee appointed by parliament skimming over the subject and stating that the result of their inquiry is based on "very little evidence, " we cannot place much confidence in the results, especially as it appeared that a thorough investigation was attempted only in relation to the woolen weavers and this conducted in such a manner, that it resulted in dissatisfaction and left the final conclusion of $3. 18 a week challenged by the wage-earners. No candid or impartial inquirer can examine the proceedings of this commission without arriving at the conclusion that in those industries in which wages are the lowe.st, those which are brought in direct competition with Germany, France and other countries, those which have been most seriously affected bj' the policy of free trade, such an investigation was evaded as would have disclosed the real condition of the wage-earners. But notwithstanding the foregoing consideration, we have from the commission an admission that wages have been reduced. It said : A further complaint from the woolen weavers relates to the decrease of wages which has followed upon the increased speed of the looms. The rate of payment has been reduced by one-third on the ground that the fast looms produce proportionately more in a given time. This would be true if the work produced were in proportion to the speed of the loom, but in consequence of the more frequent stoppages, and the time lost in breakdowns and changing the caps and shuttles, etc. , in the case of fast looms, the work is not in proportion to their speed, and actual wages have therefore been diminished. 1 ' Roval Coinmis I Labor. Final Report, Part II., p. 237. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Is ai i * %^'i -s •S'S^'2 % ■J. Si. t 5>i 4i C M M p. ^ " - - a a ? o S fi EESE^S H p 2 HS ?? ?: P H }^ f^ "u. fen. 6.x fid. u. •Sill's ,5] Mil - ■-- -S"'^ III! 2Js^^. •fiileillii :'S2'8, =§ ^ g S S E SEES SEES 2 g S £S££ S S S £ £ C[,lJ,ti.li.Ii.S,li.B.Ii.tf. B. " ""£ fiafi aa r ■? ^ 'T "? "?^ "^ ^ g S .^ ^ &e2 all ^T;'S2-Sg ^i FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. The report further states that "complaints of fluctuations in wages due to irregularity of employment come chiefly from the woolen trade. Slack times are said to be frequent, owing to foreign tariffs." The jute, silk, carpet, and dyeing industries received such a slight notice that there are not suflBcient data presented in the summary attached to their final report to warrant definite conclusions with regard to the most important conditions under which the industries are carried on. The report, however, states with reference to these industries that, lu the jute industry at Dundee two manufacturers quoted the average wages paid to their spinners as 155-. (fe.6o) to 17^'. (|4-oS) and 10s. ($2.40) to 13^. go'. ($3.30), respectively, and the president of the Dundee Factory Operatives' Union stated that the wages of jute spinners were higher at Dundee than at Barrow, where they earned 10.9. td. (,12.58) a week. Weavers' wages in the jute industry were said by one manufac- turer at Dundee to average i5.j. 9^/. ($^.02), whilst a representative of the Forfar Factory Workers' Union gave the average wages for weavers as iSj. ($4-32) for four looms; 15.S. (I3.60) for three looms, and from 135-. ($3.12) to 20.S. ($4.80) for two looms, accord- ing to the size of the machines. Only women are employed in weaving jute. With reference to carpet industry^ the commission stated : Evidence was given by only one representative of the carpet industry, a manu- facturer at Bridgnorth, who stated that in his own factory the wages of male weavers averaged from 32.?. (I7.68) to 35.?. (I8.40) a week, and those of female weavers from 12^. (I2.88) to 15.S. (I3.60). The Aberdeen Carpet Weavers' Association states that the average wages are 17^. (>d. (I4.20) a week, fluctuating from 33J. (I7.92) to 105. ($2.40). The representatives of the Bradford Society of Dyers stated that the average wages in that industry were now from 14.?. (I3.36) to 16s. (fe-So) or iSi. (|4-32) a week, although experienced hands earned about 24s. ($5.76) a week. Formerly, however, 245. was a general average. An employer engaged in the dyeing and finishing indus- try in Leicester stated that the average wages of the men employed by him during the last year had amounted to 305. ($7.20) a head. A more complete investigation was made into the wages of women in the textile industries and other occupations in which they are so largely employed. The table on page 358, showing the wages earned by women in miscellaneous textile industries, was copied from the Final Report of the Royal Commission. Upon the inquiry which was made into the wages of women the report makes the following statement : The mean of the returns collected for woman in i85o-6i in the Kidderminster carpet, pottery, tobacco, etc., rope-making, shoddy and flock trades was 95. id. The mean in 1891 was 8j. lid. If these statistics are to be trusted, and so far as the mean of the returns can be taken as representing true averages, women's wages in those trades would seem to have not merely been stationary, but to have positively decreased. It appears probable that if the information concerning the alleged decline in wages in the confectionery, umbrella-covering and straw-hat trades were suffi- ciently reliable, and covered a sufficiently long period to be taken into account, the same conclusion might be drawn from a larger number of industries. The means of carpet and dyeing industries. RETURX ro FKEE TRADE. the returns given in i85o-6i in the above-mentioned trades, and also in the boot and shoe and worsted industries, which group represents the greatest number of industries under consideration, both skilled and unskilled (excluding the organized industries), was Si. lid. In 1S91 it was 95. 90?.; it had, therefore, increased by only 9 per cent. The apparently arbitrary selection of the industries which furnish data for these com- parisons is explained by the fact that the necessary information was only forthcoming these instances. Women's wages in the industries under consideration, except in certain skilled and organized trades, have either decreased, remained stationary, or have increased but slightly. It may, perhaps, be the case that the number of women engaged in the organized industries is so large that the gain there relatively greater than that obtained by the men, would outweigh the comparatively stationary rate of wages in the other industries. In the Census Returns for 1891, it appeared that while the number of women in the cotton industry was nearly 333,000, the number of women employed in all the other industries enumerated in Table V amounted to about 370,000. Taking this into account in finding the averages over the whole period, women's wages would probably appear to have risen faster than men's. On the other hand it must be remembered that the industries mentioned in Table V includes less than 800,000 women workers out of a total of more than 1,800,000- in the industrial class. The wages of a million women, therefore, in the industrial class, that is exclud- ing domestic service, remained unaccounted for; and the evidence obtained both by the House of Lords' committee and by the lady assistant commissioners and from other sources, went to show that this large proportion of women belonged rather to the body of unorganized and underpaid workers than organized and better paid. ' The industries referred to in Table V, mentioned above, are as fol- lows: Cotton industry, boot and shoe industry, hosiery, carpet industry (1880, Kidderminster), silk and poplin (1859-62), linen,, jute, etc. (1859- 61), woolen industry, worsted industry, book-folding, book-sewing, etc., potteries, tobacco, etc., manufactures, rope-making, shoddy and flock manufacture. It may be suggested that even the claim of an increase of wages in the cotton and worsted industries from 1861 to 1892 should be subjected to a most careful examination before such results are accepted. The severe competition to which the operatives in cotton mills have been sub- jected during the past twenty years, is known to have had a most depress- ing effect on their earnings. Again, reliable returns from the earlier periods are difficult to obtain for such comparisons. But the adnii,ssion contained in the foregoing statement of the commission showing that the wage scale in 1892 is below that of 1861 in some industries, while the 1,000,000 workers not taken into account in other industries have con- cededly suffered from reduced pay, should not be lost sight of, when the question of the comparative rate of wages is being considered. It may be well also to mention the fact that home indu.stries or "sweated trades," as they are called, are being largely carried on as laborers are crowded out of factories and as the body of unemployed increases. As to the wages earned in home trades the commission .said: ■ Fiual Report, Part II., p. 483. FHEE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. The average hourly wage of out-workers in the villages round Dudley who supplj' much of the clothing trade of that town was i}id. A widow in Manchester who " finished " shirts at 2;4c/. a dozen, whatever the work required might be, could never earn more than 2S. 2d. a week. A tailoress in Lambeth " finished ' ' boys' trousers for 31/. a pair, out of which id. had to be subtracted for thread and twist. It took her two and one-half hours to finish one pair, so her rate of pay was less than id. per hour. In the hosiery trade a woman seamed stockings for nine hours daih-, and if she worked verj' hard earned }{d. per hour. Her average weekly earnings were ^s. A sack sewer and a rope teazer at Arbroath stated that their average wages were about y. and 3^. 6d. a week, respectively. It was stated that in the lace trade at Nottingham a great quantity of work which was formerly done inside the factories, such as scalloping, is now given out at reduced prices. An employer who at one time employed fifty women as " scallopers " in his factory, most of whom earned iji. a week, now gives out this work to home workers, to whom he pays 6.f. or -js. a week. From the evidence of the out-workers it appeared that the rate of payment was sometimes as low as Yzd. per hour. In Glasgow a woman was found who did tailoring for government contracts. The shop which gave them out paid 2S. 2d. per dozen for making Dungaree jackets, the dozen taking fourteen hours. Another woman " finishes " them for ^d. per dozen, and makes perhaps ' ' four dozen in a day. ' ' The total cost to the shop for the making and finishing a dozen of these jackets by outside workers was therefore 25. dd. In- .spectors' " overalls" were also given out at 45. &d., and certain "overall " trousers at IS. dd. per dozen. The witness said that she could make six inspectors' "overalls " in a day, or three pairs of " overall " trousers, /. e., she could earn 25. \d. or bd. for the day's work. In all the cases quoted above the information was received from the home workers personalh'. One of the worst cases of sweating was that related by the secretary' of the Shirtmakers' Union of Manchester. A man in Gorton had a work- room for which he paid 55. (>d. a week. He took out work from Manchester, and employed women in this workroom at shirtmaking. He made them pay id. for rent and id. for fire, and a certain sum for cotton, which was lYzd. more than the price in retail shops in Manchester. The women also paid is. a week for the use of the machine, no matter how slack the work might be. Although they were nominalh- buying the machines on the hire system, they were never employed regularly or long enough to become the owners. Besides all these deductions he only paid them "jd. a dozen for work for which the witness had been paid 15. by another finn who had once employed her, ' The same conditions as those affecting the textile industries are found to prevail among the artisans employed in making hardware, cutlerj- and in the various branches of occupations which are subjected to sharp com- petition under free trade. All statistics and calculations which are used to prove that an advance in wages has taken place in the United Kingdom since the adoption of free trade should be carefully weighed and accepted only with full knowledge of the manner in which the comparisons are made and the occupations to which they relate. The question is one which during the past fifteen years has provoked so much controversy and has given rise to such wide differences of opinion in England among well-informed men, that it is certainly involved in great doubt and is far from being a settled question. It is evident from the foregoing that the advance in wages since 1850 has been very small, even in those occupations 'Royal Commission, Final Report, Part II., p, 483. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. in which it has taken place. It is apparent that the statements which have so frequently been made by the advocates of free trade are grossl}- exaggerated. The slight increase which accompanied the period of prosperity from 1869 to 1874, has been reversed by the excessive competition to which the industries of the country have been subjected. The proof of reduc- tions which were made to meet foreign competition, found in the answers of Labor Organizations, Chambers of Commerce, Business Men's Asso- ciations, and the evidence of manufacturers and artisans, given before the Royal Commission in 1885, which have been quoted, should certainly be conclusive upon this point. That there have been no improvements in this respect since 1884, is established by Mr. Giflen himself, who stated before the Royal Commission on Labor in 1894 that no material change had taken place since 1872. Speaking of the conditions since 1872, he is reported by the commission to have said: "Subsequently to that date there has been no considerable or marked rise in wages generally, although there has been in many cases a certain steady rise, and certainly in no case or only in a very few exceptional cases, have these wage rates fallen to a point lower than their average level of twenty years ago.'" This very moderate and conservative estimate from one who has been so criticised by his fellow countrymen for extravagant and inaccurate statements upon this question, is very significant. From this it would appear that the old level of wages established by the evidence before the Royal Commis.sion in 1885 still prevails. It appeared that at that time wages had generally fallen to the level of 1864. In the brief space which mu,st be devoted to this branch of the sub- ject, it is impossible to enter upon an extended presentation of the earn- ings of British artisans in the various industries. Enough, however, has been presented of the most authentic character to show that they have advanced but little during the past forty years. The rate of wages given for skilled artisans in the several schedules presented are not as high as those paid to common day laborers in the United States. The earnings of our day laborers generally throughout the countr3' are not less than $1.50 a day, or $9.00 a week, and in many instances are as high as $1.75 per day, while carpenters, masons, bricklayers, painters and plumbers receive from $2.50 to $3.00 per day, and artisans of the same class as tho.se named in the schedules presented, receive more than twice the wages paid in England The preparation of schedules of wages, representing the earnings of operatives in woolen, cotton, linen, silk, lace, and other textile industries is beset with so many difficulties that it is practically impossible to arrive at accurate results. The division of labor is .so complete, each operative being fitted to the performance of certain .special duties, that such tasks should only be undertaken by a ' Kiiial Report of Commission on Labor, June-, 1S94, pp. 9, 10. FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. person having the most perfect practical knowledge of the subject. It has been difficult for official investigating committees, receiving their information from employers and employed, to arrive at satisfactory results. The refusal of some labor organizations to state the rates earned, and the failure of many others, especially in textile industries to answer questions submitted, indicated a desire on the part of many, to keep from the world the real state of affairs which exist. Besides this, the commission referred to (of 1885) did not attempt so much to arrive at the rate of wages paid, as to ascertain what changes have taken place during the twenty years covered by the investigation. But enough, how- ever, was disclosed to show a most appalling condition in this respect. As has already been pointed out it appeared that men in silk weaving were paid from $2. 16 to $2.40 a week and women from $1.68 to $1.80 a week.' It also appeared that weavers in cotton mills were working for $3.60 a week,' and that an investigation of the Labor Commission recently held, showed that woolen weavers were earning $3. 18 a week We also have the statement of the Children's Sock and Stockingmakers, that their earnings were 6^-. or $1.44 a week. The Dublin Flint Glassmakers reported to the Royal Commission on Trade that they were making 135. or $3. 12 a week. It is certainly a fact that the wages paid in free trade England are a disgrace to any civilized community and furnish the strongest condemnation of the policy of free trade. The above are not given as the highest earnings of operatives in the textile industries neither are they believed to be the lowest. In this connection it may not be out of place to call the reader's attention to the decided advance in wages which has taken place in the United States under protection. The following figures compiled by the Hon. Carroll D. Wright, United States Commissipner of Labor, are taken from his article in the Forum of October, 1893, entitled "Cheaper Living and the Rise of Wages:" The pay of laborers is quite indicative of general conditions. In 1840 a laborer in a large brewery in the city of New York received 62.5 cents a day; in i860, 84 cents day; in 1866, f 1.30 a day; in 1891, from $1.90 to $2. Compositors who worked by the day received, in 1840, I1.50 ; in i860, $2 ; in 1S66, from $2.50 to $3, and the same in 1891. These quotations are for a well-known establishment in the State of Connecticut A building firm in Connecticut paid journeymen carpenters in 1840, from |[.25 to I1.62 a day ; in i860, from fi.25 to $1.75 a day ; in 1891, from S3 to I3.25 a day. A firm of builders in New York paid, in 1840 |i. 50 a day; in i860, |2; in 1866, $3 50; in 1S91, I3.50. Painters received the same. Similar quotations could be made for carpenters and painters in diflferent parts of the Eastern States. The rate of wages paid towheelwright^were in 1840, I1.25; in i860, fi. 25; in 1866, $2; in 1891,12.50. Cotton weavers (women) in Massachusetts earned, in 1840, on the average, about 62 cents a day; in 1S60, 54.5 cents; in 1866, from 85 to 90 cents; in 1891, $1.05. Women frame spinners were paid about the same, earning a little more in the later years. Wool spinners, both jack and mule, earned less than |i a day in 1840, while in 1S60 they eaVnedft.05; in 1866, from $1.80 to $1.90 a day ; iniBgi, from |i. 38 to |i. 75 a day. : of Peter Malkin, = Evidence of Thomas Stuttard. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. compensate for reduced The average earnings of puddlers have been subject to great variations. An aver- age must be used here because puddlers are paid largely by the ton. In 1S40, at ^tiia, Pa., puddlers earned $3.69 a day; in 1S60, I2.67 a day; in 1866, from I5.37 to I6.04 a day ; in 1S91, #3.67. In another iron works at Duncannon, Pa., the rates were I2.30, $2.01, I4.S3 and $2.91 for the years named. The rates of wages a day, succcessively for the years named, for blasters and drillers in the New Jersey ore districts, were 75 cents, |i, f 1.65 and Jti.50 ; and for unskilled laborers in mining ore at Cornwall, Pa., 50 cents, 75 cents, I1.45 and f i.55- But this is a question which concerns free traders the least of all. It matters not how low wages are or how large the body of unemployed becomes, so long as the physical strength of the operatives is not injured, or the peace and order of the community interfered with. The free trade economists, in their cold-blooded and merciless treatment of economic subjects, define the vast body of unemployed as a "residuum," which, adds to the competitive power of the nation, by supplying the manufac- turers with a large body of artisans to draw from in time of a revival of business, who under those circumstances are ready to work for a mere pittance. This "residuum" is regarded from an economic point of view, as a national benefit, because it tends to prevent an increase in wages, and carries out the original purpose of Cobden and his associates, who .so shaped the policy of the nation as to create an abundance of laborers in order that artisans might at all times be found at wages which would insure that "cheapness" of production through which a monopoly of markets was to be secured. The vast body of unemployed cannot be ascertained from the official reports of the government. Each month the Board of Trade Journal con- tains in its columns of labor reports a statement of the percentage of unemployed in various trades. This is based upon the monthly returns of certain labor unions, having about 800,000 members. ■ It has no refer- ence, whatever, to the vast army of laborers outside of these organiza- tions, so when it is reported and currently circulated by free trade newspapers that the unemployed amounted to 10 or 12 per cent in a par- ticular month it should be understood that such statements have reference only to a very small part of the artisans of the country. The cru.shing weight of free trade has fallen most heavily upon the wage-earner. The reductions in wages which have taken place in Eng- land, when we consider the large amount taken from the spendable incomes of the vast laboring population, may be better appreciated by the statement of Mr. Frederick T. Haggard, who shows that a loss of only I.S-. per week from 13,000,000 working men in the TJnited Kingdom amounts to $3,250,000 per week, or $169,000,000 in a year. He also shows that the laborers of Great Britain and their families, represent two- thirds of the population, or 24,000,000 souls. Knocking off \d. per four- pound loaf, allowing 156 four-pound loaves to each of them, they would consume 3,744,000,000 loaves in a year. The saving of \d. per loaf FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. would amount to $78,000,000, leaving a loss of $91,000,000 by the reduc- tion of i^. per week in wages. ' The above estimate was made by Mr. Haggard for the purpose of showing that the cost of bread was such a small item, that the working clasises of England would profit under a system of protection, although it slightly enhanced the price of food. The increased employment, as well as increased wages which it would bring, would so overbalance a rise in price of bread that in the end they would profit by the change in policy. The evidence before the Ro3^al Commission, together with the answers above given, shows a reduction in wages since 1S76 of much more than a shilling a week. It would be difficult to estimate the lo.ss which the laborers of England have sustained annually by the system of free com- petition which they have practiced. The effect of the consumption of a vast quantity of competing com- modities is to diminish the demand for labor. The over-supply of labor- ers thus brought about, keeps the wage rate down to a minimum. The large emigration which has taken place has not been sufficient to relieve the market from the glut which is occasioned bj' the imports. Even if a protective policy, which resulted in shutting out such imports, should only furnish full employment to Briti.sh labor, at a low w-age rate it would be better than the lack of employment which now prevails. The free trader is accustomed to argue that an increa.se in wages would result in so enhancing the co.st of producing commodities, that it would prevent their sales in neutral markets, in competition with the lower paid wage earners of the Continent, and make it more difficult to invade protected markets. If it -should be conceded that this is true, that a nation which depends upon foreign markets for the sale of a vast surplus of commodities, must necessarily make them cheaper in order to continue in the sharp competi- tion that is now carried on, the fact still remains that full employment at low wages is better than no employment at all. The most severe injury which the policy of free trade has inflicted on the English people, is found in the ruin of productive industries and in the displacement of thou.sands of laborers. The more we investigate the precise effects of free im- ports on English producers, the more apparent becomes the importance to nations of home industries. So far as the making of the $280,000,000 of fully manufactured, and the $150,000,000 of partly manufactured, imported goods in England is concerned, a small protective duty would insure the investment of capital and the employment of British labor in their production in England. The increased employment which such change would give to labor, would so increase the spendable income of the people that the home market would become far more valuable to all industries. There is no excuse for permitting the well-to-do people of England to use the interest on their foreign investments and fixed ' Fair Trade Journal, Vol. I, p. 127. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. incomes, in .the purchase of silks on the Continent, when the English silk weavers and spinners are living in idleness and in workhouses. The purchase of glass from the Continent deprives the coal miners of England, as well as the glassmakers, of work. So we might trace the effect of every finished article that is brought into the country. While a policy which would revive the agricultural interest of the country by compelling the growth at home of $600,000,000 of agricultural products imported, ght enhance the price of bread, yet the whole nation would be com- pensated, and especially the 30,000,000 of working people, in the improve- ment and increase of the purchasing power of the agricultural population. Not onlj' the country merchants, masons, carpenters, bricklayers, farm laborers, but in fact, every department of industry in the United King- dom would be restored to a flourishing condition. If it be true, that through the use of machinery the productive capacity of man has so increased that a .smaller proportion of the popu- lation of the world is able to produce such a quantity of manufactured articles as to bring about a chronic glut in the markets of the world, as a means of subsistence and employment to the masses, agriculture is made more important. That the great producing countries of the world are suffering from over-production, there is not the slightest question ; not that more is produced than the world needs, but that more is being pro- duced than consumers are able to buy. That being true, employment which increases the incomes and enables the consumers of the world to purchase a larger quantity of consumable commodities i^vould relieve the situation. After all, even in England the home market is found to be worth preserving. Those nations which have been most prosperous and which have enjoyed the greatest degree of prosperity, who.se people have been most fully employed, and whose industries are most vigorous and inde- pendent, have adhered to that national system of protection to which England is indebted for that long period of prosperity and industrial development which terminated when the people yielded to the economic delusions of Cobden and his associates. The policy of free trade is so riveted upon the country that manufac- turers, ship-owners, tradesmen and bankers have, during a period of forty years, been gradually forced into channels which are antagonistic to the masses of English people. A return to protection would require such a readjustment of the industrial life of the nation that it could not be brought about without great opposition from influential and strong classes. While a .sy.stem of protection to agriculture would relieve the urban population of a vast surplus of laborers and restore the soil of the realm to a high state of cultivation, increase the value of land and make the rural population prosperous and flourishing, it would deprive the ship-owners and trades- men of the freight and profit which they derive from the carriage of FREE TRADE POLICY A I^AILUBE. $600,000,000 of farm products. Although the system of free imports has weakened and practically destroyed the influence of the agriculturists, it has aided in building up the shipping interest of the country and made it powerful and influential. This vast interest which has been so improved under free trade has been a source of great profit to the few capitalists, although it has given employment to only a small number of laborers. The system of free imports has reduced the rural population from 20 per cent to 5 per cent. Of those over ten years of age of this population, 73 per cent are common laborers and belong to the pauper or semi-pauper class. So it appears that this interest which to-day would come forward and advo- cate a restoration of protection to agriculture, is insignificant in numbers and lacking in influence. When the question of protection to agriculture comes up, the free trader proclaims that it means an increase in the price of bread. This argument for a long time was effectual with the laboring masses. It still appeals strongly to those who live on foreign investments and fixed incomes, but it has less weight than formerly with the com- mercial and manufacturing classes. The excessive imports of fully and partly manufactured articles are having a ruinous effect upon the manu- facturing interests of the nation. Although the efforts to reduce wages which have been made by the employers, have been partly suc- cessful, sufficient reductions have not been made to admit of such profits to capital as are necessary to a vigorous and healthy industrial life. Prices have been so lowered by the competition which has been forced upon them, both at home and in neutral markets, that profits have been reduced to a minimum and in many instances completely wiped out, the concerns having gone out of business or removed their plants to protec- tionist countries. The labor organizations have persistently resisted reduction of wages which were made necessary by such conditions, yield- ing only in those cases in which their own employment depended upon such concessions. The manufacturers have suffered almost equally with the artisans. Standing between the Continental producers, who are flooding England and neutral markets with their wares, and their own powerful labor organizations, they have been in many instances com- pelled to succumb. Speaking upon this point the majority of the Royal Commission stated in its report: "A time may, therefore, come when capital will lose all induceme7it to lend itself to the work of prodtiction ; and if the employer is driven out of the field, the laborer will ?iecessarily sjiffer with him." ' This state of things is doing more to undermine the free trade senti- ment and to convert the manufacturers and artisans to the cause of pro- tection than anything else that has occurred since 1846. The change of opinion in favor of protection which is taking place in England among business men and manufacturers, was disclosed by a canvass made in depression of Trade and Industry, Final Report, Paragraph S3. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Februar>', 1889, of the members of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Manchester. It showed one hundred and eighty-seven protectionists or fair traders, and three hundred and ninety-seven free traders. The following classification of such canvass was published in the Fair Trade Journal : ' Merchants, Shippers, Agents and Bankers. Fair Trade Free Trade. Merchants, 22 37 Shippers, 21 io6 Agents, 25 61 Bankers, i 6 69 210 Manufacturers, Cai,ico Printers and Bleachers. Fair Trade. Free Trade. Cotton 33 74 Woolen 2 3 Flax, I Iron, 4 5 Chemical, 9 5 Paper, 5 I Corn Millers, 2 Miscellaneous, . . 8 5 Bleachers 10 3 Calico Printers 5 U 79 no Miscellaneous. Fair Trade. Free Trade. Provision Merchants 6 i Accountants, Solicitors, etc 6 20 Described as gentlemen 9 21 Not traceable 18 35 39 77 Total 1.S7 397 During the past fifteen years the Cobden Club has been compelled to flood England with pamphlets and literature to meet the attack which protectionists are making upon the policy. The time may come, and in all probability will come within a few years, when the English people will learn wisdom by experience and return to that economic policy which through so many centuries was upheld by her most renowned statesmen. It is believed by many that an open revolt against the ruin- ous policy of free trade would have occurred before this, had it not been for the encouragement which they received from their friends in the ' Vol. IV., February 22, 1889, p. 280. FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. United States, that the best market in the world would be thrown open to them by the adoption of free trade under the leadership of President Cleveland. Should the United States, in the election of 1896, return to a vigorous polic)' of protection, English manufacturers will be likely to lose all hope of witnessing a case of commercial suicide on the part of the American people, and settle down to the idea that they cannot rely on the imbecility and folly of other nations to supply them with markets, but that they must do as other nations are doing, foster and encourage their own varied resources at home, and rely on their internal prosperity as the chief source of their wealth. It must be that they will ultimately learn a lesson by studying their own deplorable condition. Their utter- ances before the Royal Commission which have been cited, show clearly that they now begin to realize the importance of their home markets. With machinery idle a portion of the time, with Continental countries and the United States, to a great extent, closed to their wares by a sys- tem of protection, with their own colonies and possessions. South America and Asia, entering upon a .sy.stem of domestic productions, with neutral markets so invaded by Continental rivals that sales are made in many instances at a loss, and in all instances at a small margin of profit, they are confronted by a most serious situation. With this condition perma- nently fixed, they begin now to prize their own home trade, to realize the loss which they have sustained in destroying a wealthy and comfort- able rural population, which was a large purchaser of their wares and in converting the soil of the United Kingdom into a territory worked by a few land-owners and cultivated by paupers. The small country merchants and the mechanics who lived in comfort throughout the rural districts have had their incomes so reduced that they have become very poor cus- tomers. Turning then to the laboring population, to the 30,000,000 people who should form a great body of consumers, they find a degree of idleness through lack of employment, which is mo,st appalling. Incomes and earnings, even among the most skilled artisans and those most steadily employed are only sufficient to provide them with cheap clothing and scanty food. The consuming power of this vast body of citizens has been forced down to such a low degree that their home market is year by year grow- ing less valuable. To regain that which is lost, to restore to their own people that wage scale, amount of spendable income, and degree of com- fort and happiness which a protective policy would bring, would require long years of transformation. An increase in wages would so increase the cost of production that a large portion of their foreign trade would be surrendered, because any nation which relies on foreign trade must sell its commodities in competition with other nations, and at a price which conforms to the cost of production in the lowest competing nation. Mr. Dunckley recognized this principle when he stated that "the work- 24 Necessity of a change of policy. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. man, instead of parting tvith his labor in almost direct exchange for food, has to sell it, through several ha7ids in distant markets, and his ability to supply his wa7its depends really upon the cvillingness of the foreigner to employ him.'' ' The principle announced touches the very kernel of the wage question under free competition. As long as the English people were provided with superior machinery; as long as their citizens possessed superior skill; as long as manufacturers were able to command more abundant capital; as long as they possessed advantages over all other nations in cheap production : as long as they held a substantial monopoly : as long as they were able to supplant and destroy rivals, control and hold markets, everything went well. But the last forty years has been the most progressive age in all industrial pursuits, in the history of the world. Under a system of protection. Continental countries have built up all branches of rival industries; have provided themselves with the most efficient machinery; have adopted all modern improvements and best appliances, and with an abundance of capital; and with a dense- popula- tion of apt, industrious and ingenious people, educated to the use of machinery and modern scientific and technical methods, an industrial revolution has been brought about, which has entirely changed the con- ditions under which England entered upon her ix)licy of free trade. The time is past when any one nation can hold a monopoly of ary particular branch of production. As Sir Edward Sullivan has so well pointed out, there is scarcely a commodity which can be produced as cheaply in Eng- land as it could be in some other part of the globe. If England contin- ues her free trade policy, and is reduced simply to the production of those articles which can be produced cheaper in England than in any other place, nothing but an exodus of a vast portion of her population will relieve the people from a degree of misery and destitution unknown in the history of the world. A return to protection is absolutely essential to a restoration of prosperity, and to save the producers of the country from the ultimate extinction of their industries. As the productive power of other nations increases, a larger surplus will each year be accumulated to dump on the market of any nation which by a system of free imports makes itself the "rubbish heap of the world." Sir Edward vSullivan writes as follows: Do free traders really suppose that when the country comes to its senses it will persevere in the road to ruin, merely to save their apostles from the mortification of being posted as economic charUitans? Thirty-five years ago the soi-disant free traders set themselves to the work— " God's work" they called it— of destroying the landowner. Well, they have nearly succeeded, but in doing so they have destroyed the tenants, and the shop-keepers, and tradesmen, and carriers, and the hundred and one small industries in every agricul- tural town and village throughout the country; and their clients, the manufacturers ' Charter of tlic Nations, p. 13. FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. (who supported them), now find to their dismay that their efforts have destroyed tlie purchasing power of eight or nine millions of their best customers. " See," said the Radical engineers of Manchester, and Birmingham, and Bradford, thirty-five years ago, " how we will blow up the landowners." And lo ! they are hoist with their own petard. In considering the arguments (if they are worthy to be so called) I have advanced in favor of a return to protective duties, two questions naturally suggest themselves ( 1 ) Is it probable or even possible that England can return to protection ? (2) If she did so, would the working classes be benefited by it? The answer to the first question must be sought in a careful analysis of the census It appears probable that the operative classes, as a body, will go for " protection to land and labor; " if they do so, the manufacturers, the landowners, the tenant- farmers, the laborers, every tradesman and shop-keeper in the manufacturing and agricultural towns and villages throughout the country, the brewers, the publicans, the carriers, and all the small industries, directly or indirectly dependent on the prosperity and spending power of the operative and agricultural classes, will follow them to a man. The country bankers, private and joint stock, will go for protection, because they hope and believe it will lead to a return of prosperity to land and labor; and in that prosperity lies their only chance of recovering the millions they liave advanced to manufacturers, and landowners, and tenants, and tradesmen. The opposition will come from the importers of foreign goods ; the large wholesale houses who make more profit by selling foreign manufactured goods than English manufactured goods, the world of fashion who think life impossible without foreign articles de luxe ; but above all, it will come from the political craftsmen, who, for the space of thirty years, have been crying " Great is free trade," exactly for the same reason that Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen of Ephesus cried "Great is Diana," because they believe it has given them profit and popularity. But there is another and very powerful class who denounce the idea of a return to protection as ignorant nonsense; the promoters of companies, of foreign mines, and loans, and enterprises of all sorts; the stock-brokers, the London bankers, and the great finance houses whose profits depend on the trade of the world; on the industrial prosperity of France and America as much as, if not more than, on the industrial prosperity of England. They have never been so well off, because there never has been .so nmch money at their disposal; the prostration of agricultural and manufacturing industries has liberated a great deal of money; everywhere where it is possible, money is being withdrawn from land, either to hold or to cultivate, and from manufacturing industries, for investment in stocks and shares, and more or less risky foreign enterprises. Secondly, supposing England does return to protection, will the working classes be benefited by it ? Will foreign nations buy more of our goods because we put a duty on their goods ? Certainly not. They will continue to buy from us just what they do now, neither more nor less, what they cannot make themselves, and what they cannot buy better elsewhere. But on the other hand we should buy ^'40,000,000 or /50, 000,000 less of their goods, and consume /■40, 000,000 or ^50,000,000 more of our own goods; and ^20,000,000 or /■25, 000,000 of wages that now go into the pockets of foreign operatives would go into the pockets of English operatives. Would a five-shil- ling duty on corn benefit the working classes? If it merely raised the price of the quartern loaf a half-penny and did nothing else, it is evident it would not ; but if, on the other hand, it caused capital to flow into agricultural industries, if it trebled our production of home food, if it caused /6o,ooo,ooo that now go abroad to buy foreign food to be spent in cultivating home-grown food, if it increased the income of the agricultural classes ^20,000,000, I think there is little doubt it would benefit them. I believe fully that if confidence could be restored to our manufacturing and Benefits that would H from RETURN TO FREE TRADE. agricultural industries, if land and labor were protected from "unwise and unjust legis- lation," we should soon produce ^50,000,000 or /."6o,ooo,ooo worth more food, and ^50,000,000 or /60, 000,000 worth more manufactured goods, and that our manufactur- ing and agricultural classes would earn $50,000,000 or ^"60,000,000 worth more wages and income. My confidence, therefore, is most absolute that when the nation realizes its true industrial position, and common sense has removed the question from the arena of party politics, the demand throughout the country from almost every class for a return to protection will be irresistible.' A review of the commercial polic}' of Great Britain would pot be complete without a .special reference to the injuries which were inflicted on the trade and commerce of Ireland during the seventeenth and eigh- teenth centuries, and the effect of the polic}- of free trade on manufactur- ing and agriculture, since its union with England. The antagonisms, which have existed between the two countries through .so many centuries, have not been confined wholly to questions affecting religious and politi- cal rights. The energj' and enterprise which manifested itself in the Irish people soon aroused the jealousy of the commercial classes of Great Britain. As early as the seventeenth century they engaged in manufac- turing, making cotton, woolen and other fabrics, built ships and were increasing their foreign trade. In order to obstruct and re.strict their commercial enterprises, to prevent them from sharing foreign markets, laws were enacted in 1665 and 1680, which prohibited the Irish people from exporting cattle, sheep, swine, beef, pork and mutton. Through this legislation, one of the chief sources of their pro-sperity was utterly annihilated. In 1696, by navigation laws, the carrying trade was con- fined to British ships, which drove nearly every Irish sailing vessel from the sea. In 1669 the export of manufactured articles was prohibited. This closed woolen mills, threw out of employment 30,000 people and reduced 12,000 families to a state of destitution. "So ended," says L,ecky, "the fairest promise Ireland ever had of becoming a happy and prosperous country." It would not be within the province of this work to trace the hi.story of those events which led to the independence of the Irish people, which was achieved in 1782, under the leadership of Henry Grattan and others. During the short period of self-government which followed, the development of industries was stimulated and fostered by a system of protective legislation. The prospects and hopes of this unfor- tunate people were again blasted when, in the year 1800, a union was effected with England, and all local self-government taken away. The commercial features of the act of union were of the highest importance. Import duties on woolen goods and several other articles were continued for a period of twenty years on calicoes and muslins until 180S, reductions were to be gradually made to reach 10 per cent in 18 16, and to disappear in 1 82 1. Cotton yarn and cotton twist were similarly treated. Protec- tion to the linen industry lasted until 1826, when it was withdrawn. ' Tlic Niueteeutli Century, August. i88i, pp. 6-7. f FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. The following brief summary of the effect of such legislation was given by Sir John Barnard Byles: In 1800 they had in Ireland 91 master woolen manufacturers, employing 491S hands. In 1840 the master manufacturers were 12, the hands, 602. Master wool combers in 1800 were 30; the hands 230. In 1834, masters 5; hands 66. Carpet manufacturers in 1800, masters 13; hands 720. In 1841, masters i; hands 10. Blanket manufacturers in Kilkenny in 1800, masters 56; hands 3000. In 1822, masters 42; hands 925. Flannel looms in the County of Wicklow in 1800, 1000; in 1841, not one. In the city of Cork: :8oo. 1834. Braid weavers, 1000 40 Worsted weavers, 2000 90 Hosiers 300 28 Wool combers, 700 1 10 Cotton weavers, 2000 210 Linen check weavers, 600 None. Cotton spinners, bleachers, calico printers — thousands employed, utterly extinct. The linen trade, protected and fostered until 1826, was not in those days confined to the North of Ireland. In Clonakilty, in the County of Cork, ^1200 a week was expended on the purchase of coarse linen webs so late as 1825. In Mayo, ^iij,ooo was expended in purchasing the same species of web. In 1825 the sum of two mill- ions and a half sterling was expended in Ireland in the purchase of coarse, unbleached, homemade webs.' The small establishments of Ireland, unable to withstand the exces- sive competition of those powerful British masters, were closed, and agriculture again became practically the sole occupation of the people. This was urged by Englishmen to be a change which would result in great benefits to the Irish, as they could buy their clothing, imple- ments, etc., much cheaper than they could be made at home, and a trade profitable to both countries could be carried on by exchanging Irish farm produce for British manufactures. But scarcely had the Irish people settled down exclusively to rural pursuits when, in 1846, the repeal of the Corn Ivaws inflicted a more severe injury upon the country than it had sustained through the loss of the manufactures. It threw the ports of Ireland open to the free admission of the farm products of all countries, and brought them into direct competition with the wheat growers of the fertile regions of America. At the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws, and during the few years preceding that event, what the English people lacked they were buying largely in Ireland. British imports of grain from this source in 1845 amounted to 3,225,000 quarters. To this were added cattle, sheep, swine, etc., which swelled the total purchases from ' Sophisms of Free Trade, p. 151 . RETURN TO FREE TRADE. Ireland to /.'ly, 000,000 sterling. This market for Irish produce was not only destroyed by the adoption of free trade, but the Irish people them- selves became importers of those bread stuffs which hitherto had been produced at home. Althoirgh the economic condition of the peasant was deplorable on account of the evils of the land system, the farming interests of the country had kept pace with the constantly increasing population, which rose from 5,216,000 in 1801, to 8,175,000 in 1841. Since the adoption of free trade their manufactures have been ruined, and com- peting agricultural imports have so increased that at the present time, the Irish people are annually buying from other countries 33,000,000 bushels of grain to feed a population which, as appears by the cen.sus of iSgi, is reduced to 4,704,000 persons. Although a system of tyranny which has denied to the Irish people the right of self-government and kept the agricultural population in a condition of poverty and degrada- tion, has driven many into exile, yet free trade has largely, contributed to the destitution and misery of the people and to that excessive emigra- tion which has occurred. If the British Government had set about de- signedly to destroy a political rival, it could have adopted no surer means of accomplishing such an end, than the commercial policy to which it has compelled the Iri.sh people to submit since the union was effected. Officers of the Cobden Club in their efforts to defend a commer- cial policy which is being condemned by the practical test to which it is subjected in England, resort to many ingenious and deceptive arguments to prove that the condition of the English people has improved under its influences. They cite the fact that in recent years fewer crimes have been committed than during the early part of the century. The influences of the Christian religion, of national education and other mor- alizing and civilizing agencies which have contributed to the moral and intellectual growth of the English people, are entirely ignored, and the one fact of the decrease in the number of convictions for criminal oft'ences is held up as one of the fruits of a barbarous and degrading commercial policy. Such arguments would not be worthy of notice, did they not find a place in the literature which is yearly .sent broadcast throughout the world. Again, the increase in the incomes of the English people as disclosed by the income tax returns, is' pointed to as an evidence of prosperity. This point has already been considered. It has been shown that such increase is due, in part, to improved administration in the collection of taxes, yet independent of this fact, the incomes embraced within the returns con.stitute the earnings of only a small part of the population of the country, and furnish no proof of the condition of over 30,000,000 of the population, constituting that portion most injuriously affected by the system of free competition. Another argument which is frequently advanced and which standing FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. alone and unexplained is quite apt to mislead those who are unacquainted with the subject, is the claim that pauperism has decreased. As pauperism increases, the advocates of Cobdenism instead of admit- ting the chief cause of the evil and favoring remedies under which it might be abated, seek to justify the terrible results of free trade, by pre- senting statistics to show that it is not so bad as in former times. The alleged decrease in pauperism is put forth to prove that the masses are better off under free trade than they were under protection. The num- ber receiving relief, as shown by the parish records in 1833, is compared with that given in the Board of Trade returns of the present time. The public expenditures for poor relief in the former year are set down again.st the sum devoted to such purposes in 1890, or in recent years as disclcsed by the official records. That such comparisons are unfair, and prove absolutely nothing, is well understood in England. They can deceive only those who are not familiar with the historj- of the Poor Laws of the country. The system of poor relief in operation prior to 1834, when contrasted with the laws and policy since that date expo.ses the deception which is practiced with some degree of success by tho.se who are compelled to resort to all manner of arguments in their efforts to uphold a most vicious economic policy. Prior to the reign of Elizabeth, the poor of the realm were the special care of the Church. In 1536, Henry VIII. provided that every parish should collect alms for the helpless poor and empowered local officers to compel the able-bodied poor to work for a living. By 43d Elizabeth, Chap. II, the Poor Laws were systematized, amended and embodied in a comprehen.sive code. The preamble to this act stated that it was the object of the law "to .set the poor to work, to relieve the lame, impotent and blind, and to put their children as apprentices. ' ' By this act the labor te.st was applied and every person able to work was to be denied relief, excepting on condition of his being put to work. Under James I., "Houses of Correction" were established, in which the able-bodied who applied for assistance could be employed. These houses of correction later became penal institutions, and were the forerunner of the "work- house." By act of George I., 1723, the law was still further amended, by providing that all those who applied for assistance should be re- quired to enter the poor house, prohibiting all assistance outside of the public institution. It appears that this act was never fully enforced. The act of Queen Elizabeth remained in force in its main features until 1782, when by 22d George III., Chap. 83, a law known as Gilbert's Act was passed by parliament, which entirely changed the principle of the labor test for those able to work. Under the new law the guardians of every parish were compelled to provide the laborers of their parishes with employment or assistance. By this and a subsequent act of 1797, the support of the masses was in effect made a charge upon the land, and RETURN TO FREE TRADE. outdoor relief, without work, became invoked. On this subject Yeats 533-3 : legal right which could be Tables were made out, stating the amount of wages which a laborer ought to be paid, in relation to the price of bread. The minimum wages were put down at 35. a week, increasing with the cost of the loaf and with the number of the children in the family. A man with seven children, when bread was 3J. a peck, could demand, by law, relief to the amount of 15J. a week, and when bread rose to 45. 3^., to the amount of 20^. ■^d. Paupers secured in this manner as much bread in seasons of scarcity as in those of abundance, while the thrifty rate-payers had to deny them- selves many of the necessaries of life, whenever bread was dear, in order to pay their rates. If the object had been to boast of the large sum spent upon paupers or to culti- vate the pauper community, as one of the resources of the kingdom, success could not have been more complete. ' It was under this act which remained in force until 1834, that the number of those applying for relief reached great proportions. Prior to the passage of this act, the number of paupers recorded was small, and the sums expended in this way were comparatively moderate. Between the close of the Napoleonic wars and 1834, many old and industrious artisans were thrown out of employment by the introduction of machinery. This change, together with the large number of soldiers discharged at the close of the war, who sought employment at a time when thousands of laborers were being displaced, caused much suffering among the laboring people which could be remedied only by the process of readjustment of society to the new methods of production. But apart from the foregoing considerations the law itself placed a premium on idleness and offered an inducement and encouragement to patiperism. It is conceded by English historians that the increase in public expenditures and in the number of paupers was brought about more by the vicious features of the law and the corruptions in its administration than by inability to find employ- ment. The question was finally considered under Lord Grey's government in 1834, when a parliamentary commission was appointed to investigate the whole subject of the Poor Law administration. The commission was composed of Dr. Bloomfield, of London; Dr. Sumner, Bishop of Chester, and afterward Archbishop of Canterbury ; Mr. Sturges Bourne, Mr. Nas- sau Senior, and three others. The inquiry was chiefly conducted by assistant commissioners, of whom Mr. Edwin Chadwick was the nio.st active. Molcsworth gives the following description of the working of the system : Their inquiries, revealed a multitude of abuses and stupidity in the admin- istration of the poor laws far beyond what was previously known or suspected. Jobbery reigned supreme almost everywhere. Tradesmen exacted exorbitant prices from the parish, and bribed the parish officers to wink at their extortions. In 1 Recent and Existing Commerce, p 98. FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. many instances the rates were used to influence and corrupt the electors of parlia- mentary boroughs. The attempts which in some cases were made by the overseers to prevent impositions were generally overruled by the magistrates. The scale of relief given acted as an inducement to improvident marriages. In many instances it was found that the able-bodied paupers received higher allowances than the infirm and disabled. In the workhouse the pauper was overfed with beef and mutton, while the man who earned his food by the sweat of his brow could scarcely obtain bread; and the pauper often received in relief a larger amount than the industrious and inde- pendent laborer was paid in wages. When relief was once obtained, it was regarded as a kind of vested interest, to be continued through life. Often pauper parents begat pauper children; and so on to the third and fourth generation. Relief was given in the most careless manner, and with gross partiality. In Buckinghamshire it was allowed to all who chose to ask for it. The recipients were often known to be thieves or prostitutes. In many instances the allowance was extorted by violence and threats. Since the commencement of machine-breakings and rick-burnings, the amount had greatly increased, the allowance often being, in fact, a bribe given to the rioters in the hope of propitiating them. In some cases, at least, it was shown to be the cause of the outrages committed. Relief was insolently demanded for children, whose fathers were receiving high wages, or wasting their earnings in drunkenness and dis- orderly living. In Sussex laborers refused to work, preferring to live on the parish allowance. ' Upon the coining in of the report of the commissioners, which dis- closed the facts as briefly summarized above by Molesworth, the new Poor Law was enacted, embodying substantially the recommendation of the commission. Although severe in many of its features, it was designed to deal with a condition which had become a menace to the welfare of the nation. By this act of 1834 (4th and 5th, William IV.), the principal features of the act of Elizabeth and George I. were restored. Outdoor relief was abolished. The labor test was restored and able-bodied paupers could not receive assistance, except on condition of their entering the workhouse and rendering ser\ace to the government in compensation for the aid received. A person able to work could not receive assistance for himself or his family except by entering the workhouse. The admin- istration of the law was placed under the control of a central body, which directed its enforcement through local guardians: subsequently the coun- try was divided into unions embracing large districts. The result of this legi.slation demonstrates that corrupt administration of a bad system was the chief cause of the large public expenditures and the large number of persons assisted under the old law. Molesworth says: The hopes of its authors were more than fulfilled, and the predictions of its opponents signally falsified. The introduction of the new act was speedily fol- lowed by diminished rates, higher wages, employment for all who sought it, a cessa- tion of riots, rick -burnings and machine-breaking, and a great improvement in the habits and character of the working classes. ^ The fact that such changes immediately followed the repeal of the old law and that rates were reduced one-half in less than three years shows 1 History of England. Vol. I., p. 310. 2 Id., p. 318. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. that the records of the number relieved, and the amounts expended by the parishes furnished no proof of destitution, lack of employment, or isery among the laboring masses during the protective period. The citation of the old records by the advocates of free trade as an evi- dence against the policy of protection, is simply a part of the general plan of misrepresentation and deception which is resorted to upon all branches of the subject, to discredit the system of protection and to sustain the policy of free trade. In comparing the extent of the pauperism which prevails in England at the present time with that which marked the earlier period, it should be noted that while the old Poor I^aw gave relief to nearly every one who asked and was extravagantly and corruptly administered to swell the sales of localmerchants, and while it acted as an encouragement to pauperism, the present law is administered in so niggardly a way, and the terms of relief imposed upon the able-bodied and the casually poor are so humiliating that nothing short of the worst desti- tution, and the actual peril of starvation drive men to seek public aid. The policy of the present law is to discourage pauperism and place the pauper on practically the same level as the criminal. General William Booth, gives the following description of the present administration of the Poor Laws in 1890: The first place must naturally be giveu to the administration of the Poor Law. Legally the State accepts the responsibility of providing food and shelter for every man, woman, or child who is utterly destitute. This responsibility, it, however, prac- tically shirks by the imposition of conditions on the claimants of relief that are hateful and repulsive, if not impossible. As to the method of Poor Law administration in dealing with inmates of workhouses or in the distribution of outdoor relief, I say nothing. Both of these raise great questions which lie outside my immediate pur- pose. All that I need to do is to indicate the limitations— it may be the necessary limitations— under which the Poor Law operates. No Englishman can come upon the rates so long as he has anything whatever left to call his own. When long continued destitution has been carried on to the bitter end, when piece by piece every article of domestic furniture has been sold or pawned, when all efforts to procure employment have failed, and when you have nothing left except the clothes in which you stand, then you can present yourself before the relieving officer and secure your lodging in the workhouse, the admini.stration of which varies infinitely according to the disposition of the Board of Guardians under whose control it happens to be. If, however, you have not sunk to such despair as to be willing to barter your liberty for the sake of food, clothing and shelter in the workhouse, but are only tem- porarily out of employment seeking work, then you can go to the Casual Ward. There you are taken in and provided for on the principle of making it as disagreeable as possible for yourself, in order to deter you from again accepting the hospitality of the rates— and of course in defence of this a good deal can be said by the political economist. But what seems utterly indefensible is the careful precautions which are taken to render it impossible for the unemployed Casual to resume promptly after his night's rest Lhc search for work. ITndcr the existing regulations, if you are compelled to seek refuge on Monday night in the Casual Ward, you are bound to "•""" at least till Wednesday morning. FEEE TRADE I'OIJVY A FAILURE. Under the present system, therefore, the penalty for seeking shelter from the streets is a whole day and two nights, with an almost impossible task, which, fail- ing to do, the victim is liable to be dragged before a magistrate and committed to the gaol as a rogue and vagabond, while in the Casual Ward their treatment is practically that of a criminal. They sleep in a cell with an apartment at the back, in which the work is done, receiving at night half a pound of gruel and eight ounces of bread and the next morning the same for breakfast, with half a pound of oakum and stones to occupy himself for a day. The beds are mostly of the plank type, the coverings scant, the comfort nil. Be it remembered that this is the treatment meted out to those who are supposed to be Casual poor, in temporarj^ difficulty, walking from place to place seeking some employment. The treatment of women is as follows : Each Casual has to stay in the Casual Ward two nights and one day, during which time they have to pick two pounds of oakum or go to the washtub and work out the time there. While at the washtub thev are allowed to wash their own clothes, but not otherwise. If seen more than once in the same Casual Ward, they are detained three days by order of the inspector each time seen, or if sleeping twice in the same month the master of the ward has power to detain them three days. There are four inspectors who visit different Casual Wards; and if the Casual is seen by any of the inspectors (who in turn visit all the Casual Wards) at any of the wards they have previously visited they are detained three days in each one. The inspector, who is a male person, visits the wards at all unexpected hours, even visiting while the females are in bed. The beds in some wards are composed of straw and two rugs, in others cocoanut fibre and two rugs. The Casuals rise at 5.45 a. m. and go to bed at 7 p. m. If they do not finish picking their oakum before 7 p. m., they stay up till they do. If a Cas- ual does not come to the ward before 12.30, midnight, they keep them one day extra. The theorj' of the sj'stem is this, that individuals casually poor and out of work, being destitute and without shelter, may upon application receive shelter for the night, supper and a breakfast, and in return for this, shall perform a task of work, not necessarily in repayment for the relief received, but simply as a test of their willingness to work for their living. The work given is the same as that given to felons in gaol, oakum-picking and stone-breaking. The work too is excessive in proportion to what is received. Four pounds of oakum is a great task to an expert and an old hand To a novice it can only be accomplished with the greatest difficulty, if indeed it can be done at all It is even in excess of the amount demanded from a criminal in gaol. The stone- breaking test is monstrous. Half a ton of stone from any man in return for par- tially supplying the cravings of hunger is an outrage which, if we read of as having occurred in Russia, or Siberia, would find Exeter Hall crowded with an indignant audience, and Hyde Park filled with strong oratory. But because this system exists at our own doors, very little notice is taken of it. These tasks are expected from all comers, starved, ill-clad, half-fed creatures from the streets, foot- sore and worn out, and yet unless it is done the alternative is the magistrate and the gaol. The old system was bad enough, which demanded the picking of one pound of oakum. As soon as this task was accomplished, which generalh' kept them to the middle of the next day, it was thus rendered impossible for them to seek work, and they were forced to spend another night in the ward. The Local Government Board, however, stepped in and the Casual was ordered to be detained for the whole day and the second night, the amount of labor required from him being increased four-fold.' ' Darkest England and the Way Out, pp. 67-70. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. It is not the purpose of the writer to discuss the merits or tlie demer- its of the system, but simply to point out that a policy which is evidently framed and administered, in part at least, for the purpose of discouraging the destitute from applying to the public for assistance, furnishes an unfair basis for comparison with the former extravagant administration of the old law. It should be further mentioned that by the advance of civilization the general improvements under which, during the last half century, man's ability to supply his wants have been so largely increased, the tendency among civilized nations has been toward the decrease of crime, destitution and pauperism. Taking into consideration this fact, the increase in pauperism in recent years in England furnishes more pronounced evidence that it is brought about by an unwise and degrading economic policy. Independent of all comparisons, the free trade economist should not be permitted to evade the responsibility which is now resting upon the English people, by raising a false and irrelevant issue. The policy of free trade must be tried and tested by present con- ditions. The degree of idleness, destitution and pauperism existing in England under free trade at the present time, after forty 3'earsof growth, of most marvelous civilizing and elevating agencies, is the important fact to be considered. Although the official records and statistics which are used as a basis of comparison, are very imperfect and disclose only a small part of the miserj' which so universally prevails, yet when taken by themselves they make a very bad showing. The oiEcial returns of the British Government- as reported in the Statistical Abstract, give the number of paupers relieved on the first of January, 1891 and 1894, as follows: 1891. 1894. England and Wales, 774,905 812,441 Scotland, 93,422 95, 196 Ireland, 107,129 104,031 Total 975,456 1,011,668 Paupers in Europe in 1888, given by Mulhall, Dictionary of Sta- tistics: Population. Paupers. France 38,800,000 290,000 Germany, 48,600,000 320,000 Russia, 92,000,000 350,000 Austria, 40, 100,000 290,000 Italy, 30,300,000 270,000 Holland, 4,600,000 88,000 Total 253,600,000 1,55.8,000 The population of the United Kingdom in 1891 was 37,731,415. By the oflRcial records then, of the British Government, it appears that one out of every twenty-eight was a pauper. ' It may be well to mention in FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. ■ this connection that the census of the United States in 1890 returns 73,045 paupers (United States Census Bulletin of 1890, No. 154), out of a popu- lation of 62,000,000, or one in every 851. The official returns of the United Kingdom are very imperfect and only contain a partial statement of the pauperism which actually exists. Mr. Sidney Webb said : Neither the Local Government Board nor the Times ever tells the world that over three millions of separate individuals were driven to accept Poor Law relief during last year— one in ten of our wage-earners. The Local Government Board returns carefully conceal the fact that at least 25 per cent of all persons over sixty- five years of age are paupers, and 40 per cent of those over seventy. ' The official returns exclude from their enumeration "vagrants" and those given "casual relief," and simply include those of other classes who are being assisted on the first day of January of each year at the time when the return is made. The millions of laborers who, through lack of employment, sickness and misfortune, apply for casual relief during the year, are not mentioned in the returns. This fact accounts for the difference in numbers given in the Statistical Abstract and the reports of ofiicial investigating committees. It is an economic dogma that all forms of poor relief and public charity tend to encourage and increase pauperism. Under this claim a system of administration which is most humiliating and subjects the unfortunate to mo.st severe hardships, and makes the yoke of poverty most galling, is justified. It is the opinion of many, however, that con- tributions and expenditures are kept as low as possible solely to protect the rate-payer. The free trade party in England has exercised great shrewdness in crowding as much of the care of the poor as possible on the labor unions. Were it not for the vast sums expended each year by the unions in out-of-work and sick benefits, the pauper class would be very largely increased. It should also be pointed out that there are over sixty private charitable societies organized for the relief of the desti tute, supported by individual contributions. The vast sums expended through these sources should not be lost sight of in making calculations of the extent of this burden, and especially when comparisons are made with former periods, when there were no labor unions and few charita- ble societies. In January, 1885, Mr. Frederic Harrison, in commenting on the widespread destitution before the Industrial Remuneration Conference, said: To me at least it would be enough to condemn modern society as hardly an advance on slavery or serfdom, if the permanent condition of industry were to be that which we behold, that 90 per cent of the actual producers of wealth have no home that they can call their own beyond the end of the week, have no bit of iThe I/)ndon Program, 1891, p. 97. RETURN TO FREE TRADE. soil, or so much as a room that belongs to them ; have nothing of value of any kind, except as much old furniture as will go in a cart ; have the precarious chance of weekly wages, which barely suffice to keep them in health ; are housed for the most part in places that no man thinks fit for his horse; are separated by so narrow a margin from destitution that a month of bad trade, sickness, or unexpected loss, brings them face to face with hunger and pauperism." After a careful examination of the subject, General Booth reaches the conclusion that the destitute army is 3,000,000 strong. He says: According to Lord Brabazon and Mr. Samuel Smith, "Between two and three millions of our population are always pauperized and degraded. ' ' Mr. Chamber- lain says there is a "population equal to that of the metropolis" — that is, between four and five millions — "which has remained constantly in a state of abject desti- tution and misery. ' ' Mr. Giffen is more moderate. The submerged class, accord- ing to him, comprises one in five of manual laborers, six in 100 of the popu- lation. Mr. Giffen does not add the third million which is living on the border line. Between Mr. Chamberlain's four millions and a half, and Mr. Giffen's 1,800,000, I am content to take three millions as representing the total strength of the destitute army. Darkest England, then, may be said to have a population about equal to that of Scotland. Three million men, women and children, a vast despairing multitude in a condition nominally free, but really enslaved; these it is whom we have to The most trustworthy and authentic evidence of the deplorable con- dition of the masses of the English people is found in the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Labor (quoted below), which was made to parliament in June, 1894, after a most searching and -thorough investi- gation, extending over a period of more than two years. The official character of the statements, contained in the report, together with the fact that they were based upon evidence presented before the connnis- sion, of luimerous witnesses consisting of government experts, officials and individuals who had made a special stud}- of the condition of the masses, confirms the largest estimates hitherto made by individuals. It is a significant fact that the lack of employment which was shown to pre- vail so largely in 1885-86, has continued up to the present time, and has grown more severe and widespread as imports of competing commodities have continued to increase. The Labor Commissioners, referring to this question said: "Perhaps the most unsatisfactory of all the features in the present relations between employers and employed, is the irregularity of the work of large sections of the community. We regard this irregularity as one of the most serious of the factors at present tending to degrade the standard of life." ' Upon the question of agriculture it may be well to mention additional proof from the report of John E. Gorst. To show the permanent con- dition of laborers in this department, he said: ' Report, p. 229. - D.irkest Knglaiul and the Way Out, p. 23. ^ Fiual Kejwrt, p. 140. FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. The depressed condition of the actual tiller of the soil in most parts of the United Kingdom appears to me to react in a very pernicious way upon the wages and general conditions of labor of the whole body of the less skilled workers. The insufficient wages of the agricultural laborer, his long and monotonous hours of toil, the dilapidated dwelling in which he is too often housed, the absence of lei- sure and all interest in his life, the difficulties (only now in process of removal) of obtaining the use of land for his own cultivation, and the prospect of the work- house as the ultimate destiny of his old age, all combine to induce the younger generation to denounce the vocation of their fathers and to migrate into the towns, where they displace the older and less efficient workers in industries already over- crowded. ' Mr. William Abraham, Mr. Michael Austin, Mr. James Mawdsley and Mr. Tom Mann, members of the Royal Commission on Labor, in their minority report to parliament, dated June, 1894, in describing the condition of the working classes, as disclosed by the evidence presented before the commission, said: Notwithstanding a great increase in national wealth, whole sections of the population comprising, as we believe, at least five millions, are unable to obtain a subsistence compatible with health or efficiency. Probably two millions are every year driven to accept Poor Law relief in one form or another. In Loudon, the ■wealthiest and most productive city of the world, we learn from Mr. Charles Booth's researches that 32 per cent of the total population falls below the "Poverty Line" — that guinea per week of regular earnings below which no family can live in decency and health. And when we find that in certain districts of the metrop- olis one-half and even three-fifths of the entire population fall below that mini- mum, and that this state of things arises from no exceptional distress, but represents the outcome of fifty years of steady improvement, we cannot but regard the situation as calling for the gravest consideration of the government. Nor is this destitution confined to unskilled or specially degraded classes of workers. Even in those grades in which labor is better paid, the statistics of the Labor Department show that a large number of competent mechanics are at all times out of employment, whilst in periods of trade depression many thousands of men are in the same condition And if we turn from the occupations of the workers to the homes in which they live, the state of things appears to us equally unsatisfactory. We do not here refer so much to the insanitary state of the slums as to the actual amount of house accommodation which each family obtains. Nearly two and a half millions of persons in England and Wales alone, live in tenements which the Registrar- General declares to be overcrowded. The statistics of the census, and those of Mr. Charles Booth, indicate that probably from 20 to 33 per cent of the whole population of some of our largest towns dwell in one-room homes. In London alone, we infer that a quarter of a million persons, including probably 100,000 children, must be living under the conditions which are implied by the occupation by a whole family, of a single small room for all the purposes of domestic life. The percentage of one-room homes in Glasgow, Kilmarnock and other Scotch towns is even greater, whilst of English towns the Registrar-General reports that Gateshead, Newcastle, Sunderland, Plymouth, Halifax, Bradford and Huddersfield all showed a higher percentage of overcrowding than London as a whole. In many districts of Ireland the conditions are equally bad. Nor are the evils of bad Minority Report of Labor Com- ' Fifth and Final Report of the Royal Con 1 Labor, June, 1S94, p. 151 RETURN TO FREE TRADE. bousing couiiiied to the towns. The reports of the Assistant Commii the agricultural population reveal in nearly all the districts a terrible deficiency of house accommodation, even for the at present diminishing population of the country side. Finally we have the fact that all who survive to the age of seventy, one out of every three is believed to be in receipt of poor relief. In L,ondon one death in every six takes place in the workhouse or workhouse inlirmary. In some rural dis- tricts it has been said nearly every aged agricultural laborer is a pauper. We have been unable to ascertain the actual number of pauper funerals, but we believe that it would be found that throughout the whole kingdom one person out of everj' four or five is buried by the parish. It is impossible to refrain from connecting this deplorable condition of the working class with the fact that two-thirds of the annual product of the community is absorbed by one-fourth of its members, and that the annual tribute of rents, royalties, and dividends levied upon the industry of the nation amounts to nearly five hundred millions sterling. ' Never was such an indictment framed against an economic policj'. A similar condition of the working classes is not to be found in any civil- ized country on the face of the globe. Were the foregoing statements contained in reports of United States Consuls, or in letters written by the most trustworthy and candid protectionists, they would be denounced and discredited by every professional free trader in the world. But coming as they do, from an official report to the British parliament, from men who were held in such high esteem by the government as to appear worth)' of executing such an important trust, they cannot be questioned. The report is above impeachment. The facts set forth, are more appall- ing because they are true. ' ' Throughout the ivhole kingdom one person out of every four or five is buried by the parish.'' What a fact to con- template ! " Of all who survive to the age of seventy, one out of every three' ' is a pauper. Death at middle life is better than old age. Yet, even then, a pauper's grave is the lot of one out of five. No amount of accumulated wealth centred in the hands of a few, can compensate a nation for such a condition of the masses. A vast commerce, inntmiera- ble ships visiting every harbor in the world, are dumb and speechless as expressions of national growth and prosperity, when the harbors from which they are sent and the countrj' whose flag flies at their masthead, are festering with destitution and despair. The loud boastings of the champions of a policy under which such conditions exist cannot long drown the voice of multitudes pleading for work. No false statistics, no amount of jugglery or of legerdemain with alleged "economic truths" can cover up or explain away the undeniable evidence of the terrible effects of the policy of free trade upon the social and industrial life of the English people. This is the result of nearly fifty years of an economic policy which was put out by Mr. Cobden and his associates, as a "cure- all," a system which, before it became tested by actual experience, 'Fifth and Final Report of the Royal Commission on Labor, pp. 127, isS and 129. FREE TRADE POLICY A FAILURE. received the approval and endorsement of many able and conscientious political economists. Sustained at first by assumptions, prophecies and speculations, it has been condemned and exposed by a fair trial. Orig- inally false in theory, it has been equally infamous in its results. Had it not been for the patriotism, wisdom and humanity of the people of other nations, this economic devil-fish would have fastened its tentacles upon all nations, and dragged the whole world into its pool. It has reduced to degradation and misery the wage-earners of the greatest com- mercial nation on the globe, and bound them to a condition of servitude in some respects worse than chattel slavery. Adopted at a time when the most magnificent results had been achieved through protection, it has arrested industrial growth, and sent the nation on the road to ruin. Power- ful as a destroying agency, it has proven impotent and weak as a saving ordinance. That "cheapness" which was sought to be secured, hascheap- ened men as well as commodities. The consumer has suffered with the pro- ducer. Falling most heavily, and striking first at the wage-earner, it has dealt blow after blow at the whole industrial life of the kingdom, reduced profits of manufacturers, incomes of clerks, country merchants, mechanics and all who depend on the rewards of labor for subsistence. It has eaten into the vitals of the nation like an incurable disease. Skilled artisans have fled the country, followed by capital and industries, seeking shelter under that policy of protection to home industries through which alone a nation can become great and its citizens prosperous. As industries have been supplanted and labor displaced by competing imports, instead of finding employment in other industries, they have found relief either in emigration or in almshouses. Goods have not been paid for with goods. Imports instead of stimulating domestic production have closed fac- tories, thrown labor out of employment, silenced machinery, and in- creased the army of unemployed and beggars. Instead of stimulating artisans and manufacturers to greater exertion and higher skill, free trade has blighted their pro-spects, destroyed hope and left them in despair, com- mitted to a life-and-death struggle for existence. Instead of undermin- ing and destroying foreign rivals it has forced them as a means of self- defence, to build up industrial sj'Stems which have arisen to menace and cripple their would-be destroyer. The greed and avarice upon which the whole fabric was reared are meeting their just retribution, yet the inno- cent are suffering with the guilty. Failing to monopolize the markets of the world it is now powerless to defend markets at home. Mr. Cob- den and his associates built their whole commercial policy on false theories, false prophecies and false hopes, which were to be shattered and destroyed by a few years of actual experience. This is free trade in England. TABLES SHOWING FOREIGN TRADE OF Tables Showing Foreign Trade of Table No. 12. — Schedule Showing Imports of Agricultural Products 18 po. Compiled from the Official Returns KO. Articles. ■836. .3... 1856. i860. T Oxen, bulls, etc., $ 5,760,065 1,311.015 5,337,250 1,782,500 13,128,700 5,375,675 1 7,666,650 2,769.815 4,799.690 2.044.915 20,337.975 7,875.500 16,140 82,700,075 16,785,780 13,120,790 857.955 3,089,230 3,967,255 95,100 15,829,020 3 4 I 7 Bacon and hams, Butter and margarine, .... Cheese, 1 Confectionery, \ 11,705,320 1,571,165 1 1,863,635 2,533.805 Corn and grain : 62,152,185 5,851,545 6,881,085 279,810 914,620 3,090,500 5,790 14,148,970 9 Barley, Rve 13 14 15 Buckwheat 966,740 23,465,745 Total com and grain, . . . 16 17 1966,740 123,465,745 193.324,505 19,892,910 48,560 1,392,110 314,005 929.750 998,430 171,015 2,157,100 $136,445,203 21,568,080 fOats, maize, etc., Indian "| \ corn and unenumerated \ { meal, j 237.320 2,392,890 884,855 1,917.695 19 -IT Fish 23 24 2,764,6';s Lard, . 2,929,980 289,240 jMeat, salted and fresh: Preserved, other than salted, . -ift Mutton fresh. 27 Pork fresh and salted 1,799,445 1.933.215 Total meat, salted and fresh, -S 11,799.445 211,625 96,020 241,160 |2, 222,455 29 30 3' 32 33 34 35 682,510 3i6 5='> 76,4S=; Sauces, Vinegar 8,520 856,710 10, =;=;'> Total, ... 14,243.225 127,863,185 $155,137,070 1219,592,085 • GREAT BRITAIN FROM 1S.36 TO 1893. Great Britain from 1836 to 1892. Retained for Home Consumption by the United Kingdom from 18^6 to of the Board of Trade of Great Britain. 1865. 1870. 1875- 1880. .885. .890. No. 122,007,410 ^15,735,305 ^24,425,560 $38,949,690 $35,211,530 $52,526,750 8,939.330 5,756,^65 10,919,340 11,329,750 8,124,995 3,551.145 2 10,604,745 8,484,670 32,258,435 51,024,380 40,139,050 45,536,680' 3 2,022,945 1,903,195 2,174,690 11,956,065 13,838,975 20,900,875' 4 29.352,455 33,497,925 41,577,460 59,608,475 55,865,185 66,563,400 5 12,161,535 15,888,095 23,025,685 24,848,235 19,584,425 23.996,6351 6 41,800 423,395 1,449,545 2,510,105 3,963,995 { 1,157,420 3,109,920 }^ 48,814,790 78,449,705 137,352,445 150,338,265 118,991,985 117,250,550 8 12,623,965 14,159,425 23,065,390 25,022,690 22,625,050 24,857,500 9 13,855,665 21,908,035 26,926,710 24,613,650 21,215,890 19,495,695 10 314,040 4S3.075 592,070 221,115 519,745] r II 1,593,010 1,486,330 3,729.490 4,165.955 3,032,865 8,156,350 12 1,979,590 3,243.775 7,830,330 5,049,945 5,367,775 13 69,440 7,405 212,005 63,020 133,460 J 1 14 11,171,980 28,952,750 40,548,845 54,713.560 42,251,430 49,315,165 15 190,422,480 1148,690,500 $240,257,285 $264,188,200 $214,138,200 $219,075,260 16 13,043,760 15,608,345 24,302,460 43,193,290 47,901,665 44,883,080 17 27,040 99,055 238,630 2,144,875 1,782,800 1,326,250 iS 4,641,235 5,510,400 12,791,050 11,174,685 14,634,745 17,126,035 19 992,600 1,164,605 2,100,675 2,436,445 3,253.310 6,205,760 2,315,045 3,414,425 5,372,925 6,801,585 8,040,660 11,590,910 21 1,329.365 3,562,480 3,930,360 22 2,204,605 2,064,485 5,774,940 4,337,595 4,901,835 4,258,550 23 2,305,080 3,627,005 7,838,920 8,704,165 7,590,135 9,181,520 24 183,155 1,248,635 4,121,965 11,465,540 14,674,010 7,431,000 3,319,315 i5;f8:liC 2,029,395 2! ■ ■2;8i6,865 3,356,745 • •2:884,415 3,254,920 27 13,000,020 14,605,380 $7,006,380 $14,720,460 $25,424,325 $45,621,825 28 604,130 1,947,530 1,604,550 2,655 035 2,361,455 3,225,710 29 806,205 1,224,325 5.349.845 14,215,910 3,619.735 3,527,970 30 742,610 791,625 1,635,105 2,100,355 3,270,845 4,459,925 31 50,560 89.295 83,850 131,235 138,315 32 341.765 745. 2S0 545,000 1,732,665 2,170.305 ■ ■3;5 18,865 33 256,825 22,810 32,945 52,815 41,440 34 1,161,100 1,430,475 2,009,925 2,723,915 4,087,165 3,354,990 35 1208,055,280 $274,054,355 $452,775,200 $581,499,930 1523,647,570 $598,629,835 TABLES SHOWING FOREIGN TRADE OF Schedule Shoivhig Imports of Fully Matiufadured Articles Retained Compiled from the Official Returns of .0. ARTICLES. 1836. 1846. 1856. .860. $423,565 6,S8o ^ Art works 3 4 5 Beads, $448,930 306,010 620.0S5 Books . . 433,635 865 569.500 '284',465 704,045 159,730 2, 148; 965 604,925 493,280 554,435 :....: 9 Chemicals, ... 1,702,405 1211,265 ^429.275 1,096,980 13 Cork 246.895 280,550 638,775 146,835 3,098,035 15 Flowers artificial, 575.185 Glass 270,695 1,076,140 ;. House fittings and joiner work, . 19 143,820 •54:585 244.980 I. 383. 210 639,255 457,220 462,970 649,065 502,420 315,730 121,825 73.470 150,530 Iron and .steel wrought, ormanu- 1 ■ ■ • ■ 1 . . 220,335 ->i Lace • ■ 277.805 ->-> 186,370 286,800 2,756,480 309, iSs 24 11 Linen 192,545 265,025 532,800 848,315 Oil, chemical essential and per- 369,780 ->s 791.520 29 30 31 67,885 654.250 129,730 11,245.855 146,890 378,340 33 34 39 40 41 42 319,275 5.232,970 1,097.865 306,720 975.020 6.596.705 932.645 7.910,125 2,686,840 358,920 1,676,690 640,930 1.327.250 5,910,415 668,110 Unennmeraled, Total, 219.195 215,110 4.334.560 $5,037,510 j$8,946,450 142.917,475 $49,354,900 GREAT BEITAIN FJiOM 1SS6 TO lSt):>. for Home Consumption by the United Kingdom from 1836 to i8go. the Board of Trade of Great Britaiti. .865. 1870. .875. 1880. 1885. 1890. No. 11,010,650 1443,375 1651,545 1791,130 f3.051.170 $1,372,375 , 1 14,045 224,820 569.790 410,500 279,805 479.615 2 360,595 220,156 466,600 233.070 201,255 101,265 3 571,880 571,660 773,825 803,420 960,320 1,293,910 4 459.120 278,205 470,590 233,305 279.7S5 626,135 5 231.525 590,965 1,641,310 3.265,405 1.419.845 1,765,300 6 283,175 187,215 197,495 373,330 119,380 78,440 7 249.695 173,850 465.220 517.045 1,915.115 1,657,150 8 2,177.035 1,961,115 4.586,745 4.967.860 5.563,255 5,961,660 Q 809,480 744,975 1,874,100 2,083,140 2,326,480 2,931,620 10 1,027,410 1,245,870 1,919,100 2.407,610 1,828,215 2,355,375 II 391,600 284,040 194.535 380,135 177,775 392,900 12 490.350 652,720 1.856.595 1,700,490 2,164.525 2,904,260 13 2,803,060 4,354,650 5,400,290 9.270,425 7,183,030 9.838,495 14 282,210 343,910 451.295 130,890 437.045 1,759,350 1,493,965 1,326,410 2,535,420 2,292,465 1.352,625 1,804,480 16 2,934,045 4.223,820 7.887,365 7,947,460 7.503.435 1.327.180 9,843,290 3,082,395 18 2,904.950 296,220 723,520 584,620 717,660 792,635 19 2,012,965 2,381,630 5,472,025 8,610,470 9,998,075 13.843.200 20 753.0S5 2,534.905 1,940,030 2,251,005 4,645,895 4.071.495 21 4.964.895 5,866,895 12,098,510 8,505,935 7,012,620 8,223,865 22 409,090 646,070 977.490 1.357.720 1,073,500 987,290 23 588,7cx5 308,995 1,459,210 1,278,675 900,525 1.849.875 24 592.355 662,915 837,260 984,770 1,183,320 i.95'^,935 25 1,156,290 939,340 2,910,100 2,941.510 3,103,085 4,636,000 26 278,450 707,185 432.165 452,305 691,220 971,500 27 1. 159.090 2,123,575 ^,^,75,910 3,820,210 3.724.S05 4.870,475 28 2.183,675 3,014,960 4.767.540 5,256,100 6,651,680 9,201,640 29 115.500 168,415 342,125 249.290 248,980 294,285 30 110,950 138,475 255.560 329.395 411,050 422,965 512,835 1,170,715 2,990,890 1,788,080 2.731.425 2.909.335 32 179,170 273,945 285,645 344,860 ',433.750 1,981,640 33 40,842,555 74,660,150 59,680,530 65.329.560 48,063,740 51,915.765 34 ■95.495 287,155 417,720 428,075 590.105 720,670 35 1,609,770 2,601,535 3.974.435 3,811,420 2,015,830 2,454,380 36 6,013,470 13,460,410 19.734.245 21,295,425 23.153,610 38,482,570 37 767,500 1,115,690 1.794.225 2,540,715 2,468,300 3,409,820 38 1,270,805 1,715,815 2,218,590 2,008,230 2,994,085 3,089,730 39 8,305,310 15,207,475 20,440,675 34,907,400 33.985,820 38,980,755 40 341,875 798,685 2,000,730 1,772,500 1,648,450 2,116,05s 41 8,861,055 15,281,420 19,752,095 19,106,230 25,230,380 28,607,195 42 fioi, 8.9,675 1164,190,331 1200,823,045 {227,762,180 ;j222,768,i5o 1275,040,090 TABLES SHOWING FOREIGN TRADE OF Table cdulc Showing Imports of Partially Manufactured Articles Retained piled from the Official Returns of the NO. Articles. 1836. 1846, .B36. i860. I Alkali and barilla $ 68,105 1 27,715 1 1.036,500 2 f Copper regulus precipitate, "j \ and part wrought and un- \ wrought, Included with copper ore in Table No. 3 4 5 395,300 1,068,170 2S2 800 So,495 iu Table f Flax, dressed, ton or cor- 1 \ dilla of, / Included with und 6 f Hemp, dressed, ton or cor- 1 \ dilla of, / Included with und ressed hem p in Table 7 /Iron, pig, bars, etc., un- \ \ wrought, J 910,240 1.423.085 3.385,565 2,835.245 <( 54.365 215, 1 ',T 9 lO Lead, pig or sheet, 73.500 231.195 1,121,390 2,340,400 II Leather, 1,684,450 1,725.065 12 Linen yarn, 157,775 43.675 18,630 57.325 13 Oil, seed and turpentine, . . 3.825,810 14 15 Oils 14.598,115 4,184,580 Silk, thrown, 1,250,840 /Stones, rough and hewn, \ \ not works of art, / 17 Tin, blocks, bars, slabs, etc., . 2,213,980 1,598.405 18 Wood, sawn and staves, . . . 25.098,795 27,915,990 19 7n 518,670 1,272,600 2,351,400 Zinc, crude iu cakes, .... I,5I2,OSS Total, $1,209,620 12,948,795 154.856,955 160,672,325 GREAT BRITAIN FROM ISSe TO 1893. for Home Consumption by the United Kingdom from i8j6 to i8go. Cotn Board of Trade of Great Britaiti. 1865. 1870. 1875. 1880. 1S85. 1890. NO. $ 1,158,080 1 732,215 1 623,680 $ 342,555 $ 215,125 $ 106,495 1 15,1 . . . 2 D, j 1,772,575 1,991,540 1,868,305 1,401,860 1,625,490 2,220,095 3 8,835 142,875 674,625 2,248,380 2,336,630 2,193,095 4 No. IS, \ . 5 No. 15, 1 . 2,373.565 2.378,990 4,073,540 2,764,515 2,617,015 1,958,925 7 448,060 284,925 374,595 92,100 173,510 235,590 8 312,555 271,960 782,895 1,448,100 456,480 9 3,314,750 4,969,530 8,657,3cx) 7,405,385 5,886,825 9,468,835 10 2,342,155 4,774,175 15,231,580 15,645,840 23,125,585 24,280,375 II 349,810 228,180 1,005,470 1,336,320 1,141,815 3,408,035 12 4,389,565 3,644,800 4,925,535 4,483,250 3,559,115 5,759,055 13 21,156,925 22,788,545 24,993,155 21,335,295 22,955,480 16,317,605 14 2,578,175 75,560 1,219,290 935,875 2,444,230 2,211,830 3,149,735 5,693,785 15 16 1,716,805 2,305,845 5,439,140 4,827,315 17 37,758,200 40,524,200 47,494,715 55,106,025 50,046,345 57,875,320 18 4,983,105 8,137,405 7,321,135 9,134,575 9.831,715 8,577,470 19 2,060,235 1,674,430 2,510,065 2,881,660 4,053,620 6,117,320 20 183,832,665 197,468,385 1125,540,360 ;jSi3i,oo7,26o 1138,084.675 1150,030,045 TABLES SUOM-ING FOREIGN TRADE OF Table Schedule Showing Imports of Ra'iv Materials Retained for Compiled from the Official Returns of No. A.„™. 1836. 1846. 1856. i860. T Bones, ^857,240 1,637,320 180,620 fSo8,68o 2,008,410 209,510 1,738,565 540,805 11,610,165 639,270 115,512,270 11,532,920 3 4 5 6 Brimstones, Bristles, i',63o!68o 1,647,665 Copper ore regulus precipi- tate, wrought, part wrought and un wrought, Cork, Cotton, 302,430 246,895 581,185 280,550 55,832,935 151,843,495 t 336,310 9 TO 780,505 2,120,945 27,535,075 714,720 6961640 1,548,825 10,662, 130 426,190 Dye wood, . . 2,771,600 II Flax and hemp, dressed or undressed, ton or codilla of, 17,800,710 1,124,765 14,441,645 1,458,640 T-' Gum . . 1,010,030 13 14 Gutta percha .... 774,370 405,705 215,110 6,678,690 Hair (goats') or wool, . . . Hides 219,195 4,517,155 2,081.945 11,781,435 17 497,450 19 Isinglass Jutes . ... 115,840 109,015 184,090 3,028,275 1,268,165 400,145 3,157,750 23 24 11 Rags for paper, 259.140 247,200 1,137,885 1,220,325 2,531,540 24,342,670 30,809,790 5,202,040 13,230,780 126,315 294.390 529.205 23,055,275 33,575,485 8,926,350 1,576,480 Saltpetre, 3,027,995 Seeds, 2,520,595 5,826,3-5 1,920,875 235.685 4.984,520 66,753.265 8,746,920 3,431,025 8,118,185 1,304,270 5,527,185 242,815 360,090 5.794,310 7,818,845 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 P Silks, Skins, furs and pelts, . . . Tallow and stearine, . . . Tin, 32,530,600 1,880,540 20,060,550 219,050 Whalefins, 298,930 Wood and timber, . . . . Wool . . 24,140,705 43,718,700 Total $127,618,365 $115,874,000 $327,859,690 $395,969,515 GREAT BRITAIN FROM 1S36 TO ISVU. No. 15. Home Consumptio>i by the United Kingdoin fron the Board of Trade of Great Britain. iSj6 to i8g>o. 1865. 1870. .875. .880. .883. .8.. No. $2,144,885 $3,146,040 13,514,475 j2,6i4,58o 12,162,745 $2,247,630 J 1,746,385 1,903,315 1,894,245 i,2i6,88o 766,650 505,235 2 1,528,370 t,754,4o5 2,009,520 1,426,225 1,807,525 1,872,115 3 1,684,500 5,324,445 4,758,200 6,620,860 5,091.105 7,763,950 4 19,037,235 15.297,715 21,156,725 20,727,325 23.509.575 28,877,595 5 892,080 737,475 226,986,285 737.525 729,485 948,325 1,060,715 6 236,035,710 198,397,180 186,533,685 160,045,465 190,030,410 7 376,825 3,768,670 2,270,650 4.471,985 4,249,500 2,968,330 8 8,795,220 19-527,915 16,349,125 15,432,060 15,084,445 17,352,595 9 899,100 1,973,150 2,678,085 2,825,610 2,414.245 2,510,275 10 33,719,765 38,994,680 31,829,770 27,490,225 24,018,965 22,813,560 11 1,480,390 2,450,020 3,073,425 2,448,160 3,258,030 1,834,840 12 757,140 2,402,245 650,865 2,198,390 1,382,385 925,190 3,402,380 13 14 4,158,430 2,667,155 4,263,545 '6,'ii4,84S 3,378,415 2,120,160 15 11,519,925 13,090.935 14,003,545 12,077,715 10,091,210 7,826,750 16 298,255 751,355 429,605 475,145 597,040 458,345 'Z 590,665 1.335. 100 2,900,470 13,940,375 9,785,115 17,843,625 18 364,525 395,005 371,320 409,245 347,445 405.540 19 7,115,955 9,550,335 8,886,830 15,413,175 10,231,155 16,638,545 20 3,181,340 3,935,405 9,733.605 2,749,915 5.378,715 4.357,275 21 2,548,865 5,475.755 7.023,385 7,612,960 6,257,945 6.082,775 22 322,735 1,368,755 1,224,030 198,755 46,455 23 3, '56,375 5,647,560 7,339,010 9,960,930 9,585,500 10,504,805 24 2,227,435 1,780,520 1,864,935 1,630,970 1,522,525 1,820,270 25 1,777,035 1,668,825 1,231,815 1,423,610 1,207,840 1,288,230 26 28,050,995 32,644,040 40,129,605 35,535,670 38,999,900 31.715.855 27 30,270,440 23.836,350 7,912,605 11.945.295 6,077,800 ^•°96-f'° 28 1,062,650 5,592,670 7,310,430 10,514,945 8.136,575 8,118,885 29 15,316,840 16,113,760 9,628,660 9,663,085 6.754.675 5,404,470 30 191,700 107,820 94,220 18,740 133.480 31 326,470 206,370 206,835 581,025 562,735 ' 338.540 32 213,485 352,630 164,900 264,260 519.730 642,320 33 27,431,340 22,680,835 23,239,545 25.527.310 22,322,685 29,881,460 34 45,206,740 51,248,370 56,666,830 59,910,520 35.825.950 63.433.380 35 14,914,190 20,484,300 9,509,180 6,397,100 6,271,955 7,151,020 36 1509,343,995 $543,831 ,455 1503,599,420 1508,126,335 $429,851,295 1505,414,945 TABLES SHOWING FOREIGN TRADE OF Schedule Showing- Imports of Food Products Retahied for Compiled fro}n the Official Returns of No. Articles. 1836. 1846. 1856. i860. T Fruit, ... 96.245 7,226,645 839,090 '^ 610,900 404,330 3.555,445 51,615,550 16,781,010 68,605 121,440 1,184,080 680,180 32,320 220,645 326,890 215,890 1.734.755 57,311,830 Ice . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO II Rice, cleaned or in the husks, Sago and sago flour, . . . Spices— Cinnamon, .... GinE^er 1448,540 $1,416,290 270,240 125,060 ' 115.885 1,760,710 35,017,220 Pepper Unenumerated, Molasses, Sugar, unrefined, Total, 296,225 185,430 1,743,290 26,652,735 129,590,720 fe8, 705,405 168,184,110 168,677,645 Table Dutiable Articles Retained for Home Consufnpliou No. Articles. 1836. 1846. .856. i860. Beer and ale #119,990 1.930 1 Soap, transparent, .... 4 1203,740 120,025 , Cocoa, 1.015,790 5,516,090 8 9 Cocoa, husks and shells, ground, manufactured, . Coffee, Collodi, #256,625 7,089,825 1199,190 12,490,295 288,990 3,929,480 Ether 1,364,690 2,697,710 6,619,775 4.962,975 y Naphtha, 14 880,315 24,103,103 4.633.410 24,517,125 7.712,305 189.525 13,908,160 6,974,550 31,282,945 6,284,115 643.975 17,200,99s Tea? . ::::::::: 20,571,425 Tfi 17 Tobacco, manufactured ci- gars, other sorts, includ- 1,235,685 2,613,240 t8 WineT . . \ 2,189,860 Total, 131,472,425 144,219,538 $62,002,510 $74,123,390 OBEAT BRITAIN FROM 18SG TO 1893. No. i6. Home Consumption by the United Kingdom fiotn 1836 to iSgo. the Board of Trade of Great Britain. .865. 1870. 1875- 1880. .885. 1890. No. 18,165,680 173,890 129.955 1,931.495 549.415 17,125 284,695 320,400 95,955 2,037.815 53,644,240 $9,054,130 406,020 741.595 5,673,990 935.115 387,630 133,755 775,405 422,470 1,787,670 70,071,560 1,803,800 6,071,790 1,209,230 82,770 514.190 945.850 466,720 1,791,190 83,157,895 $17,456,010 707,530 2,037,695 8,486,475 1,358,560 104,760 386,965 811,430 1,228,410 313,180 90,417,600 $20,309,880 1,077,430 1,445,230 3,599,820 820,760 10,760 780,860 1,393,535 295,545 2,237,425 65,874,685 $26,138,590 1,373,315 6,079,440 ■ ■ '18,385 316,155 1.171,595 913,400 2,894,705 47,355,225 2 3 4 5 6 I i 167,350,665 190,389,340 $112,945,790 $123,308,615 $97,845,930 $86,260,810 No. 17. by the United Kingdom for same years as above. $118,865 1,310 $117,4 1159,905 3,695 148,820 154,560 no 415 219,935 205 $287,640 10,150 4,865 249,905 175 20,625 668,890 1,303,250 • ■• I ..... I 945,330 6,756,765 5,032,505 I 9,114,680 2,664,800 8,013,420 2,659,015 4,405,595 '$287,640 10,150 ' 4.865 250,465 5.583.81 10,501,780 6,945,205 5,314,625 13,927,645 I 11,734,445 36,625,040 I 39.579,490 1 56,057,275 11,062,700 I 6,436,205 6,356,760 7,265,500 44,049. 150 7,691,330 7,696,480 42,076,075 11,951,965 10,480,600 9,156.345 40,887,830 9.370,015 2,014,625 1,656,155 4,809,8801 4,558,9101 5,184,180 I 5,749,950 16,470,810 21,754,990 '< 29,929,015 \ 29,254,605 i 22,926,925 I 26,374,465 $85,150,630 $95,322,795 '$129,786,800 • $110,915,650 : ^109,101,520 1 $111,388,285 ^ Carried forward from 1885. TABLES SHOWING FOREIGN TRADE OF Schedule Showitig the Exports of Domestic Productions of Textile Fabrics Compiled from the Board of Trade Cotton Manufacture: Piece goods, white or plain, Printed, checked or dyed, . Of mixed materials Stockings and socks, . . . Lace, patent net, Hosiery and small wares, . Thread for sewing, .... Of all sorts, 1100,169,9261 1126,306,158 $166,414,968 $162,481,950 72,657,573; 80,839,045 100,696,901 96,697,461 3,567,078 1,715-595 1,226,9081 1,927,983, 2,138,403: 2,471,4211 1,226,908 4,384,718! 3,823,9881 5.496,175! 2,228,321 1,320,8861 1,915,628 1,320,886, 3,241,861} 928,190 Total of cotton manufacture, Linen Manufacture: Piece goods, white or plain, Checked, printed or dyed, . Sailcloth, Thread for sewing, .... 1183,783,271 $19,164,431 914,780 ,282,401 2,326,223 1,515,960 4,068,033 1,515,960 5,972,836 4,633,112 1220,410,8891 $283,107,762! $279,211,535 $32,144,666' $34,311,166 $31,118,290 2,769,961] 2,231,278 1,668,211 1,0423,53, 1,903,475 14 Of other sorts, .863,535 15 Total linen manufacture, Jute Manufacture: 16 Jute manufacture, . . . $22,985,099 $650,450 .S>7^ Manufacture: 19 ikerchiefs and shawls, Ribbon, . Of other sorts. Total silk manufacture, . $7,078,265 $7,078,265 Woolen and Worsted Manufacture: (Cloths, coatings, etc., mixed and) ( unmixed, j 21 Flannels 22 Blankets 23 Stuffs, mixed and unmixed 24 I Carpets and druggets, 25 ' Of all other sorts $17,366,130 5,447,055 f Total woolen \ facture, id worsted manu- Total textile fabrics, 31,693,663 3.078,728 3,163,993 I 60,749,569 $275,246,654 2,913,191 2,293,< $39,731,292 $40,214,165 $35,920,502 $1,519,471 $2,540,365 14,265,361 $2,623,893; $2,773,551, $3,603,525 4,519,710 2,935,855: 4,085,810 $5,709,406 $7,689,335 $20,870,638 $23,986,563 $24,313,433 6,868,183! 4,975,000; 5,347,640 54,163,3411 64,191,383' 78,120,578 4,222,891! 5,699.2501 7,514,080 4.259.196 3,761.946 3.898,553 $90,384,249 I359.189.s04 $102,614,142 $119,194,28 $435,185,840 $446,281 GREAT BBITAIN FROM ISSS TO ISaS. Exports. from the United Kingdom, in Averages of Three Years, from iS6o to i8g2. Returns of the United Kingdom. 1872. 1873- 1874. 1877. 1878. 1881. 1882. 1883. s 1887. IS: .8,0. X. No. 1173.095. 305 107,573,616 3,392.811 1,995,195 5.442,98s 1.995,195 7,433,233 6,830,157 $307-558,500 $160,865,096 97,690,208 2,190,638 1,857,055 5.372,473 1,857,055 9.112.825 5,210,357 $155,296,466 97,013,541 2,119,291 1,937,591 7,597,843 1,937,591 9.706,596 5,137,284 $174,650,870; $157,755,825 105,120,521 92,391,786 3,696,728 42,638 2,746,908; 2,626,781 13,016,398, 11,988,460 8,617,680: 8,500,888 11,804,221 12,383.590 $165,599,568 $161,563,805 93.901,351 97,354,460 21,068 10,532 2,133,4511 1.545,373 10,164,006' 10,000,365 11,264,336: 11,979,917 14,754,450 15,187,492 2 3 4 5 6 $284,155,707 $280,746,203 $319,653,326 $285,689,968 $297,838,230, $297,641,943 9 $32,205,003^ $24,779,491 1,303.548, 2,320,325 1,291,510; 1,105,690 1,581,1001 1,675,023 1,365,746 1,332,801 [ $22,761,703' $23,347,315 1,082,970 1,015,978 932,120 873,373 1,679,513 1,661,335 1,616,8961 1,859,558 $19,013,885 1,024,505 899,036 3^0361765 i $19,042,650; $17,418,608 1,351,675! 1,592,923 803,410 732,707 1,786,238 1,622,040 4,987,061! 5,147.498 1 10 11 12 13 14 $37,746,907' $31,213,330 $28,073,202 $28,757009 $25,667,187 $27,971,034 $26,513,777 15 $7,928,500' $7,517,768 |j,ooo,943' $3,187,318 7,117,203 5,536,410 $9,679,261 $4,353,740 5,064,295 $12,091,926 $6,159,190 6,646,316 $10,286,133 $6,116,726 4,493,183 $11,448,848 $7,415,951 5.080,408 $12,871,403 $4,432,802 4,949,398 16 17 18 $10,118,146 $8,723,728 $9,418,035 $12,805,506 $10,609,9091 $12,496,359 $9,382,200 $53,460,673 2,083,998 2,690,19s 22,837,897 19 $33,722,625 5,854,510 $33,115,698 5,718,166 $31,909,335 4,622,416 $37,688,225 4,836,668 $40,133,601 $49,379,016 2,145,115 2,613,653 2,506,246 2,707,300 40,186,090, 33.883,361 6,132,5681 6,346,326 6,766,310! 8,257,885 20 21 22 78,451,028' 46,711,555 8,325,081 4,866,025 7,870,260, 5,598,565 36,009,818 4,628,661 5.919,115 37,095,728 6,250,341 6,150,478 24 25 $134,223,5041 $96,010,009 $83,089,345 892,021,440 $97,869,930 $103,187,541 $94,619,550 26 $497,775,557! $427,620,542 $411,006,046 $465,329,757 $430,123,127, $452,942,012 $441,028,873 TABLES SHOWING FOREIGN TRADE OF Table No. 19. Schedule Showing the Exports of Domestic Productions of Ma7iufacturers of Averages of Three Years Compiled from the Board of Trade No i860. .863. list 1S65. 1866. 1869. 1870. 1871. 2 4 5 6 I Iron and Sieel: Iron - bar, angle, bolt and rod, . . . Railroad of all sorts, Iron wire, . . Iron, hoop, sheets and boiler plates, . Iron, tinned plates, . . .... Iron, cast or wrought, and all other manufactures, Steel, unwrought, ... .... Manufactures of steel, or of steel and iron combined, Total manufactures of iron and steel, Hardivare and Cutlery: Hardware and cutlery Copper Manufacture: Copper, unwrought, ingots, cakes or $10,865,183 15,221,65s 1,284,935 5,473,035 6,035,706 13,806,828 4,270,195 1,799-765 $12,226,533 8,502,495 6,756,695 15,195,265 4,346,735 2,242,451 111,597,385 22,841,565 2,112,091 9,017,956 10,082,450 14,935,201 5,333,121 2,368,763 $13,726,196 40,132,235 2,249,563 11,426,643 12,613,861 16,800,866 5.571.78s 3,027,460 9 158,757,305 116,769,408 $68,326,870 , $78,288,532 $105,548.^9 10 $17,802,945 1 $17,545,226 $19,258,953 II f3, 597. 006 3,372,135 6,526.380 4!286;43o 9,574,131 $3,307,580 6;598.'736 $4,727,665 12 13 Mixed or yellow metal 4,084,790 Total copper, 14 113,495,521 14,079,856 2,004,208 1,158,191 $17,645,574 114,337,792 115.188,353 'A Miscellaneous Metal: Fire-arms, 2,716,213 2,236,320 1,494,640 $2,735,965 2,309,726 2,298,495 1,131,426 1,297,558 $3,504,573 2,060,005 17 19 20 21 Carriages and wagons, railways, . . . Implements and tools of industry, . . Instruments and apparatus, surgical, 903,385 1,324,070 1,332,208 1,403.950 2,370,486 1,580,573 22 23 24 11 Plate and plated ware, Telegraph wire 893,080 1. 3", 750 979,210 2,648,596 531,185 912,680 898,480 1,140,595! 1,434,433 1,180,361 1.076. 7A8 983,571 8,427.966 Lead, pig, sheet and pipe, Zinc, wrought and unwrought, . . . Totsl miscellaneous metal, .... Eartlien and Oiina Ware: Earthen and chiua ware, including manufacture of clay Glass Manufacture: Glass plate, rough or silvered, . . . Glass-flint Glass-common bottles Glass— of other sorts, Total glass manufacture, 3,274.298 522,583 3,326,128 793.800 4,628,280 774,003 27 115,833,531 $16,213,848 fi7.302,759 |8,39i,o6s $29,436,094 28 16,235,701 ■ .4S6.7S8 246,916 7,081,821 $8,842,390 29 30 31 32 344,661 1,562,450 1,517,470 352.715 $457,303 1,335,990 1,791,181 413.711 $719,0.^3 1,397.386 1,642.163 569,908 33 13,145,680 $3,777,296 I3.998.185 $4,328,490 GEEAT BRITAIN FROM 1836 TO 1892. Exports. Metals, Glass, EartJmi and China Ware, from the United Kingdom, in from iS6o to i8g2. Returns of the United Kingdom. 1872. 1873- 1874. 1877. 1S78. 1879. 1880. 18S3. iS 1887. i|: No. 117,405,575 50,470,966 3.558,851 16,855,340 19,124,708 25,622,851 6,908,855 3.573.096 $10,999,091 21,703,411 3,772,438 14,816,803 16,019,043 20,049,285 4,599.991 3,836,583 $9,197,876 18,733,915 3,259,375 13,370,788 17,830,403 17,896,271 4,744,763 3,752,206 $10,577,221 30,113,215 5,430,308 18,747,283 22,517,766 21,884,646 8,836,760 4,062,481 $8,226,415 9.557,840 3,233,713 16,707,148 23,188,671 20,751,375 6,081,016 2,018,220 $7,886,238 24,363,321 3,877,291 19,157.736 27,281,811 24,065,320 8,941,731 2,697,608 $7,115,637 20,136,125 5.033.695 17,902,443 31,430,580 25,223,772 8,958,392 3.107,718 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1143,520,242 $95,796,645 $88,785,597 $122,169,680 »99, 764,398 $118,271,056 $118,908,362 9 124,052,361 118,475,618 $16,411,810 $19,574,010 $14,733,653 $15,131,250 $12,477,912 10 15,962,076 4,979,036 5.146,946 R733.27I 5.404.031 5,246,451 $5,547,808 4.775,643 5,531,353 $5,467,755 5,559.946 6,205,828 $4,646,423 4,734,988 6,035,716 ■ $7,435,500 3,357,515 4,159.990 $11,092,343 4,200,722 4.945.593 ir 12 13 $16,088,058 $15,383,753 $15,854,804 $17,233,529 $15,417,127 $14,953,005 $20,238,658 14 12,285,751 2,238,866 3.130,920 778,648 1,616,865 2,132,261 $1,980,280 1,916,561 3,896,203 758,903 1.855.605 2.059.363 $1,446,895 1,722,291 3.125.553 754.728 1,007,211 1.939.245 1,102,330 7.579,161 1,736,121 2,992,416 567,706 $1,670,981 1,850,943 3,804,046 1,262,523 3,232,410 3,111,276 1,616,293 7,106,861 2.102,013 3,010,495 571.676 $1,801,476 1,657,336 5,149.481 1,196,428 5,396.235 4,500,873 1,188,656 1,695,993 i!894!84i 2,468,355 526,928 $1,240,310 1,500,606 6,033,855 757,041 7,175,363 5,238,343 1,243.325 'SSI 1,989,505 '563^650 $1,274,320 1,217,582 5,866,563 573,532 9,383.575 6,519.388 1.478,432 1,859.903 6,576,903 2,453.668 3,672,198 838,978 it 17 iS 19 20 71 1,320,346 8,128,903 2,563,373 4,162,775 470,080 5:3lSi8 2,360,308 4,237,660 610,080 23 24 2! $28,828,788 $26,349,487 $23,973,657 $29,338,883 $34,596,392^ $35,130,039 $11,685,501 $41,715,042 $11,909,600 27 $10,349,603 $9,138,395 $9,432,820 $11,409,758 $1,250,365 1.545,988 1,750,518 661,911 $10,406,868 28 ll.313.473 1,605,393 2,164,470 996.903 $894,865 1,412,640 1,692,508 732,053 $721,673 1,198,286 1,581,331 599,406 $1,265,800 1,401,073 1,765,491 548,230 $1,277.7^ 1.325,703 2,100.821 758,526 $865,178 1. 215.952 1,941.812 917,317 29 30 31 32 $6,080,239 $4,732,066 $169,875,964 $4,100,696 $5,208,782 $4.980,594 $179,899,032 $5,462,840 $200,633,691 $4,940,259 $210,189,833 33 $228,919,291 $158,559,384 $204,934,642 TABLES SHOWINr, FOREIGN TRADE OF Table No. 20. Schedule Shoiving the Exports of Domestic Productions of Miscellaneous Manujac Co7npiled from the Board of Trade No. Articles. i860. 1861. 1862. 1863 184. 1865. 1866. I87I. Alkali . . 1 4,093,118 11,471,976 1,649833 2,259,010 1,423.756 ' 1,039.881 1,434,735 1,284,856 % 4,844,450 i3.37S.996 3.334.991 2.391.170 844.178 1,406,530 2,120.273 1,429,660 % 7,896,076 12,318,146 3,822,261 3.160,771 1.097.555 1.492.695 1,767.750 .:■.:■. % l^^l^lT^ 12,175,118 3 4 5 5,iii,o6S Books, printed, Candles of all sorts 3,377,260 825,206 6 Caoutchouc, manufacture of, Cement, ' 1,935'. 148 1,750,141 9 10 Furniture and cabinet and upholstery, . . 1,232,486 13 14 M Haberdashery and millinery, Hats of all sorts Leather, wrought, boots and shoes, .... Leather of other sorts 18,353-745 1,615.771 23,646,585 2,318.593 7,253.908 2,699,383 23,845,708 2,458,891 5,582,163 2,552.685 25,499.928 2,845.815 6,648,310 3,599.610 17 18 19 21 Oil and floor cloth 3,973928 ■ 2,988,441 Painters' colors, Paper other than hangings 3,032,510 2,247,77s 3,140.663 2,685.198 4.623 51S 3,000,875 23 24 25 26 2^ 29 Salt, 1,745.441 1,396,311 2,159,125 2.133.460 1,119,180 1.846,240 1,590,193 ;;^6^;6i 1,710,848 Soap, Stationery, other than paper, 1,181,323 1,468,761 1,860,283 1,120.121 2,530,751 f Wood and timber, manufactured, staves") i Of other sorts^ ' j 177,446,502 $81,193,216 190,635.473 GREAT BRITAIN FROM 18S6 TO 1S9S. turcsfrom the United Kingdom in Averages of Three Years, from i860 to i8g2. Returns of the United Kingdom. fi3,39o,o5i 16,251,191 8,816,968 4.504.253 1,051, 740j 4.738,4701 3.155,750 1,873,406! 1.798,6731 111,199,940, $10,637,903 $10,470,970 14,969,086 6,657,745 4.493,220 875,505 3.995.S7O 3,083,466 1,446,938 1.953,666 15,995,763 7,411,536 4,696,208 748,740 3.831.435 3,029,701 1,493,806 2,243,025! 9.191, . 6,370,320 5,740,611 700,806, 5.015. 1 10, 4,139,1" 1,998,836 3,441,765; $9,722,461 19,999.740, 4,155.465 5.717,933' 1,025,311: 4,Sii,ooi 4, 240, III 1,985,046 3,331,855 ?»,257,4. 22,640,680 3,732,638 6,193.895 1.017,611 5,565,228 5,632,375, 2,180,931 3,625,620 $10,906,694 25,056,198 2,849,592 6,671,483 1,533,500 6,134,168 5.542,617! 2,347.807 2,956,725 10 32,297,573 4,455,516 7,962,393 3,928,899 1,075.516 3.451.3601 1.501.915I 5.470.3731 4,540,170 883,1301 3,307,696; 3.571,663 1,311, 19S 1,375,131! 3;37o,275 5,469,830, 1.769,738 20,835,493 5.256,183 7,096,366 3.754.634 1,099,216 3.386.363 1,746,430 5,806,788 4.499.593; i,.So8,62i 3,035.4911 i,36o,.'>68 1,648,855 3.339,5231 6,759.078: 1,664,036 18,871,696; 5,008,105' 6,515.408 3.742.568,, 938,780 3.961.613, 1,950,266 5.548,748 4,911,300, 1,313.735 2,764,460 3.620,693 3.139.2851 2,130,280' 3.395.726; 5,503.601; 2,026,755 445,763: 1,091,970; 20,548,743' 5,962,505 8,312,965, 4,497,663 1,176,918' 4,661,178 2,662,518^ 6,370,010, 6,388,081 1,432.963 2,999,270 4,003,496 3,970,433 2,176,533 4,271.451 5,886,045; 2,470,110 2,152,231! 5io,4b5 1,203.260 12,092,180' 5.582,928: 7,921,628 3,463.585 1,157,176 4,250,203 3,225,640 6,304,785 6,930,855 1,443,383 3,119,876! 2,434,396, 2,562,085 2,444,651 4,257,273 4,133,675 2,693,801 1,990,623 1141,322,878 $124,262,781 $125,397,796 $148,550,013! $132,711,412 $139,918,242 $146,997,755 781,068 1,263,433 11,535,553' 6,197,710 8,896,650 4,330,578 974,761! 4,621,086 3.751.363 7.257.420 7,683.091 1.339.056 2.582,1481 2,355.155 2,455,575 2,396,846 4,508,886 2,648,283; 3,137,986 2,375,178 866,702' II 1,338,857, 12 9,784,720' 13 6,272,168, 14 9,179,062! 15 3,600,234 16 1,011,363 17 5,211,743 18 3,883,862 19 7,866,582 20 7,508,987 21 1,624,828 22 2,9.%, 568 23 2,703,530 24 1 570,702 25 2,891,688 26 4,585,400 27 2,852,678, 28 2,966,7251 29 2,367,238, 30 TABLES SHOWING FOREIGN TRADE OF Table No. 21. Schedule Showhig the Exports of Domestic Productiojis of Partly Manufactured Years, from Compiled from the Board of Trade 1S63. I 1864. ' 1865. Bleaching and Raw Materials: Bleaching materials, Chemical products and dye stuffs, . . Clay, unmanufactured Coal, including cinders and fuel, . . . Products of coal (except dyes), . . . Cotton yarn, Leather, Linen yarn Jute yarn, Macliiner_v, steam engines Of other sorts, Metals: Iron, old, for re-manufacture, Metals: Iron, pig and puddled, . . . Metals: Tin, unwrought, Oil seed, Rag, and other materials for paper, . Silk, thrown and twisted and yarn. Yarn, alpaca and mohair, and other sorts unenumerated, Wool, sheep's and lambs', Wool, flocks and ragwool, Wool, foreign, dressed in the United Kingdom Wool noils 1868! {3,656,303 {3,124,763 18,037,536 I 20, 42,276,460 1,950,665 8,793,231 453,195 6,868,955 13,371,318 252,018 5,370,016 1,963,500 5.323,553 45,815,1731 2,053,1461 13,429,490 I 585,436 I 8,617,810 15,447,585 140,223 7,166,351 t 2,479,673 6,348,885 $4,876,170 16,601,368 930 1 26,908,941 I 28,416,953 72, 5,786 '619^628 9,185,778 14,909,356 1,058,220 7,950,540 1,905,355 6,343.116 4,734,836 I 4,054,183 Wool waste, Wool, combed or carded, and tops, Woolen and worsted yarn, . . . . 4,627,916 3,772,343 17,610,551 , 25,273,493 ,354,651 73,046,313 4,588,165 11,312,848 975,355 9,855.510 17,441,550 2,769,351 12,522,543 3,310,010 6,838,031 5,957,021 27,482,5951 27,722,123 To tal, {1 35,290, 053 '{1 59.091,4 84 {196,020,1 15 |f2i5,243,o2i Table No. 22. Schedtde Showing the Exports of Miscellajteous Domestic Products from Compiled from the Board of Trade No. i860. 1861. 1862. .set 1866. I Food Products: Animals and horses 11,184,670 8,125,005 &, 143.538 9.414.751 {908,818 9.729,310 11,107,425 9,380,203 3 4 I 2,464,630 629,018 1,745.350 JC^;ii6 2,799,671 251,515 62,831 1,345.596 2,524,353 '■^6l?;?^8 883,970 88,278 1,868,226 3,157,783 527,211 Corn: Wheat 7 8 Corn: Other kinds, 2,495,8^6 9 Fish and herrings 3,690,428 1 . . . 12 13 14 15 Pickles, vinegar and sauce Provisions not otherwise described, . as?^ 3,085', 141 2,137,033 2,983.086 'd^X Spirits, Total ,. . 2,128,225 2,001,183 804,875 989,690 124,538.669 {24,382,705 {24,720,927 131,602,579^ GREAT BRITAIN FROM 1SS6 TO Exports. Articles, Machinery and Coal, from the United Kingdom, in Averages of Three i860 to i8g2. Returns of the United Kifigdom. iS-' i877- 1878, J881. 1884. .887. 1890. ■S73. 1874. ;ii?; 1S82 1883. Isi: 1S89. 1S91. Wo. 11,823,271 11,671,156 $1,722,125 11,964.845 $2,785,675 $2,952,758 $2,711,900 I 9,602,468 10,092,686 10,523,388 11,511,156 10,024,396 12,279,578 14,677,697 2 971.540 48,327,475 948,305 52,202,698 1,194,915 60,495,466 1,448,273 3 91,210,175 4 59.359.085 44,011.728 38,183,676 1,960,705 2.351,955 2,386,111 3.941.453 4,247.568 4.571,391 7,194,773 5 78.517,151 63,579.245 61,709,900 65,899,166 61,942,935 57,914,271 55,353,343 6 5,982,088 6,453,518 6,395.615 7,579,018 7,902,003 6,748,600 6,662,832 7 9,706,885 7,661,543 5,445.516 5.255,150 5,095,833 4,460,681 4,425.935 8 1,189,240 1,024,020 1,325,841 1,436,446 1.516,460 1,690,455 9 14,630,496 10,982,190 12,320,815 18,367,110 18,193,551 16,786,573 19,307,577 10 32,056,095 27,337.711 27,746,985 40,508,786 38,968,401 48,828,485 57,551,643 II 2,i6S,6o8 499.336 3,483.913 2,222,005 1,455,578 2,761,518 1,97^,680 12 29,173,916 14,701,675 18,065,350 21,907,361 12,154,226 13,219,271 12,798,133 13 4,079,816 2,196,158 2,101,301 2,606,853 2,256,121 2,937,316 2,564,883 14 7,565.510 ■9,228,705 8,247,688 7,922,323 7,671,845 7,753,586 7,262,595 15 1,963,858 1,659,118 2,381,185 2,654,775 2,279,960 2,311,733 1,936,137 16 7,657.971 3,239.320 4,232,781 2,376,351 2,229,351 2,194,825 17 4,265,591 6,287,600 5,373,936 5,877,588 18 3,617,563 3,986,176 4,460,356 4,668,848 4,487,501 4.839.336 3,653,127 19 2,331,671 1,589,205 2,069,845 1,841,893 • . • 1,316,213 2,829,496 5,328,268 21 3,276,850 22 584,275 2,852,322 23 24 28,436,985 21,876,673 18,278,820 16,484,715 21,140,248 20,605,183 20,094,812 25 $299,491,711 5233,627,361 :|227,7i6,o85 ;|276,264,67o $268,275,942 ^287,222, 189 $335,025,978 Exports. the United Kifigdom, iti Averages of Three Years, from i860 to i8g2. Returtis of the United Kingdom. 1872 1875. 1878. 1881. 1884. 1887. ,890. 1873. .8?6. 1879. 1882. Jill: 1891. No. 1874- 1889. 1892. $938,045 $1,042,831 $1,351,940 $1,997,023 9,027,818 $1,978,943 $3,967,196 12,960,628 11,549,141 9,865.071 8,749,213 8,116,801 8,736,123 8,701,565 2 1.655,680 1.957,983 2,522,450 3.096,631 2,673,225 2,803,803 3,095,650 3 1.384,143 1.164,588 1,133,868 1,061,821 905,398 747,070 575,977 4 408,346 380,118 286,305 292,483 273,030 261,138 232,027 5 2,218,203 720,981 1,776,223 608,358 147,551 170,493 281,360 b 272,433 109,411 250,505 337,858 316,335 487,956 607,113 7 1.514,353 1,654,723 1,480,496 1,762,861 1,335,283 1,249,085 5.225.656 4,575.710 5,690,321 6,715.448 7,386,776 5,649,315 6.243.853 9 1,774.485 1,882,060 2,269,978 2,841,847 10 3,324,123 4,205,865 5,097,618 10,041,160 9,071,995 9,233,540 10,536,390 II 3,039.528 3.093.743 3.323,971 .5,646,460 6,429,918 6,469,870 6,800,467 12 3,792,480 3,635,146 4,723,298 4,914,521 4,455,996 4,824,053 1,049,418 4,292,280 13 1,406,931 1,023,178 1.265,945 14 982,696 1,610,618 2,318,700 3,931,263 4,307,476 5,676,671 6,564,768 15 $36,314,827 $34,016,788 J_37,704,90l _$52,6i5,i2i J50,303,965 $53,6i5,709_ 156,289,007 PART V. PROTECTION TO NATIVE INDUSTRIES IN THE CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. CHAPTER I. Protection in the German Empire. One thing is clear, that, through the widely open doors of its import trade the German market has become the mere storage-space for the over-production of other countries. We must, therefore, shut our gates and take care that the German market, which is now being monopolized by foreign wares, shall be reserved for native industry. Countries which are euclosed have become great, and those which have remained open have fallen behind. Were the perils of pro- tectionism really so great as sometimes painted, France would long ago have been ruined, instead of which she was more prosperous after paying the five milliards than Germany is to-day. And protectionist Russia, too — look at her marvelous prosperity! . . . The question before us is not a political, but a financial one, and we should put all personal sensibility aside. — Prince Bismarck, speech hefoir llie Reichstag, May z, iSy^. The German Empire was organized in 1871, by a political union of Prussia and the German States of Central Europe. By the census of 1890 it had a population of 49,428,470. The area of the Empire is 212,000 square miles. It is larger than all of New England, New York, Peiuisyl- vania. New Jersej^ and Ohio combined. "Germany," says Frederick List, "owes her first progress in manu- factures to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and to the numerous refugees who brought with them the manufactures of woolens, silks, glass, china, gloves, jewelry and many other articles." The Protestant refugees who were driven out of France and Belgium by the religious pensecutions of Louis XIV. and the King of Spain, fled not only to England but to various parts of the Continent. In Prussia they were welcomed by the government, and encouraged to set up their industries and given the patronage and support of the king. It was not alone their coming but the conditions luider which they remained that made the settlement of these refugee artisans an important event in the com- mercial history of these countries. (404) PROTECTION IN THE GEE3IAN EMPIRE. The foundations for the present economic polic)' of the German Em- pire were laid by Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, in the latter part of the eighteenth century. From 1746 to 1786 Prussia was raised by the military genius and statesmanship of this great ruler, to one of the first places among the nations of the time. The economic policy pursued by Frederick the Great, embraced all the features of the mercantile system, duties were levied on imports, premiums and bounties were given to encourage exports and special privileges were granted to individuals to encourage and promote manufacturing. After his wars of conquest were brought to a close, he turned his attention to the improvement of indus- tries and the amelioration of the condition of the rural population. The landed proprietors, and especially those of Silesia, who had been ruined by the wars, were given assistance in the way of loans from a bank estab- lished in 1769, by which they were enabled to provide themselves with agricultural implements, purchase stock and repair their lost fortunes. "The success of this bank," says Mr. Macgregor, "having surpassed all calculations, the inhabitants of other provinces solicited and obtained similar institutions of credit to that of Silesia." Banks were also established for Brandenburg, Pomerania, Western Prussia, Eastern Prussia and the Grand Duchy of Posen. To encourage industry, develop the resources of the country and direct the labor of his people into various new and profitable occupations, were the chief pur- poses Frederick had in view. His economic policy differed from that which generally prevailed throughout Germany and in many parts of Europe, in that the import duties and taxes were not imposed for the purpose of revenue so much as to foster and encourage industry. Another writer gives the following description of the economic policy advocated and practiced by Prussian sovereigns: From the earliest times the electors of Brandenburg devoted especial attention to the economic welfare of their people. This is particularly true of the great elector whose wise policy in offering an asylum to the Huguenots greatly promoted industrial prosperity. Frederick the Great was another German sovereign who bestowed much care on the economic condition of his subjects. By all available means he promoted agriculture and fostered trade with most successful results. It was ju.st as the benefits of this policy began to appear in the improved and thriving condition of the Prussians that all Europe became involved in the Napoleonic wars, which continued until 18 15. It can scarcely be said that the policy pursued by the German States is worthy to be called an economic policy. The numerous small States con- trolled by despotic forms of government perpetuating the system of feud- alism, maintaining their royal household at a great expense, living in constant jealousy and perpetual strife, subjected trade and commerce to a system of taxation through tolls and duties, which having for its purpose more the raising of revenue for the royal treasuries than the encouragement mOTECriON IK CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. of industry, gave little opportunit)- to iniprovenieiit in industrial pursuits; although in certain localities, such as in the kingdom of Sax- ony, owiug to the settlement of the Huguenots, manufacturing had gained a foothold and made considerable progress. Yet, in the main, the Ger- man States, up to the Napoleonic wars, were almost exclusively agricul- tural regions. Beyond that system of domestic production carried on in the households, and the occupations of smiths and mechanics, and small seats of manufacturing, the fabrication of cloth and working of metals, were carried on to only a small extent. The effect of the Napoleonic wars on the industrial and commercial life of the German States and Prussia was most ruinous. Lying between France, Austria and the Russian frontier, they became the battle-ground during this great struggle, for the contending hosts of Napoleon, Russia and Austria. Through the Continental policy of Napoleon their markets were open to the competition of French goods, while they were compelled to pay tribute to the support of French armies and subjected to the most oppressive and burdensome taxation. Mr. Yeats, after speaking of the industrial depression during these wars, points out that on the final overthrow of Napoleon a busy traffic at once began, but the German pro ducer was seriously impeded by the presence of strong rivals in his former markets. British manufactures, which had improved in quality and diminished in cost, were the chief source of alarm to the forced manufactures of Germany. English cotton goods, in particular, gave no chance to those of the Germans, but the Ger- man woolens were of such good quality that they were better able to withstand competition. Manufactures of metals were wholly unable to hold their own against the influx of hardware and metals from England and Belgium. In the war Prussia had been the chief sufferer, and after the peace her industry was benefited more than that of any other State. There had been no embargo under the French rule upon inland intercourse, and France, commanding the trade of every state, had suffered comparatively little; the embargo was solely upon the ports. The problem for statesmen at this juncture was what policy to pursue to keep up the prosperity of their respective countries in the presence of industries sinking and dying, through the superior facilities of production enjoyed by England. ' Henry C. Carey (in a passage already quoted), speaks of the Con- tinental system of Napoleon as marking "the commencement of the for- ward progress of every kind of manufacture in Germany. ' ' The exclusion of British competition at the cljoseof the war, taking into consideration her pre-eminence in manufacturing and her ability to destroy rival industries on the Continent, was made necessary in order that the home trade of the German States might be preser\'ed and that their indu.stries might live. Mr. Yeats confirms the view taken by protectionist writers, of the effect of British competition on the indu-stries of the country at the close of the ' Receut and Existing Commerce, pp. 216, 217, 21S. PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE. war. He concedes that the produce of Germauj' had been superseded by foreign-made wares and that they had been driven not only out of their home trade, but out of foreign trade as well. Their business relations had been broken up. Although he suggests that notwithstanding that England had monopolized and taken possession of their home market and driven them out of every quarter where they had hitherto traded, yet that Cuba, Hayti, Brazil and the Spanish Republics of South America were left open to them ; that is, they had been robbed of their own market, the best which they could possess, and were now offered the markets named. This will remind the reader of the encouragement which free traders to-day are giving American manufacturers in capturing the market of Africa, after surrendering the markets of the United States to British manufacturers. This was the situation which confronted Prussia and the German States after the battle of Waterloo. The superior machinery, abundant capital and vast wealth. of England had given her such pre-eminence and such advantages in production, that every effort at building up rival indus- tries in Central Europe under free competition could be suppressed. The>- must either consent to confine themselves to rural pursuits and the pro- duction of a few raw materials and remain poor, or resort to the only measure through which such competition could be resisted and the life of their own industries preserved. Free trade would not only keep them poor in industries, but would constantly drain their country of precious metals and prevent that accumulation of wealth through which the devas- tation of the war could be repaired and their political and commercial greatness secured. "The balance of trade," says Yeats, "against Germany during the French revolutionary period was considerable. From England alone the imports of the year 1795-97 were at the mean rate of ^^7, 000,000 sterling against ^4,250,000 of exports. A disparity of this kind would be rectified by the outflow of specie Germany, not being a gold-producing country, would have been rapidly impover ished by such a circumstance, and trade would have tended to balance itself by a diminution of imports. ' ' Burdened with debt, distracted and impoverished by the long and disastrous struggle which had just closed, Prussia and the German States entered immediately upon the work of repairing their lost fortunes, and advancing their commercial and industrial interests. This could not be accomplished with open ports. Their industries could not make headway against that inundation of foreign wares which was taking place. The vast quantities of goods which were so suddenly thrust upon them at the close of the Napoleonic wars, proved the superior advantages possessed by England through her new inventions and machinery, and the inefiiciency of moderate duties to shield the industries of the country from attack under the new conditions. So long as the system of hand- workmanship prevailed PBOTECTION IN COXTINf.NTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. alike in England and on the Continent, the cost of transportation was so great, especially from England to the interior of Europe, by rivers and overland carriage, that a degree of natural protection was thus afforded, which with low import duties would give adequate protection in the home market. Another phase of production as then carried on in England, made protection more necessary. The factory system had been intro- duced, larger establishments were carried on, supported by vast capital and facilities for the making and accumulation of large stocks of goods, hich could be used as a weapon of commercial warfare by being in vast quantities suddenly offered for sale at low prices in competition with home producers, for the purpose of working the ruin of manufacturers, dis- couraging capitalists from entering the field as competing producers, and thus checking the growth of industries in all places which could be reached by British wares. The competition waged by English manu- facturers did not stop with the efforts exerted by single concerns in this direction, but combinations were effected among all of the manufacturers in a particular line of production, who by concerted action made the sup- pression of rival industries a part of their commercial policy. As has already been pointed out upon the adoption of the first tariff law in the United States, in 1792, the merchants of Manchester contributed $250,- 000 to be invested in goods, to be sold in the markets of the United States at low prices, or to be given awaj-, if necessary, in order to dis- courage the investment of capital in manufacturing. It is this species of commercial warfare, engaged in by powerful producers which has made a system of protective tariffs an essential part of the economic policy of all well-regulated States where its producers from any cause are attempt- ing to carry on manufacturing under disadvantages. With these economic conditions prevailing and the ruin and suppression of their indu.stries actually being effected, Prussia and the other German States were at once driven to adopt methods for the protection of their own people. The effort on the part of certain free trade writers to show that the regulations resorted to, the custom barriers put up, and even the commercial union effected between Prussia and the German States, were brought about by political rather than commercial reasons, is futile. Prussia took the lead in 1818 by adopting a vigorous policy of protection. The purpose of such legislation is definitely stated in the tariff law of May 26, 1S18, as follows ; • "The duties shall, by an expedient taxation of foreign trade and of consumption of foreign goods, afford protection to home industry, and secure to the State the revenue which trade and luxury can yield without obstructing commerce." The principles involved in this legi.slation were more in harmony with the modern ideas of protection than the methods resorted to by Frederick the Great and the old Prussian sovereigns. State monopolies were abandoned, with the exception of salt and playing cards. The PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE. conferring of special privileges upon individuals was discontiniied, and prohibitions to sustain such monopolies ceased. The equal right was accorded to every citizen to engage in industries. The policy of admitting raw materials free which had been practiced by Frederick the Great, was continued. Small duties were levied on partly manufactured articles and adequate protection was extended to finished products. By the edict of November 2, 18 10, the right was conferred upon every citizen to exercise his free choice of an occupation. The interference of the State in the control of industries and the direction of the labor and energy of citizens was abandoned. The repudiation of many of the old practices of the mercantile system by the Prussians in 1818, and by theZoUverein later, is frequently referred to by certain economic writers as a tendency toward free trade and an indication of the growth of a free trade sentiment in Germany; when as a matter of fact the old practice of imposing duties on exports, of grant- ing special monopolies to individuals, etc., has never been favored by economists and .statesmen of the protectionist school. Instead of measur- ing the economic thought of the time by the legislation which was actually effected, the free trader judges of it by the abandonment of certain prac- tices which have been no more condemned by free traders than by protec- tionists. As will be shown later, the fiscal policy pursued by nations prior to the latter part of the eighteenth century, although it embodied many of the essential principles of protection, contained certain features which were subsequently considered objectionable. These were the means resorted to for raising revenues, the retaliations against other States, and the granting of monopolies all of which were abandoned by the protectionist party, only those features being preserved which were proven by experience to have been wise and beneficial to the people. That there was a marked improvement in the economic thought of Germany, Prussia, and all commercial nations during the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth centuries is unquestioned. But it was a tendency toward the distinctive features of the policy of protection, or the "American System," as it is now called, rather than toward free trade. The protection of home industries and a preser\^ation of the home market for home producers, was the essential purpose in view. Before the Napoleonic wars a translation of Smith's "Wealth of Nations," by Christian Garve, was placed in all the public libraries and in the hands of the educated classes. The teachings of Adam Smith exerted an influence in modifying some of the old notions of the mercantile system as practiced by the Great Elector. These modi- fications and a conformity to sound protectionist principles, were dis- tinctive features of the law of 18 18. There is so much in the "Wealth of Nations" approving the idea of the advantages of home trade over foreign trade, and the benefits of domestic industries, that an out and out free PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. trade sentiment could not become fixed even in the minds of all those who read and became disciples of Adam Smith. The efforts of Kraiis, Pro- fessor of Political Economy at the Universitj^ of Konigsberg, to form a free trade party failed, although his writings were instrumental in expos- ing many of the errors of the old policy. The advantage of specifi>c over ad valorem duties is nowhere better illustrated than in the expression of Julius Faucher, a disciple of Cobden, who, in discussing the features of the Prussian tariff of 1818, said: "It was hoped (by free traders) that the maximum rate of 10 per cent ad valorem would not leave a sufficient margin for protection to breed unhealthy branches of industry in the country.'" It, however, did not meet the expectations of those free traders who aided in arranging the schedules, and as they supposed had got the rate of duty down so low that imports would thereby be encouraged, and protection defeated. He said further: The Prussian tariff legislation of 1819 would have been quite adapted to form the nucleus of a general European tariff reform, had it not been for an uninten- tional consequence of the otherwise excellent method adopted in iixing the posi- tions of the tariff. They had, namely, been fixed exclusively by measure, number or weiglit, and not ad valorem, which definition ivas applied to the maximum rate, but nowhere else.^ So it appears 'that as early as this, when the Prussian Chancellor, Prince Hardenburg, was attempting to build up the industries of his country and restore its prosperity, that this end would have been defeated had the duties been made ad valorem, instead of specific as they were. The policy resorted to by the German States is described by Mr. Dawson, as follows: The country being divided into a great number of States, each with its own laws and customs, national action in the domain of economics was impossible. What actually existed was a system of mutual destruction. Each State believed that its commercial prosperity required the adoption of stringent protective meas- ures against its neighbors. High and often insurmountable customs barriers divided populations whose interests were in reality identical. Not only were duties imposed on imports, but prohibitive imposts frequently prevented the pos- sibility of exportation. All countries suffered by this international war of tariffs. - This narrow and unwise policy through the restrictions imposed upon each German State, while it encouraged a certain degree of indus- trial life in .small localities and .shielded them from attack, in the main proved a detriment and hindrance to general trade and was unsuited to the resources and conditions of the people. The benefits to be derived from a broader and more enlightened policy, were readily understood and an agitation was soon begun, largely through the efforts of Frederick List, then professor of Political Economy in the University of Tiibingen, ' Cobden Club Essays, 1871-72, pp. 271-272. = Bismarck and State Socialism, p. 20. PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE. for reciprocit}- in trade between the States and protection against foreign competition. The connnercial and industrial advantages which would arise from an exchange of commodities between the people of the German States was fully considered, and the policy of removing the custom houses to the frontier, and welding the peoples so similarly situated and having identical interests, into a commercial league, grew in favor until the pub- lic sentiment became ripe for its execution. "Volumes were written," says Macgregor, "on the subject, the public press and the ablest political economists were especially engaged in the patriotic service." ' Prussia, which took the lead, followed her tariff law of 1818, by an arrangement perfected in 18 19 with Mecklenburg, Saxe-Weimar, and other States, by which her tariff system became extended over their terri- tories. The persistent efforts of Prussia in this direction finally resulted in a union with all of the German States. On the twenty-.second of March, 1833, the Kingdoms of Prussia, Bavaria, Wiirtemberg, and Sax- ony, with Hesse-Darmstadt and Hesse-Cassel, formed an agreement called the Zollverein, or Union of Customs. The revenues were to be divided among the States in proportion to the number of their inhabitants. The other German States, with the exception of Baden, Nassau, and Frank- fort gave their consent May 1 1 , of the same year. Nassau and Baden signed the agreement May 12, 1835, and Frankfort in 1836. In 1841 Brunswick, and in 1S42 Luxembourg completed the league. The cities of Hamburg and Bremen, exercising rights as free cities under their ancient charters, refused to enter the union ; even under the Constitution of the Empire, in 1871, they were exempt from its customs regulations and remained open ports, and not until very recently did they enter the Zoll- verein. The apportionments of the customs revenue among the States were fixed by a congress of the union held at Munich, in the summer of 1836. The tariff law enacted by Prussia in 18 18 was taken as a basis for the union. Changes in the schedule of duties were left to be fixed by a congress of representatives appointed from the States. The governments represented in the Zollverein congress reserved the right of veto upon its acts. The Zollverein parliament continued in charge of the tariff regu lations of the union until the adoption of the Constitution for the Empire in 187 1, when its functions were vested in the Reichstag of the Empire. The steps taken by the Zollverein congress during the years immediately following its e.stablishment, to improve the tariff schedules and to adjust them so as to promote the industrial welfare of the State, disclose the definite policy of protection which was being pursued. The duties on cotton goods were materially increased in 1843 and 1845. Before 1850 the duty on cotton yarn had been increased as much as 50 per cent ; I Commercial Statistics. Vol. I., p. 486. PROTECTION IK CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. linen, 200 per cent; on linen manufactures, 100 per cent; and thread and lace, g% per cent. In 1844 there was an increase in the duty on iron. The average rate under the Act of 18 18 on importation was 12 per cent, while by 1841 Professor List estimated the duties on manufactured goods at from 20 to 60 per cent. That these duties were unsatisfactory to the English mauufacturers, and afforded adequate protection to the coarser articles of more common use, is shown by the criticism made bj' Mr. Macgregor in 1845. He said: The rates of duty are certainly not to be defended ; they are unjust, as not bear- ing a relative proportion to the value of the articles upon which the duties are imposed. They levy the same duties on 100 pounds of coarse unbleached calicoes as upon the same weight of the finest sheetings and cambrics; and on 100 pounds of the coarsest woolen flannels and blankets as on an equal weight of the finest kerseymeres and broadcloths; the duties on woven goods, instead of being as pro- mulgated publicly, at from 10 to 15 per cent on the value, range from 10 to 95 per cent on the value. There is, however, one great virtue in levying the duties, as rated in the Prussian tariff, by weight: that is, the discouragement to smuggling; from the circumstance that the more valuable and light the article is, the duty becomes so low in proportion that there is not sufficient temptation to encounter the risk and the penalties of contraband trade. ' But while the duties imposed afforded protection to the manufacture of these coarser wares, the extensive production of finer fabrics and a greater variety of articles was not commenced until recent j-ears, when a more vigorous system of protection was introduced under the leadership of Bismarck. Considering the economic conditions which prevailed during the fifty years following the Napoleonic wars, and the habits, customs, and pursuits of the people, the results which followed the tariff policy were most gratifying. They afford a vindication of those economic principles through which a State seeks to elevate the masses, strengthen and build up its industries, and make its people prosperous and progressive, by leg- islative discrimination in favor of home producers against foreign rivals. The German people in the main, since the close of the Dark Ages have been devoted to rural pursuits. The feudal system which prevailed tended to continue the large land-owners and barons in power, while the masses were bound to a condition bordering on .serfage. The capital of the country was largely tied up in vast landed estates. A sufficient number had not yet turned their attention to manufacturing, trade and commerce to accumulate any considerable degree of wealth to be invested in busi- ness enterprises; besides, the character of the German is such that he is .slow to change his occupation and turn his energies into new and untried pursuits. The exhausted condition of the country at the close of the Napoleonic wars was another hindrance to a rapid industrial develop- ment. It required some years before the energies of this people would 1 Coniniercial Statistics, Vol. I., p. 547. PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN E3IPIRE. become sufficient!}- aroused to make them capable of engaging in manu- facturing on a large scale. Again, the introduction of textile machinery was necessarilj- slow, because it was largely invented by the English peo- ple and its exportation was prohibited until 1845. The period between 1815 and i860 was, however, one of great transformation and improve- ment, not only in industries, trade and commerce, but in the social and political conditions of the people. The system of education so vigorously enforced by the government has so reduced the percentage of illiteracy that the universal education of the masses has become one of the distin- guishing features of the people. The great universities and seats of learn- ing are, perhaps, more advanced than in any other nation, in the departments of scientific and technical information. The establish- ment of free land tenures and the extension of the right of suffrage, and democratic institutions indicate a regard for the welfare of the masses, which would naturally be expected to be found in a nation practicing the policy of protection to home industries. The spirit of nationality and the powerful political empire are among the fruits of the Zollverein. Numerous authorities might be quoted to show the industrial pros- perity and benefits which followed the establishment of protection for the German States. It is not, however, necessary to give much space to a fact of this character which is so universally conceded. Mr. Yeats, an eminent English authorit}^ on commercial subjects, in speaking of the beneficent influence of such legislation, said: The Zollvereiu, according to the census of 1867, comprises a territory of more than ninety thousand geographical square miles, with a population computed at over thirty-eight millions. Since the realization of commercial freedom, Ger- man industry has increased in an unprecedented degree, and to a certain extent competes successfully with that of Great Britain. The character of the foreign commerce of Germany has entirely changed. Instead of exporting raw materials only she sends out the products of her own manu- facturing industry, creating a market abroad which keeps her actively employed at home. The German woolen manufacture has recovered the ground lost in the Middle Ages, and its fabrics at present form a chief part of the Zollverein exports. The manufacture of cotton and silk has made equal progress, although the materials have to be imported. The linen trade has not yet been able to compete with that of England, but in steel and iron goods, in glass, paper and silk manufactures, in pottery, stoneware and porcelain, in chemicals, the refining of sugar and beer, Germany abundantly supplies her own wants and yet reserves a surplus for foreign interchange. The mercantile marine in 187 1 consisted of five thousand one hun- dred and ten vessels, whose burden was about 1,300,000 tons, which was half as much again as the tonnage of the French merchant navy.' The abandonment of the policy of protection in England in 1S46, of itself had a great influence on the economic thought of all nations. That ^ Recent and Existing Commerce, p. 325. PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. the greatest manufacturing and commercial nation in Christendom should discard a policy which it had pursued for three centuries and under which it had incurred the jealousy and hostility of the world, and go to the full length of opening its ports to the free admission of the produce of all nations, could but arrest the attention of economists and statesmen of all countries. Mr. Cobden had scarcely completed the work in England, before he made a tour of the Continent for the purpose of forming a free trade party in the .several countries, to aid in the establishment of uni- versal free trade, which was the great end which the members of the Anti- Corn L,aw League had in view. In Germany he found a group of free traders who were ready to lend their assistance to his project. The old Prussian free traders, who had opposed the formation of the Zollverein and the protectionist principles which were embodied in the legislation immediately following the battle of Waterloo, had died off. It was to new men that the free trade party in England must look for help. The name of Cobden had been so associated with the free trade movement in Eng- land, the liberal features and alleged advantages of free trade to all coun- tries had been so heralded throughout the world and .so well advertised by English .statesmen and writers, that Mr. Cobden became the centre of attraction and an object of curiosity wherever he went on his tour.. He was given a reception at Berlin and Stettin. When he left for Russia he stated to Julius Faucher, "Always rely upon the men who keep accounts at double entry, and the best allies are those who have the best name on 'Change. All will go well. ' ' Just what Mr. Cobden meant by this expres- sion might be viewed in several ways, but he undoubtedly had in mind the principle upon which the Anti-Corn Law League so much relied, of placing persons of wealth in control and directing legislation more exclu- sively to promote their intere.sts. From the time of Cobden's visit to Germany, the agitation in favor of free trade constantly increased, until many of the leading and most influential statesmen had been converted to its principles, and those offices which controlled and directed commercial affairs became filled with free traders. As the agitation in Germany progres.sed, constant correspondence was carried on between its leaders and Mr. Cobden until his death. The advocates of free trade formed what was styled a Congress of Political Economists. Of this body Julius Faucher says that it " contributed more to shape the law of the Empire as it now is (1871) than all the Landtags and Chambers of Germany put together. ' ' ' Its plan of campaign was to win over adherents in the localities where the chief industries were carried on, by inviting manufacturers and business men to meet in open discu.ssion. At these meetings the free trade disputants, who for a j'ear had been preparing .statistics, studying their dogmas and developing fine-spun theories, suddenly ' Cobden Club Essays, 1871-72, pp. 288, 289. PEOTECTIOX /iV THE GERMAN E3IPIRE. sprang them upon the busy manufacturer, with telling effect. One familiar with the so-called scientific literature studied by the profes- sional free trade agitator, can form something of an idea of the arguments used to overthrow the policy of protection in Germany. The system of pro- tection was then in vogue. The generation to whom their arguments were addressed had grown up since those disastrous years when the coun- try was flooded with British wares. Besides, the policy of free trade had not been put into 'practice by any nation a sufficient length of time to show results one way or the other. Prophecies were cheap. They were undoubtedly liberally indulged in as they had been on all similar occa- sions, to show what would happen and how the country would pro.sper under free trade. Appeals to prejudices, expressions in favor of personal liberty and individual rights, would fully accord with the democratic spirit which had taken such a strong hold on the German people. While the manufacturers were too busy to expose the sophistry of the free trade economists, their own experience was sufficient to satisfy them of the errors involved in the scheme and the results which would follow an inun- dation of their country with British wares. But the work went on, until finally the policy of protection was overthrown by a band of theorists who were being supplied with arguments and sophistry from Manchester. The first successful attack on the tariff schedules of the Zollverein came in 1865, when many old duties were reduced and others repealed. This was but a skirmish line of the battle yet to come. Herr Delbriick and Count Bernstorf, Minister of Foreign Affairs, were active in support of the free trade measures. The next step toward free trade was the Commercial Treaty with Austria in 1868, through which import duties were greatly reduced. Still further reductions were made in 1868, 1869, 1870, 1873, and by 1877 the tariff regulations had been swept away and the German Empire had passed to a free trade policy. There was not the slightest occasion for this assault on the economic policy of the country, to be found either in the condition of the foreign trade, the home trade or the development of the industries of the country. It was a raid started and pressed to a successful issue by men inexperi- enced in business, by dogmatic and speculative reasoners. The benefits which they claimed would arise from a free trade policy rested wholly on prophecy ; beside which they were doing the bidding of Cobden and his associates and acting under a close alliance with the British free traders of Manchester. As will appear later, they took advantage of political conditions which were favorable to the enforcement of their notions The statesmen of the country were occupied with the great problem of political union and the establishment of an empire. Under these cir cumstances the allies of Great Britain were forcing themselves into the control of the economic affairs of the nation. PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. The free trade policy of Germauy was of short duration. The men who made it possible soon ceased to exercise influence in the affairs of the nation, and a protectionist reaction set in, which swept away every vestige of free trade and gave to the people more adequate protection than they had ever enjoyed. The one man who is entitled above all others to the credit of returning to a sound economic policy is Prince Bismarck, the most prominent character in German politics, whose great energies shortly after the formation of the ZoUverein, had been centred in military affairs and in uniting all of the German States with his own country (Prus- sia) into a political union. A statesman of pre-eminent ability exhibited as member of the Prussian parliament and as minister to Russia and France, with years of ripened experience, Bismarck was fully equipped for the great duties of Prime Minister which naturally and logicallj' fell to him upon the establishment of the Empire. The rivalry between Austria and Prussia may be traced back to the time of Frederick the Great. The Prussian statesmen early conceived the idea of extending their empire and uniting with it the smaller kingdoms and .states of Germany. The formation of the ZoUverein was one of the first steps in this direc- tion. Au.strian statesmen not only saw the advantage of this policy, but jealous of the rising powers of their old rival, sought to gain admission to the union. This was opposed by Prussia. Early in the fifties, William I. and Bismarck entered upon a policy of strengthening and disciplining the Prussian army. Although meeting with many difficulties in obtaining appropriations for that purpose in time of peace, their efforts were so successful that by 1866, after having some experience in the Danish wars, they felt that they were able to crush Austria, gain favor with the Ger- man States and consummate their great purpose. In 1866 Austria was invaded with an army of 250,000 men. The Austrians were routed and crushed at Sadowa, one of the greatest battles of modern times. The discipline of the soldiers, the superior gen- eralship displayed by the Prussians, awakened the world to the fact that some mighty intellects were controlling the destiny of Prussia and direct- ing her affairs. King William, Bismarck and Baron Von Moltke, had now made the consummation of their great purpose possible. Napoleon III., who then sat on the French throne, jealous of the rising power of Prussia, began to prepare for war. The crj- soon ran through France, ' ' Revenge for Sadowa. ' ' It would be out of place here to mention the details of the incidents which led up to the war which followed. The Emperor of France was anxiously waiting for a pretext to open hostilities. It was found in July, 1870, when, Gramont, the French iiiiiiister. laid a distorted representation of the previons negotiations before the Representative Assembly (July 15), alleging a gross affront offered to the French ambassador; and, although vehemently opposed by some members, especially by Thiers, the Assembly voted, nearly unanimously, 500,000,000 PROTECTION IN THE GEE3IAN EMPIRE. This was the actual declaration of the formal followed, francs for the July 19. The outcome of this rash act on the part of Napoleon III. is fresh in the minds of all. The French people, unprepared, undisciplined, without o-enerals able to cope with the Prussians, with their affairs in the hands of a weak ruler and divided among themselves, although fighting with the bravery which has always characterized the French soldier, were unable from the start to resist the Prussian invasion. Scarcely had the declaration of war been announced in Prussia, when half a million men were in the field ready for action, and marching toward the French border. The French, defeated in ever>- engagement, with the Emperor a prisoner, had fallen back and confined themselves within the strongholds of Paris. Bn- February 12, 187 1, the war was at a close. The terms of peace, dic- tated by King William, were accepted and the Germans withdrew from the country. Although of short duration, it was one of the bloodiest and most destructive wars of modern times. Not only important in its display of modern military tactics and ordnance, but still more important in its political effect on the destiny of France and Central Europe. In this short space of time the monarchy had been ovethrown and the French Republic rose from the ruins. On January 17, 187 1, at Versailles, King William assuined the imperial dignity under the title of German Emperor; and on the sixteenth of August of the same year, a constitution was formally signed which united Prussia and the German States into an empire. Under the constitution the Zollverein Congress was at an end, and all tariff regulations were now to be enacted by the Reichstag. The final overthrow of protection was accomplished during the period of specu- lation and prosperity which followed the war. The payment of the war indemnity by France had filled Germany with gold. The vast expendi- tures of the government during the war had placed in circulation large sums of money. Universal prosperity prevailed. Everybody was specu- lating in the stock companies and other enterprises which were being promoted. This condition made it easy for the free traders, and for a time they had everything their own way. Yet protectionism in Germany was not dead. The blighting effect of free trade legislation between 1865 and 1870, before the war broke out, was being felt. The reaction against Cobdenism had begun to set in, but was for a time checked by the war and the business conditions which prevailed after its termination In 1872 a protectionist party was organized at Eisenach, to combat the theories which were being promulgated by the free traders, and to resist the movement which had gained such strength and ascendency through the efforts of the Congress of Political Economists, which, since 1858, the time of its organization at Gotha, had won the monied and trading classes over to the Manchester school. The protectionist party 27 PROTECTION IX COXTIXENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. was organized upon a much broader basis of economic principles than the old protectionist party of List, or the protectionists of France and the United States. It supported also some of the principles of social democ- racy, advocating the extension of the functions of government to the ownership of railroads, telegraph's, and other public enterprises. It also favored the extension of the guardianship of the States over the working classes, and laws for the amelioration of their condition. This phase of the question found expression in several legislative measures among which may be mentioned a law for compulsory insurance in case of sickness (1883); a similar law regarding accidents (1884); and oue providing an- nuities for old age, and in case of incapacity for further work (1889). With regard to this legislation Prof. Wagner says: Its ruling idea was the untenableness in modern times of the -laisses /aire principle, the one-sidedness of the theory that the State should restrict its activity to the mere maintenance of the law and the promotion of peace without and within. It demanded State encouragement and protection of trade, industry and agriculture. State promotion of the interest of culture in general and State intervention in the workingman's condition. As soon as the period of speculation had passed away and the trade of the country assumed its normal condition, the disastrous effect of free competition and open ports began to be felt. The various industries of the country were checked in their expansion by foreign competition, and the people were brought face to face with the practical working of the Manchester policy. The conditions which prevailed and the first steps taken by Bismarck toward a return to protection, are very concisel)- stated by Mr. Dawson, as follows: Failure followed failure. Factories were stopped, warehouses were closed, and industrial fortunes, built up slowly by the accumulation of hard-earned profits, dis- appeared like the snow beneath the sun. Labor fated even worse than capital. The wages which had risen so rapidly fell with a shock, where, through the cessation of employment, they were entirely lost to the toiler's family. Agriculture, too, had long been .suffering severely. Prices had fallen while taxation had risen. In many parts corn could no longer be grown at a profit on account of the enormous imports of foreign grain, and the area under cultivation had considerably decreased. The imports of rye, barley and oats over the Russo-Prussiau frontier or by the Baltic Sea had doubled in two years: Rye. Barley. Oa\.». 1S75 6,869,324 530,107 2,368,663 cwts. 1876 11,361,144 594.312 3.196,049 " T877 13,266,203 1,920,778 3,620,447' " The imports of .■\merican corn had also increased greatly. The disastrous commercial crisis which Germany passed through at this time, gave great stimulus to the uiovement for protection. The reactionary party redoubled its efforts, and by means of the parliamentary tribune, the public platfonn, the press, and by pamphlets and ephemeral literature, endeavored to convince the country of the folly of "Manchesterdom. " PROTECTION IN THE GEB3IAN EMPIRE. But success was not to be attained just yet. Prince Bismarck has placed it on record that the year 1S77 was the decisive year in which he came to a turning-point in his life, so far as concerned economical and social questions. Then he began to make economics a serious study. He has said : ' ' During the first fifteen years of my ministerial activity I was absorbed by foreign politics, and I did not feel called upon to trouble myself much with the internal politics of the Empire, nor had I the requisite time. I took it for granted that the internal affairs were in good hands. Afterward, when I lost the help which I had thought reliable, I was compelled to look into matters myself, and I found that though I had up to then sworn in verba magislri the actual results did not come up to the expectations which underlay our legislation. I had the impression that since the introduction of the free trade system in 1865 we fell into atrophy, which was only checked for a time by the new blood of the five milliard contribution, and that it was necessary to adopt a remedy. ' ' Up to 1876 Bismarck had entrusted the country's economic policy entirely to Minister von Delbruck, but in that year this colleague resigned office. The reason given for the withdrawal of Dr. Delbruck was ' ' motives of health, ' ' but everyone knew that he left the Chancellor because of irreconcilable disagreement of views. The resignation of Dr. Delbruck, who occupied the position of President of the Chancellerie, was followed by that of Herr Camphausen, Minister of Finance, and before two years had passed the Ministers of Commerce and the Interior had also withdrawn from office. Everything was now propitious for the inauguration of a new economic era. Prince Bismarck referred as follows, in the Prussian Lower House, on February 4, 18S1, to the Delbruck secession: "Before I concerned myself personally with customs questions I did not repre- sent my own convictions, but those of my colleague Delbruck, whom I regarded as the right man in the right place, for I had no time to form my own views. . It was the retirement of Delbruck which compelled me to form views for myself and to express them. I cannot properly say that I formerly held other views than now ; you might as well dispute with me as to whether I had been of this or that opinion, had held this or that theory, respecting some scientific question. I had no time to form a definite picture of mercantile politics. I deny that my former views were opposed to my present, for I had none; I was the obedient disciple of Herr Delbruck, and I expressed his views when I expressed views at all. But when he retired from the partnership, I was compelled to represent my own opinion, which perhaps deviated in many respects from his, but I certainly did not formerly hold contrary opinions, which now I have changed."' The economic principles advocated by this distinguished statesman, the views entertained of the true Junctions of government, the duty which the nation owes to its people, the community of interest involved, the degree of sympathy which should prevail among citizens, command the most careful attention and most earnest reflection of the best thought of the age in all countries. Bismarckism, protectionism in Germany, is the very opposite of Cobdenism. The Manchester school of economics was based upon the principles announced b}- the Physiocrats of France, who held that the State should confine itself simply to police regulations in preserving order, leaving the individual to fight out the battle of the sur- vival of the fittest in the struggle for existence; leaving the strong, the cunning and crafty to destroy the weak. The cold adherents to these * Bismarck and State Socialism, pp. 40 and 41. PliOTECriON IjX continental and OTHEli COUNTRIES. \ I \ principles could view with philosophic unconcern the degradation and misery of the masses doomed to eternal want, with no hope of ever extri- cating themselves from conditions which were held to be the natural order of things. The broadest-minded, the most humane and the most enlightened statesmen of all countries have rejected the cold-blooded, and what are believed by many to betheun-Christian, teachings of thegreedy capitalists of Manchester. The earlier speeches of Bismarck show that his great mind, soon after becoming charged with the responsibility of public aiTairs, grasped the fundamental principles of "a government of the people, by the people and for the people. ' ' He said on June 15, 1847: I am of the opinion that the idea of the Christian State is as old as the ci-devant Holy Roman Empire, as old as all the European States, and that it is the soil in which these States have taken root, and that a State if it would have an assured perma- nence, if it would only justify its existence, when it is disputed, must stand on a religious foundation. ... I believe I am right in calling that State a Christian State which seeks to realize the teaching of Christianity. That our State has not succeeded in doing this in all respects was shown yesterday by the Deputy Baron von Vincke in a parallel, more ingenious than agreeable to my religious feelings, between the truths of the gospel and the paragraphs of the common law. From this expression of his views we can readily understand how it was that upon making a careful examination of the science of economics, he declared that he "holds free trade to be altogether false as an absolute principle," and became one of the strongest champions of the doctrine of protection. It was undoubtedly his conviction of the duty which the State owed to its people, the purpo.ses for which governments are in.stituted, that controlled his actions in the economic policy which he favored. On April 2, 1881, he said: I should like to see the State, which for the most part consists of Christians — although you reject the name Christian State — penetrated to some extent by the principles of the religion it professes; especially as concerns the help one gives to his neighbor, and sympathy with the lot of old and suffering people. Here he shows the regard which the government should have for the welfare of the poor. It has already been pointed out that the free trade policy of England only concerns itself with the something over 6,000,000 of property holders, leaving the 30,000,000 of toilers to make their way under adverse conditions, to survive or peri.sh as the case may be. Expressing himself upon the concern which the State .should have for the welfare of all its people, on January 9, 1882, he said: I do not comprehend with what right we acknowledge the demands of Christianity as binding upon our private dealings and yet in the most important sphere of our duty — participation in the legislation of a country having a population of forty-five million people — push them into the background and say, here we need not trouble. For my part I confess openly that my belief in the consequence of our revealed religion, in the form of moral law, is sueScient for me, and certainly PROTECTION IX THE GERMAN EMPIRE. y the Emperor, and that the question nothing to do with the matter. I, a as such I am determined to act as I for the position taken upon this question 1 of the Christian or non-Christian State has minister of the State, am a Christian, and believe I am justified before God. In discussing the application of free trade dogmas to the question of the omission of a government to perform its duty toward its people, he said: Herr Richter has called attention to the responsibility of the State for what it does. But it is my opinion that the State can also be responsible for what it does not do. I do not think that doctrines like those of " Laissez /aire, laissez aller." "Pure Manchesterdom in politics," "Jeder seke, wie er's ireibe, Jeder sehe wo er bleibt," "He who is not strong enough to stand must be knocked down and trodden to the ground," "To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath" — that doctrines like these should be applied in the State, and especially in a monarchrcally, paternally governed State. On the other hand, I believe that those who profess horror at the inter\'ention of the State for the protection of the weak lay themselves open to the suspicion that they are desirous of using their strength — be it that of capital, that of rhetoric, or whatever it be — for the benefit of a section, for the oppression of the 'rest, for the introduction of party domination, and that they will be chagrined as soon as this design is disturbed by any action of the government. Then with these views of the function of government, its duties and responsibilities we find him judging of economic policies from results which are easily pointed out. It was the experience of men and nations which guided him in choosing between protection and free trade. He saw that those nations which had been most prosperous and whose people enjoyed the highest degree of comfort and happiness practiced the princi- ples of protection, while those which had been lea.st pro-sperous and in which the greatest degree of suffering and degradation is found among the masses practiced free trade. This one important fact so easily observed, so definite and reliable, has as it .should have done, exercised a controlling influence among the great statesmen of the world. It is the one great fact which has destroyed and proven the absurdity of free trade dogmas. Upon this phase of the question on May 2, 1879, he stated to the German parliament : I pay as little regard to science as I do in any other judgment of organic insti- tutions. Our surgery has made splendid progress during the last two thousand years; but medical science has made no progress in regard to the internal condi- tions of the body, into which the human eye cannot see, and here we stand face to face with the same riddles as before. So it is with the organic formation of States. In this respect the abstract doctrines of science do not influence me; I judge according to the experience which we have. I see that the countries which protect themselves prosper, that the countries which are open are declining, and that great and powerful England, that strong combatant, who, after strengthening her muscles, entered the market and said: "Who will contest with me? I am ready for anyone, ' ' is gradually going back to protective duties and will in a few years adopt them so far as is necessary to preserving at least the English market. PROTFX'TION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Theory of "robber barons," "moiiOf)oli.sts, " and "plutocrats," which British free traders have borrowed from the anarchists, was raised iri Germany as it has been in all countries where the raid against protection has been egged on from Manchester and the Cobden Club. Such argu- ments did not deceive Bismarck. He well knew that the cry was raised as a sham. That any undue and improper encroachment of capital, as well as combinations of all sorts detrimental to the welfare of the people, could be stamped out or controlled only through State action ; while under the individualism of free trade, the hand of the government would be kept off, and there would be no power except the law of the survival of the fittest, to check the aggression of improper combinations. With a well-directed government Bismarck did not fear the wealth of the people, but saw the great benefit of capital when directed to the development of the resources of a country and the employment of labor. In a speech in the Reichstag, he said: I wish we could immediately create a few hundred millionaires. They wouM expend their money in the country, and this expenditure would act fruitfully on labor all round. They could not eat their money themselves; they would have to spend the interest on it. Be glad then, when people become rich with us. The community at large, and not onlj' the tax authorit3^ is .sure to benefit. In the latter part of the year 1877 a movement for the return to pro- tection assumed a definite form. The government was applied to by the protectionist party to restore the import duties on competing commodi ties. It was at this time that Prince Bismarck was i^ursuing his investi- gations and giving the question his serious consideration. A conference- had just been held at Heidelburg, of the ministers of finance of the various German States, to consider the financial condition of the country. Upon the conclusion of their deliberations on the question, it was recorjimended that the revenues of the nation be increased by duties on imports. Upon the recommendation of the Chancellor, the federal council appointed a committee of fifteen members to investigate the whole question. The attitude of the government is disclosed in a communication addressed by the Chancellor to the committee on December 15, 187S. A return to a protective tariff was recommended. In the language of the communica- tion such a policy was favored as Was laid down in the Prussian cu.stonis legislation from the year 1818 onward, and later found expression in the universal import duty imposed by the custoins tariff of the Zollverein up to 1865. Exemption from this liability to pay duty would be allowed to raw materials indispensable to industry which, like cotton, cannot be pro- duced in Germany, and according to circumstances, to those which can only be pro- duced in insufficient quantity or quality. All articles not specially exempted should be subjected to an import duty graduated according to the value of the commodit>' and on the basis of various percentages, according to the requirements of home production. The customs rates thus to be laid down would be reduced to weight- units, as is the rule in the existing customs tariff, and in this way levied, so far PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE. as, from the nature of the object, the levy of the duty may not be desirable per piece (as in the case of cattle) or according to value (as in the case of railway car riages or iron river craft), A customs system which secures to the entire home production a preference before foreign production in the home market, while keeping within the limits imposed by financial interests, will not run the risk of this antipathy. Such a system will in no way appear partial, because its effects will be more equally spread over all the productive circles of the land than is the case with a system of pro- tective duties for isolated branches of industry. The minority of the population, which does not produce at all but exclusively consumes, will apparently be injured by a customs system favoring the entire national production. Yet, if by means of such a s}-stem the aggregate sum of the values produced in the countrv' increase, and thus the national wealth be on the whole enhanced, the non-producing parts of the population — and especially the State and communal officials who are dependent upon a fixed money income — will eventually be benefited ; for means of counter- balancing hardships will be at the command of the community in case the exten- sion of customs-liability to the entire imports should result in an increase of the prices of the necessaries of life. Yet with low duties such an increase will, in all probability, not take place to the extent to which consumers are accustomed to apprehend, just as, on the other hand, the prices of bread and meat have not fallen to an appreciable degree in consequence of the abolition of the duties on corn- grinding and cattle killing in the parishes where these used to exist. The real financial duties imposed on articles which are not produced at home and the import of which is indispensable, will in part fall upon the consumer alone. On the contran,', with articles which the country is able to produce in quantity and quality adequate to the home consumption, the foreign producer will alone have to bear the duty in order that he may compete in the German market. Finally, in cases in which part of the home demand must be covered by foreign supply, the foreign producer will in general be compelled to bear at least a part and often the whole of the duty, and thus to reduce his profit to the extent of this amount. The economic policy foreshadowed by this communication could not be mistaken. The public revenue was regarded as of minor importance when compared with the industrial and commercial interests involved in a return to the system of protection. The communication from which the above quotation was taken, was followed by an address from the throne on February 12, 1879, which contained the following: The federal governments are considering legislative measures for the removal, or at least the diminution, of the common evils from which we are suffering. The proposals which I have made, and still intend to make, to my allies aim, by pro- viding the Empire with new sources of revenue, at placing the governments in a position to desist from levying the taxes which they and their legislatures recog- nize as the hardest to enforce. At the same time I am of the opinion that the country's entire economic activity has a right to claim all the support which legis- lative adjustment of duties and taxes can afford, and which in the lands with which we trade is, perhaps, afforded beyond actual requirement. I regard it as my duty to adopt measures to preser\'e the German market to national production so far as is consistent with the general interest; and our customs legislation must accordingly revert to the tried principles upon which the prosperous career of the Zollverein rested for nearly a half a century, but which have in important particulars been deserted in our mercantile policy since 1865. I cannot admit that actual success has attended this change in our customs policy. PEOTECriOX IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. After having once formulated a definite plan of action, its consum- mation was immediately undertaken. The government bill for the restoration of protective duties had been drafted and sent by mail to all members of the Reichstag during the Easter recess. The debate, which continued from the second to the twenty -eighth of May, was opened with a speech from Prince Bismarck which lasted for more than an hour. Among other things he said ; At present there were too many direct anil too few indirect taxes, and he aimed at reversing this order. The Prince contended that civil servants should not have to pay the income tax. Another mistake was the distinction made between mova- ble and immovable property. No branch of industry was so highly taxed as agri- culture, and the present indirect taxation did not give native labor the protection which it ought to have. He would not enter into the question of free trade versus protection, but one thing was clear, that, through the widely opened doors of its import trade, the German market had become the mere storage-space for the over- production of other countries. They must, therefore, shut their gates, and take care that the German market, which was now being monopolized by foreign wares, should be reserved for native industry. Countries which were enclosed had become great, and those which had remained open had fallen behind. Were the perils of protectionism really so great as sometimes painted, France would long ago have been ruined, instead of which she was more prosperous after paying the five mill- iards than Germany is to-day. And protectionist Russia, too — look at her marvel- ous prosperity ! Manufacturers there had lately been able to save from 30 to 35 per cent, and all at the cost of the German market. The question before them was not a political but a financial one, and they should put all personal sensibility aside. ' ' Let us close our doors and erect somewhat higher barriers, ' ' said the Chan- cellor, "and let us thus take care to preserve at least the German market to German industry. The chances of a large export trade are nowadays exceedingly precari- ous. There are no more great countries to discover. The globe is circumnavigated, and we can no longer find any large purchasing nations. Commercial treaties, it is true, are under certain circumstances favorable to foreign trade; but whenever a treaty is concluded, it is a question of Qui trompe-l-on icif Who is taken in? As a rule one of the parties is, but only after a number of years is it known which In .speaking of the agricultural interests of the country, he said: It is therefore not only to the interest of the farmers, but to that of the entire community that corn growing should be maintained. It had appeared by the report from the government, which accom- panied the bill, that the country was being flooded with farm produce from other countries, which was being sold at very low prices, he said : With which home producers could not compete, so that ruin stared them in the face If cheap corn is the goal at which we should aim, we ought long ago to iLive abolished the land tax, for it burdens the industry which produces corn at home, which produces 400,000,000 cwts., against the 27,000,000 or 30,000,- 000 which wc import. But no one has ever dreamed of such a thing; on the con- trary, in times will ]i \\\vuv\ has been the same as now, the land tax has been gradually increased thn.u-h.aii ( ,i niKmy so far as I know, and in Prussia 30 per cent, since 1861, being im nasud Iroiii thirty to forty million marks. PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE. Speaking of the depression of agriculture and the consequences which would follow the destruction of this important industry by free trade, he said : ' ' Not only agriculture, but the present State, and the German Empire itself, would go to ruin." But he regarded the German farmers as wise enough to take care of their own interests. "Twenty million farmers," he said, "will not allow themselves to be ruined. It is only necessary that they should become conscious of what is before them, and they will try to defend themselves by legal and constitutional means." The free trade forces were completely routed. They had met an intellectual giant, one who could expose all of their dogmas and set the misguided members of the Reichstag aright. The brief experience of the German people with the policy of free trade had afforded examples which proved the error that had been committed by the free trade minister in abandoning the time-honored policy under which Germany had grown great, and the foundation had been laid for erecting the mightiest empire in Central Europe. The bill passed the Reichstag on July 7, 1879, by a vote of 2 1 7 for and 117 against. In 1 88 1, when protective duties were further increased, Bismarck told the Reichstag that, "in the development of our tariff I am deter- mined to oppose any modification in the direction of free trade and to use my influence in favor of greater protective and of a higher revenue from frontier duties." In 1885, when the Chancellor moved a still further increase of duties and extension of his policy, he was able to point to definite results which had followed the return to protection, in the revival of business and the growth and expansion of industries which were tak- ing place. Referring to the policy of protection, he said, "It had freed the country from its poverty of blood." The exports of manufactured articles had increased from 1,026,500,000 marks in 1878 to 1,368,300,000 marks in 1 880, or 33 per cent. Wages and profits had materially increased. By a report of the German iron and steel manufactures representing 247 works, it appeared that the number of artisans employed had increased 35 per cent in 1884, over 1879. The number of steamships had increased from 336 with a tonnage of 183,379 in 1878, to 650, with a tonnage of 413,943 in 1885. In 1875, 21,472 German vessels returned to port with a tonnage of 2,505,779, while the arrivals had by 1885 increased to 36,115, and the tonnage to 4,513,692. The tonnage and vessels outward showed a similar growth. The number leaving port in 1875 was 18,223, with a tonnage of 2,076,234, while in 1885 there were 34,211, with a tonnage of 3,989,052. In 1887 the Association of German Iron and Steel Manufacturers, upon an investigation made into the condition of the industn.' and the effect of the increased duties upon the emploj'ment of labor, showed that in January, 1879, before the return to protection, 233 large iron and machine works employed 124,262 hands, and paid them 7,681,291 marks per month, or 61.83 marks each. The contrast between PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. the luontli stated and the same month iu 1887 is most significant of the result which always follows the application of protection. The number of employees had increased to 162,320 an increase of 38,058, which equals 30.6 per cent. The wages paid were 10,740,056 marks (66.17 marks per head), an increase of 3,058, 765. Not only were wages increased but fair profits were returned for the investment of capital. The Dusseldorf Chamber of Commerce reported that We can on the authority of a searching investigation made in industrial circles, assert with satisfaction that the influence of the customs tariff has on the whole, been favorable to the branches of industry affected by it in this district. The bal- ance sheets of the large establishments, as well as the increase of work people, afford ample evidence of this. In speaking of the effect of protection, Mr. Dawson says: One swallow does not make a summer, and one testimony to the favorable effects of protection in Germany wo"uld not be conclusive. But evidence on the point is abundant. An unprejudiced mind cannot but acknowledge that, owing to the peculiar economic position of Germany in the last decade, protection was eminently calculated to stimulate and support her industries and commerce. In technical matters on the one hand, and in practical experience and genius for business on the other, Germany was far behind older rivals like England and France. She was only beginning to force her way into foreign markets, while she was yet a great consumer of the productions of other countries. In 1878 the import of industrial articles alone was 570 million marks; but after the introduction of the new tariff the reduction in the first year was 395 millions, or 31 per cent less, while during the same period the industrial exports rose from 1,026 to 1,368 millions, or 33 per cent more. Unlike England, Germany had industries to create, trade to build up, and she determined to defend herself against the skill and enterprise of older countries during the period of her industrial juvenescence by submitting her- self to the leading-strings of protection until she could with assurance and safety walk alone. ' The Chancellor's views on the question of the importance of agri- culture as a great branch of productive industn,-, is indicated in his defence of the lauded interests in 1885. In the Reichstag on February 14, 1885, he expressed his belief that the land-owners were the main- stay of the Empire, saying: "If you succeed in destroying this race you would see the result in the palsying of our entire economic and political life." It will be noted that there is being no disposition manifested on the part of the German people to abandon agriculture and to open their ports to the free admission of the farm products of other countries. The economic policy which is being pursued, involves the maintenance of all the sources of subsistence and employment which can be found within the borders of the Empire. The evils of a one-sided trade and the loss which would be sustained by restricting anj^ of the great fields of production, are fully under.stood. The wide range of industrial pursuits is disclosed by 1 Bismarck and State Socialism, p. oi. PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE. the division of employments, which appeared by the census of 1882. The population then of 45,500,000 was divided between the various occupations as follows: Agriculture gave employment to 8,500,000 laborers, with nearly 11,000,000 families and servants dependent upon them for subsistence, making 19,500,000 persons in all, or 42.5 per cent of the total population. 6,500,000, with 10,000,000 dependent upon them, or 16,500,000 in all, or 35.5 per cent of the total population were occupied in manufacturing and other industries. In trade there were 1,500,000 with 3,000,000 dependent upon them, or a total of 4,500,000, or 10 per cent of the population. The policy of maintaining agriculture, as well as manufacturing, as a prin- cipal means of subsistence, has not in the least been departed from. The tariff law of 1879 was amended May 22, 1885, by increasing the duties on agricultural produce. A duty was imposed on wheat, equivalent to 71 cents for 224 pounds, and on wheat flour and rye of $1.70 per 224 pounds. Not only the agriculturists, but the millers are favored by this legislation. By the act of 1887, the following duties were imposed: Wheat and rye, $1.19 per 224 pounds. Oats 95 " " Barley, 53 " Corn 47 " " Flour of wheat or rye 2.50 " " Under the commercial treaty entered into between the United States and the German Empire, concluded January 30, 1892, American farm products were to be admitted into Germany under reduced duties. Rye and wheat flour at $1.78 per 220 pounds; wheat, 83 cents for 224 pounds. United States Consul-General Frank H. Mason, in speaking of the manner in which the German Government imposes import duties on farm pro- ducts, says: As to the duty on flour from other countries when imported into Germany there are three schedules as follows : (i) The lowest, $1.78 per 224 pounds, which is conceded to the most favored nations, which are, besides the United States, the Argentine Republic, Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, France, Great Britain, Hawaiian Islands, Italy, Switzerland, Servia, Spain, Denmark, Greece, Sweden and Norway, Korea, Turkey, Dominican Republic, South African Republic, Zanzibar, Honduras, Congo Free State, Guate- mala and Paraguay. All these most favored nations enjoy their special privileges under commercial treaties which have been in many cases adopted for a specified number of years, and are therefore liable to be discontinued when they expire by lim- itation. There is at present in German politics a strong agrarian party which is opposed to such treaties, in so far as they apply to agricultural products; but, despite this influence, the treaties with Roumania and Spain have been recently renewed, with certain modifications. Onl)' four of the nations in the most favored class — Austria-Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria and the .Argentine Republic — have any considerable export of cereals to Germany which compete seriously with the heavy imports from the United States. rROTECTJOX IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. (2) Brazil, Russia and other countries not belonging to the most favored class are subject to the standard duty of 10.50 marks ($2.50) per 224 pounds on flour when imported into Germany. (3) Since the outbreak of the tariff war between Germany and Russia on the first of August, 1S93, the duty on flour from the latter country has been increased 50 per cent, and is now 15.75 marks ($3.75) per 224 pounds. The import duty on wheat from all nations in the most-favored class, including the United States, is 83.3 cents per 224 pounds; I1.19 per 224 pounds from all other countries, except Russia. It is I1.7S per 224 pounds when imported from Russia.' The tariff war between Russia and Germany was brought to a close March 16,1894, when the new commercial treaty between the two coun- tries was approved by the Reichstag. It admits Russian agricultural produce upon the same terms as those of other countries. The eifect of the restoration of Russian farm products to the same rate of duty as those of other countries, upon the prospect of a future market for grain grown in the United States, was referred to by Consul- General Frank H. Mason, in his report from Berlin in February, 1894, when the negotiations were pending, which resulted in the treaty referred to. He said: The practical question is how serious will be the competition of Russia in these and other staple products should the pending treaty restore her to commercial advan- tages equal to those of the United States? Russia will, from the day that the new treaty takes effect, resume her old position as the source of supply of nine-tenths of the foreign rye used by Germany. The same will be true, in a greater or less degree, of raw flax, certain kinds of lumber and timber, lubricating oils, barley, flaxseed, and number of animal and mineral products, in all of which the fields,, forests and mines of Russia supplement naturally and irresistibly the manufactures of Germany. Rye is the principal bread material for the Russian as well as the German peasant, and iu production of that cereal Russia need fear no competition. With regard to wheat the problem is much more complicated, for the reason, among others, that not only Russia, but India, Australia, the Argentine Republic and Uruguay will have to be, taken into account. To raise and deliver a bushel of wheat in the United States costs, according to official estimates, about 50 cents. In India the cost per bushel is stated to be 35 cents, and the danger from that quarter is measured only by the limit to which the area of culture can be extended. In South America this point is not known to have been accurately determined, nor are the statistics of wheat export from Chile, Uruguay and the Argentine Republic generally accepted as trustworthy. But enough is known to warrant the belief that the wheat crop of India and South America is nearly if not quite equal to that of the United States, and in the Argentine Republic at least the area of cultivation is susceptible of indefinite extension.^ The purchase by Germany of foreign bread stuffs is also affected by good or bad harvests. The uncertainty of the market from this cause is shown by the goverimient report of 1894, from which it appears that by reason of good crops in 1893, the imports of wheat and rye declined about 1,000,000 tons; of wheat 592,760 tons and of rye 324,337 tons. In one year the purchase of various kinds of grains fell off $33,000,000. The I liiiitcd stales Consul Reports, Vol. 44, p. 529. 2 United States Consular Report, No. 163, 1894, p. 678. PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE. investigations of the United States consuls, made under the direction of the present administration, to find foreign markets for American farm products, have not supphed the free trade party with encouraging reports from Germany. The following table shows the countries which supply Germany with wheat and rye. The insignificant position occupied by the United States, when compared with other countries, especially Russia, the fact that the American farmer is met with competition from so many sources when he enters the German market, should be considered in weighing the indefi- nite and loose talk of free traders about foreign markets for American farm produce. Imports of Wheat and Rye into Germany from Various Countries IN 1S91. Wheat, 1S91. Rye, 1891. Countries. Bushels. Bushels. Belgium, 1,380,405 543.297 Bulgaria, 43.063 130.212 Netherlands 1,015,254 692,874 Austria-Hungary, 2,750,779 1,426,731 Roumania, 1,568,416 853,765 Servia, 242,668 62,453 Russia, 18,856,759 22,654,506 Turkey, 88,670 1,081,072 British India 882,319 232,984 Argentine Republic and Patagonia, 453,722 Brazil, 49.303 British North America, 46.427 Chile, 272,995 United States 5.253,531 2,354,371 Australia, 97, 700 France, 668,671 All other countries, 131,313 126,804 Total, 33,133.324 30,827,740 It will be observed that the larger portion of this supply is received from European countries. When compared with the home production it will be found that the German people are almost self-sustaining in agri- cultural products. Mr. Mulhall shows that in the value of the principal grain productions of $2, 1 10,000,000 in 1888, German}' stood fourth among the nations of the world, being exceeded only by the United States, Russia and France. As a wheat producing country she also occupies the fifth place, raising 104,000,000 bushels. On the same basis of home pro- duction and the import of 33,000,000 bushels, the population of 49,000,- 000 consumed 67-100 of one bushel per head of foreign growth. The statistics of the production of rye are not given separately by Mr. Mulhall for 1888; but in the year 1884 it appears that Germany stood second among the rye producing countries, exceeded only by Russia. Her crop that year v/as 220,000,000 bushels. In 1888 her yield of barley was PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. 97,000,000 bushels, placing her third in the order of nations, excelled only by Russia and Austria. She also stood fifth among the nations iu her oat crop, it being 246,000,000 bushels. The country is almost self-supplying in its consumption of meats. In 1887' there were produced 710,000 tons of beef; 210,000 tons of mutton; 455,000 tons of pork, making a total of 1,375,000 tons, while the total consumption was 1,385,000 tons, or only 10,000 tons in excess of the home supply. The production of meat increased from 900,000 tons in 1840, to 1,375,000 in 1887. With this large domestic supply there is certainly a very limited market in the Empire for American meat, and what there is must be divided with other countries which are competitors with the United States. In 1887 the exports of beef, mutton and pork combined from the United States was 610,000 tons, while Australia exported 880,000 tons, and the River Platte 1,770,000 tons. The German people are not by any means small consumers of food products. In 1887 they stood third, excelled only by Russia and the United States in the consumption of grain; fourth iu the consumption of meat; fourth in the consumption of butter and cheese; third in the consumption of sugar; first in the consumption of potatoes; and second in the consumption of tea and coffee. The reader should examine the exports of farm produce from Ger- many to England, in the table .showing the imports of agricultural produce into the United Kingdom and the countries from which it is received. It will appear that in 1894 Germany exported to the United Kingdom: Wheat, bushels, 1,334,746 Barley, bushels, 1,973,832 Oats, bushels, 2,001,312 Wheat flour : Corn Meal, pounds 27,825,846 Peas and beans, pounds, . . . 47,827,560 Butter and butterine, pounds, . 15,428,560 Oleomargarine, pounds, Eggs (great hundred). Honey, pounds, .... Fruit, cherries, plums, bushels, 2,246,944 3,361,188 107,520 353>5io Sugar, unrefined, pounds, . . 564,863,376 Sugar, refined, pounds,. . . . 962,692,528 Sugar, glucose, solid and liquid, pounds, 11.118,576 Sugar molasses, pounds, . . . 2,240,224 Tallow and stearine, pounds, , 4,535,776 Hops, pounds, 1,349,936 Lard, pounds 9,162,966 Wool, pounds, 2,128 786 Hemp, pounds 21,521,920 Hides, pounds 7,847,952 Feathers, pounds, 866,139 With the encouragement, through protection, which agriculture is receiving in Germany it cannot be regarded as a very extensive market for American farm products, or for those of any other countr3-. The share which American farmers might be able to supply is yearly being diminished by the development of agriculture in South America, Australia and e.specially in Eastern Europe and Ru.ssia, This is one of those invisi- ble " markets of the world " for farm products, which the free traders of the United States have said so much about in recent years and which they ' Mulhall's Dictionary of Statistics, p 284. PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN E3IPIRE. have failed to locate. The German people have not onlj- brought the soil to a high state of cultivation, but thej' have adopted the use of machiner}' and all modern methods of tillage, although labor is so cheap that hand-workmanship is still carried on to a much greater extent than in the United States. We are informed by United States consuls that the market for American agricultural implements and machinery is yearly diminishing, not because they are going back to the old methods of culti- vation, but because German mechanics and manufacturers are imitating American inventions and engaging extensively in its manufacture. Consul- General Brewer in his report from Berlin, May 23, 1884, said : There is another important question which must not be overlooked, and that is the wonderful genius of the German mechanics for imitating the works of others, which is so perceptible in the case of sewing-machines which were invented by citizens of our country. The number of these machines that are manufactured in Berlin is very great, and stores are filled with the Wheeler & Wilson, the Singer and other machines well known, and first made in America. These machines, of course, are made here, and with their cheap labor no American manufacturer can compete with tbe manufacturer here. The American horse-rake, grain drill, and reaper and mower, with slight changes, manufactured here, are supplying the place of those manufac- tured by the original inventor in the United States. Will not this be the case witli other of our machinery when placed upon the marketshere ? However much we may wish to extend our trade into Germany, we cannot refrain from considering this ques- tion. It is quite impossible for consuls to say what machinery or production from our country would find a market here. We see in some stores American goods, but as to what extent they are sold in Germany we are unable to tell only as we gather the information from statistics furnished by our government showing the exports of such goods to Gei-many. As Germany is now unquestionably exporting agricultural machinery to Russia, Africa, South America, etc., business experience should tell us the place to compete with German manufacturers is in those countries, rather than within their own Empire. There was much more agricultural machinery imported into Germany twenty years ago, in my opinion, than at the present time, for Germany during that time has made a very great advancement in the invention and manufacturing of mechanical and industrial appliances, until at the present time a very large proportion of farming machinery used in the Empire is manufactured within its own limits, and at the same time she is exporting agricultural machinery to quite an extent to Russia, Bohemia, Northern Africa, South America, etc. As I have said, much advancement has been made in Germany in the manufacture of agricultural machinery. At the present time very extensive establishments for the manufacture of such machinery exist at Berlin, Magdeburg, Mayence, Leipsic, etc. The one at Leipsic in 1882 employed 575 men, and in 1SS3, 780 men. In 18S2 it is reported to have turned out 16,351 grain drills and 2333 reapers and mowers, and much other machinery for the use of the farm. The establishment of " H. F. Eckert, ' ' an incorporated company at Berlin, engaged in the manufacture of agricultural machinery, I have just visited, and by the courtesy of the manager was shown through the establishment. This company has, as I was informed, some nine hundred men in its employ. It manufactures wagons, thrashing machines, clover mills, fanning mills, machinery for cutting and preparing beets for sugar making, cutting boxes, stills for making whisky from potatoes, horse-rakes and plows, the latter upon a large scale and of various kinds. I was informed that the PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. company was then filling an order from South America for 400 plows, and was shown some of the plows intended for that country.' Another fact to be considered is the German tariff, which in 1879 imposed duties on agricultural machinery, viz.: if of wood the duty is 71 cents per 220 pounds; same if of cast iron; if of wrought iron the duty is $1. 19 per 220 pounds; if of other, not precious metals, the duty is $1.90 per 220 pounds. Hay and manure forks pay a duty of $2. 30 per 220 pounds. By a system of protection extended through duties on imports and bounties given to producers, the production of sugar from beets has become one of the most important agricultural industries of the country. Here is an example of the establi.shment, under protection, of anindustry^ that could not have been planted on German soil and built up against the competition of cane sugar producers of tropical regions, excepting by protection. Contrary to the reasoning of all free trade economists the Germans, through years of experiments and practice, are not only supply- ing their own market, but have become one of the chief exporting nations of the world. The effort on the part of the protectionists in the United States to imitate the example set by the Continent of Europe in the estab- lishment of this industry by giving bounties to producers furnished one of the chief grounds for attack on the McKinley bill. The subject is of such importance to the American people that the writer has incorporated the following extracts from a report by United States Consul William D. Warner, to the State Department, showing the growth of the industrj' in Germany since 1872, together with the system of taxa^tion and payment of bounties which is practiced : The number of factories in operation in the Khineland, which embraces this con- sular district, during the year 1S90-91 was eleven, out of a total of four hundred and one for the whole of Germany during the previous year The production of raw sugar in Germany rose from 186,442 tons during the year 1871-72 to a trifle over 1,000,000 tons in the year 1890-91. In 1871-72 it took 12 kilograms of beets to produce i kilogram of sugar, while in 1889-90 it required only 8.09 kilograms to produce i kilogram of raw sugar. Imports. The quantity of sugar imported during the year into the Rhineland was 298 tons of refined sugar, 65 tons of raw sugar, and 30 tons of molasses. Table showing the imports 0/ sugar into Germany during the last decade. 882-83 883-84 884-85 5,607 5.733 6,601 5.376 5.303 18S8-S9 . 1889-90 . Tons. 5.774 4,678 7,282 3.924 3.742 ' United States Consular Report, No. 48, December, 1884, pp. 501, 502 and 503. PBOTECTION IN THE GEB3IAN EMPIBE. Exports. Table showing the exports of raw sugar, candies, and other hard sugar Tons. 46,218 71,201 103,471 95,161 221,442 253.931 390,702 491,176 553.793 404,071 489,680 344,710 412,424 493.830 Tons. 7,393 14,001 19.356 25.236 35.378 39.916 49.3SI 64, 246 76,015 66,019 130,378 132,212 164,151 215,736 other hard sugar. Tons. 4.342 8,341 11.396 9.705 2o,68r 14.413 24,218 29,867 31.S85 20,568 23,882 20,743 15,650 9.419 NEW Sugar Law. A new imperial law regarding the taxation of sugar was issued last May, which will go into effect on the first of August, 1892. The new law does away with the so-called material or weight tax on the raw beets and raises the consumption tax from 12 marks to iS marks per 100 kilograms, net, of prepared sugar. The import duty on hard and " fluid " sugar of all classes is placed at 36 marks per 100 kilograms Foreign sugar imported under official control for fur- ther manufacture by the sugar factories will pay only the consumption tax of 18 marks per 100 kilograms. Under the new law a bounty is granted on export sugar for a certain number of years, namely, from August I, 1S92, to July 31, 1895, that is, sugar that has been pre- pared during that period, as follows, on every 100 kilograms for export, pro\-ided that amount in any case is not less than 500 kilograms : Marks. Class I — Raw sugar containing at least 90 per cent of sugar, and refined sugar under 98 per cent and not less than 90 per cent of sugar, 1.25 Class 2 — Sugar candy and sugar in hard, white loaves, in blocks, bars, cubes, or which has been made small in the presence of the revenue officials, so-called crystals and other hard, white, cut sugar in crystal form, containing at least 99 '4 per cent of sugar, 2.00 Class 3— All other hard sugar, also all dry white sugar (containing not over i per cent of water) in crystal, crumb, or flake form of at least 98 per cent of sugar, in so far as the same does not come under Class 2, r.65 From the first of August, 1895, to the thirty-fitst of July, 1897, it is as follows on every 100 kilograms for export : Marks. Under Class i i.oo Under Class 2, . i .75 Under Class 3, 1.40' In investigating the causes of the decline of British trade, the Royal Commission heretofore referred to, caused reports to be made by their consuls and representatives upon the industries of the German Empire. ■United States Consul's Report. No. 137, February, 1892. 2S PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. The reports upon the conditions as found in 1885 disclosed the fact that a marked improvement and expansion of German manufactures was taking place under the influence of protection ; that the home market was not only being almost wholly supplied with domestic wares which had largely been purchased in England prior to the adoption of protection ; but that as industries were established in Germany and production extended to a greater variety of commodities, British goods were steadily displaced b}- those made at home ; hence, a decline in imports of manufactured goods had. taken place; while on the other hand, the Germans were not only largely supplying their home market, but were becoming exporters of competing commodities, not only to those foreign countries which had hitherto been supplied from British factories, but to the United Kingdom itself. The industrial changes which were being brought about by the rise of industries in Germany under protection, presented the most alarm- ing feature of foreign competition which came to the notice of the com- mission. The ability of the Germans successfully to compete with English manufacturers in neutral markets, the constantly increasing surplus which they were sending abroad each year, is making it more impossible for the United States to enter the field of competition for a share of the world's markets. The reports of the British Consuls are .so important upon this subject, that the writer has given below numerous extracts from them. As to the general condition of the country. Consul Charles Scott, in transmitting the reports from the several districts, said: The producing and consuming power of the country is reported to have increased enormously in the last fifteen years, not to say twenty" years ; "busine.ss" in the district of the Consul-General at Berlin, which includes, in addition to the capital, the important centres of Halle and Magdeburg, is brisk and extending satisfactoril)'. In Westphalia and Rhenish provinces Mr. Mulvany is able to report, 'a steady and marked progress in the quality if not in quantity of products turned out, and the producers, in spite of low profits, are steadily pushing them into the markets of the world, prepared to reap any advantage from the rise of prices ; and trade in this district is described as sound and healthy." From Hamburg Mr. Dundas reports that "trade of that port has been in recent years greatl5' improved and extended. " The condition of Frankfort, Mr. Oppenheimer tells us, is "fairly 1 and no retrograde movetnent observable. ' ' Nor, according to Mr. Reid, is there "generally speaking any depression of trade in the di.strict of Stettin and Swinemunde; it is true that certain branches have lost their former importance, but since 1881 the imports, and especially the exports, have steadily increased, and with the exception of the shipping interests, every branch of trade is in a most flouri.shing condition; the town itself is rapidly extending and labor is well paid." In proof of this description he gives figures showing the increase of private capital tax for income, of deposits in savings banks, and dividends of joint stock companies.' It is an important fact that during a period when business was regarded as brisk, when markets were extending and general improve- ments were taking place under protection in Germany, as shown by the reports of official representatives to the Royal Commission, the evidence ' Roy.^l Coinniission on Depression of Trade and Industry, Second Report, Part IL, p. 159. PROTECTION IN THE GER3IAN EMriFE. of manufacturers, merchants, business men and government officials proved that the very reverse was true of the United Kingdom under free trade. The causes which contributed to these opposite conditions could not be found in those influences which, apart from the tariff policies of the two countries, were operating upon the trade of all nations. The only complaint of adverse conditions which appeared in the reports to the commission, to be operating against prosperity in Germany, arose from over-production, and this seems not to have gone beyond a limitation of profits of producers of raw materials. Good prices and profits were being enjoyed generally by manufacturers of finished products, and increased rewards were being received by labor. The fact that the productive capacity of the nation had become so augmented that a large surplus was seeking buyers in foreign markets, is one that should be understood by the people of the United States before they abandon their own home market and enter the field of universal competition. Mr. Mulvany regarded the fall in prices as having been occasioned by increased com- petition and reduced cost of production. He says: "The very fact that Germanj' is able to place in fore*n markets articles of the same description as those she formerly drew from those foreign countries, is sufficient to create an impression of over-production which may not reallj' exist." It would appear from this that it was the opinion of the Consul that so long as Germany was able to force her wares into foreign markets by underselling British rivals, although an abundance was being produced and sold at low prices, yet it could not be said that as a people they were suffering from over-production. The changes which have been brought about during recent years, in the decline in the imports of manu- factured goods, especially from Great Britain, and the increase in the export of domestic manufactures, both to the United Kingdom and to other countries, was an indication of the growth and expansion of pro- ductive industries which was very satisfactorj'. Mr. Scott in reviewing the several reports from the consular districts, upon the effect which increased production in Germany is having on British trade, said : Mr. Dundas also shows that in regard to extension of trade Germany has been gaining an advantage over us in proportion of ten to one. The next figures are from the Berlin report. Mr. Bleichroder has taken the total Hamburg entries, including, I presume, those hj' land, and shows that these have increased in the last twenty years from 1,600,000 tons to 6,000,000 tons in volume, and ^^'32, 508,588 to ;fi 1 1, 498,337 in value, while the imports from Great Britain have increased in the same period from 616,713 tons to 1,615,096 tons, and ^^9, 999, 322 to ;£'22,056, 152, and that the proportion of British to total imports has decreased from 32 per cent to 23 per cent in volume, and from 29 per cent to 19 per cent in value. At Stettin the proportion of British in the total imports of that port has declined from 45 per cent to 38 per cent, and the proportion of British in total PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. exports from 25 per cent to 19.95 per cent. With regard to these last figures we find that the chief decline in British imports has taken place in coal and chemical products, while the proportion of iron has increased ; that in the exports grain has decreased enormously, and sugar has largel}- increased. From Dusseldorf we learn that British imports into that district have decreased, and exports to Great Britain largely increased, and that native producers now almost exclusively supply the home market with articles formerl)' imported from Great Britain, and that they have meanwhile created many new exports in the last fifteen years. From Frankfort it is reported that British imports of raw material have heen increasing within the last five years, but those of manufactured goods decreasing. The statistics supplied from Konigsberg show a slight increase in volume but a decrease in value of colonial goods imported from the United Kingdom in the last twenty years, a decrease especially in value of metal imports, and a large decrease both in volume and value of textile imports, while mineral and mineral products are being imported in largely increasing volume and value. The most marked feature in the decline of British trade with this countrj- would appear from all the reports to be the displacement in German markets of British by native products; this has been notoriously the case in the iron, chem- ical, and textile branches of trade, and has evidently been accomplished by native producers working with native capital.^ With the exception of one instance cited bj' Mr. Mulvany, that of rolled iron girders now imported from Belgium in his district in preference to England, I can find no trace of any diversion of British trade with Germany to any other foreign country. British agricultural machinery, gas and boiler tubes, household articles, such as kitchen utensils, tinned pails and baths, are being rapidl)- displaced by German in the Berlin district, but tin plates from England are still in great demand for the manu- facture of packing cases. We also hear of a similar displacement of British coke and cement, but not of slates, and in the textile branch of half and intermediate products, the lower num- bers of single yarns and ol doubles below No. 32, while the finer numbers of yarns and sewing thread, and finished goods, such as superior woolen cloths, meltons, diagonals, etc., continue to maintain their former position, as also certain woolen and cotton fabrics for completion by printing or dyeing in Germany, and certain descriptions of carpets. In the chemical industry, British raw materials, acids, and especially soda, seem to have been nearly entirely replaced by native products, and the Scotch monopoly in chromate of potash is said to have been broken by native establish- ments drawing their supplies from Russian and American beds, thus steadying and reducing the price of this commodity in the German market. Mr. Bleichroder, Mr. Oppenheimer and Mr. Dundas give us several instances of new establishments in the districts of Berlin, Frankfort and Hamburg, produc- ing articles formerly imported from England, such as factories for linoleum, jute and cloth, and in the case of Hamburg, British firms and capital seem to have been to a certain extent engaged in them, as according to Mr. Dundas, the British manufacturer, by transplanting his capital and working material to this countni-, has been able, as in case of the linoleum factory of Dehnenhorst, to effect a saving of 45 per cent in supplying the German market and finds the cost of production in this country about two-thirds less than in England. In the neigh- borhood of Berlin establishments for the manufacture of so-called English goods, waterproof stuffs, etc., have driven the English article out of the field, and the same appears to be the case to a great extent, with the manufacture of so-called "mungo" goods for the hat trade. PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE. lu Frankfort, many of the articles formerly imported from Bradford, Manches ter, Birmingham and Sheffield are now turned out Ijy new German establishments, and have so completely displaced their British rivals that the former English ware- houses for the retail of these goods are rapidly disappearing. The Dusseldorf district, we learn, now manufactures cutlery of so superior a kind that it is being largely exported to England and re-exported thence to America with English marks. In the textile branch, I am informed, several English firms have set up branch establishments with English capital in this district and in Silesia and the Rhine provinces. The following names of such firms have been given me: Messrs Oldroyd & Blackley, at Gruneberg ; Messrs. Ch. Blackburne, at Copenick ; Messrs, Naylor & Co. , at Wittenburg ; Messrs. Berendsen & Oldroyd, at Sagan ; Messrs. Bass, Hudson, Son & Co. , at Berlin ; Messrs. Crossley, at Berlin. The British producer is still quite able to hold his own, as we have just seen, in these markets with many superior articles in all branches of industry ; but he should aim at still greater perfection of these goods if he is to continue to keep ahead of the rapid improvement which is taking place in German manufacture. On the other hand I fear that in many other articles, such as shoddy, jute, and some Birmingham, Sheffield, and Bradford articles, their displacement by native products has been so effective that there is little hope now of reversing their pres- ent position in these markets, and a more profitable commercial interchange might be effected were we to endeavor to confine our chief supply to those articles whicl have not yet been outstripped in competition by German articles of a similar description. If we are prepared to admit that native industry and power of competition have been stimulated by protection against foreign imports of a similar description to staple German products, we must, I presume, with the present majority in this country, be equally prepared to enumerate the new customs tariff among the State aids. The reports of Consuls from the various districts which gave more detailed information upon the subject, were as follows: Mr. Dundas, reporting from Hamburg district, said : High protective tariffs undoubtedly constitute the great impediment to the extension of our trade. From this, the root, spring other impediments, such as the not unfrequently arbitrary and unfair manner in which the various classifications of the tariff are constructed, by which goods which should properly come under a class paying a comparatively low rate of duty are, by being brought under another and higher class, made to pay a much higher rate, thus effectually raising an in.surmountable impediment to competition with native goods. British cement in one part of this district has been entirely supplanted by native manufacture. The decrease in the importation ■ of this article commenced about the year 1878, in which year the amount was about 40,000 casks. This declined in the next five years down to 8000 casks, since which date it has ceased to be of any appreciable extent. A transfer of trade with Great Britain may also be said to have taken place by the increased facilities of communication with other countries by means of the establishment of direct regular lines of steam vessels through which the direct importation of raw produce has been effected, thus dimin- ishing the indirect shipments of such goods through British ports. This kind of "transfer of trade" is in future likely to increase with the establishment of new lines of steamers to transatlantic countries. | PROTECTION IX CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Factories for jute, linoleum and cloth, articles formerly almost exclusively imported from Great Britain, have been established in this district by both British and German capital. By establishing a factory on this side a saving of 45 per cent can be effected, while the cost of production is about two-thirds less than in England. In the lin- oleum factory at Dehnenhorst, British capital is invested to a considerable extent. Portland cement is made in several factories founded by German subjects with German capital on the banks of the Elbe, almost entirely supplanting the Britisli production of this manufacture.' Mr. Oppenheimer, Her Majesty's Consul-General at Frankfort, said: Noteworthy establishments have arisen in the southwest and west of Germany, and an increase has taken place in the production of certain articles formerly bought in England. The following may be mentioned as examples: 1. The chemical industry, particularly aniline and alizarine dyes, which seem to have been brought to a greater state of perfection than in England. 2. The textile industry (jute and shoddy stuffs), which through the high tariff has ousted the English market. * Mr. Mulvany, Her Majesty's Consul at Dusseldorf, said: These provinces not only now supply their own requirements and the require- ments of Germany with products and manufactures, which some few years ago were imported from England or elsewhere, but export these very products and manufac- tures not only to the markets of the world in competition with England, but to England itself. These are well-known facts to the merchants and manufacturers of both countries, which may be difficult to prove through the labyrinth of statistics, especially as its exports and imports to and from England pass through other coun- tries, Belgium, Holland, or France, but they are notorious facts which go beyond a doubt to show the turn of the tide. Quantity has after all not so much to do with the depression ; the mere offering of goods as products for sale, say in England, which were formerly only exported from that country, must cause a depression of prices out of all proportion to the quantity offered for sale. With reference to the progress in trade and industry of Germany, the following translation of the remarks published by the secretary of a great and influential association for the promotion and protection of the industrial interests of the Rhenish and Westphalian provinces, may be of interest. He writes : ' ' As one now reads frequently, even in foreign newspapers, that wherever there is a suitable place in the market of the world, Germans are to be found, who pros- per and advance in consequence of their acknowledged good capabilities, we must therefore assume that the Germans are not inferior to the American or English in initiative experience, or as practical men. We especially arrive at this favorable conclusion when we consider that the Germans have only within a comparatively short time enjoyed abroad that support which a powerful ' Vaterland' gives its sons, an advantage which especially Englishmen have enjoyed for centuries in the most favorable manner imaginable. ' ' It will be observed that in the above remarks, which are a sign of the times, that the American is placed before the Englishman, which is proof that the Ger- mans look upon America as a more formidable mercantile power than England, and now even in England as well as here, we look to any improvement in America as opening out a prospect of a better state of things in Europe; does not this look ' Royfll Commission, Second Report, Part II., p. 16S. » Royal Commission, Second Report, Part n., p. 169. PROTECTION IN THE GEB3IAN E3IPIKE. very much as if Great Britain zvere being left behind in the great mercantile race of the -world, and does not it suggest lue should look at home for the cause of this loss of ground ? There agaiu are notorious facts which require no figures to prove, and whilst we are occupied in studying endless volumes of figures and statistics, this tremen- dous revolution in trade and commerce threatens to sweep away the old familiar landmarks of industry. This centre of industry is but young in the industrial world, and has been established zvith all the advantages of improved science and means of communication, based upon the past experience gained in England, with a great home market and adjoining countries to supply ; so that with low railway and water freights, and moderate protective duties, it is only as yet necessary here to look to an over sea export trade as a means of selling a comparatively small surplus quantity not required for the home market. Still, owing to the wise policy of the government in giving up the experiments of free trade and the anomaly of increased railway freights in connection there- with, and also owing to the purchase and management of the railways by the State, the material welfare of the working classes, especially in this district, within the last fifteen or twenty years, has improved immensely, and I think I am quite safe in saying that the national wealth of the country at large has decidedly increased, so that it can no longer be said with truth that Germany is a " poor country-. ' ' It is to be feared that British coal-owners, ironmasters, and manufacturers have been a little too self-confident in their superiority, have been resting on their well- earned laurels, and relying on this prestige have not sufficiently informed them- selves as to the progress being made by their neighbors, who are now able to produce better wares and articles in many branches of industry than are produced in England; for instance, rolled iron girders of certain dimensions used in England for building and other purposes are supplied almost entirely by Belgium ; there are certain classes of plate iron and cast steel made in this country which English manufacturers and engine builders have informed me are superior to any made in England, and for "ship building purpo.ses the German plate steel and iron is pre- ferred to English ; in Germany, at least at Stettin and Kiel, higher prices are charged and paid for vessels built with German than with English plates; on the other hand, the English and Scotch cast iron is still superior to German. I remem- ber the time when we found it cheaper and better to get all the engines, machinery, pumps, cast-iron tubing, etc., etc., which we required for the Hibernia, Shamrock and Erin Collieries in Westphalia, from England; at present even English people here would not dream of importing heavy machinery or castings from any countrj- into Germany, not merely on account of the German import duty, but because the machinery produced here is of quite as good a quality and at as cheap a price as in England. German cutlery is largely exported, a good deal of it to England, from whence it is again exported as English ; English merchants purchase, for instance, cutlery in Solingen, not far from Dusseldorf, for export to America, where possibly, being stamped with an English name, it passes for English ware. In Westphalia, cla.ss for class, there is coal equal to the best English, and were my father's idea of the seaworthy river steamers carried out to the extent he pro- posed, there is no reason why Westphalian coal should not be supplied to London ; it is a mere matter of freights; were the Rhine-Elbe Canal constructed and of proper dimensions, Westphalian coal could be exported to England and Ireland with advantage. Notwithstanding the enormous increase of production of coal in the Dortmund district from 1858 to 1884, it appears to me absurd to talk of over-production here Great industrial progress. PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. so long as English coal is, as at present, imported into Germany, even up to Ber- lin. The simple fact is the Germans have not yet gone far enough in the reduc- tion of freights, and have not constructed the necessary main canals so as to get water freights. The production of coal in the Dortmund district was : Production. Value. Year. Tons. Marks. Number of Workmen. 1858. . . . 4.023,427 34,293,627 31,455 1884. . . .23,403,258 134,959,768 100,953 The production of coal in the Saarbrucken district where the coal mines are the property of, and worked by, the State, was : In the year 1S58 1,815,309 tons. In the year 1884 • 5,873, 235 tons. Answers supplied to Mr. Scott by an English gentleman, established in a large business in Berlin : 1. The rate of wages for skilled and unskilled labor in the Berliu district is 15 to 25 per cent above the average of the last twenty years. This increase has been caused, owing to the Germans, in consequence of late successful wars, having come to a sense of their own importance. 2. The quantity of work produced is greater. 3. The quality of work is a great deal better in every branch of trade. 4. The specific rate of wages in the Berliu district is as follows; For skilled labor 30 to 50 pfg. per hour. For unskilled labor 20 to 25 pfg. per hour. Rhine Provinces: For skilled labor 25 to 35 pfg. per hour. For unskilled labor 18 to 20 pfg. per hour. Breslau : For skilled labor : 30 to 45 pfg. per hour. For unskilled labor 15 to 20 pfg. per hour. 5. The hours of labor average ten to eleven daily. 6. A steady decrease in the importation of goods from Great Britain has taken place in the last twenty years. This is occasioned by the difficult position in which purchasers here are often placed, owing to the combination of trades unions in England and the strikes, which so frequently occur, rendering it impossible for such buyers to obtain the goods they require. German purchasers have, therefore, been necessarily compelled to open manu- factories here, owing to the cheapness of labor, the steadiness and sobriety of Ger- man workmen. English manufacturers, after the strikes are over, are unable to recover lost ground.' The report of H. D. Macdonell shows a decline in the imports from Great Britain to Bavaria, of various articles of manufactures, caused by home production and supplies from various parts of the German Empire, of agricultural implements and machinery in general. He says: Bavarian factories have of late, however, devoted considerable attention to tlu- construction of every part of agricultural machines, and traction engines, etc., for ' Royal Cominissiou, Second Report, Part II., p. 169. PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE. which there is considerable demand, and a fair amount of success appears to attend the new branch of industrj'. The importation of railway locomotives has altogether ceased. * Saxon and Swiss firms are using every endeavor to supplant England in the supply of spinning machines, and their efforts have been partially successful. ' With reference to cotton yarns, after describing the establishment of mills in various parts of the country, the utilization of water-power, the attraction of labor from agriculture to this industry, and the employment from England of the services of spinning masters and skilled workmen, he says : After passing through the severe commercial crisis caused by the American war, this trade suffered greatly in 1S70, in consequence "of a reduction of foreign yarns, the more so as this duty was levied by weight and not ad valorem, thus the impor- tation of English yarns increased to such an extent as to check altogether the spin- ning of high numbers, and manufacturers had to fall back twelve numbers in fineness — English system. The incorporation of Alsace-Lorraine, by which the production was at once doubled, led to the passing of higher protective duties, and from that time the import has declined, while the home production has correspond- ingly increased, and the manufacture has again risen eight numbers in fineness. The struggle of the home industry against the English spinners has been going on for a long period. During the last few years it has become a general complaint that the over-production in Great Britain causes heavy quantities of yarns to be thrown upon the German market at short intervals, which are sold at ruinously small prices; this will account for the slight augmentation in imports, but the spinning trade of the country does not appear to have been thereby materially affected. Up to the year 1879 large quantities of lace were imported from England. "But," says Mr. Macdonell, "the increase of duties to five times its former rate and the establishment of lace factories in Bavaria itself have, of necessity, materially diminished the supply from Great Britain. " The production of pig iron, steel ware, sewing machines and many other articles underwent the same change. Another fact disclosed by this report is the increase of direct trade which is springing up between Bavaria and countries other than Great Britain, in the purchase of raw materials, which formerly passed through the hands of the British. Growth is also shown in the production, in Bavaria, and in the export of a great variety of manufactured articles, besides great improvements in agriculture and especially in the dairy products, which are being largely exported. In .speaking of the general effect of protection on the industrial life of the country, Mr. Macdonell further says: So long as Bavaria remained almost exclusively an agricultural country, there was a larger supply of capital than was required at that period, consequently the first State loans were effected at par, or at a slight premium, with interest ranging from 2 to 3'/^ per cent. Later on, however, when capital became necessary to establish and develop the manufactures, the disposable amount was found to have diminished to such an extent that the average rate of interest rose to 5 and 6 per cent. The rapid development of Bavarian industry, however, proved of immense value, not Royal Comn , Thiril Report, p. 43S. PROTECTION IK CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. only to the country itself, but also to enhance the material advantages which Germany derived from the war of 1870-71, and led to a complete change in the financial condition of the country. The interest, for instance, on the whole of the national debt, and for nearly all the municipal loans issued at 4)4 and 5 per cent, could without difficulty have been and was reduced to 4 per cent. It maj' be fairly concluded that at the present moment very little capital is required, and the supply would fully meet any reasonable call. The wages of farm and ordinary laborers have increased in proportion to the higher prices now paid for the necessaries of life, compared with the period when Bavaria first began to give her attention to trade and industry. The chief impediments to the extension of commercial relations between Bavaria and Great Britain are, firstly, the high freights charged upon all articles of trade; and secondly, the increasing duties upon goods imported into Germany, and which duties are unmistakably intended to hamper the introduction of English products. The only adequate measure which can be used to counteract the action of the German Government would be the adoption of the policy it now vigorously carries out, i. e. , to extend an adequate amount of protection against the importation of German goods, which, if not checked, bids fair to prove highly prejudicial to British trade. It may be further observed that the development of Bavarian industries has in a great measure rendered the country independent of foreign supplies, especially as regards textile fabrics, iron, steel, and colors, and the trade from Great Britain in these goods has decidedly diminished. This decline cannot be attributed to a reduced capacity for supply on the part of England, but British firms have of late taken less interest in the introduction of new branches of trade, and have, perhaps, also shown themselves less scrupulous in the quality they supply. There are, more- over a considerable number of Germans, who by long residence in England or in her colonies, have acquired not only steady and business-like habits, but also such knowledge and experience of our commercial requirements, as eriable them to carry on a large export trade in the British possessions. Although a densely populated countr}', with the labor market already overcrowded, wages have not only advanced, but increased employment has been given since protection was established. The greatest improve- ment in the material condition of the masses of the German people has occurred since the formation of the ZoUverein. Wages not only advanced as factories were built, but the overcrowded rural population was relieved and found an outlet, as the cities and industrial centres grew. Protection gave to Germany not only a diversity of industries, but a diversity of employments, and greatly increased the opportunities for the people to get work. It would seem that such industrial expansion was absolutely necessary in a nation like Germany, having a superabundance of labor. To utilize the laborers and turn them to the best advantage to themselves and to the nation, was a part of the economic policy of List and Bismarck. The protectionists of Germany saw how unwi.se it would be to leave the coal and iron mines unworked, and the natural resources of the country undeveloped, when under the stimulus and encouragement which might be given to capital and lal)or, they would burn German instead of Briti.sh coal, work up their own iron, supply their home market and make PROTECTION IN THE GER3IAN EMPIRE. Germany a bus}', rich and prosperous country. If the benefits to be derived from the policy of protection should be measured alone by the increased employment, advance in wages and general improvements which have been brought about to the laborers of Germany, it would sufficiently justify the wisdom of the policy of protection. It is equally certain that even with the abundance of labor and the low wage rate which prevailed, the industrial progress which has taken place could not have been made under free trade. The capital of the country was almost wholly invested in occupations other than manufacturing. The people almost as a whole were engaged in farming. Large land-owners held the title to the soil, while the masses were rural laborers, living in a condition bordering on serfage. Capitalists could not be induced to embark in manufacturing in the face of the vigorous British competition that would be waged against them, especiallj' when they would not only be compelled to become familiar with the processes of manufacturing themselves, but at the same time to educate and convert into artisans unskilled rural laborers. These were the difficulties which necessarily forced Germany to raise a barrier of protection to encourage and protect capital invested in manufacturing. This done, foreign rivals were gradually driven from the field, and as home industries made headway year by year, the expansion went on, and manufacturing was extended to the making of everj-thing necessary to supply the German people. As new factories were built, more employ- ment was given to labor. The encouragement and confidence inspired by protection, invited not only German, but English capital, still further to augment German industries. The result could only be a vast increase in the employment of labor, at better wages. Upon the question of larger employment and increased wages, we have the most reliable authority. The reports of British Consuls to the Royal Commission of Trade and Industry in 1885, upon the condition of labor and rates of wages in Germany, furnish very interesting and reliable data upon this subject. The plan adopted by the Royal Commission for investigating the changes which had taken place in the wage rate of the United Kingdom during the period of twenty years, between 1864 and 1884, was extended to Ger- many. It is very interesting to note that the reports from Germany were, that an increase of wages had taken place during the time referred to. While this had universally occurred throughout the German Empire, in the majority of instances wages had fallen in England during the same time. But the most marked feature of the industrial question was dis- closed by the fact that while increased employment was the result of pro- tection in Germany, lack of employment occasioned to a great extent by the import of competing commodities, was the mo.st serious injury which had befallen the laborers of England, through free trade. Mr. Dundas reported from Hamburg that Professor Soetbeer had shown that between 1848-51 and 1879-85 wages had increased 98 per PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. cent, So per cent, and 85 per cent (alternately). The wages paid for road- building, to skilled labor, had increased in some instances 226 per cent. Speaking of the consular district which he represented (Hamburg) Mr. Dundas said; "In this district wages have presumably risen in the same proportion." Mr. Oppenheimer, Consul-General at Frankfort, said: "The wages for skilled and unskilled labor are over the average of the last twenty years. The quantity as well as the quality of the work has similarly risen. The former through the introduction of machines, and the latter through the improved training which workmen have received. ' ' Mr. Mulvany, in his consular report from Dusseldorf, said: Production in the main branches of industry has continued steadily to increase, and with it the demand for skilled labor and rates of wages. So that in this dis- trict a good workman is sure to find employment, and even the common laborer earns 2.?. 6d. (60 cents) a day. Higher class of workmen, 4.?. to 5.9. (96 cents to j(i. 20) a day of ten hours. . . . The present rate of wages both for skilled and unskilled labor exceeds the average of the last twenty years. From other districts the following reports were given: Offe?ibach Report. "They are (wages), as regards unskilled labor, above the average of the last twenty years, whereas skilled, and especially good work, has commanded prices approaching the very highest hitherto paid." Report from Worms. "Wages for both skilled and unskilled labor are above the average of the last twenty years, and range between 2 and 2^ marks for unskilled labor, and between 2% and 5 marks for skilled labor per day, consisting almost universally of ten hours." Report from Ma>i7iheim. "The rate of wages has risen above the average, being at present from 2 marks to 3.50 per day of ten working hours." The general increase which was shown by the reports quoted in 1885 has continued until the present time. The report of Sir E. B. Malet to the Marquis of Salisbury, from Berlin, August 8, 1891,'upon the present state of the labor question in Germany, shows that the returns of the Ger- man factory inspectors for 1890 exhibit an increase in the number of hands employed. In the district of Oppeln, the number employed increased from 110,268 in 1886, to 139,406 in 1890; in the Kingdom of Saxony, from 321,629 in 18S8, to 340,498 in 1S89; in the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg, 10,253 in 1888, to 11,284 in 1889. The report says: 1 Foreign Official Miscellaneous Series, 1891, No. 212, PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE. "The increase of the work-people employed in the district of Berlin- Charlottenburg, amounted to 15,225, from 1889 to 1890. There now exist 5 1 86 factories in the district, with a total of 159,505 hands." The increase in Brelan and Liegnitz (Silesia) was 1 1 per cent from 1880 to 1890, or from 141,399 to 157,340. A similar increase occurred in the district of Mersburg and Erfurt, from 73,313 in 1888, to 92,136 in 1890. Mr. Malet says that the yearly increase in the work-people employed has been 5 per cent and that the number has risen from 4,500,000 in 1882, to 7,000,000 in 1890. Upon the question of an advance in wages, Mr. Malet says; During the year 1888-89 ^ general rise of wages took place in most of the •German industiial districts. The report for the district of Potsdam-Frankfort-on- Oder, states that with the exception of the textile industries, a rise of 10 per cent to 25 per cent in wages was observed. In the district of Dusseldorf, the rise in many cases was over 15 per cent. In the district of Leipsic, the improvement is especially noticeable in the engineering trade, the average rate being 40 pf. to 45 pf. [^}{d. to sVxd. ) per hour, as against 27 pf. to 35 pf. in former years. In one engineering establishment, the average weekly wage, which three years ago was 20 marks (^i), has risen to from 23 to 25 marks {£1 55. ), and the prices paid for piece-work have increased to a corresponding extent. ' On the foHowing page is a table of wages paid in the district of Potsdam-Frankfort-on-Oder, for the years 1882 and 1889; copied from the report of Sir E. B. Malet, to the Marquis of Salisbury, Augu.st 8, 1891. We have further information upon this subject contained in the report on Germany, to the Royal Commission on Labor, in June 1893, by Mr. Geoffrey Drage, in which he says: "The wages for Germany have shown a great increase since 1850, in some cases as much as 60 per cent, and the co.st of production has not sensibly increased." ^ An economic policy under which such benefits can be achieved, even in a country where excessive competition prevailed among the laborers, cannot be overthrown by contentions based on theoretical and speculative reasoning. The results which have followed the adoption and practice of the policy of protection in Germany, as well as in all other cotmtries where it has been tried, fully vindicate its wisdom, while proving the benefits which are to be derived from it. Not only has the foreign trade of Germany greatly increased since the return to protection, but its character is being reversed. Instead of buying a large quantity of fully manufactured goods each year, she is buying less and has become an exporter of those wares and articles which were formerly purchased. The trading classes are now more largely dealing in and making their profits from goods made in home factories. The imports of cotton, wool, silk and other raw materials for home con- sumption is yearly increasing. The imports of yarns and partly manu- factured goods are decreasing, because of home supply. The exports 1 Page 7, Report. » Foreign Reports, Vol. V., p. 57. PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Table of Wages Paid in the District of Potsdam-Frankforton-Oder. /. S/one and Earth In- dustries : Briquett makers, .... Brickmakers Carters Laborers, Glassblowers, Assistants, Tile carriers, //. Engitieering trade : Locksmiths, Turners, Blacksmiths, Pattern makers Moulders and founders, . Brassfounders, ... Laborers, ///. Woolen Industry: (a) Male labor : Washers, Spinners, Carding boys, Weavers, Worsted weavers, . . . Fullers and dyers, . . . Laborers (b) Female labor : Wool sorters, Carders, Cloth shearers and stop- pers, IV. Haf-making trade : Spinners Hand-felt makers, . . . Machine-felt makers, . . Pumice stoners and spon- gers, Sizers, Pressers, Trimmers, women, . . . \'. Pafter-making trade: R.it; sorters, women, . . Rai^I-cngine hands. Hands at paper machine. Hands serving the paper machine Sorters, women, .... Packers, VI. Building trade : Masons and bricklayers. Carpenters, Laborers, .... VII. Wood Industry : Saw mill hands. Wood carvers, , Cabinet makers, Polishers, M. pf. M. pf. Weekly Earn- ings. Weekly Earn- United States ings. Money. M. pf. Weekly Ear Unityd^ltat, Money. 9.60 to 13.50 I2.31 to $3.24 12.00 13.50 to 15.00 14.00 to 15.00 8.50 to 9.00 20.00 to 20.00 10.20 to 12.00 i 4.50 to 12.00 1 15.60 to 21.30 15.00 to 19.00 16.80 to 17.70 iS.oo to 19.20 i 17.70 to 18.60 3.24 to 3.60 15.00 3.36 to 3.60 12.00 2.04 to 2.16 7. So 4.80 to 4.80 24 00 2.45 to 2.88 10.50 1.08 to 2.88 6.00 3.75 to 5.11 13.00 3.60 to 4.56 13.00 4.04 to 4.25 16.80 4.32 to '4.61 4.25 to 4.47 M. pf. o 15.00 $2.88 to I3.60 o 24.00 ' 3.60 to 5.76 o 28.80 2.88 to 6.92 1. 88 to 3.14 5.76 to 9.12 2.52 to 3.96 1 to 9.50 j 2.16 to 8.00 to 10.00 to 6.00 to 12.00 to 13.00 to 0.00 ! 1.92 to 2.40 I 6.00 I 2.40 to 3.84 , 8.00 1 1.44 to 1.92 ' I I 2.88 to 3.36 J 3.12 to 4.32 3.0O to 9.00 S.oo to 9.00 5.00 to 10.80 3.00 to 19.50 5.20 to 15.00 2.50 to 18.00 3.40 to 10.30 2.80 to 13.20 ^.50 to 19.00 5.60 to 9.00 I40 to 10.50 5.30 to 15.00 3.70 to 12.00 2.40 to 6.60 }.6o to 12.20 2.00 to 15.00 2.00 to 15.00 B.oo to 11.00 2.00 to 14.00 2.00 to iS.oo 2.00 to 15.00 3.50 to 20.00 1.44 to 2. 1.44 to 2. 1.44 to 2.( 2.16 to 4.( 3.17 to 3.( .82 to 2, 1.51 to 3, 2.09 to 2, .68 to .87 to I to 3. !to 3. ;to 3 ; to 4 3 o 13.80 o 3S.00 o 16.50 o 15.00 12.60 10.00 9.90 9.90 4.80 10.80 15.00 10.50 7.80 .0 33.00 :o 30.00 to 27.00 :o 33.00 30.00 ;o 25.80 .0 iS.oo j 13.50 ;o 13.80 o 7.2P o 15.00 o 20.50 o 13-50 o 13-50 11.40 15.60 13.20 32 15.60 47 10.50 17 12.80 56 ' 4.50 16 3.60 52 8.40 60 I 8.40 1.88 10.50 •59 , 3-00 i.93 I 5-40 ' Report c 3.24 to State of Labor Question i 16.00 15.00 11.00 12.00 17-50 14.50 13.00 to .60 3.12 to 7.92 3.12 to 7.20 4.04 to 6.48 3.60 to 7.92 3.75 to 7.20 3.03 to 6.20 2.40 to 4.32 2.38 to 3.24 1.00 13.20 I8.S0 15.60 16.50 18.60 16.20 \ 19.50 9.00 12.00 16.80 13.00 7.201 13-80; 25.00 ! 23.00 14.00 20.80 26.00 I 26.00 26.00 : 2.3H to 2.36 to 2.60 to 3.60 to 2.52 to 1.88 to 2.74 to 3-75 to 3.17 to 3-75 to 2.52 to 3.08 to 2.52 to .72 to 1-3° to 3.84 to 3.60 to 2.64 to 4. 20 to 3.48 to 3.12 to I Germany, pp. 8 and 9. PEOTECriON IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE. have undergone a similar change; instead of sending out farm products and raw materials these are being more largely consumed at home, while the fully manufactured goods are being sold in increasing quantities in all parts of the world. Whitaker's Almanac for 1888 contains the fol- lowing statement in regard to the trade of this country from 1S75 to 18S6: The changes in the total value of exports and imports are, however, of compara- tively small importance in comparison with the change which has taken place in the nature or the character of the trade carried on in Germany. The country, although long known for the excellence of certain of its manufactures, has until recently been an exporter of raw produce, rather than of manufactured goods. vSuch is no longer the case. The imports of manufactured goods (including partly manufactured) rose from $141,526,000 in 1872, to $259,920,000 in 1886, or 83 per cent. This was made up largely of partly manufactured articles for use in home production. The imports of 5-arns rose from $48,450,000 in 1872, to $83,580,000 in 1886, or 72 per cent. The exports of fully manufactured articles show a remarkable increase, being $210,450,000 in 1872 and $540,890,000, in 1886, an increase of 157 per cent. In 1875 they formed only 36 per cent of the exports, while in 1886 they had risen to 75 per cent. Deducting the imports from the exports, and considering simply the increase of exports over imports, some remarkable figures are exhibited, showing the expansion of domestic industries. The following shows the percentage of net increase in exports of certain articles by quantities: From 1S75 to 18S6 the exports of silk manufactures increased S84 per cent. 296 woolen cotton glass paper spirits beer machinery The exports of machinery rose from 15,960 to 58,497 net tons, while the imports increased during the same time from 22,340 to 33,290 tons. In 1875, 284,000 tons of pig iron were imported, while in 1886, 858,000 tons were exported. The effect of the substitution of a bounty for a drawback on sugar, and the marvelous development which has taken place in this industry is shown by the fact that while in 1875 Germany imported 1240 tons of sugar; in 1886 the net exports were 565,103 tons. The exports of raw sugar rose from 46,218 tons in 1876 to 493,830 tons in 1890. Of candies from 7393 tons in 1876 to 215,736 tons in 1890. The imports of sugar into Germany decreased from 5607 tons in 1880, to 3742 tons in 1890. PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Even under declining prices the exports b}- valuation show a similar increase. Between 1875 and 1885 the exports of textile goods increased 7S7 per cent. " " metal wares " 53S " " " machinery " 53 " " " glass and earthenware " 355 " " " paper " 210 " " " spirits " 54 " The above exhibit shows that Germany is not only, year by year, pplying a large share of her home trade, but is fast gaining a larger share of the trade of other countries. The monopoly which the United Kingdom so long held of foreign trade is being destroyed by Germany. By the increase of domestic production, inider protection, in Russia and other countries, the imports of such articles as they were making at home have been restricted, but while the trade of Germany has fallen off, to such nations, it has increased to all other parts of the world. The fol- lowing table shows the changes which have occurred in the export trade of Germany and England to the principal nations: Hanse Towns, . . . Russia, Sweden and Norway, Denmark Holland, Belgium United Kingdom, . . Germany France, Spain and Portugal, . Austria, Italy, United States, . . . icrease or Decrease in the Value of Export. 1 the ZoUverein. Fr 1SS0-S5. Per cent. cm the United Kingd (British produce.) Per'cent 7.3 inc. 29.3 dec. 44.4 dec. 15.8 inc. 2.3 inc. 6.0 inc. 8.9 dec. 1.4 inc. II. 3 dec. 10. 1 dec. 24.7 inc. 3-5 inc. 7.5 flee. II. 9 dec. 12.6 dec. 72.4 inc. 7.1 dec. 1.2 inc. 52.6 inc. 72.9 inc. 12.1 inc. 17. 1 dec. 13. 1 dec. The following statement of the foreign trade of the country in 1S91 shows the general character of the commodities which enter into the trade. It has ceased to be an exporter of farm produce and raw materials, and is now actively participating in the struggle for markets in all parts of the world for the produce of its factories : Table Showing the Importations into and Exportations from the German Costoms Territory dl-rikg the Year 1S91.' Report by Consular Clerk Murphy, of Berlin. Articles. Imports. Exports. Waste materials, manures, rags, etc., $13,328,400 12,720,400 Cotton and cotton wares 74,865,360 56,468,400 Lead and lead wares i, 188,000 2,409,600 I United States Consular Report, No. 1.17, iSijj. PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE. Imports. Exports $811,200 $3,492,240 58,199,040 60,46s, 48r 11,743,920 66,487,680 90,239,520 50,338.560 22,902,720 9,608,880 193,146,240 31,681,680 2,244,240 9,251,520 :i, 035, 680 6,294,960 34,693,200 16,982,880 55,258,560 34,663,920 1,796,400 6,535,440 9,693,600 31,525,680 27,360 31 8,447,760 6,595,920 2,545,680 30,112,080 13,790,640 14,652,720 11,067,840 21,242,160 13,021,920 38,941,220 7,441,680 8,154,000 24,240 239,520 7,318,320 22,421,520 184,695,600 117,751,920 37,379,520 7,572,240 2,127,840 21,695,760 325,200 927,840 20,073,360 1,566,720 44,238,240 48,680,160 570,960 2,261,280 3,120 80,160 10,511,760 6,120,000 27,185,520 36,210,960 1,353,600 1,156,800 5,714,880 1,832,160 22,535,040 2,324,160 1,376,160 8,181,600 55,806,240 5,151,840 318,240 233,760 96,443,040 82,979,040 882,480 9,054,480 4,125,120 985,440 171,840 2,836,080 Total, 11,160,669,280 1888,923,040 Total in 1890 1,025,520,000 818,400,000 The above table does not represent the total trade of the country, but simply the special imports and exports. The figures representing the imports and exports of textile fabrics presented in the above statement, include raw materials, and yarns, as 29 Brush and sieve makers' wares, Drugs, chemicals and colors, Iron and iron wares Earths, ores, precious metals, asbestos and asbestos wares, Flax and other vegetable spinning stuffs, with the exception of cotton, Grain and other agricultural products, Glass and glass wares, Hair (horse, human, etc.), feathers and bristles, . . Hides and skins, Wood and wooden ware, etc Hops, Instruments, machines and vehicles, Calendars, Caoutchouc, gutta-percha and wares thereof, .... Ready-made clothing and body linen, also mil- lineries, Copper and copper wares, • Hardware, fancy wares, etc Leather and leather wares, Linen yarn, linen and other linen wares Candles, Literary and artistic articles, Groceries, spices, liquors, etc., Oils not otherwise specified and fats Paper and paper wares Furs, Petroleum Silk and silk wares Soap and perfumes Playing cards, Stone and stone wares, Coal, coke, peat, etc., Straw and bast wares Tar, pitch, resin and asphalt, Animals and animal products not otherwise specified, Pottery, porcelain, etc., Horses, cattle, etc., Wax cloth, wax muslin, etc., Wool and woolen wares Zinc and zinc wares, Tin and tin wares, Incompletely declared wares, PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. well as the finished products. According to the statistical year book of the German Government, issued in 1894, showing the foreign trade of the country in 1893, the principal imports of raw materials used in the manu- facture of textile fabrics, and the exports of finished articles of this class were as follows: Imports of Raw Materials, 1893. Wool, raw . . ■. $54,740,000 Cotton, raw 49,980,000 Flax, 9,282,000 Hemp 5,474,000 Silk, raw, 30,226,000 Of the above only |i6,66o,ooo were exported. Exports of Textile Fabrics. Woolen goods 151,884,000 Cotton goods, 36,723,400 Silks, 36,318,000 Linen goods, 4,284,000 Woolen and cotton yarns, 13,328,000 Of the principal exports of domestic productions, sugar stood at the head, amounting to $52,788,400. In the brief space which can be devoted to the trade and industries of Germany, it is impossible to enter into the details showing the specific effect of protective duties upon the various industries of the country. Enough, however, has been presented, drawn from the reports of the Briti.sh consuls, to show that as a result of the return to protection in 1879, new life was given to all branches of production, and a most marvelous expansion of all branches of manufacture took place. The ruinous com- petition of Great Britain was again warded off, and the German manu- facturers entered with confidence upon a new career of business activity. It is a mistaken notion that the Germans are to-day inferior in skill and in the use of new inventions and modern appliances to the people of the United States, in the various branches of manufacturing. Old machinery has been discarded and their factories are now as well equipped as those of any other country, and every effort is being made to reach the highest degree of skill and efficiency. In this respect and especially in the atten- tion which has been given to the technical education of the people, they have greatly surpassed the English. While a vast quantity of cheap and plain goods are being produced, the country is fa.st becoming noted for its production of the more delicate, beautiful and costly fabrics and wares. There are in Germany 328 places of in.struction in manual training. The establishment of the.se in.stitutions began about the year 1S78, and they have since rapidly increa.sed as the interest in industrial pur.suits has grown. One hundred and fifty-six of the.se institutions have been started since 1888. They are divided among the States and cities as follows: Prussia has 201; Saxony, 47; Dresden, 17; Cologne, 15; Berlin, 10; PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE Halle, 7; Bremen, 6: Leipsic, 8: Hanover, Liibeck and Magdeburg 5 each; Aix-la-Chapelle, Barmen, Emden, Hamburg and Munich 4 each; Duseii, Konigsberg, Weimar, and Wurzburg, 3 each.' Many are supported by the State, some by communes and societies, and others bv private persons. The course of training and instruction embraces all of the departments of scientific information and technical learning, practiced in all industrial pursuits. It is folly for free trade writers, as has been the case, to attempt to make it appear that the citizens of the United States, although receiving higher wages, are by superior skill enabled to surpass the Germans in competition, when in designing, dyeing and in the scientific features of the production of fabrics, they are excelled by none unless it be the French. Not only are they equipping and strengthening themselves in every way possible for industrial supremacy, but they are showing a degree of ambition and enterprise in pressing themselves into foreign trade, which has attracted the attention of the commercial world. In the collection of statistics, in knowledge of commercial geography and of the needs and wants of foreign nations, they are surpassed by none. The ceaseless efforts, says Louis Stern, of the representatives of the German industries to open up new fields for the sale of their products appear to have received special encouragement and support on the part of the German Government since the holding of the World's Columbian Exposition. In connection with this fact, it is interesting to learn that the German consular officers in foreign countries are devoting themselves to advancing the interests of German industries by employing a novel, but thoroughly practical, method of securing additional sources of demand for German articles of manufacture. I have learned through the medium of German publications, that, through the German consuls in the United States, agencies have been established in nearly all the important centres, in charge of persons conversant with English and German and thoroughly supplied with information relating to the exporting industries of their countrj'. At these bureaus, that might be denominated ' ' industrial agencies, ' ' interested parties can obtain information and advice regarding German sources of supply and the relative condition of market prices, freight rates, and tariff duties, so that, benefiting by this, even the importer of smaller quantities will, in future, be able to order wares from Germany at first hand. Whether these agents thus appointed by the German consular officers are supplied with books containing information about the various branches of German industries and indicating definitely the manufacturing firm, with its respective locality and price quotations, is at present unknown to me, but it may reasonably be assumed that such is, the case. It is obvious, however, that .such bureaus of information, if intrusted to the direction of the right persons will, in time, prove to be of inestimable value to parties interested. 2 In considering Germany as a competitor among nations for the markets of the world, not only the skill and enterprise of her people, her va.st industrial population and low wages, but the large accumulations of wealth which are taking place must not be lost sight of. The power of > UuUcd States Consular Report, No, Report, No. 166, July, 1894, pp. 458 and 459. 157, October, 1893, ] Commer- cial activity of the PEOTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. capital as a factor in commercial warfare lias been demonstrated by the success achieved by British manufacturers, so long as they surpassed other nations in this respect. The estimate of the wealth of the German people, made in 1886 by Professor Becker, chief of the German Bureau of Statistics, was $41,650,- 000,000. Of Prussia alone, Mr. Miquel, the Prussian Minister of Finance, concluded that the wealth was $17,564,400,000, of which $7,075,740,000 was invested in .stocks, bonds and loans. Of the whole wealth of the German Empire, it is estimated that aboiit 25 per cent is invested in stocks and bonds, and United States Commercial Agent Smith estimates that this ' ' will be increased to 40 or 50 per cent in the next generation. ' ' It was estimated by Professor Schmoller that from 2, 500,000 to 4,000,000 of the inhabitants derive incomes from invested capital, one- half of which hold public securities. It is estimated by Professor Becker that the annual increase in wealth is 3 per cent, or $1,190,000,000. Deducting the amount which rises from enhancement in values, he finds' about $595,000,000 to represent the annual savings of the people. Con- sular Agent Smith says on this point: '"' In the la.st ten years the deposits in the savings banks are claimed to have augmented about $44,030,000 per annum. And throughout Germany probably $7 1 ,400,000 to $95, 200,000 from which it is inferred that the German nation is laying up from $476,- 000,000 to $595,000,000 annually, one-half of which goes into securities. " Professor Schmoller estimates that during the last ten j-ears about $952,000,000 to $1,190,000,000 have been invested in foreign securities, and $1,904,000,000 in domestic securities. " Commercially and indus- trially," says Consul Smith, "Germany is in a favorable situation to-day, notwithstanding the complaints that one hears from time to time, and those per-sons err greatly who imagine that the country is soon going to be financially engulfed by its military burdens. ' ' ' The accumulation of wealth which is taking place is undoubtedly due in great part to the tariff policy which is being practiced. Similar results are found to have followed the development of domestic resources in all countries where protection has been accorded to home producers. As mines are opened, factories built, agriculture extended, industrial activity takes place, home trade becomes more brisk, production is aug- mented and the opportunities which are thus brought into existence for the investment of capital and employment of labor at home bring about the very conditions which make the accumulation of wealth possible. The growth of capital is also indicated by the extent to which the various branches of production are carried on. It would be impossible in the brief space devoted to the subject here to give the magnitude of the various manufacturing establishments of the country. It is enough. however, to say that the woolen manufactories in 1890 gave employment ' United States Consular Report. No. i66, July, 1894, pp. 390 and 391. PROTECTION IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE. to 250,000 hands. In the cloth manufacture there were 2, 600, 000 spindles in operation. The sixty linen factories employ 300,000 spindles and about 250,000 looms. There are in the cotton industry 7,000,000 spindles and 300,000 looms. In the year above referred to, 1890, there were 100 por- celain factories; 300 glass works ; 700 establishments for manufacturing chemicals and dye stuffs, and 1240 paper mills. The iron and coal indus- tries have also made remarkable progress since 1879. Germany ranks next to the United States and Great Britain in the production of coal, pig iron and steel, and is "abreast of both countries in the production of iron ore. ' ' The production of iron ore as shown by the statistics of Dr. H. Rentzsch, the Statistician of the Association of German Iron and Steel Manufacturers from 1869 to 1894 was, in 1869, 4,053,807 tons; 1879, 5,859,439 tons; 1894, 12,403,758 tons. The number of tons of coal mined increased from 5,800,985 tons in 1848, to 53,470,716 tons in 1879, and in 1894 it had reached 98,876,105 tons. The production of pig iron grew from 1,409,429 tons in 1869, to 2,226,587 tons in 1879, and by 189411 had reached 5,416,000 tons. Tons of steel made increased from 500,900 in 1879 to 3,621,000 in 1894. The make of steel rails in 1871 was 128,406 tons, and 483,228 in 1893. In i860 nearh' all the locomotives and machinery used in the country- were imported, while to-day the home demand is not only being almost exclusively supplied from home machine-works, but large sales are being made in foreign countries. There are 750 machine-works in the Empire employing over 90,000 hands. The German people excel in the making of iron and steel, machinery, hardware and cutlery. The sharp competition that is being waged against British manufacturers in all markets is evidence, not only of a large yearly production, but also of the efficiency and skill of artisans, as well as the ability and enterpri.se of the German capitalists. There is scarcely a better example to be found in any country of the wisdom of the policy of protection than is presented by the growth of industries in Germany since 1879. The results which have followed have fully vindicated the statesmanship of Prince Bismarck. It is a mistaken notion that protection was returned to under Bismarck because of the heavy drafts on the treasury made necessary to support a large standing army and the military system. Neither were protective duties restored for the purpose of retaliating against protective countries. The policy was deliberately entered upon after a careful study of the situation of the country and an examination of the science of economics by Prince Bis- marck, King William and others. In the short and disastrous period of free trade following the Franco-Prussian war, the bankruptcy of business men, the ruin of industries and the lack of employment for labor proved a return to protection to be not only a pressing necessity, but the only policy under which the German people could become rich and prosperous. C^APTER II. Russia. In extent of domain and in the enjoyment of certain natural and geo- graphical advantages, Russia is the grandest empire on the globe. With twice the area of the United States and one hundred and sixty times that of England and Wales, it embraces one-sixth of the world's habitable land. How much the population exceeds 115,000,000 is not known, for the limit of territory or number of inhabitants are not fully known even to the gov- ernment itself. The .surface is for the most part one or two vast plains surrounded on all sides by mountain or sea. It is to European Ru.ssia that the reader's attention will be directed almost wholly. On the east are the Ural mountains and through the centre running from east to west is a wide undulating ridge. To the north the country slopes to the Baltic and Arctic ; to the south, toward the Caspian and Black Seas, which lead to the Mediterranean ; to the west, toward Austria, German)' and the Baltic. The climate is most varied. . In the south is the warm temperate region of the Crimea, in the north the frozen regions of the Arctic; the one luxuriant with tropical fruits, the other an icebound tract, barren of any kind of vegetation. Between the two extremes are found nearly every production known to man. Agriculture is naturally the predomi- nating occupation, though it will be shown how manufacturing has devel- oped under various degrees of protection. The history of Russia from the middle of the ninth century to the close of the seventeenth has but little interest for the student of trade and commercial advancement, and even during the century following Peter the Great, there was not much indus- trial progress. The early history is a continual series of foreign and internal wars. No great progress in industrial arts was made till the time of Peter the Great, whose reign began in 1689. In two years time he became endowed with the will and ambition to advance his people in art and science. Disguised in name and appearance he went to Holland. On arriving at Amsterdam he enrolled himself among the ship- wrights and worked in the yards side by side with other artisans. When not at work he studied and read, making himself proficient in drawing plans in fortification and navigation. Nothing escaped his observation. He examined ever)' workshop and, every tool. He made a trip to England, where he perfected him.self in .ship-building, and returned to Holland. At the end of two years he returned to his country. Soon after were erectetl large Russian ships on the Baltic, Black and Arctic Seas. Stately buildings (454) EUSSIA. rose among the miserable huts. Colleges, libraries and printing houses followed. Reforms of all kinds were adopted. The dress of the people was changed. Cities had military and police regulations. Peter taught his subjects discipline and obedience by going himself to the ranks and working up to the head of the army. He took 500 bells from the churches to make cannon. He was a good engineer, a skillful pilot, with a thorough knowledge of naval affairs. He even mastered the subject of surgery. In a short time he had completely tran.sformed the Empire. The building of St. Petersburg was begun and concluded under his supervision, and in 1 7 18 it became the capital of the Empire. Not only did Peter promote ship-building, architecture and the construction of fortifications, but at his death there were twenty-one imperial manufactories. Since the time of Peter the Great, Catherine II., Alexander I., Nicholas I. and Alexander II. have all distinguished themselves in promoting and encouraging the industries of the realm, particularly manufactures. The history of other sovereigns is but a repetition of court intrigues and foreign wars, and all with but little gain to the Empire. The impetus given by Peter, however, was never wholly lost, and with the adoption of strict commercial relations at the end of the eighteenth century, industries of all kind took a long stride forward. The nineteenth century opened with the assassination of Paul and the accession of Alexander the First. A high tariff duty system had been established a few years before, followed in 1800 by the prohi- bition of importations of silk, cotton, flax or hemp materials, gla.ss, earthenware or porcelain. In 1801 the exportation of all Russian wares was prohibited, but Alexander the First rescinded this decree. All English goods were shut out in 1804, and in 18 10 trade statutes were issued restricting the importation of all foreign goods, forbidding the import of ready-made articles, but favoring certain importations through neutral vessels. In 1816, however, at the restoration of peace in Europe, concessions were made and in 18 19 the protective .sj'Stem was entirely abandoned. A low rate of duty was retained, but it gave such freedom to the importation of goods as seriously to affect all manufactures. On the other hand, England, France and Prussia had tariffs of a strong protective character, so that Rus.sia was at a double disadvantage. It did not take her long to see the necessity of again returning to protection, and in 1822 a new customs tariff was adopted and the importations of foreign goods were for- bidden or subjected to high duties. Russia has never since returned to free trade. Her tariff systems have changed but always with more or less pro tective features. From 1822 till 1849 high duties were maintained. From 1850 till 1876 more moderate duties prevailed, while from 1877 to the present time, duties have been levied in a series of measures with a view to protecting Russian productions and Russian industries. Few statistics are available to show the workings of the tariff prior to 1824. The tariff of PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. 1822 was a thoroughly protective measure. The importation of textile fabrics, cotton stufFs, different sorts of cloths, silk stuffs, certain kinds of paper, copper wares, glass and porcelain goods, some earthen wares and refined sugar, were altogether forbidden. The importation of cast iron and iron, by sea, was prohibited, and a large duty was levied if imported by land. The strictly protective features of this tariff which tended to enhance home production were not changed by the modifications which took place in the years following. Prohibitions were changed to high rates of duties and in some instances temporary changes were made to develop a particular industry, for instance sheep .shears were admitted for awhile, to encourage sheep breeding. Again, certain models were admitted free or at a low rate of duty for the benefit of manufacturers. In 1 83 1 the duties were considerably raised, but lowered again in 1836. Export duties which had prevailed to a large degree were lowered from time to time during the first part of the century. In 1841 a new tariff was issued which continued in force till 1850. For the first half of the century then, it will be seen that Russia maintained a system of pro- tective tariffs with the exception of three years. Foreign Trade of Russia — 1S24-1S49. Years. Export. Import. Excess of ex- port ( + ) or import ( — ). Customs revenues. 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 • 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1 841 1842 1843 1844 1847 1848 1849 Roubl 50,300 59,800 44,600 56,600 50,200 56,500 63,500 61,400 61,600 59,000 55,400 69,400 63,800 76,600 76,900 74,100 73,200 82,500 81,100 90,700 36,900 78,500 85,700 000 000 oco 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Roub 42,100 44,100 73.S00 46,100 47,300 53,100 43,900 41,900 43,900 45,000 53,300 54,200 56,600 60,400 59.600 59.600 67,300 65,200 69,900 62,600 65,800 68,500 7 1 . 700 74,000 76,000 81,900 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Roubles. + 8,200,000 + 15,700,000 — 29,200,000 + 10,500,000 + 2,900,000 -j- 3,400,000 + 19,600,000 + 19,500,000 -)- 17,700,000 -j- 14,000,000 + 2,100,000 — 0,100,000 + 12,800,000 + 3,400,000 + 18,300,000 + 26,800,000 + 9.300,000 + 11,700,000 + 4,200,000 + 10,600,000 -f 16,700,000 + 12,600,000 4 19,600,000 -1- 62,900,000 + 1,700,000 4- 3.800,000 Roubles. 11,100,000 12,700,000 12,300,000 13,800,000 14,900,000 16,000,000 17,200,000 18,200,000 23,300,000 23,400,000 23,000,000 22,400,000 23,300,000 25,600,000 24,900,000 25,500,000 26,400,000 26,600,000 29,900,000 29,500,000 31,900,000 30,400,000 30.300,000 29,100,000 29,600,000 29,900,000 Value of Rouble 77.2 c The effect on her industries will be shown as they are taken up in detail. The effect on her foreign trade can be seen from the opposite table taken from "The Industries of Russia"' as translated by United States Consul J. M. Crawford, who adds the following statement: It appears from these returns that in the twenties the average amount of exports ma)- be valued at 53,000,000 roubles, exceeding by 2,000,000 the value of the average annual imports (51,000,000 roubles), the customs duty forming 27 per cent of the import value. In the thirties the average yearly export reached 65,000,000 roubles, exceeding the mean yearly import by 13,000,000 roubles, the customs duties forming 45 per cent of the import value. Finally, in the forties, the average j'early export, excluding the abnormal year, 1847, grew to the sum of 80,000,000 roubles, or 10,000,000 roubles more than the amount of the mean import, of which the duties collected were about 30 per cent. During only two years in this period did the imports exceed the exports, and in one of those only by an insignificant amount. The duties collected show a rate of from 30 to 50 per cent. From the source whence the table was taken it is found that, "owing to the influence of the protective tariff, together with other measures furthering home produc- tion, the Russian manufacturing industries developed greatly." The 484 cotton factories of 1825, employing 47,000 hands, had increased in 1850 to 536 factories, with 1 10,000 hands. In 1820 cotton yarn was imported to the value of 8,640,000 roubles (about $6,600,000). In 1850 only half that amount was used while the amount of raw cotton used had increased, the cotton spinning industry being well established. In 1825 there were 324 cloth factories, with 64,000 workmen, and in 1850 98,000 hands were employed in 633 works. Of silk weaving establish- ments there were 184 in 1825, having 10,000 workmen. In 1850 the number had increased to 384, with 17,000 workmen. Eighty -seven paper mills with 8000 men in 1825 increased' to 159 with 15,000 men in 1850. Thus it will be seen that even in the earlier part of the century Russia was developing her manufactures under a system of protection. From 1845 prohibitory laws were gradually changed to carry out the policy of protective tariffs. Up to 1851 more or less diflSculty had been encountered in arranging the tariffs of Russia and Poland with respect to each other. Poland had become quite a manufacturing country, and from her Russia imported many of her finished wares, sending food stuffs and certain raw material in exchange. The tariff introduced in 1851 adopted a system more equitable to both. In 1854 a general change in the tariff was made. The Crimean War had stopped all external trade by sea and to increase the land trade duties were lowered on almost everything imported across the frontier. The duties had been very high, in many cases exceeding 100 per cent. This encouraged .smuggling to such an extent as seriously to affect the revenues. Moreover, at the close of the PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. war the duties were such that the importations by land so exceeded those b)' sea as to injure the marine trade. A general lowering of duties, therefore, took place and the tariff in general was much simplified. It is not to be concluded, however, that there was any considerable approach to free trade. On the contrary, duties were imposed on special articles with the express purpose of fostering home production. High duties were placed on competing articles, low duties on non-competing articles. Again in 1867 a general revision took place which was ratified the fol- lowing year and remained in operation till 1876. Many export duties were abolished, and the number of articles comprised in the list of importations, exportations and prohibitions, were reduced from 719 to 260. Sixteen classes were left free. The duty on 152 articles was reduced and increased on thirty-five articles. The excess of exports over imports gradually diminished from 1850 to 1868, when for eight years the imports exceeded the exports. There was, however, a gradual increase in manufacturing as will be seen from the following table : The Growth of the Principal Branches of the Russian Manufacturing Industry Under the Tariffs of 1S50, 1857 and 1868.' Mandfacturbs. 1. Cotton spinniug, 2. Cotton weaving , V Wool spinning 4. Cloth, 5. Other woolen and half-woolen tis- .sues, 6. Printing, dyeing and finishing of the fabrics, 7. Silk weaving S. Hemp spinning, and rope 9- Paper 10. Leather, 11. Chemical products and dyes, . . . 12. Soap and tallow candles, 13. Glass. . 14. Building of machines and railway cars ; mechanical industry, . . . 1850. 1857. 1867. 1876. Millions of roubles. I,S.9 18.5 40.4 12.8 l.S.b 30.1 0.4 2.6 18.2 26.0 34.0 i 6.9 6.7 12.6 16.,^ 16..S 32.1 b.4 .s-,-^ 4-3 2.2 ?,■?, 4.21 V2 V6 4.9! 8.6 lO.O 16. 1 2.2 \<^ ■S.o 4.0 5.6 6.8 3-0 3-4 3-5 0.4 3-9 14.0 Average yearly increase During the tariffs of -1-2.6 + 7.4' +3.4 + 6.2 2 + 18.5 -f6.i + 2.5^ -0.5 + 7.1^ -1-0.2 + 6.2 —3.2 + 1.9 -f-7.0 + 2.4 +2.0 -f 2.8 +2.6 + 4-4 1 -fio.o -f-2.2 ! +.S.8 -1- 1.8 +2.1 + 0.3 +5.8 + 1.8 i +2.8 + 1.8 —7-4 -0.5 +7.1 +5-7 + 1.1 +3-3 +4-5 ' Industries of Russia, Vol. I., p. 417. 2 With regard to the cotton and wool nianufacture, in which the obligatory labor had a vast application, the period during which the tariff of 1857 was in force can be divided into three strongly The table shows a much slower progress under the tariff of i86S, when duties were considerabl)- lowered. The free trade tendencies in the tariff of 1868, as proved by the adverse balance of trade and check to industrial progress were completely overturned by the measure of January I, 1877. Duties were then levied in gold which increased the protection to home manufactures by from 25 to 30 per cent, and this protective fea- ture increased as the value of the paper rouble depreciated. Besides the added protection given by levying duties in gold, the duties were raised in general, and in 1882 the tariflf was revised solely with a view to pro- tecting certain industries not sufficiently protected from foreign competi- tion. The duties were in many instances changed from ad valorem to specific, and sheep farming was given special protection from the im- mense importations of cheap foreign wools. In 1885 still further and higher duties were imposed. The industries needing the greatest help always received the first attention. Special branches were singled out, thoroughly investigated, and protection was given without waiting for a general revision. The development of home industr}' was always paramount. Sometimes it would be the last finished article that would receive particular attention, again it would be the raw material. In addition to import duties export duties were levied on many of the natural resources of the country, for the purpose of fostering kindred industries at home. One feature of tariff legislation in Russia is particu- larly noticeable. It is the immediate change made as soon as the effect of a law is determined. It does not take years nor even months to re- peal an injurious measure or adopt a new law needful for the promotion of an industry. What is for the best interests of Russia and her people has come to be the only consideration and the subject for inquiry and legislation. To show the great increase under the tariff of 1876 and various special measures the following table is appended, taken from "The Industries of Russia;'" different parts, namely: (i) from 1S57 to 1S60 ; {2) from i860 to 1863, ^ emancipation of the serfs and with the cotton crisis ; (3) from 1863 to 1867 ; of time a considerable decrease of the industry may be noticed, while in rising, as shown in the following table : 1 coincided with the ng the second period last it is again fast Mandfactdres. 1858 to i860. 1861 to 1863. 1864 to 1867. increase. Decrease. Increase. Per cent. J1.6 u 9-4 Per cent. 9.8 ■5.8 10.3 3-3 Per cent. 16.5 Cotton weavini; 1 ; ! ! ! ! ! ". ! '. ! ! ! ! ! 1 Woolen fabrics, "si 10.7 PROTECTION IX COXTIXENTAL AXD OTHER COUXTKIES. Cotton spinning and weaving, Wool spinning and weaving, Dyeing, printing and dres Flax and hemp spinning, Silk weaving, Paper-making and wall paper, Chemicals and coloring matters, Tanning, . . Glass and mirror making, . . Pottery and china Machine constructing Total, roubles. of IS76. 1890. increase. 102.7 246.5 140 55-5 105.6 90 37-7 97-5 160 20.1 33-3 66 8.2 14.4 76 9.8 23-3 i3« 5-5 17.7 222 26.6 35-9 36 5-2 "•5 2.2 4.1 86 43-4 52.6 21 316.9 642., The effect of a return to a strict protective system in 1876 was accom- panied by a marked advance and wonderful strides in industrial progress. As has been before stated the changes from 1876 to 1890 were piece-meal and special. The time had again come for a general revision which was carried out in 1 89 1. The natural resources and advantages in the pro- duction of raw materials had become more and more apparent as manu- factures had developed and grown. Altered conditions and new products all necessitated a thorough revision. The revision was really begun in 18S7. Specialists were appointed to investigate all foreign trade, as well as the actual condition of all branches of home trade and manufac- tures. Committees were appointed from the governm«nt, from boards of trade, from every department of industry and agriculture, supple- mented by specialists in technical pursuits. This council finally pas.sed the law of 1891, which was ratified by the Czar on June 11, and put into operation July i . American free traders would do well to study this tariff and the methods adopted in framing it. It is safe to say that in ever^- instance the protection of home industry was paramount to everything el.se. So-called raw material native to Russia received the same degree of protection as the fini.shed article. Especial attention was given to the chemical industry which had in previous tariffs been considered of secondary importance. Great changes were made to encourage domestic productions from the first stages to the last. In .short, adequate protec- tion was extended to ever}' indu.strj- in which Russia can engage to advan- tage. The revenue was given either secondary or no consideration. In fact there are many instances where a fiscal policy seems to be sacrificed in order to encourage and foster a certain branch of domestic indu.stry. But the result of the former tariff fully justified the tariff of 1891, and that measure has been fully vindicated. The chief industries of Russia will now be briefly considered that the reader may judge what advance a semi-barbarous country can make under a .sy.stem that develops and fosters home production. i RUSSIA. To give a comprehensive exhibit of Russian manufacturing indus- tries in i8go, the following table is taken from "The Industries of Russia:'" Manui Mills Arr Produce ^ Production „, , Manufac- 'jy millious Workmer tories and of paper i" thou "lis. roubles. sands. 1. Cotton goods (yarn and tissues), 2. Linen goods (scutching, spinning, weaving), . . . 3. Woolen goods (cleaning, wool spinning, weaving, felt, carpets, cloth), ... ' 1,044 4. Silk goods (throwing, weaving, brocade), ... .1 254 5. Ropes, oil-cloth, hats, ribbons, knitted and plaited | goods made of fibres | 509 6. Writing paper, wall papers, 357 7. Leather and leathern goods, j 2,690 59 1.592 '262 I, is 8. Glue, tallow, wax, stearine, soap, bristles, 9. Gutta-percha, 10. Saw mills, furniture, resin connected with wood, . 11. Gold (2500 ponds), platinum, silver, mercury, cop- per, lead, tin and zinc, 12. Cast iron (56,000,000 ponds), 13. Iron and steel (nails, wire, machinery), copper, bronze, gold and other goods made of metal, and machinery, ... 14. Salt (189,000,000 pouds), coal (367,000,000) and | other solid minerals, 1 . . . 15. Stone, lime, cement, bricks, porcelain, fayence, ; plaster of Paris, glass and mirrors, 1 2,345 16. Chemicals and cosmetics, colors, matches, and powder, 1 846 17. Petroleum ( 260,000,000 pouds), 160 18. Sugar (25,000,000 pouds), spirit, vodka, beer and I tobacco ! 19. Flour, meal, starch, molasses, macaroni, malt and j sweetmeats, 20. Other comestibles besides above (vegetable oi preserves, vinegar) ■ . 21. Carriages, musical instruments, pencils Total, 7.241 7,061 380 33,683 346 Value of poud 36 pounds. Value of paper rouble about 51 . While the table shows that but a million and a half of workmen are engaged in manufacturing, yet it must be remembered that Russia is but entering her industrial career as a manufacturing country. The rapid advance made in recent years proves beyond a question that Russia will soon be numbered among the greatest manufacturing nations of the world. Cotton goods, including yarns and tissues, hold first place among manu- factures. The indu.stry dates back to the sixteenth century. The arti- cles imported so pleased the Russians that it became their aim to establish an industry of their own. At fir.st foreign yarns were used by the peas- ants and worked up on hand looms. Soon small weaving mills were established and by the middle of the eighteenth century, there was a Growth PROTECTION TN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. considerable number. Dyeing and printing were introduced and from the beginning of the present century the manufacture of calico from English spun yarns spread be}'ond the Moscow district where it was introduced. The first cotton mill was erected in Moscow in 1808, with machinery of Russian construction. In the same year power looms were started in St. Petersburg. I^ittle progress was made up to 1824, but in that year two large cotton spinning mills were .opened at St. Petersburg' and Moscow, and the manufacture advanced considerably. The main difScuIty was in obtaining machinery, but from 1842, when England removed her restrictions on the export of machinery, the mills of Russia developed rapidly. In 1843 there were forty mills in Russia with 35,000 spindles. In ten years more there were 1,000,000 spindles at work and the product of each spindle had increased to 1728 pounds annually. Weaving, dyeing and printing kept pace with spinning. In 1870 the number of spindles was estimated at 2,796,283 and in i'886 at 3,912,806. At the present time the number of spindles exceeds 6,000,000 and the number of looms 200,000. The amount of raw cotton now used annually by Russia amounts to 425,000,000 pounds, of which 100,000,000 pounds are produced on Rus- sian soil. Some of the native cotton is preferred to the American. Going from the raw cotton to the yarns, we find that the Russian mills produce now over 360,000,000 pounds of 5'arn annually and import only a little over 8,000,000 poimds, or a trifle over 2 per cent. The import of manufactured finished goods is even less significant, it being less than three-tenths of i per cent of the amount produced, which is about 350,- 000,000 pounds. On the other hand, Russian exports of cotton goods though small are increasing annually. . While only 187,000 pounds were exported to Persia, for instance, in 1883, i, 124,676 pounds were exported in 1890, or six times as much. The growth of the output during the ten years of the last decade can be seen from the following data collected by the Department of Trade and Manufacture: In Millions of Roubles. 1880. 1881 . 1882 . 1883 . 1884 . 1885 . 1886. 1887 . 1888. 1889. 74.1 89.3 99-3 97.6 91.4 97-4 93-9 I05-7 133-6 187.6 99-7 124.6 137-5 1 16.7 109.3 107.2 104.3 157-2 222.3 I Finishing. Total. 61. 1 58.4 60.7 60.4 S%^ ,3.3 47.8 3-9 67.7 4.4 75-3 4-7 72.8 4-4 240.4 275.2 300.8 277.9 262.3 258.2 252.S 378-1 370.8 487.1 Value of rouble 77.2 cents. BVSSTA. It has been stated that the nvimber of spindles in Russia was 6,000,- 000, while England has 44,000,000, but the yearly consumption per spindle in England is only 36.4 English pounds while in Russia it is 69.2 Eng- lish pounds or nearly twice as much. When it is considered that the weekly wages of spinners are from $3 to $7 per week, while all other workers do not average half this, it will be seen what a competitor Russia may soon become now that she is wholly supplying her own market and beginning to export. The Russian cotton industry has grown and is main- tained solely because of a protective tariff. It is estimated that two and one-half times the amount now sent abroad for raw cotton would be sent for manufactures if the home production had not been established and maintained. But this is not the whole benefit. The development of the cotton manufacturing industry in Russia has created a special branch of production, namely, the cultivation of cotton, with a view to obtaining the necessary material for spinning, and this branch may be said to have a splendid prospect in the future. In the near future probably the greater part of the Russian cotton industry will be supplied with native raw material.' The duty on raw cotton has gradually advanced till now it is about three cents per pound. Russia has no free raw material hobby. Once it is seen that any article from the so-called raw material to the finished pro- duct can be grown or made, it receives at once such protection as will encourage its production. First the finished cotton goods were given protection and the industry as we have seen, has grown to immense pro- portions. At first all 3'arns were imported, but as soon as it was shown that yarns could be made at home, protection was granted and Russia now practically makes all her own yams. Then it was seen that the raw cot- ton itself could be produced on Russian soil. Seed was procured, protec- tion given, and now the Russians claim that in a few years they will produce all their own cotton. If consumers were at first asked to make some sacrifices, they have been and will be more than compensated by the employment and wages gained in all branches of the industrj\ Like the farmer's seed, protection does at first cost something, but the abundant harvest so far overshadows the first trifling cost as to cause it to be for- gotten in the wealth of lasting benefits. The production of flax, hemp and jute goods occupies second place among Russian manufactures. The industry dates back to the sixteenth century, but made little progress till Peter the Great granted privileges to the manufacturers and forbade the importation of foreign linen. By the end of the eighteenth century the production had reached 3,744,000 pounds. The demand for linen for the army at different periods has greatly aided the development of the industry, but it was found that cotton goods were in greater demand and the result was, for a time, unfavorable to the linen industry. ^ The Industries of Russia. rROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Ill 1845, however, the government ever alert in recent years to the best interests of the people, granted certain rewards to flax spinners and factories, with the result that the industry took a new start with most significant results. Though the duties were lowered in 1850, j-et the demands of the Crimean war, followed by the lack of cotton during our war, was the cause of establishing the industry on a firm footing. Dur- ing the twenty-five years following the Crimean war the development of the flax spinning trade far exceeded that of linen, but the increase in the linen trade was not small. Since 1880 the increase has been large in both branches. The average annual flax crop of Russia is now about 630,- 000,000 pounds, over half the amount cultivated on the surface of the earth. About two-thirds of this amount is exported and one-third con- sumed at home. The amount of hemp produced in European Russia is about 300,000,- 000 pounds, or 40 per cent of the European production. Less than half is exported. The import of yarn, rope, etc., is so insignificant as to merit no notice. There is no import whatever of hempen or jute yarn. The import of linen and hemp fabrics which in 1878 amounted to over 5,000,000 pounds, in 1891 was less than 250,000 pounds. In short, the total importation of such goods is only about 5 per cent of the total home production of flax spinning mills and rope and cordage factories. This import is more than covered by the exports so that Russia may be said to consume her entire production of flax, hemp and jute goods, as she does that of her cotton goods. What this production is can be seen from the following table : Roubles. Production of Flax Spiniiiiig Mills in 18S9 17,600,000 Linen Mills in 1SS9, 21,100,000 " Jute Mills in 1S89 3,500,000 Rope and Cord in 1S89, 5,690,000 In 1889 there were 245,588 flax spindles in Russia, most of the fac- tories working night and day. This would be equivalent to 412,588 for- eign spindles. In 1889 there were 7312 power looms equivalent to 12,284 looms elsewhere. The following table will show the amount of hemp fibre produced and European countries : consumed from 1884 to in the principal Crop of Fibre. Russia, 17,500,000 pouds.' Germany, 4,041,000 " Austro-Hungary 2,773,000 " France, 2,225,000 Great Britain 1,312,000 " Belgium, 1,202,000 " Italy 1,095,000 " '36 pounds. 6,248,000 pouds. 5,646,000 " 4,175,000 " 5,790,000 " 5,961,000 " 2,057,000 " 1,091,000 " i RUSSIA. The hemp crop and consumption for the same period is seen in the following table: Crop. Consumption. Russia, 8,500,000 pouds. 5,039,000 pouds Italy 4,500,000 " 3,547,000 " Austro-Hungary 4,270,000 " 4,403,000 " France, 2,500,000 " 3,522,000 " Germany 850,000 " 2,290,000 " Belgium , 60,000 " 428,000 " Great Britain, 3,289,9991 " No figures are at hand to show the wages paid, but it may be safely assumed that they follow other textile trades and are at least one-third those paid in the United States. Again we must go to the reign of Peter the Great to find the founda- tion of the Russian woolen industr}', and the wants of the Russian army were the cause of the first manufacture. In 1712 an order was issued that the arm^' should wear onl)^ textures of Russian make. Peter the Great interested himself in sheep farming and in the manufacture of cloth, but the industry developed slowly, its growth really dating from the begin- ning of the present century. In 1822, the production of the woolen mills reached 9,000,000 j^ards, which exceeded the requirements of the govern- ment. The industry then was mainly Polish. In 1830, 390 mills employed 67,000 people and the production had nearly doubled in yards. The industry was now established in many parts of the empire and by 1856 the woolen mills could produce about 30,000,000 yards of cloth. The industry showed alternate depression and revival till 1885, since which time a wonderful development has taken place. Three-quarters of the spindles of the Empire, however, are in Poland. Of the wool u.sed in Russian mills, the greater portion is of home production. The total amount of wool grown in Russia in i89i,was about 290,000,000 pounds, but little less than the production of the United States, while the number of sheep was 53,000,000, or 8,000,000 more than those of the United States. The wool, however, is of a coarse quality, all the finer grades being imported. About 25 per cent of all yarns consumed is imported, and for the five years from 1885 to 1889, inclusive, the importa- tion of woolen goods was only 5 per cent of the total production. In 1889 the total output of the Russian woolen industrj' was in value about $So,- 000,000, a slight falling off from preceding years. Since the operation of the tariff of 1891, however, the industry has taken a new life, as have all manufactures, and the annual production now probablj' amounts in value to $100,000,000. The average annual exports for the last ten years amounts to about $7,000,000. In summing up the condition of the woolen industry of Russia, the following extract from the official state- ments of the government will be found interesting and valuable: 1 The Industries of Russia, Vol. I., p. 33. 30 PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. The manufacture of woolen felted goods, of coarse and medium classes, is fully developed and capable of supplying the home demands. Besides the considerable amount of cloth, supplied for clothing the army, the manufactories produce a no less considerable quantity of goods for the requirements of the poor, as well as for the better classes of the inhabitants. Russian manufacturers can flatter themselves that nowhere in Europe are the armies provided with better and cheaper cloth than in Russia. This manufacture of woolen felted goods should be considered all the more independent as it has a sufficiently suitable native raw material, and is in pos- session at the present time of an adequate supply of spindles for carded wool spin- ning. With regard to the fabrication of fine cloths, this branch of the industrj- develops comparatively slowly, although lately visible progress has been made. Reverting to the manufacture of combed yarn goods, it must be acknowledged that only at the present time its position is becoming more or less firm, as only for the last ten years has it had the possibility of obtaining yarn, at any rate the greater part of the amount required, of home production, through which it has acquired the right of great independence of foreign industries. For the complete success of the fabrication of combed wool goods, which gives so much hope on account of the modern condition of its qualificative element, the further development of spinning is necessary. The better this branch of Russian industry is established, the easier will it be to reach an independent position in the universal markets and the more independence will be attained by Russian sheep farming, which, with the increased home demand for wool and a suitable government protection, will be able untiringly to develop in quantity as well as in quality. ' The high price of silk goods will account for the less rapid growth of the industry as compared with that of the other textiles. Silk, how- ever, has been used to some extent from the very earliest times. To the time of Peter the Great we must go again, to find the. first silk weaving mills, which by 1809 had grOwn to 194 in number. By 1850 the value of the product of silk mills was $4,800,000, and by 1891 it had reached $10,000,000. The silk mills of Russia use considerably more foreign than domestic raw material, the process of preparing the material from the cocoons being but little developed. The duty on twisted silk was raised by the tariff of 1891 and the government has instituted measures for the development of the silk worm industry so that it is expected that the silk industry from the cocoon will soon show the same degree of advance as that seen in other industries Even now the quality of certain Russian silks are not surpassed by any imported, while in the manufac- ture of brocade Russia stands unrivaled. The supply of Russian mills is not yet equal to the demand, and is held in check by the high price of foreign material. With the increased production of raw silk at home will come increased output of all grades of silk. From the foregoing it will be seen that Russia is making great prog- ress in textile manufactures from the production of raw material to the finished fabric. It nmst be remembered, too, that the figures given repre- sent only the large mills and regular establishments. The thousands of peasants who spin and weave not only for home use but for trade, are not ' The Industries of Russia, Vol. I., p. 57. taken into account in the government reports. Millions of dollars' worth of textiles are annually made by the peasants and sold at the big fairs which form a distinctive feature of Russian industrial life. Could the figures of this annual production be obtained, some idea of the magnitude of the textile industry of Russia could be had, and it would compare most favor ably with any other nation. It has till recently been the sole aim of the Russians to supply their own wants, but with their enormous resources for raising cotton, wool, flax and silk, and with the best protective tariff now in existence, Russia from now on must be rated among the foremost of manufacturing countries. The following table shows the development of the paper industry : Period. Number of mills. Yearly production in roubles. Number of hands. Ivan the Terrible 2 4 13 6? 87 104 165 III 136 139 134 131 It Alex Michailovich, .... Peter I., 150,000 1804, '830. 1S50, 1S56, . . 3,225,000 3.661,314 5,682,172 10,876,000 13,677,000 12,451,000 14,217,000 14,697,000 17,908,000 1S62 12,280 1879. 1880 . . 10,890 11,510 11,719 I2!35S ■3304 17,402' iSSi 1882,- 18S3, 1884 1889; If the manufacture of wood pulp be included the total figures of the Russian paper industry would be in 1889, 364 mills, employing 30,000 hands with value of product amounting to 26,000,000 roubles or about $19,000,000. But the supply does not yet meet the home demand and the amount of all kinds of paper imported in 1890 reached the value of 6,811,328 roubles or about $5,000,000. The exports amounted to about $1,000,000 worth. Tanning is among the very oldest of Russian industries. The well- known product, Russia leather, has been exported since the seventeenth century. At the time of the acce.s.sion of Catherine II., in 1762, there were 25 tanneries, and at the end of her reign in 1796 the number had increased to 84. In 1790 the exports were as follows: Russia leather, 1,258,106 roubles; other dressed hides, 22,852 roubles; pelts, 6727 roubles. ' The Industries of Russia, Vol. I., p. 68. PROTECTION IX CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Wars at the beginning of the present centurj- created a great demand for boots and other leathern goods, and in 1814 there were 1530 tanneries at work. In 1 870 the number of tanneries had increased to 2899, and the yearly production was valued at 24,991,617 roubles. In 1880 the production was about 40,000,000 roubles' worth. The imports amounted to about 15,000,000 roubles, but are graduallj' declining as the home output increases. The village leather trade is one of the most important in Russia, the tanning being about one-third that of the fac- tories. The wrought leather production in 150 districts amounts to 26,000,000 roubles, and gives employment to 85,000 men. The large factories do not compete much in this branch. 40,000 men are employed in tanning sheep skins, and the yearly production is valued at 20,000,000 roubles, or ten times that of the factories. The quality of all kinds of goods shows a constant improvement, and Russia bids fair soon to lead the world in leather manufactures, though for the want of machinerj^ she will hardly be a competitor with the United States in the production of boots and shoes. It was not until 1S30 that the India rubber trade sprang up in Russia. Caoutchouc made its appearance in Europe at the end of the last centurj- while gutta-percha did not appear until the middle of the present centur}-. The discoveries of the present century in connection with various processes placed the India rubber trade of Russia on a level with other industries. The government saw the necessities of this trade in 1857 and raised the import duties on foreign India rubber and gutta-percha goods. In 1S60 there were five mills employing 298 hands and having a production of 412,160 roubles. The greate.st success followed and the quality of the goods manufactured was such as to find a large sale abroad. The produc- tion, for instance, of India rubber galoshes in i860, amounted to 220,223 pairs. In 1870 it had increased to 1,804,634 pairs. While the production in 1887 amounted to 3,300,000 pairs, of which 2,750,000 were sold in Russia, 400,000 were exported to Sweden and Norway, and 150,000 to Denmark and other countries. In St. Petersburg there is one India rubber manufactory called the Russian- American Company, which was established in i860, and in 1878 had a working capital of 2,000,000 roubles, with a reserve fund of i ,400,000 roubles. The production amounted to 5 ,000,000 roubles, consisting of galoshes and all kinds of rubber goods. The present capacity is sufficient for the production to the value of 10,000,000 roubles. The rapid progress of the Russian India rubber trade has been accompanied by a corresponding decline in imports of foreign made goods, while the exports have steadily increased. The exportation in 1887 amounted to 371,400 roubles, while in 1889 it had increased to 1,526,542 roubles. From 1885 to 1890 the India rubber industry of Ru.ssia increased fully 50 per cent. The imports decreased almost 30 per cent and the exports increased over 300 per cent. The present export is about 15 per cent of the total production and the import about 3 per cent. Russia abounds in timber to such an extent that wood working has alwaj's been one of its most extensive industries, keeping a large ninnber of men emploj'ed and having a distinct influence upon the Hves and habits of the people. The greatest development is seen in those localities rich in timber, but in places where the forests are already consumed, the people still carry on their calling, obtaining material from other places. The most common, as well as the most useful, tree which grows in Russia, is the ordinary pine and is found in two-thirds of the whole extent of European Russia. The next in order is the fir, followed by the Siberian cedar. Other trees are the birch, aspen tree, lime and the oak. From the very earliest times Russia has been an exporter of wood in a raw or half manufactured state, the export of manufactured wood being small. In recent years the exportation has amounted to about 55,000,000 roubles, of which 40 per cent has gone to Germany, 33 per cent to Great Britain, 6 per cent to Holland and the rest scattered. The export of manufactured wooden goods is less than 1,000,000 roubles per annum. The imports of certain classes of finer woods amounted in 1S90 to about 6, 500,000 roubles, in addition to which about 1,000,000 roubles' worth of wood pulp is now annually imported. Statistics of mills and manufactories engaged in wood- working show a considerable development in this industry in recent years. The following tables will show the progress made between 1881 and 1890: Saw Mill Trade. Number of mills. Production in thousands of roubles. Number of hands. 1S81 516 15,41s 11,319 1890 631 21,566 17,986 Cabinet Making and Joinery Trade. Number of works. Production in thousands of roubles. Number of hands. 1S81 154 2,584 4,424 1890 108 4,301 5,864 Turnery and Sm.all Work. Number of factories. Production in thousands of roubles. Number of hands. 1881 53 452 513 1890 62 1,371 2,739 Mat Making. Number of factories. Production in thousands of roubles. Number of hands. 1881 69 536 4,997 1890 78 4S2 5,532 Wood Pulp. Number of mills. Production in thousands of roubles. Number of hands. 1881 3 65 91 1890 19 521 437 The saw mill industry, as is seen by the table, is the most largely de- veloped manufacture, but this is exceeded by the export trade of beams, PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTIIEI! COfNTfUES. fters, planks and other kinds of sawn timber, which exceeds over 40,000,000 per annum or double the production of the saw mills, and as the timber consumed in the couritrj' is sawed by hand and not seen in the production of the manufactories, it will be readih' conceded that the whole industry is of enormous proportions. In fact, this phase of Russian life is nowhere more fully seen than in the wood-working industry. The number of large manufactories is comparatively small, while the produc- tion of artisans working at home is doubtless many times greater than shown by the official figures. The whole of Russia is dotted with wood-working concerns, using the wood of the locality till it is con- sumed and then generally keeping to the same classes of work, getting the necessary material from other localities if necessary. In man\- parts of the country artistic productions, car\^ed work in artistic design and quality to compete with any such goods made, are fashioned. These often find their way into the hands of middlemen, who put foreign trade marks on them and pass them off for imported goods. The industry of basket making is not inconsiderable, though no official statistics concerning it can be found. From very ancient times pitch and tar have not only been produced in Russia for home use, but have been exported. Pitch has principally been .sent to England and turpentine to Germany, where it is in great demand because of its quality and cheapness. The tar industry is almost exclusively confined to the peasants, but has shown great improvement in recent years in the foreign processes and in tlie use of the material for fuel. The industry- of making pitch is especially Russian and has lately attained great development, especially in the forest regions. It is estimated that the Ru.ssian forests produce yearly 144,000,000 pounds of pitch and 72,000,000 of tar, 540,000 pounds of resin and 2, 160,000 pounds of tur- pentine. Even before the reign of Peter the Great the manufacture of articles from metals was a prominent industry in Ru.ssia. For instance, the forging of bells began soon after the introduction of Christianity. Even more ancient was the forging of side arms, which was especially developed during the early civil and foreign wars. Then the Russians being a very religious people, always completing and decorating churches, the making of church ornaments and trimmings dates from very ancient times. Moscow was the chief centre of the industry prior to the reign of Peter the Great. There were found the best gunmakers and goldsmiths, among whom were many experienced mechanics who had come from abroad under inducements made by the Russian Government. Under Peter the Great the industry made remarkable progress, and works were organized in different parts of Russia simultaneously with the founding of St. Petersburg. The chief sources of metal supplies for all trades were the Ural Mountains, the rivers Kama and Volga serving to convey the metals to the different scenes of industry. Like most of the industries of Russia, the manufacture of goods from metal can be divided into two branches, that carried on in the large establishments, and the extensive production carried on by peasants. The latter is for the most part handwork, which competes with the products of the manufacturing industry, the articles being of excellent quality and workmanship. The Russian peasant is occupied for the most part in farming, but during the long winter his spare time is devoted to the turning out of various forms of handwork. The surplus thus earned b)' peasants improves their condition and also enables them the better to meet the taxes imposed by the government, and in turn the gov- ernment adopts measures to sustain and improve the productions of the peasants. The metal productions of Russia can be divided into the follow- ing cla.sses : 1. Products of the noble metals and jewelry. 2. Products of copper and copper alloys. 3. Products of lead, tin, zinc and their alloys. 4. Products of smithcraft and in sheet iron. 5. Cast iron and steel. 6. Artillery arms, guns and implements. 7. Side arms and cutlery ; instruments for working different mate- rials ; scythes and sickles. 8. Wire manufactures. 9. Locks and different productions of the locksmith. Statistics recording the extent and cost of these industries are very- incomplete and an idea of the total manufactures and trade can only be gathered from a brief examination of each class of industry. Gold and silver articles date from very ancient times, but have been developed largely and improved since the introduction of Christianity. The making of jewelry dates from the sixteenth centur3% and was begun in Moscow, which was then the residence of the Court and grandees. It is recorded that in the beginning of the eighteenth century there were in Moscow 43 goldsmiths and 232 silversmiths, many of whom were jewelers. Even now the industry is chiefly centred in St. Petersburg and Moscow. The peasants in some of the villages on the Volga give their whole time to the .silver and jewelry industry. The articles made are sold all over Russia, even in the large cities. The middle- men obtain them very cheapl}- from the peasants and make large profits. In one region alone more than 15,000,000 pieces are made yearly. These consist of earrings, rings, brooches, bracelets, lockets, chains and neck crosses. Agents and merchants are in constant communication with the dealers of large towns, and as soon as a new pattern is produced send it to the peasants who reproduce it exactly. The production of leaf sil- ver and leaf gold is about 500,000 roubles j^early, the latter being higher in quality than that of any other country. Russian gold and silver ^anufa, 2r^ PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. thread also exceed foreign make and Russian gold tissue cloth with parcha is unrivaled in the world. The making of articles from platinum has only recently been introduced and the industry has not reached very large dimensions. The total production of jewelry and precious stones is estimated to amount to about 7,000,000 roubles yearly. The import is inconsiderable and the export still less. Although the copper foundries of Russia were not established until the middle of the seventeenth century, some articles were produced in very ancient times. Going back as far as the tenth century wie find that the making of bells was the principal industry of that time, and by the seventeenth century the industry was well established. In 1653 was pro- duced in Moscow the celebrated bell called the Tsar Kolokol. This bell is the largest in the world, is eighteen feet in diameter and nineteen feet high, and almost 400,000 pounds of copper were used in its construc- tion. Owing to the fact that bell making dates back so far, and to the great demand that has always existed for bells, the industry' has attained great proportions and reached a state of progress practicallj^ unequaled in the world, especially in large bells ranging in weight from 1000 to 40,000 pounds each. The peasants are engaged in making small bells which are principally worn on harness and used in summer and winter with all kinds of vehicles. The total value of Russian bell production is about 1,000,000 roubles annually. The production of household utensils from copper was begun in very ancient times, but has hardly kept pace with some other industries, probably because of the cestliness of copper itself. Bronze and similar productions are fabricated in very small quan- tities. The manufacture of lamps and their belongings is confined mostly to Warsaw and the annual production amounts to about 500,000 roubles. The most extensive purpose for which copper alloys are used is in the manufacture of shells for cartridges. Brass fixtures till within a short time were wholly imported from Germany, but are now manufactured to some extent in St. Petersburg and Moscow, and the production amounts to about 2,000,000 roubles annually. In recent years too the manufac- ture of articles for gas and electric lighting, formerly imported, has developed greatly. The total output of bronze and brass articles, includ- ing both those made by hand and those of manufacturing e.stablishments, amounts to about 16,000,000 roubles annually. Articles of zinc, tin, lead, etc., are not as yet manufactured to any great extent, the annual output being about 9,000,000 roubles. While the productions of blacksmiths and kindred productions date back to the earliest period, still the greatest development has been noted in recent vears. Different industries are maintained for the most part by themselves. For instance, in one region chains and anchors are forged, in another, carriage fixtures, in still another, scoops and shovels, basins, pails, spades, hoes and stoves and the like. Perhaps the forgesmiths are the most widely scattered craft to be found in the Empire and hold the most conspicuous place in industry. Hand forging is found very gener- ally, excepting in the case of nails, which are now made bj- machinery. The first cast-iron foundry was established in 1637 by a Dutchman. Still the founding of steel has only recently been introduced. The customs laws of Russia have had no inconsiderable influence upon her iron indus- try, especially in recent years. First the using of domestic raw materials has been encouraged, such as pig iron, iron ore and domestic coal as fuel. In 1850 the duty upon pig iron was highly protective and soon after the importation by sea was totally prohibited. At the end of the Crimean war, when the completing of railway lines began, the government resolved to facilitate the importation of metals from abroad. According to the tariff of 1857 pig iron and ore were, for the first time, allowed to be imported by sea, but their importation was again prohibited soon after. In 186 r pig iron was imported free of duty and the free import of all kinds of machinery and implements was granted, which, of course, operated against the Russian machinery building industry. It was not until 18S0, however, that the privilege of free importation was abolished. In that year duties were levied upon all machines and tools made of wrought and cast iron and steel. In 1882 the duty was made still higher. Under this influence machine construction and the manufacture of rails developed rapidly. The railways now in operation began to bring ore and coal nearer to the mills, and, when the Ekaterininsk Railway, in the south of Russia, was finished, it opened up mines with inexhaustible veins of fuel. In 1884 the government raised the dutj' on cast-iron and still protected coal min- ing. Almost yearly since that time to the tariff of 189 1 duties have been levied to meet particular needs of the iron and steel industries. The result is seen in the fact that cast-iron smelting has just doubled in ten years, while the importation has fallen off 70 per cent. The manufacture of wrought-iron and steel has increased 50 per cent, while the importation has fallen off 70 per cent. The imports of wrought iron and steel goods in the same period have fallen off 66 per cent and the imports of machin- ery have gradually declined from year to year. Until 1884 coal and coke were imported free of all duty; since the imposition of the duty in that year, it has been raised from time to time with most beneficial results to native industry. While the development of the iron industry of Russia as compared with other countries is practically small and almo.st in its infancy as regards the amount of output, there is no doubt that with the operation of the tariff of 1 89 1 , combined with the fact of the inexhaustible mines now being connected with manufactures by railways which have been recently opened, that in a very few years the iron and steel trade of Russia will compare most favorably with that of other great nations. In the manufacture of guns and artillery .supplies, ammunition and firearms Russia occupies a high position, competing with other parts of PEOTECriON IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Europe and with America in qualit}' of work. The gunsmiths of Russia were renowned even in the sixteenth century. At first guns were made at home, the first armory being organized in 1705. The articles which are used as a means of government defence are more or less under the super- vision of the government itself, there being but few private gunmakers in the empire. The making of side-arms has also been carried on for centuries and the artificers have attained a high degree of proficiency. Cutlery in Russia is generally made by hand. Knives of the best quality are imported from Germany and Austria, as Russian workmen experience considerable difficulty in making knives of cast steel owing to the scarcity of Russian metal suitable to this work. Wire drawing is an industry long established inRu.ssia, although its development to an}' considerable extent dates only since the time of the electric telegraph. The amount of wire and wire nails produced in 1890 was, of the former, 46,800,000 pounds, and, of the latter, 43,200,000 pounds. Innumerable small wares are made throughout the realm both in manufactories and by the peasants. The enumeration and description would take too much space for a work of this nature. The following table will give, however, a very comprehensive view of the metallic productions of Russia with the foreign trade and consumption : Kinds of W.iu Gold and silver goods, . . . Wares of brass and its alloys, Wares of zinc, tin and lead, . Blacksmith wares, iron and tin. Cast iron and cast steel, . . . Cutlery, Implements and tools, .... Scythes and sickles, .... Wire and wire goods, .... Locks and locksmith wares, . In Thousands of Roubles. 7,000 809 16,000 1,874 8,500 348 27,500 1,5" 21,000 199 2,425 133 500 1,871 275 1.757 22,500 2,117 15,000 2,396 692 29,011 21,104 2,558 2,371 2,032 24,617 16,704 Supplied by Home 94-3 90.9 96.0 94.8 99-5 94.8 21. r 13-5 91.4 While the condition of the metal industry as a whole is not yet satis- lactory, it has certainly made wonderful progress in the last few 5'ears and the next few years will, no doubt, place Russia among our strongest competitors. The development of the manufacture of machines and implements in Russia has been sacrificed in order to encourage other indu.stries. Ulien- ever it has been essential to the rapid development of any particular trade that tools should be imported free of duty they have laeen placed on the free list; con.sequently the growth of this branch of manufacture has been .slow. 1 Industries of Russia, Vol. I., p. 175. The iiulustr}- has, however, already reached large proportions, the amount in 1890 exceeding $25,000,000. The tariff of iSgi will tend to have a greater effect upon the manufacture of machiner)- and tools than upon anj' other article. The industry is now fully protected, and as it has become an especial solicitude on the part of the government, this progress will be watched and encouraged in every way possible, which means that it will be fully developed at the earliest possible time. Two hundred and fifty years ago, at the time when Bohemia was making glass goods of such excellent and beautiful quality for all Europe, the first glass works were established in Russia. Peter the Great, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, founded the Imperial Glass Works, and different sovereigns since have given especial aid to the development of the industry. A distinguished writer, who has made a special study of the different trade interests of Russia, says : The second half of the last centurj- was signalized by the development of the glass industry and by the production of the highest grades of wares, such as crystal, Venetian glass, iiligree and glass tissue. The principal motive for the introduction was a most sincere and earnest desire to develop the home trade and to raise its standard by joining to it new and related branches of independent industries. With this desire many promoters of the time were thoroughly imbued. Amongst them were some who were possessed of an inborn genius and love of technique; being also endowed with great energy they became powerful movers in the trade development of the Empire. The principal characteri.stic of these promoters was, amongst other things, the capacity of influencing others to take an active part in the development and in the fruits of the new industry as directed b)' their own labors. Their thirst for activity extended much farther than to the satisfying of their own personal interests; they invited co-operation by publishing articles on the profitable character of the glass trade, by describing their own factories to all comers, and thus exerted a great influ- ence upon the industry. In a word, these men were exemplary promoters, who have left as a noble inheritance their worthy examples to inspire contemporary and future generations. In Siberia glass works were founded very early. In 1850 there were in all 200 glass and cry.stal works in Rus.sia, their output amounting to about 3,000,000 roubles. In 1890 the production had increased to 11,479,- 000 roubles. The value of the production of pottery and earthenware in 1890 amounted to only 4,404,000 roubles, yet this industry was among the first to be established in Russia. It is only of late that the more perfect development of the manufacture of articles for households has taken place. Till recently most of such articles were imported, and the development of native industry has been confined to articles of neces- sary use or for household utensils. In fact, it has been the needs of the men composing the Russian army in different ages, that have led to the establishment and growth of many of Russia's greatest industries. To this can be traced the introduction and progress of cotton, woolen, linen. PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. manufactures of leather goods, as well as side-arms and other imple- ments of warfare. So long as the people of Russia were exclusively devoted to agriculture, no real chemical manufactures existed in the Empire. The industn,-, therefore, has been but recently established and has not yet reached any considerable value. The raising of customs duties produced a considerable mprovement not only in the manufacture of chemicals but in many of the important raw materials necessary for that iudustr>\ This fact was taken into consideration in revising the custom laws in 1891. Duties were thoroughly systematized and in many cases raised. The effect has already shown itself in the production of .soda, bleaching powders, and many other substances. The chemical industry of Russia, however, must be considered as only in the first stages of its growth. The productioij of chemical and dye goods does not begin to satisfy the great demand, although the development since 1891 has been rapid. As with the help of protective duties the industry' gains strength, not only will the produc- tion be equal to the home demand, but a large export trade can safely be expected. Most Russian towns, mills and houses are lighted by kerosene lamps, though the use of gas and electric lights is on the increase. The cheap- ness of kerosene and the many advantages of electricity, the latter being considerably used in the mines, have checked to a considerable extent the manufacture of illuminating gas in Russia. The number of matches made in Russia was 144,747,325,000, in 1891, amounting in value to about 5,000,000 roubles. In no industry of Russia can we find such rapid pro- gress and advancement, as is seen in the establishment and develop- ment of naphtha. This is undoubtedlj^ due primarily to the fact that natural as well as governmental laws contribute to its production. The statistics of the production of naphtha are at best unsatisfactory. For the years previous to 1S75 no reliable statistics are to be obtained. Since that time, however, data have been collected by representatives of mining and excise officers and are considered very reliable. In 1876 the production was 1,000,000 barrels. In 1890 the production was 25,000,000 barrels. From 1890 to 1891 a total of about 150,000,000 barrels was attained and the production has increased yearly with great rapidity. The quality of Russian Portland cement is considered equal to that of the best English and German cements. The production in 1890 as given at the meeting of the cement manufacturers in St. Petersburg in 1892, was 920,000 casks of about 396 pounds each. The total annual consumption of cements in Russia amounts to 504,000,000 pounds of home manufacture, and about 54,000,000 of imported. The prices of Russian cements are considerably less than foreign prices plus duty, showing that the protec- tive system of Russia by increasing home competition, lowers the prices, benefiting the consumer, at the same time giving employment to native workmen, and keeping money at home which would otherwise be sent to foreign countries. The efScacy of protection to an industry whether by import duties, bounties or other governmental aid, is nowhere so apparent as in the development and success of the beet sugar industries in the countries of the European continent. The industry was begun in Russia simultaneously with other countries at the beginning of the present century, receiv- ing government aid from the start. It was not till 1834 that the tech- nical part was thoroughly mastered and the advantages thus derived resulted in such improvement as very considerably to increase the output. The tariff was greatly strengthened in 1841 when the importation of colonial raw sugar by land was prohibited. In 1855, 395 manufactories had been estabUshed. From this time on the industry advanced rapidly. Capital was attracted, stock associations were formed, and an improve- ment was shown in both beet plantations and manufactories. Sugar of home production not only checked all importation, but soon formed an article of export. The government continued to encourage the industry. An excise tax was early established and the revenue obtained was considerable. The industry enjoyed complete protection. Frequent investigations were made by the government and the statutes were constantly revised to meet changed conditions. The industry is now among the most prominent of Russia. In 1891 the production exceeded 1,000,000,000 pounds using over 10,000,000,000 pounds of beets. The export of raw .sugar in 1891 amounted to 220,000,000 pounds and of re- fined sugar to 45,000,000 pounds. The total importations in 1891 of all raw and refined, including candy, were only 138 tons. The total produc- tion of refined sugar in 1892 was 648,000,000 pounds. The growth of this industry in Russia, Germany and France aifords an example of the worth of governmental aid that could well be emulated by the United States. There is no reason wh3- we should not produce all the sugar consuined by our people. The bounty aid established in 1890 by the McKinley bill gave a sudden impetus to the growing of beets and the making of raw sugar, but with the repeal of this law, by the free traders, came a check to the growth of the industry and we must continue to import nine-tenths of our raw sugar, till the protectionist can again come to the aid of home producers. The production in 1890 of the most important branches of mining can be seen from the following table : Gold, Silver, . Platinum, Copper, Lead, Weight. Value. Pouds. Roubles, Gold 2,155 30,402,900 1,011 923,400 173 692,000 549-500 2,796,000 51,100 51,000 PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Weight. Ponds. Roubles. Gold. Zinc 230,400 553.000 Mercury, 17.^35 535.00O Tin, Soo 8,000 Pig irou, 56,560,000 22,624,000 Coal, . 367.203,500 12,852,200 Salt, 84,857,200 3.394.300 Naphtha, 242,941,600 3,717,700 Manganese ore, 11,139,700 389,900 Sulphur 9.800 5.500' The number of men employed is about half a million, and the total value of the annual production is about $62,000,000. To attempt a comprehensive examination of the agricultural life and productions of Russia would be impossible in the time and space at the writer's disposal. Over no nationalities spread over 407,000 square miles, with varied conditions of soil and climate, are engaged in an almost innumerable variety of pursuits. Only an attempt will be made, therefore, to summarize the condition of the industr>' as a whole, giving the reader a general view of the agricultural industry as it appears at the present time. Russia is by no means a land of snow and ice. Every variety of climate is found and almost ever>' variety of soil. Nowhere does the rural population predominate .so largely over the urban. Nearly, if not quite, 90 per cent of the people are engaged in rural pursuits and about 1,000,000,000 acres of land are under more or less cultivation. Previous to 1 86 1 the large proportion of farm workers were serfs or slaves. But by the Emancipation Act of February 19, 186 1, all serfs were set free. The ownership of lands at the present time may be divided as follows: Acres. Peasant lands, 354,666,222 State 406,061,815 Crown, 19,890.688 Private, • • 252,101,145 Church, monastery, town, 23,165,508 As will be seen the State is the largest land-owner. More than half the rest is made up of peasant lots owned by the communes, while private individuals own less than one-fourth. The form of land ownership is, however, a satisfactory one and gives the agriculturist independence and a love for his chosen work. Among the chief industries may be mentioned : Forest culture, flax growing, beet raising, grain cultivation, including wheat, oats, millet, barley, rj'e and buckwheat. To the raising of peas. potatoes, tobacco and cattle somewhat less attention is given. Alternation or rotation of crops is resorted to and years of rest are sometimes given to certain portions of the land, before another rotation commences. To- bacco, however, is cultivated for several consecutive years on the same 1 The Industries of Russia, Vol. IV., p. 57. plantations with the help of fertilizers, then giving place to cereals. Gar- dening, while not so extensive as field culture, is nevertheless a means of livelihood of a large number of people. Among the vegetables grown are cabbages, cucumbers, onions, melons, pumpkins, tomatoes, peas, beans, asparagus, chicorj^ and bulbous fruits. The greatest development is seen in the country about St. Petersburg and Moscow, the two vast markets for garden produce. Fruit trees and shrubs grow all over the country, apples and cherries predominating, though in the south are found pears, plums, grapes and peaches. Nearly all kinds of berries are also found. The cultivation of the grape is one of the principal branches of the south and the varieties are so numerous that it is impossible to name them all. The wine is generally a mixture of juices and is not of a very high quality. Abundance of pasture lands makes stock-raising ver>' profitable. The following table shows the present number of animals : Horses 25,935,000 Cattle 32,884,000 Sheep 63,902,000 Swine, 11,464,000 Camels, 429,000 Goats 672,000 Stags, 533.000 ' The breeding of horses is very considerable though, except in draft horses, not yet equal to other countries. Sheep raising is very successful and has always been encouraged by Russian sovereigns since Peter the Great, who imported the fine merino sheep from Silesia. In European Russia upward of 250,000,000 pounds of unwashed and scoured wool is produced, of which about two-fifths is merino wool. Poultry, bees, silk worms, dairy products and many otlier employments go to make up the total of agricultural industries. The average amount paid for male labor will not exceed $50 per year, and for female hire, $30. This includes food and lodging. Farming machines and implements, while not used to the extent practiced in the United States, are both made and imported in consider- able quantities. The making of farm implements has been encouraged by the government by subsidies, as foreign goods have been admitted free to help the farmers while different manufactures were developing. Hand- work is so cheap, however, that labor-saving machines are not so univer- sally used as in the United States. Much attention is paid to agricultural schools which are well attended and with most beneficial results. Farms are connected with the schools giving the students practical as well as theoreti- cal knowledge. The so-called household industry of Russia comes properly under agriculture. The farmer devotes all his leisure to it, ' The Industries of Russia, Vol. in., p. 205. PROTECriON IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COCNTKIES while the women and children are always at work. Among the articles made are the following : wheels, carts and sledges, barrels, tubs, pails, furniture, boxes and the like, plaited articles, baskets, mats, shoes, etc. Spoons are made in large quantities. Then there are leather goods and nets. ' Weaving and spinning is carried on by nearlj- everj' household. The working of precious stones, the making of jewelry and the manufac- ture of lace, adds much to the income of manj- peasants. Fishery is a very important Russian industrj-. There are a half million regular fishermen, and several million peasants follow the occu- pation when not otherwise employed. The annual product amounts to nearly 2,500,000,000 pounds. In curing alone, 360,000,000 pounds of salt is used. As has been the case in Russian manufactures, so in agriculture can its great progress and present importance be traced to government aid and encouragement. By legislation of various forms, by protection, by schools, by the propagation of instructive literature, by exhibitions and numberless other means, have the farming interests of Russia been advanced and maintained. The best seeds and stock have been brought from abroad and cultivated, so that to-day Russia stands among the fore- most of agricultural countries with limitless resources and capabilities. The total foreign trade of Russia in 1890 amounted to $496,850,000, exports forming 64.7 per cent, and the imports 35.3 per. cent, respec- tively, of the whole. In 1891 the exports still further exceeded the imports. To show of what the foreign trade of Russia consists, the follow- ing table of imports and exports is taken from the report of the United States Consul J. M. Crawford : ' Tahle Showing the Value of Imports into Russia in 1890 and 1891. 1890. 1891. Cereals, |26i,50o ^190,000 Rice, 189,000 226,500 Flour, 195,000 126,000 Vegetable-s 196,500 95. 500 Oranges and lemons 1,288,500 1,200,500 Fruit 502,500 547.500 Capers and olive,s, 148,500 152,000 Nuts and almonds 405.500 349.500 Cloves, cinnamon aud pepper 784,000 654,000 Coflfee, 2,694,500 2,563,500 Cocoa, . 246,500 232,000 Tea 14,591,500 13,866,000 Tobacco, 1,532,000 726,000 Cigars 258,000 230,000 Hops, 473.500 419.500 Spirits, 660,500 741.500 Wine 3,551,000 3,498,500 Mineral waters, 259,500 264,000 Salt, 130,500 106,000 Cheese, 305.000 383.000 Butler, . . 632,500 346.000 1 No. 143. p. 738. Fish 1341,000 I 365.500 Caviar 374,ooo 387,000 Salted Fish 84,500 66,000 Herrings 3,613,500 2,942,000 Animals, 466,000 434,500 Manuring substances, 686,000 461,000 Lard 315.500 403,500 Spermaceti, etc., • . . . . • . . 283,500 280,500 Paraffin, wax, etc 661,000 628,500 Skins, 2,268,000 2,028,500 Leather, 3.575. 500 2,619,000 Leather goods, 281,000 430,500 Wood 2,445,000 2,155,500 Cork tree, 722,000 758,500 Wooden goods, 152,500 243,500 Furniture 565,500 549,000 Plants and seeds 2,094,000 2,163,500 Clay, chalk, talc, etc 386,500 379.500 Plaster, lime, etc., 150,500 103,500 Cement, . . 360,000 256,500 Precious stones, 754,000 568,000 Fire bricks and clay, 1360,500 $402,000 Pottery, 268,500 257,500 Earthenware 353,000 379.500 Glassware, 914,000 807,000 Coal and turf • • 5,360,000 5,167,000 Coke, ... 755.000 727.500 Tar, anthracene, etc., 183,500 155,000 White resin, 761,500 836,500 Caoutchouc (rubber) 1,923,500 1,631,000 Chemical goods 5.973.5oo 5,598,000 Vegetable oils 2,868,500 3,421,000 Ethereal oils, 168,500 161,500 Cosmetics, 309,500 311,000 Tannin, 304,500 348,000 Dyestuffs 6,906,500 6,218,500 Metallic ores, . . . ■ 15,558,500 13,378,000 Gold articles, 107,000 194,500 Silver articles 232,500 176,500 Metallic goods, 6,533,500 6,271,000 Engines and models 9,700,500 10,014,500 Mathematical, physical, and other instruments, . . 671,000 780,500 Clocks and watches, .... 1,676,500 1,291,500 Musical instruments, 487,500 479,500 Vessels, 1,813,000 •2,086,500 Rags 123,500 104,500 Wood pulp, '. 646.000 634,500 Paper, i.533.5oo 1,540,500 Books and pictures, 886,500 960,000 Cotton, 33,857,000 29,629,500 Jute 603,000 8.S6,500 Flax and hemp 63.500 55, 000 Floss silk, 808,000 1,218,500 Wool, 2,075,000 1,966,000 Yarn : Cotton 4,203,500 2,418,000 Jute, 169.0CO 138,500 Silk, 3,143,500 3,026,000 Wool, spinned 7,590,500 5.545.ooo Cotton tissue, 1,149,000 1,215,000 Flax and hemp goods, 696,500 613,500 Handkerchiefs and ribbons 719,500 602,500 Woolen goods, 2,009,500 2,082,500 Wearing apparel 306,000 300,500 Toys 653,500 607,500 31 PROTECTIOX IN COXTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Table Showing the Value of Exports from Russia in 1890 and 1S91. Cereals and other breadstuffs $159,981,000 Potatoes, 230,000 Vegetables, 211,000 Anise 302,000 Fruit, 386,000 Meat : Fresh 176,000 Pork 986,000 Salted 138,000 Pork 283,500 Cheese 178,5°° Butter, 1,618,500 Margarine, 239,000 Eggs 6,147,000 Treacle, 29,500 Sweets 179.500 Caviar, 1,163,000 Fish : Fresh 298,000 Salted, 7*^6.500 Sugar : Soft, 1,960,500 Refined, 288,500 Tobacco, 808,000 Cigars, 151,000 Spirits 2,615,000 Liquors, 96,500 Wine : In barrels, 5°.ooo In bottles, 27,000 Crude and half-mauufactured articles : Timber, 26,287,000 , Seeds, 20,525,000 Linseed cakes, 1,149,500 Flax cakes, ■ . . 219,000 Sunflower cakes, . . ■ 643,000 Other cakes, • 665,090 Licorice, 137. 00° Flax, 25,191,000 Tow, • • 1,834,000 Hemp, 7,663,000 Tow 663,500 Furs 2,273,500 Skins • • . . 2,944,000 Bones, ■ • . . . 1,003,000 Manuring substances, 202,500 Horsehair, 594. 5°° Bristles, . . . . ■ 4,230,500 Down, • 97.000 Feathers 741,000 Yarn : Flax 41.500 Hemp, 288,000 Rags 214,000 Lard 534.5°° Cocoons 147,000 Silk combings, 399 000 Silk 262,000 Wool 7,116,500 Stone, 104, o(K) Tar 275,000 Manganese, 1,521,500 1175,887,000 366,000 103,500 204,000 122,500 247,500 252,500 248,000 94,000 189,500 2,093,000 156,500 6,326,000 82,500 156,000 1,096,000 9,351,000 322,000 537.500 186,000 2,357,000 135.500 21,500 46.500 20,969,500 15,807,000 1,366,000 170,500 770,000 794.500 253,000 20,666,000 1,866,000 7,793.500 614,500 2,695,000 3,918,500 813,000 104,500 923.500 3,619,000 87,500 Soi,ooo 23.500 211,000 211,500 448,500 107,000 1 75 o o 100.500 7.077,500 77 000 204,000 835,000 Articles. iSgo. 1S91. Metals, |i, 1 12,000 ;JS64,ooo Naphtha, 54,500 77.500 Oils: For lighting, 9,540,000 10,710,000 Naphtha, 2,301,500 2,297,500 Vegetable iiS.ooo 114 000 Turpentine, 377,000 389,500 DyestufFs, 93.50° 99.500 Potassium 65,500 87.500 Drugs, 682,500 599,000 Isinglass, 394-500 421,500 Birds 1,728,000 1,852,500 Poultry and game, 376,500 299,500 Cattle, 468,500 440,500 Pigs, 20 500 1,486,000 Sheep, 282,000 655,000 Horses, 1,991,000 2,542,000 Bricks, 26,500 38,000 Earthenware 68,500 79, 500 Glass and china, 64,000 141.500 Metal goods, 712,500 1,213,500 Furniture 185,500 171,500 Wooden goods, 191,000 52,000 India-rubber goods 569,000 691,000 Mats (Russian), 77,ooo 87,000 Leather goods, 424,500 432.000 Flax and hemp goods, 1,046,500 1,053,000 Silk stuffs 107,000 67,000 Woolen stuffs, 985,000 733. 500 Cotton tissue, 1,589,500 1,200,000 Wearing apparel, 1,352,000 1,747,000 Cosmetics 131,000 115,500 Millinery, 233,500 217,000 Mattresses, 238,000 546,000 Candles, 171,000 109,500 An examination of Russia's industrial growth as industry after industry has been developed, will show first a gradual decline in the importation of all raw materials capable of being produced at home, then a decline in the importation of manufactured articles as home production began to supply the demand, then an increase of exports of such materials, both raw and finished, as were produced in excess of home demand. This shows a natural healthy growth. There is no spasmodic movement but a steady progress in every thing possible ' for the Russian to grow or manu- facture. In 1890, 10,806 vessels with 6,975,000 tonnage went to Russian ports, while 10,640 vessels with 6,941,000 tonnage departed, 12 per cent of which were Russian, 36 per cent British (55 per cent of the measure- ment), 16 per cent German, 14 per cent Swedish and Norwegian, 10 per cent Danish, 7 per cent Greek and 7 per cent Turkish. To get at the true value of the internal trade of any country is impos- sible; and in Russia it is particularly difficult, owing to the vast territory, the long distances and the variety of conditions under which the inland trade is carried on. The only figures available, and only approximate at that, are the following : t> PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Product of manufacturing and mining industries, . 1,656,000,000 routiles. Breadstuffs, 1,400,000,000 " Foreign imports, 416,000,000 " Turnover for the transport of goods and passengers, 523,000,000 " Total, 3,995,000,000 roubles. When the commercial undertakings and their turnovers are reckoned, the results will prove as follows: uudertakings. Personal Guild and Non-Guild enterprises, 383,000 Joint stock companies, and those based on mutual responsibility, 740 Roubles 7,344.000,0c I4.055,' The commercial companies, with regard to their number and especially to their turnovers, are very unequally distributed among separate governments. Those of St. Petersburg and Mcscow, as well as those in which manufacturing is more developed, have the precedence, as may be seen from the accompanying table comprising the most active governments in respect to trade: Number of Companies Governments (share guilds and Annual business non-guilds). in roubles. St. Petersburg, 18,857 4,647,000,000 Moscow, 19,086 2,969,000,000 Kherson 10,918 1,447,000,000 Lithuania 6.693 545, 000,000 Warsaw, 9.912 542,000,000 Kharkov 7,325 408,000,000 Kiev, ' . . . . 11,897 406,000,000 The distribution of the firms and their turnovers shows no less variety with regard to the different branches of trade to which they belong. The more prominent of these branches, according to the number of the firms and the amount of their business, are the following; Business Firms. guild and uo guild). Loan, banking and commission establish- ments, . . .... 3.38S Trade in manufactured goods 37.450 Trade in grain and flour, i6,6Si Hotels, restaurants, buffets, drinking halls, inns Transport agencies, railways excluded, . Wine .stores, wine cellars Trade in metallic wares and machinery, . Lumber trade Trade in read>-made clothes, hats and fur articles, 5.662 10,165,000,000 637,000,000 481,000,000 103,080 263,000,000 2.259 239,000,000 19.245 211,000,000 7,585 144,000,001.) 5.839 108,000,000 Peculiar to Russia are her great fairs. It is, of counse, impossible to give their exact number or the amount of business transacted. Perhaps 1 1'lie Industries of Russia, Vol. 11., p. 479. RUSSIA. there are nearly 3000 fairs with 200,000 tradesmen doing about $700,000,- 000 worth of business annually. The ancient establishment of these fairs was due to the lack of transportation facilities. Peasants and middlemen gathered, therefore, at- convenient centres, and a general exchange of goods ensued. The government has always encouraged and protected these great trade gatherings, and they have no doubt been of great advantage and served in many ways to promote the commercial life of Russia. A falHng off has been noted in recent years, however, as railways have been built and extended, though it is not probable that even per- fected and rapid means of transportation will cause their entire cessation. The trade and commerce of the Empire as a whole has been considered. It now remains to examine briefly the condition of the people. As has been seen, the great proportion of Russian laborers are agriculturists, though as manufacturing is extended workers are drawn from the farms. It has been noted that many of the land-owners and workmen on farms give more or less attention to home manufacturing. Wages are small, and because of the changes in price of labor, it is difficult to give any e.Kact data. The highest wages, however, are those paid in steel and machine factories, where the workmen get on an average about $390 per year. The smallest wages are found in the cotton mills, where the aver- age wage ranges from $80 to $150 a year. Women's wages are about one-half those given to men, and children's one-third. The wants of the Russian are few. He spends very little even of the small amount he earns. His food is simple, his apparel coarse and plain, and his hut, barrack or lodging place, while ample and comfortable, is exceedingly primitive in character. The number of working hours can be seen from the following : Factories having over 12 hours a day, 20 per cent; 12 hours, 36.8 per cent; 11 hours, 20.8 per cent; 9 hours, 21 per cent; 8 hours, 1.6 per cent; 7 hours, 0.4 per cent, and 6 hours, 0.2 per cent. The following table is compiled from tables of wages given in ' ' The Industries of Russia : ' ' Average Industry. wages. Roubles. Cotton manufacture, 157-83 Cotton-weaving industry, 174-98 Cotton-spinning and weaving industries, 152. S8 The manufacture of chintz and kerchiefs, and the dyeing of cotton tissues, . . 180.00 Tape, galoou, lace and trimming manufactures, 171.06 Wool-spinning and wool -combing manufactures 190.56 Spinning of carded wool (worsted) I56-7I Mechanical and hand-weaving of wool, 2I4-7I Spinning and weaving of wool and the finishing department, 197.02 Cloth manufactory 124-47 Cloth-trimming manufactory, I34-07 PROTEcrioy IX cuxtinental and other countries. yearly Roubles- Wool-weaving, printing and dyeing manufactories, 169 00 Hat manufactory, 206.00 Silk-weaving manufactory, 207.10 Silk lace manufactory, 436.0S Velvet manufactory, 211. 10 Spinning and combing of flax, 116.35 Spinning and weaving of flax 124.31 Spinning and weaving of flax, and the bleaching of linen 12S.46 Flax-weaving manufactory, I45-00 Linen-bleaching manufactory, 185.36 Production of articles in jute, 166.89 Production of gutta percha articles, 260.71 Paper manufacture, i75-o6 Tapestry manufacture,' 209.37 Sawmills 237.17 Production of bent wood furniture, 176.06 Cast-iron and mechanic foundries, 321-74 Steel foundry, 524-28 Coustruction of machines and cars, 300.84 Machine and ship construction, and irou-roUing mills, 337-91 Construction of telegraphs— The making of electro-technical apparatus, . . . 517.14 Production of wire and horseshoe nails, 325-3^ Production of screws aud other metallic articles, 2S7.06 Production of artistic bronze and copper articles, 3221'-. Plated goods manufacture, ..." 346-' Chemical industry, .• 282 . 1 . ■ Match industry, 121.26 Glass manufacture 244.07 Cement manufacture, 189.24 Earthenware manufacture, 191.06 Brick manufacture, 164.09 Flour manufacture, 3°5-o6 Beer and mead breweries, 211.03 Beet sugar production and sugar refineries, i59-6o Tobacco factories, i47-io Leather manufacture, 328.57 Machine production of boots and shoes 292.28 Soap manufacture, 218.00 Typographic industry, ■ .... 30S.42 It is estimated that the peasant workers earn from 75,000,000 to 100,- 000,000 roubles yearly. This is mostly gained outside of farm work in the numerous .small industries before alluded to. This, however, repre- sents but a small part of the value of their work, as the middlemen make 100 to 1000 per cent profit on their wares. Considering the charac- ter of the people and past facilities for transacting business, it must be conceded that the progress made in recent years is most remarkable. With the further development of railroads and other means of frequent RUSSIA. and rapid transportation, the trade and commerce of Russia will, no doubt show wonderful results. With a governmental polic}' fully committed to a thoroughly protective tariff, with a growing ambition not only to supph' their own wants with everything that can be produced, but to reach out for other markets, the industrial attainments of Russia are bound to become enormous. Their abundant natural resources, their low wa and frugal, easily satisfied host of laborers, will enable them to become foremost competitors as producers, while their ability to supply the home market will eliminate them, as a foreign market of any importance. From a Russian standpoint then the wisdom of a protective tariff has been and is being fully vindicated and proved beyond question ; when it is consid- ered that in 1894 the production of the four cereals, wheat, rj^e, oats and barley exceeded 1,915,640,000 bushels; when it is considered that she is supplying 25 per cent of the cotton worked up in the country ( in 18S7 only 906,000 pouds of Ru.ssian cotton was used, while in 1892 the pro- duction reached 3,800,000 pouds); when it is considered that Russia has 6,000,000 cotton spindles and occupies the second place on the Continent in the cotton industry ; that the sugar industry- has doubled in a dozen years; that the manufacture of iron has increased 68 per cent in the last dozen years; that the production of steel has increased 59 per cent in the same time, that the production of cast iron has increased 160 per cent for that period; that the production of coal has advanced 129 per cent in twelve years; that the naphtha production has increased from 21,400,000 pouds in 1880 to 337,000,000 pouds in 1893, and that a similar increase has taken place in countless other productions; when the extension of railroads is considered, we may well ask, as may England and Germany, what the result will be in the near future. With her declining imports and increasing exports Russia must no longer be considered one of those neutral markets so much sought after by the American free-trader. She must be regarded as a most important competitor, as a rival of the first rank. CHAPTER III. France. The Revolution, however, now coming, the people did for themselves what their masters had refused to do ; re-establishing the system of Colbert, the greatest statesman the world yet has seen, and making protection the law of the land. Since then, consuls and kings, emperors and presidents have flitted across the stage ; constitutions almost by the dozen have been adopted ; the country has been thrice occupied by foreign armies, and thrice has it been compelled to pay the cost of invasion and occupation ; but throughout all these changes it has held to protec- tion as the sheet anchor of the ship of state. With what result? With that of placing France in the lead of the world in reference to all that is beautiful in industrial and pictorial art. With that of making her more independent, commer- cially, than any other country of the world. — Henry C. Carey. There is something in the commercial prosperity of France which by-and-by may convert .skeptics to Victor Hugo's poetic doctrine that .she is the "mother of nations" and the "crown of the universe. " It was a cruel taunt to throw at the victor of Sedan, that the milliards of her war indemnity had made her no richer, while France had paid them and felt herself no poorer. [This was a free trade period in Germany. ] In a retrospect of the four years which have elapsed since the treaty of Frankfort, Germany appears as the commercial victim of the war. Her internal trade has been paralyzed, her industry has stagnated under the influence of enormously increased prices, and the poverty of her laboring classes has been intensified by higher cost of living. The milliards were appropriated to military purposes, and had no opportunity of assisting the country to recoup its own war losses. France during the .same period has been prosperous bej'ond comparison with her plodding, hard-fisted rivals. She is the one country in Europe that suffers no commercial reaction. She wears a charmed life among the perils and vicissitudes of foreign trade. Where all else retrogrades or remains stationar)', she progresses. — British Trade Journal , July i, iSys, pp. 6gi-6g2. Taken altogether it [Colbert's System] composes the finest politico-economic edifice ever created by any government. Alone among the ruins of the past it has remained standing, and towers now at its greate.st height notwithstanding the shock of revolutions. He [Colbert] opened the way for the national labor in a manner at once wise and regular, and to his measures is due the fact that France ceased to be exclusively agricultural, and became enriched by the new value given to her land and to the labors of her people. —AVit//?///, Histoire de I' Ecoiiomie Poliliqnc. I'ol. II, p. 6. The growth of industries in France under protection may be said to have begun with the close of the Napoleonic wars. Previous to that date their development was beset with many difficulties which retarded their growth and prevented the expansion of their trade. During short inter- vals of peace scarceh- had niaterial prosperity set in before it received a check and progress was again arrested. FRANCE. A brief historical outline of some of those political, civil and religious events which distracted and impoverished the countr}- up to so recent a date, will serve to explain the slow progress which was made during so many centuries. Prior to the sixteenth centurj' the country affords noth- ing of interest to aid in forming conclusions with regard to those economic questions which have been under discussion during the present centurj-. Up to the time of Henry IV. (1589) owing to the dominion of feudal lords, the continual strife between kings and nobles, the foreign wars, and especially the character of the civilization, little attention had been given to the arts of industry. Although the manufacture of silks and other articles which had been carried on in the Italian cities had early been extended to the districts about Lyons and other places in Southern France, yet under feudalism which prevailed, the people lived almost wholly by cultivating the soil, engaging only in that system of household or domestic production of tools, clothing and rude articles, such as were made all over Europe to supply necessarj' wants. For two hundred and fifty years, under thirteen kings, the French throne had been occupied by the House of Valois, which became extinct in the year 1589 by the assassination of Henrj- III. In the midst of a most cruel and barbarous civil and religious struggle, lasting for nearly forty years, Henry of Navarre ascended the throne. During this period 128,- 000 houses had been destroyed and the lives of 800,000 persons sacrificed. The public treasury- was empty, the national resources of the country were exhausted, and bankruptcy, ruin and beggary pervaded the whole country. Taxes were more severe and burdensome because of the cor- ruption practiced, by which only one-half of the amount collected reached the public treasury'. The art of agriculture had been neglected and the whole country was reduced to a most deplorable condition. It was under these circumstances that Henry IV. (Henry of Navarre) entered upon his administration and attempted to restore France to a prosperous condition. Absorbed in political affairs, almost constantly engaged in open hostilities or in suppressing conspiracies, he personally gave but little attention to the financial affairs of the realm; yet enough is known of his views of the proper industrial policy which a state should pursue to show that he would have entered vigorously upon the advance- ment of the material prosperity of the country had he lived in less turbu- lent times. "If I live," said he, "everj' man shall have a fowl to put in his pot for his Sunday dinner." Henry had been the leader of the Prot- estant forces of the country, and his title to the throne was, therefore, disputed by the Pope and Philip of Spain. For five years he waged an inisuccessful war to gain the crown. Becoming satisfied, however, that none but a Catholic king could rule over France, he renounced the Protestant faith and took what he himself termed "the perilous leap. " "In the Cathedral of St. Denis," says a historian of France, "upon his bended PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. knees he publicly abjured his Calvin istic errors, and was restored to the bosom of the Church (1591)." One year after this he was given the keys of Paris, entered the city in triumph and was crowned King of France and Navarre. His reign was characterized by acts of generosity and impartiality toward all his subjects. While he had betrayed his Huguenot followers to win the coveted prize, his sense of justice and devotion to their principles still exercised an influence on his administra- tion. The conflict between the Catholics and Protestants was brought to a close in 1598. The Edict of Nantes established a certain degree of religious liberty in France. It guaranteed to the Huguenots freedom of religious worship, admitted them to all public offices and employments, and a "Chamber of Justice was established to protect them in their rights. They were allowed to maintain, and to hold certain fortified places. They were to pay tithes to the Church, and to observe its festivals and Holy days." For nearly a century, under this edict, the Protestants enjoyed undisturbed the religious rights conferred. The importance of the reign of Henry IV. from an economic point of view, is found in the adminis- tration of the internal affairs of the State, through the direction of his great Minister of Finance, Sully. Sully was the king's tried friend, having been ^.in his service since eleven years of age, followed him through his wars and finally become his intimate counsellor and adviser. It was he, who, although a zealous Protestant, advised Henry to become a Catholic. His capacity for business, his knowledge of finance, his administrative faculties peculiarly fitted him for the duties of Minister of Finance which he so well performed. He visited all parts of the country, personally supervised the collection of taxes, examined accounts and formulated a revenue system which at once relieved the treasury and put the administration on an independent footing. The nobles were for- bidden to levy taxes on their own account. The exemption from taxa- tion of the nobles, and all those who made the military a profession, was abolished. "With one-fourth the former taxes, by the end of the reign a surplus of 20,000,000 francs lay in the treasury." But this is not all that distinguished the career of this eminent statesman. His energies were also directed to internal improvements and industrial advancement. Highways and roads were built and improved. The city of Paris was adorned by the erection of churches, hospitals, bridges and quays. The army was reorganized and equipped, dockyards were established, and steps taken to build a navy. Sully also appreciated the importance of manufacturing. Artisans were invited from Holland and Venice. Special encouragement was given to the silk industry of Lyons and the tapestry indu.stry of Paris. Sully set the example of state encouragement to industries, through which in later years France became one of the chief industrial nations of tlie world. During the century which followed, the country was so absorbed in foreign wars that little attention was given to manufacturing, trade and commerce. The period from 1610 to 1643, the reign of Louis XIII., is distinguished for the administration of Cardinal Richelieu, one of most absolute despotism. No regard was had for the masses. He referred to the common people as "mules spoiled sooner by long rest than long work. If they were too happy it would not be possible to keep them in duty, if they were freed from taxes they would learn to be disobedient." France was again burdened with taxes to support expensive foreign wars and an extravagant court. The reign of Louis XIV. began in 1643, when he was five years of age, under the regency of Anne of Austria and the ministry of Cardinal Mazarin, an Italian. It continued until 1715, a period of seventy -two years. It was not, however, until the death of this cardinal, which took place in 1661, that Louis himself assumed to exercise the prerogative of king. Mazarin had said that "there is in him stuff enough for four kings and one honest man." On one occasion, when Louis was eight years of age, Laporte had put on his hat and sat down in his presence. "How can you allow yourself," said Louis "to cover 3'our head in my presence and sit down without my permission?" "Pardon me, sir," replied Laporte, "I did not think that a king was in the room; Monsieur, my cousin, },ou are at libert5' to depart." In 1655 he dispersed parliament when it was attempting to revise certain tax laws, and informed them that hereafter "they .should mind their own proper duties and not inter- fere with his ordinances." On the day after the death of Mazarin, when asked by the President of the Assembly of Priests, "To whom shall I hereafter refer questions of state?" Louis replied, "To me." From this time on he was sole and absolute ruler of France. His motto was, "The State is my.self. " The power of the nobles had been broken by Richelieu, and Mazarin had suppressed the parliament. Conditions were favorable for the absolute sway of a dominating character, without civil war or resistance. Mazarin had given more attention to foreign wars and military affairs than to the finances and internal development of the State. It was to his successor that the country was indebted for a restoration of prosperity. Upon the death of Mazarin, Colbert soon became Minister of Finance. The economic policy inaugurated by Colbert, from a com- mercial point of view, is of the highest importance. Not only in the founding of colonies, the police and municipal regulations of Paris, the construction of merchant vessels, the erection of forts, and the construc- tion of the Languedoc canal and many other public improvements, did he display his administrative abilities, but the encouragement given to manufacturing under his administration, placed him among the first prime ministers of all nations. To him is due the credit of introducing J'HUTECriOiV IN CONTINENTAL AND UTHER COVNTBIES. the system of protection to native industries in France. The first gen- eral tariff of duties on imports was enacted in 1664. The general prin- ciples upon which it was based are as follows: I. To reduce the duties on the importations of all articles required for the manufactures of the kingdom. 2. To exclude foreign manufactures by raising the duties. The principles embodied in the tariff regulations promulgated by him were in advance of the economic thought of other countries. It will be observed that the ideas entertained by modern protectionists were in great part understood by this minister. The import of those raw materials, the like of which cannot be produced at home, was encouraged through low duties. Affording ample protection to home industries by duties on competing imports, is to-day one of the cardinal principles adhered to by the protectionists of all countries. In 1667 duties were greatly increased on hosiery, cloths of all kinds, tin, glass, prepared skins, carpets, fabrics, etc. It has already been pointed out that in 1665 Francis Van Robais was invited by Colbert from Holland to establish the Dutch art of spinning and dyeing wool and weaving and dressing fine cloth in France. He .set up his factory at Abbeville and obtained the exclusive privilege of carrying on the busi- ness within ten miles of that city. It was through this instrumentality that the foundation was laid for weaving and dyeing those fine woolen fabrics which have since become famous in the markets of the world. Under the influence of such legislation many branches of.indu.stry were revived and became of great importance. Chantilly soon became noted for its laces, Cherbourg for glasses, Louvieres for cloths. La Savon- niers for carpets, Lyons for silks, and Paris for gobelin tapestn,-. The growth of industries which followed the policy introduced by Colbert, not only vindicated his acts, but the conception which he so early formed of the sound principles of protection, has made him famous as a states- man and conspicuous as an economist and financier. Although he died before he saw the full benefits of his sy.stem realized, yet he did more for France than any prime minister or monarch who had pre- ceded him. Colbert could not, however, carry out his own ideas of econ- omy and fiscal reforms. Cautioning the king against his extravagant expenditures he lost the favor of the monarch and was disgraced, treated with harshness, and died in 1683, nine years after he had assumed the duties of Minister of Finance. Although Louis XIV. raised France to a degree of eminence and power to which it had never before attained, his reign was characterized not only by the most absolute tyranny, but by a spirit of religious big- otry and cruelty. While he patronized the industrial arts and in many ways advanced the material prosperity of the country, yet his pensecu- tion of the Huguenots, which began immediately after the death of FRANCE. Colbert, inflicted a blow on the trade and industries of the country from which it did not recover during the century which followed. In 1685 the Edict of Nantes was revoked and the Huguenots were stripped of the privileges which they had enjoyed for nearly a century. Their ministers were driven out of the country, their schools were closed and the worship of the Protestant religion was forbidden. The liberal professions, universities, and many of the trades and industries were closed to them. Hunted down with cavalry, thrown into prisons, shot down, broken over wheels, condemned to the gibbet for refusing to sub mit to a religious faith which was contrary to the dictates of their con science, by hundreds of thousands they fled to other countries. 1685 is described as the j'ear of the depopulation of France. All efforts to pre- vent their escape were ineffectual. It was asserted that they were taking their departure to show their disapproval of the restrictions which were placed on their going; yet when restrictions were removed emigration increased. It has been variously estimated by historians that the emigration reached from 300,000 to 400,000 persons, of whom 100,000 settled in Holland, 80,000 in England and America, 25,000 in Switzer- land and 75,000 in Germany and Prussia ; the rest went to Northern Europe and other places. The accession to the commercial and industrial pop- ulation of those countries, and the manner in which they were welcomed, have been pointed out. The injury inflicted on the industries of France cannot be measured by the numbers alone. Artisans, merchants and trades-people not only took their skill with them, but their treasures and wealth. In speaking upon this phase of the question, R. S. Poole says: It follows to ask what was the material loss involved in their exodus. Caveirac is again the lowest in his estimates; he will not grant the export of more than 250,000 livres. He might have learnt from Count d'Avaux himself that those least likely to magnify the sum confessed that by the very year of the Recall twenty million livres had gone out of the country; and it is certain that the wealthier mer- chants deferred their departure in order to carry as much as they could with them. Two hundred and 6fty traders are said to have quitted Rouen in 1687 and 1688. Probably the actual amount was very far in excess of these twenty millions, and a cal- culation is cited by Macpherson which even affirms that every individual refugee in England brought with him on an average money or effects to the value of /60. It will be needless to add many statistics of the injury caused by their withdrawal from France. Two great instances are typical of the rest. Lyons which had employed 18,000 silk-looms, had but 4000 remaining by the end of the century. Tours with the same interest had had 800 mills, 80,000 looms, and perhaps 4000 work-people. Of its 3000 ribbon factories only sixty remained. Equally sig- nificant was the ruin of the woolen trade of Poitou. Little was left of the drugget manufacture of Coulonges and Chataigtieraie, or of the industry in serges and bombazines at Thouars; and the export traffic between Chataigneraie and Canada by way of La Rochelle, was in the last year of the century absolutely extinct.' The blow inflicted upon the industries of the country by the loss of 1 History of the Huguenots, ch. 3 and 15. PROTECTION IX CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. SO much wealth, so many skilled artisans, experienced tradesmen and enterprising and industrious citizens, in fact presents onlj- one phase of those conditions which tended to retard the industrial progress of the countr}-. The form of government, the system of taxation, the domina- tion of kings and nobles, the almost continuous foreign wars and internal strifes, were sufficient of themselves to keep France back. The corrup- tion which prevailed in official circles, the extravagance and immorality of the court, all combined to reduce France to a most appalling condition. Upon the death of L,ouis XIV., Louis XV., then a mere child, became king, under the regency of his nephew Philip the Duke of Orleans, and Dubois became prime minister. It was under the ministry of Dubois that an attempt was made to improve the finances of the country by debasing the coins of the realm and flooding the country with a vast quantity of paper money under the plan of John L,aw, known as the Mississippi Scheme. Public revenues had been exhausted. The expenditures exceeded the receipts by a large sum, the debt had reached the enormous sum of 5,000,000,000 francs and the government was without credit. The experiment in finance which was tried, only added to the calamities and business misfortunes from which the country was suffering. The metallic currency was depreciated one-fifth by a re-coinage scheme, through which a person could take one hundred pieces of gold or silver to the mint and have them re-coined into pieces, each having the same nominal value as the pieces presented, but only four-fifths of the weight. This attempt to make something out of nothing naturally failed. The scheme of Law involved the establishment of a royal bank which issued paper money based on the revenues of the government, and from its profits was to pay off the national debt. Subse- quently the West India Company was organized, having for its purpose the colonization of the Louisiana territory, then owned by France, and the development of trade with the colony and the West India islands. The whole country was thrown into a state of excitement over the reports that were set afloat of the gold and silver in the colony, its resources, the magnitude of the trade and the profits which might be derived from the enterprise. A charter was granted to the company, stock was issued and put on the market for sale. The .shares of stock soon advanced to thirty or forty times their cost. Paper money was issued to the amount of 2,000,000^000 francs. In a .short time the tables were turned. The whole scheme proved to be a visionary adventure without a .substantial basis. Ships did not return from the colonies with gold and silver as was predicted. The trade was insignificant. The people lost confidence and as the day for liquidation approached the whole country was plunged into bankruptcy and financial ruin. Law left the country to escape the wrath of his victims. The experience of the French people in this fiat money enterprise, although it entailed great suffering and hardship on those who were victimized, served to furnish the world a lesson in financiering that has not been forgotten. This was the condition of affairs in 1723 when the ministry of Dubois ceased and Louis, at the age of thirteen, began to rule with the Duke of Bourbon as his minister. It is not necessary here to recount the disasters which befell the country. Although Cardinal Fleury who succeeded to the ministry in 1726 attempted to preserve peace and restore the fortunes of the country, his efforts failed. The war of the Succes- sion of Poland (1733-35), thewarof the Austrian Succe.ssionCi74i-4S), and the Seven Years' War between France and England, which involved the British and French colonies in America, in what is known as the French and Indian War, from 1754 to 1763, left for the country but little peace. Upon the death of Louis XV., in 1774, Louis XVI., at twenty years of age became king and reigned until driven from the throne at the break- ing out of the Revolution in 1789. He was finally tried, convicted and beheaded, for conspiring and plotting against the liberties of the people. A ver>' brief review of the conditions which prevailed in France immedi- ately preceding, and which culminated in the French Revolution, will serve to show how difficult industrial progress had become. All the privileges, property and political rights had become vested in the clergy, the nobles and the king. They enjoyed immunities, favors, pensions and preferments, while the mass of the population bore the burden of taxation. The privileged classes numbered about 270,000 persons, 140,000 nobles, 130,000 clergy. There were 25,000 to 30,000 noble families, 3000 monks, 2500 monasteries, 37,000 nuns, 1500 convents, and 60,000 curates and vicars m the churches and chapels. H. A. Taine gives the follow- ing description of the economic condition of the people : On each square league of territory and to each thousand of inhabitants, one noble family in its weather-cock mansion, in each village a curate and his church, and, every six or seven leagues, a conventional body of men, or women. . A fifth of the soil belongs to the crown and the communes, a fifth to the third estate, a fifth to the rural population, a fifth to the nobles and a fifth to the clergj-. Accordingly, if we deduct the public lands, the privi- leged classes own one-half of the kingdom. This large portion, moreover, is at the same time the richest, for it comprises almost all the large and handsome buildings, the palaces, castles, convents and cathedrals, and almost all the valuable movable property, such is the total or partial exemption from taxation. The tax collectors halted in their presence, because the king well knows that feudal prop- erty has the same origin as his own ; if royalty is one privilege, seigniory i; another; the king himself is simply the most privileged among the privileged. . . . After the assaults of 450 years, taxation, the first of fiscal instrumental ities, the most burdensome of all, leaves feudal property almost intact. . . . The privileged person avoids or repels taxation, not merely because it despoils him, but because it belittles him ; it is a mark of plebeian condition, that is to say, of former servitude, and he resists the fisc as much through pride as through interest . . La Bruyere wrote just a century before 17S9, 'Certain savage-lookinj beings, male and female, are seen in the country, bk d and sunburnt, riiOTECriOK IN COXTTXEKTAL AND OTHER COCNTRIES. belonging to the soil, which they dig and grub with invincible stubbornness. They seem capable of articulation, and when they stand erect they display human lineaments. They are, in fact, men. They retire at night into their dens, w-here they live on black bread, water and roots. They spare other human beings the trouble of sowing, plowing and harvesting, and thus should not be in want of the bread they have planted. ' They continue in want of it during twenty-five years after this, and die in herds. I estimate that in 1715 more than one-third of the population, six millions, perish with hunger and destitution. The picture, accordingly, for the first quarter of the century preceding the Revolution, far from being overdrawn, is the reverse; we shall see that, during more than half a centurj-, up to the death of Louis XV. , it is exact ; perhaps, instead of weakening any qf its points, they should be strengthened. . . . Undoubtedly the government under Louis XVI. is milder; the inteudants are more human, the administration is less rigid, the 'taille' becomes less unequal, and the 'corvee' is less onerous through its transformation, in short, misery has diminished, and yet this is greater than human nature can bear. Examine administrative correspondence for the last thirty years preceding the Revolution. Countless statements reveal excessive suffering, even when not terminating in furj'. Life to a man of the lower class, to an artisan, or workman, subsisting on the labor of his own hands, is evidently precarious, he obtains simply enough to keep him from starvation and he does not alwaj-s get that. Here, in four districts, 'the inhabitants live only on buckwheat,' and for five years, the apple crop having failed, they drink only water. There, in a country of vineyards, 'the vinedressers each year are reduced, for the most part to begging their bread during the dull season. ' . . . In a remote canton the peasants cut the grain still green and dry it in the oven, because they are too hun- grj- to wait. . . Between 1750 and 1760, the idlers who eat suppers begin to regard with compassion and alarm the laborers who go without dinners. Why are the latter so impoverished, and by what chance, on a soil as rich as that of France, do those lack bread who grow the grain? In the fir.st place, many farms remain uncultivated, and, what is worse, many are deserted. According to the best observers, 'one-quarter of the soil is absolutely lying waste. . . Hundreds and hundreds of arpents of heath and moor form extensive deserts. ' . . . This is not sterilit}- but decadence. The regime invented by Louis XIV. has produced its effect ; the soil for a century past is reverting back to a wild state. ... In the second place, cultivation, when it does take place, is carried on according to mediaeval modes. Arthur Young, in 17S9, considers that French agriculture has not progressed beyond that of the tenth century. " • It seems hardly credible that such extremes could have existed in France. The French court and the life of the nobles were noted for their gayety, fashion and splendor, yet the masses were doomed to the most revolting servitude and degradation. It is a most remarkable fact that under the conditions described, the French peasants, the cultivators of the soil, had by 1760 become the owners of one-quarter of the land, possessed in small holdings, but this it must be remembered, consisted of the poor- est land. "The .small cultivator," says Taine, "however, in becoming the po.ssessor of the soil asstimes its charges. Simply as a day laborer and with his arms alone, he was only partially affected by the taxes, but now vainly is he poor and declaring him.self still poorer ; the fisc has a hold on him and every portion of his new possession." It seems, however, that the taxes became so burdensome that tillage was unprofitable. The poll tax alone, in 17 15, amounted to 66,000,000 livres, in 1759 to 90,000,000, and by 1789 it had reached 110,000,000. The cry of the farmer was : ' ' Too much is taken from me because not enough is taken from the privilege. Not only do the privilege force me to pay in their place, but, again, they previously deduct from my earnings their ecclesi- astes and feudal dues. ' ' Out of an income of 100 francs he was compelled to pay 53 francs to the collector, 14 to the seignior, and more than 14 francs to the church out of the remaining 18 or 19 francs. The collection of taxes was farmed out by the king, to venal and corrupt officials, who were permitted to keep all they collected over a certain sum. A law was enforced which compelled each family to buy large quantities of salt whether they needed it or not, for the purpose of swelling the revenue derived from the tax on this commodity. Peasants and laborers were compelled to work on roads and bridges without pay. The small farmer was under the absolute control of the nobles and subjected to the most arbitrary exactions and species of robbery. He must grind his corn at the lord's mill and press his grapes at the lord's wine press, and pay whatever sura was exacted. Louis engaged in corrupt schemes of impoverishing the people and filling the public treasury. The shipment of grain was prohibited from one province into another, while he lowered the price and bought up the sur- plus, and when the scarcity thus brought about enhanced prices, he sold at a profit. He laid tribute on the business and industrial classes by granting licenses and selling to individuals the sole right to engage in a particular calling or trade. Class hatred became intense and a spirit of unrest and jealousy per\'aded the whole nation. The nobles looked upon the trading, industrial and laboring classes with contempt. The king treated them " only as a sponge to be squeezed." This was the condition under which 26,000,000 people existed in 1789. By the writings of Rosseau and Voltaire, they were aroused to a sense of their rights and liberties. They became frenzied with rage against their oppres- sors, and the whole nation was plunged into a revolution which overthrew the monarchy, brought the king to the guillotine, confiscated the property of nobles and clergy, and established the first republic. It was shortly after this, about 1793, that the people rallied to the standard of Napoleon I., who until 18 15 was engaged in the most gigantic wars of modern times. It would be out of place here to trace the events of the French Revolu- tion, the campaigns of Napoleon, or the military achievements or dis- asters which France witnessed during these eventful years. Yet all this has an economic bearing for two reasons. First, it serves to show the difficulties encountered by the French people in attempting to build up their industries and pro.secute trade and commerce. Second, it was 32 Taxation 2nd feudal burdens. PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. against the conditions described that Quesnay, Turgot and the French economists of this time directed their attack. Unable in all things to dis- tinguish between that which is beneficial to a nation and those practices which are injurious, overwhelmed by the revolting condition of the peo- ple, the school of economic writers which arose in France immediately before the French Revolution, fell into many errors. The social and political evils which existed, the burdensome system of taxation, the meddlesome and arbitrary interference with trade, commerce and employ- ments, all combined to influence their opinions upon economic questions. The despotism of the king, clergy and nobles, their arbitrarj' and arro- gant treatment of the masses, engendered an extreme spirit in favor of individual liberty and personal rights, which found a place in their writ- ings and formed the basis of their creed. The school of economists, or Phj'siocrats, as they were called, was founded by Quesnay, the phj-sician of lyouis XV. Because of the radical ground taken in favor of individu- • alism and against an interference by the governflient in private affairs, they were also known as the Personal Rights party. It was with these writers that the expression laissez faire originated. " Let things alone — laissez f aire, and laissez passer." We have from the Centurj' Dictionary the following definition and statement of the origin of the above expression: A letting alone; a general non-interference with individual freedom of action. The let alone principle or policy in goverument and political economy. The term was first used in France to distinguish that principle of political economy which would leave industry and trade absolutely free from taxation or restriction by governments, except .so far as required by public peace and order. It has since been extended to include non-interference by controlling authority with any guiltless exercise of individual will. It is apparent that the extreme views entertained by these writers arose from the conditions which existed in France at that time. The people had been over-governed. A despotic power held censorship over all phases of individual action. Freedom of political discussion was unknown. The press could only publish and say what was permitted by the government. Again it should be borne in mind that the spirit of free government which swept over the world in the latter part of the eighteenth century, and found expression in the American Revolution, had .seized hold of the educated men of both Europe and America before the out- break finally came in France. In discussing the economic ideas of Quesnay and his disciples, Professor Robert Ellis Thompson say.^ : ' If the mercantile school unduly subordinated the science to the art, the econo- mists went to the other extreme and made a complete divorce between them. Start- ing from a few simple ideas as the postulates of science, they built up a fantastic structure of deductions and theories, that .stood in no vital relation to the actual life 1 KleniL-Tits of Political Kconomy, p. 17. FJiANCE. of society. Their professed aim was to attain a natural line of thought, and in that age the " natural " was conceived as the a;itithesis of civilization, as then existing. In Quesnay's views, nature — by which he meant the productive powers of the soil— is the sole source of a nation's wealth ; agricultural labor is therefore the only productive industry, all others being sterile. That this labor produces more than the farmer and his household consume, is the origin of all wealth, — which is merely the net-product of his tillage. The values produced by all other labor are measured by the cost of raw materials and the workman's food. The web of cotton cloth is but so much raw cotton and so much corn turned into another form, but retaining the same value. The utility of the new form is greater ; the amount of wealth the same. From this he inferred that national policy should do nothing to develop such sterile industries as commerce and manufactures, but merely remove all restrictions from agriculture, from the trade in grain, etc. As agriculture alone produces wealth, it alone must, in the last resort, bear all the national burdens, however these may be imposed. Turgot, his chief disciple, divests the theory of much that is fantastic, and in his policy as Minister of Finance applied for the most part merely its just rejection of the system of monopolies, close corporations, duties on exports, etc. The views held by this sect of economists of the true functions of government were that governments are at the most onh' necessary evils, and that their powers should be limited to simply the performance of police regulations and the preservation of order, while individuals should be permitted to exercise the utmost freedom of action. Speaking of this attempt to exalt the individual above the State, Professor Ingram says: That the tendency of the school was unduly to consecrate the spirit of indi- vidualism and the state of non-government. . . . But what the physiocrats' ideas with the normal method of government were, appears from Quesnay's advice to the dauphin, that when he became king he should do nothing but let the law rule. The laws having been of course first brought into conformity with they«jr natur-, had steadily- increased until the country became noted for the production of a superior quality of this class of goods. The treaty was entered upon by England after a most careful investiga- tion of the industries of France and the effect which the new regulations would have on British manufactures. The correspondence and negotia- tions, the result of Mr. Eden's observations and inquiries, were all made known, and the interests of British manufacturers were consulted through- out. The reverse, however, was true in France. "The negotiations," says Yeats, ' ' had been offensive to the French manufacturers, whose voice was not heard in the matter until, in answer to their inquiries, they were told it was too late, for the treaty was signed. Rouen, Rheims, Rennes and Lyons were bitter in the expression of their discontent." The only producers in France who were at all pleased with the treaty were the wine merchants of Bordeaux. The Physiocrats, of course, who had been misled by some economic notions, gave it their approval, yet their influence was so insignificant and they were so few in number that as soon as its effect became apparent on the manufactures of the country it was abandoned. Bismarck, in a passage already quoted, stated to the German Reichstag, in 1879, that "commercial treaties, it is true, are under certain circumstances favorable to foreign trade; but whenever a treaty is concluded it is a question of Qui trompe-t-on-ici ? Who is taken in ? As a rule one of the parties is, but only after a number of years is it known which one." In this instance it took only five years to demonstrate that France had made a poor bargain, that for the privilege o'f sending a few luxuries into England on more liberal terms, which they were likely to continue to sell without the treaty, because there was an actual demand for them there, their home market must be flooded with the cheaper wares of England which would make it difficult, if not impos.sible, for them to extend their industrial system to the production of a greater variety of commodities at home, and hence lose the profitable employment and accu- mulation of capital, and the opportunity which would be given to the em- ployment of labor within the borders of their own country. We have the opinion of an eminent French authority, M. St. Ferrol, upon this fact that England was decidedly the gainer by the treaty: The fatal treaty signed with England on the twenty-sixth of September, 1786, abolished the prohibitions which applied to the products of this kingdom and her colonies. In con.sequence of some reductions of the duties on our wines, vinegars, olive oil and beer, we had the imprudence to authorize the admission of a great number of manufactured articles, on paying a duty of from 10 to 15 per cent. Hosiery, woven cloths and woolens, articles of dress, porcelain, earthenware, potterj' and glass, were, in virtue of this treaty, admitted among us, subject only to a duty of 12 per cent. It is true that the treaty established a reciprocity of duties; but this reciprocity vanished before the superiority already obtained by the manufactures of that king- dom. From these facts it is apparent that free trade writers in attempting to show that the free trade tendencies which arose in England and France, immediately after the publication of the ' ' Wealth of Nations, ' ' and the writings of the French economists dictated this treaty, are not sup- ported by the facts so far as they relate to England. On the part of Eng- land it was a shrewd business transaction to advance her trade by driving a sharp bargain. Mr. Macgregor says that the efforts of Mr. Eden in negotiating the treaty were regarded as " a masterpiece of skill. ' ' The results which followed in France very quickly demonstrated the folly of those who had been influenced by the teachings of the French economists. In 1791 the treaty was revoked b}^ France, and the second general tariff law of the country was enacted. It aboUshed internal customs and embodied the following provisions: 1. To exclude, by absolute prohibition, certain foreign productions and manufactures. 2. To change the prohibition of certain articles into the permission of entry by paying a duty not exceeding twenty shillings. These bases, says Mr. Macgregor, were drawn up by the then first clerk of the customs of Lyons, and adopted in March, 1791, as follows: 1. Total exemption from entrance duties on alimentary articles and on materials required for manufacture . 2. Progressive duties on certain merchandi.se. 3. Highest duties not to exceed 25 per cent on objects of luxury or fantasy. 4. Absolute prohibition of manufactures which compete with ours. 5. Finally, 10 per cent duty on all spices. This tariff law exchrded gold and silver, worked on thread, twisted and hemp thread, tobacco, glass, and a few other articles. In March, 1793, all commercial treaties existing with those countries which were then at war with France, were annulled and foreign vessels were excluded from participation in the coasting trade of France. Such were the regula- tions existing during the early part of the administration of Napoleon. What is known as the Continental System of Bonaparte was inaugurated in 1802, and continued until his downfall at the battle of Waterloo. The Continental policy involved the exclusion of Great Britain from all trade with Continental ports. The Berlin decree issued in 1806 forbade all commercial intercourse with Great Britain, and declared the British Isles in a state of blockade. All British subjects found in any country over which France then claimed jurisdiction, were ordered to be seized. This decree was met by the British Government by what is known as the "Order in Council," made in 1807, which prohibited all trade with countries over which France claimed jurisdiction. Yeats says on this subject : Napoleon retaliated by the still sterner decree of Milan, which reduced his Con- tinental System to a code. The ports of Europe for several years presented the strange PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. pectacle of not daring to admit English vessels for fear of Napoleon's decrees, and as little daring to let their own vessels leave their moorings for dread of the British cruisers. The mercantile fleet of France was captured, and her navy defeated. With an assertion of power which he could no longer enforce, Napoleon required neutrals to carry a French license to trade. England in reply seized the French colonies, effectively blockaded France, and declared prizes all neutral vessels carrying French papers. While England ruled the sea, Napoleon's policy was futile and his ordi- nances were useless. Navigation ceased wherever he could enforce compliance with his will. France, which had been the purveyor of sugar and coffee for European consmnption, was compelled to look to other states for her own supply, and at last the enactments other ruler cut her off from every source. Meanwhile the profits of a vast smuggling traflSc which had arisen all over Europe, together with the growing trade between England and the United States, enabled English commerce to endure this trial with little loss; in the end, indeed, with positive gain. Except the English, there were soon no merchantmen in Europe, and England was called upon to act as universal agent and carrier. British fabrics and colonial produce were so desirable that they were still purveyed, although surreptitiously and at greatly enhanced cost. Thus, by unintentional and strange concurrence of events, the world's commerce came into possession of England, after a short effort of the Americans and the neutral nations conjointly to share it.' It has been pointed out in previous chapters that through the de- struction of the merchant vessels of all Continental countries during this war, that England gained a complete monopoly of the carrying trade of the world, and obtained a commercial and maritime pre-eminence which she has since held and which other nations have not been able to take from her. The efforts to exclude British goods from the Conti- nent gave to the manufacturers of France a monopoly of their home market and enabled them to extend their sales in other Continental countries. Hence, while France lost her merchant vessels and was driven from the sea, her industries, notwithstanding the long military struggle in which the country was engaged, made considerable progress. Yet the calamities of the war were so great and taxation so burdensome, that the manufacturers of the country shared in a great degree in the inevitable consequences. When the war was brought to a close, upon the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, the allied armies of 800,000 troops occupied French soil and lived on the country for several months. Besides, the burdens of the war which fell upon France by the terms of peace, imposed a great hardship on the people. An army of 150,000 men was to occupy the country and be supported for a period not less than three and not more than five years; France was also compelled to pay to the allied powers $140,000,000 to defray the expenses of the war and indemnities for spoliations inflicted on them during the Revolution which amounted to $147,000,000. Besides these sums, 100,000,- 000 francs were to be paid to smaller powers for the expenses of war. The total sum imposed on the French people, besides the expense of > Recent and Kxisting Commerce, p. 59 FRANCE. maintaining the army of occupation, was $307,000,000. This was the situation of France in 18 16, after having passed through, from 1789 to 18 15, the most gigantic wars and the most blood j^ revoUition of modern times ; yet, still, taking into account the fact that the despotism which had prevailed, the sj'Stem of feudalism, the corrupt and venal nobles, royalists and priesthood had all been swept awaj', the people were in a better situation than ever before to enter upon a career of national life and industrial prosperity; hence, when we attempt to measure the growth of the wealth and industries of the country, and compare its progress and present condition with that of other nations during recent years, it is proper to begin with the close of the Napoleonic wars. Although at this time France was a powerful nation and great industrial progress had been made, yet so many causes had intervened to retard the accumu- lation of wealth and the establishment of industries, trade and commerce, that their disasters should be taken into account in measuring the wonder- ful progress which has been made and the vast accumulation of wealth which has taken place during the past eighty years. During the period extending from 18 15 to i860, although the French people were divided on the question of a form of government and the struggle between kingcraft and republicanism raged with the varying fortunes of both parties, until the formation of the Republic in 1870; yet there was one question upon which the French people were united during this period. The necessity of developing all their varied resources and industries pertaining to agriculture, manufacturing, mining, trade and commerce was fully recognized and protection to native industries remained the settled and definite policy of the people. Before the army of occupation had left the country in 18 16 a new tariff law was enacted, known as the tariff of the Restoration. It maintained all the prohibi- tions embraced within the law of March i, 1793. The act of 1791 was continued in force with provisions which increased the duties which had been too lightlj- imposed on many articles of that year. This law, on account of the exigencies of the government, embodied revenue features which formed no part of the definite principles of protection in times of peace. The large war debt required the taxation of many articles of raw materials and necessaries not produced in France, which otherwise would have been admitted free. The burdens of taxation which fell so heavily upon the people during the whole period, prevented to a great extent the establi.shment of a policy more consistent with the principles of protection. Again the prejudices of the war which had intensified the hatred against Great Britain, the lo.ss of colonies and merchant marine naturally continued a system of commercial warfare and retaliation which was injurious to the trade of the country, and showed a lack of knowledge of sound economic principles. But this soon passed away, and in the thirties great improvements were made in the tariff regulations. Tariff leg- from iSis PliOrECTION IN COXTINEXTAL AND OTHER COUXTBIES B\- the revisions which were made in 1836 prohibitions were removed which had hitherto existed upon the imports of certain manufactured and partly manufactured articles and adequate protection was continued through duties upon buttons; chains; cables; cashmere shawls; coppei ire twisted with silk, gilt or silvered ; brass wire; cotton lace; clock works; tin dishes; India handkerchiefs, clothing and other stuffs. Protective duties were also substituted for prohibitions on chromates of lead, chro- mates of potash and chromates of iron; extract of quinine; iron in bars (called rails), in angular form, old and broken; cotton yarns, No. 143 and upwards; thread of sheep's wool, twisted not dyed; prepared skins, large and tanned; Russia leather for bookbinding and some others, while the import of cotton yarns was prohibited. Duties were greatly reduced on the following articles required for manufacturing: Coal; various kinds of wood used in the manufacture of furniture, such as mahogany, ebony, etc. ; also on dye woods; rubber; white lead; cobalt; cochineal; copper; elephant's teeth; tin; iron cast in pigs and drawn in bars of all dimensions; oil seeds, oil indigo; wool, raw or washed; lac dye; flax, not hackled, and tow, hackled and combed; machines (locomotives) for railroads; nickel (metallic) bristles; lead, mineral of; silk raw and reel; tallow, raw; sul- phur, mineral of zinc and many others. Duties were also reduced on the following articles of food : Cinnamon, cloves, nutmegs, pimeto, pepper and tea. Duties were reduced on the following articles of manufacture: Linens, woven of flax or hemp; table linens, unbleached; damask, bleached and damask, and sealing wax. By the acts of 1826, 1836 and 1841 duties were increased on the follow- ing articles of manufacture: Steel, cast in bars or steel wire; spermaceti produce of foreign fisheries; raw, pressed or refined sperm candles; copper, pure or mixed; hops; wool, washed and dyed; quills for writing; marble, unwrought; lead pencils; cordage; linen yarns and .some others. Cotton manufactures were prohibited to be imported excepting the following, which were subjected to duties : Nankeens from India and from other parts, cotton lace, cotton thread of No. 143 and above, cotton twisted, all other cotton thread without distinction of number or quality, and coverlets. As to woolen manufactures, woven cloth dyed, or undycd, dressed or un- dressed; hosiery of all kinds, flannels of all kinds and woolen yarns were prohibited to be imported except the following, which were subjected to protective duties: Blankets and bed covers, carpets in knots of wool and linen thread, carpets of woolen yarns, tufted or in round points, the under side of which represent canvas or thread, carpets, woolen, worsted wares and buttons to be used in France with other material. The importation of manufactures of iron and hardware of all kinds was prohibited except the following, which were subjected to protective duties : Steam engines, machinery, mechanical instruments for the use of maimfactures and loco- motive engines for railways, tools, copper boilers, etc., agricultural implements, ship anchors of certain sizes, spurs and pins, coffee mills and a few other articles of minor importance. Nearly all chemical products were prohibited. Manufactured goods, with the exception of silks, machines and tools and a few articles partly manufactured were, as a general rule, prohibited. Protection to agriculture was also made a definite purpose in the legislation of 1816, 1826, 1836 and 1841. In 1826 duties were in- creased on horses, cattle, sheep, fowls, hops, wool; butcher's meat, fresh, salt pork and other kinds; vegetables, dry or ground; and on all grains, cereals and farm produce. To encourage .ship-building, commerce and industries, bounties were paid to those who engaged in the fisheries and for building vessels. Pre- miums were also paid on the exportation of woolen manufactures, cotton manufactures, hardware and other commodities of the production of French factories. Under the vigorous protective policy entered upon, the expenses of the government necessitated the preservation of some revenue features which would not otherwise have been continued, j^et, as a whole, it was in every way favorable to the restoration of the trade and commerce and the expansion and development of the country. A brief .statement of the expan.sion of the industries of the country during this period will show that most marvelous progress was made. One of the principal benefits derived from the French Revolution was the change which took place in the tenure of land. It has already been pointed out that a large portion of the area, and in fact the best part, was owned by the church, the crown and the nobles. The confisca- tion of property held by the church, the king and the nobility brought about a division of land and gave the people an opportunity to purchase and own their own farms. By a law of France it was provided that an estate should be equally divided among the heirs. This cut the whole country up into many small holdings, which has made the French peasantry the most contented, happy and peaceful rural population in Europe. It was not only a regard for the interests of the large wine producers, the owners of vineyards or the cultivators of the mulberry tree that induced protection to agriculture, but the welfare of the peasantry, the whole people, the idea of making France prosperous and self-sustaining, by fully developing all the varied resources of the country, formed the basis of this policy. A committee of the Chamber of Deputies reported in 1832 that. If we admitted the food and raiment and metals and colonial and other objects which strangers would bring into our ports, we might probably gain some hundreds of millions : should we be the richer in consequence ? for the riches of a Slate are in the elements of labor, and when labor fails to find employment miser}- is reproduced. And it is not only a question of comfort, but one of existence, /or zf wheat ?vere intro- duced without duty from the Baltic or Black Sea, our maritime shores wo^t'i ie?nain uncultivated, and the effect of a ruinous competition zvould affect, more and viore, nearly the zvhote of our agricultural population. rROTEcrinx in continental and other countries. Notwithstanding the effort on the part of the English people to break down the system of protection in France by appeals to the agricultural interests, the French people have remained united on the subject. The arguments which were intended to array one class of producers against another, utterly failed. They attempted to prejudice the agriculturists against the manufacturers, by showing that through protection to the French manufacturers the farmers were paying much larger prices for iron and agricultural implements than they would be compelled to pay under a system permitting free imports from England. The concern which the free traders manifested for the agriculturists of France is most interesting when we remember that at the same time they were making calculations to convince the farmers that they should destroy the iron furnaces and agricultural implement manufactories, they were also compiling statistics to convince the manufacturers that they were being robbed and subjected to heavy burdens to support the sugar and other agricultural industries of the country. "Since 1848," sa}'s Mulhall (1888), "no less than 9,000,000 acres of waste land have been reclaimed." The protection and encouragement given to the French farmers have not only directly benefited the peasantry, but have added greatly to the wealth of the nation. Nearly ever}- foot of soil is cultivated like a garden. The sandy deserts, the crest of moun- tains, and even rocks have been transformed into vineyards and made to yield a revenue, and give sustenance and support to the people. Besides, the division which has been maintained by keeping so many people on the soil has prevented the overcrowding of cities and the struggle for places among laborers in industrial centres, which would have occurred had France pursued the English policy of opening her ports to the free admission of the farm produce of other countries, and ruined and impoverished her agriculturists; but instead of that her rural population was given an opportunity to produce and sell in French markets vege- tables, poultry, dairy products, and everything which would grow on French soil, or could be produced or raised by French farmers. Not only were the wheat growers protected, but the milling interests of the country were guarded against foreign competition, so that nearly all the grain which is imported is ground into flour and meal in French mills. The milling interests of the country are therefore verj- extensive. The steady development of agriculture which immediately followed the adoption of vigorous protection to agriculture has been most fully vindicated, as will further appear from the enormous wealth of the country, as shown at the close of this chapter. During the Revolution, the city of Lyons, the principal seat of the silk industry, was taken by the Republican forces, and many of its inhabitants massacred. The di.sturbance was so great that the industry was practically ruined and received a .set-back. One characteristic of Napoleon, which perhaps above all others won for him the applause and adherence of the French people, was his devotion to their interests and his regard for their welfare manifested in so many waj's. He recognized ths importance of all the industries of the country, and especially of the silk industry, which he attempted to revive by requiring the costumes of all French officials to be made from domestic silk. The invention of the jacquard loom also contributed largely to the rapid expansion of the silk trade of Lyons after the Revolution. The industry, however, became verj' prosperous, as is disclosed by the official statistics of its growth between 1820 and 1835, as given by Mr. Macgregor in his "Dictionary' of Commercial Statistics." The quantity of raw silk spun increased from 308,159 kilograms in 1815 to 876,016 kilograms in 1835. The exports of the manufactures of silk from France to England, the United States, and all other coun- tries, grew from 99,000,000 francs in value in 1822 to 165,000,000 francs in 1847; 181,000,000 francs in 1849; 194,000,000 francs in 1866. By 1845 the manufacturing industry gave employment to 200,000 persons, who produced a product worth over $40,000,000. While France was a producer of raw silk, yet its manufacture was established in the country, and grew and expanded under the fostering care of protection. In the manufacture of cotton goods the progress was less rapid during the period in question. It .should be remembered that the industry' was not established in England until the close of the eighteenth century, and that its rapid expansion there was due largely to the inventive genius of the English people who brought out the great textile machinery which so increased the facilities for its production. Prohibiting the export of this machinery, England acquired a start and an advantage in its production, many years in advance of the French and other Continental countries. With the superior facilities thus possessed by Great Britain her manufac- turers were able, had it been permitted, to prevent the establishment of the industry in France. The French people wisely put up protective bar- riers, employed British artisans and set themselves about acquiring the mastery of the business. Cotton weaving and spinning mills were erected and great progress was made. Three million five hundred thousand spindles were employed in the various districts of the country. The substitution of power for hand loom, the building of large factories fitted with machinery and modern appliances which was taking place could not have been estab- lished under free trade. Although the woolen industry was early established through the influ- ence of Colbert and the French people had reached great proficiency in dyeing and weaving by the close of the Napoleonic wars, in order to keep pace with other nations her hand looms must be thrown aside and mod- ern machinery and appliances substituted. By 181 5 woolen factories had been established in all parts of France, and when the use of machinery PROTECTION IK CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. was added to their superior art of dyeing and their great ingenuity in its manufacture, a successful prosecution of the trade was assured. Complete statistics during the years from 1816 to i860 cannot be found. Those that do touch upon the growth of French industries during this period are meagre and fragmentarj'. Enough, however, are available to show a most substantial advance. The following facts and figures are taken from Macgregor's "Dictionary of Commercial Statistics." The changes in the foreign trade of France were as follows : Foreign Trade of France. 1820-1861. Exports. Imports. 1820 I 90,983,616 $ 72,627,4/3 1829, 123,270,678 121,563,727 Annual average 1827-1836 139,600,000 133,400,000 Annual average 1837-1S46 204,800,000 217.600,000 Annual average 1847-1S56, 334,400,000 300,600,000 1S61, 385,274,200 488,470,400 As can be seen the exports exceeded the imports for nearly the whole of this period, while in a single year after the English treaty went into operation the imports exceeded the exports by over $100,000,000. From 1787 to 1829 the excess of imports over exports of bullion amounted to $345,476,917 and j-et $182,082,172 was gained in the eight years from 1822 to 1829, as shown by the following table : Movement of Bullion. 1822-1S29. Exports. Imports. 1S22, 111,295,795 fo7,i92,255 1823 21,299,621 40,106,086 1824 16,638,368 48,856,522 1825 26,929,613 50,284,814 1826 34,929,630 34,409,879 1827 7,970,664 37.409.879 182S, 5,714,315 21,620,215 1829 11,714,916 49,695,044 Total, 1136,492,922 I319.574.694 136,492,922 Excess of imports over exports $183,081,772 The excess of specie imported in 1839 was $19,506,825. Changes in the production of coal, wheat and potatoes were as follows : Coal Production. 1789, 250,000 1H30 1,800,000 i,S5[ 4,648,000 i86oi 8,309,622 Wheat Production. 184s, I52,CX»,00O 1S50 237,093,769 1876, 271,330,122 17S9, 5,000,000 1815, 55,000,000 1S48 275,000,000 1850, 157,230,000 1S75 ,. 411,818,044 Statement of Production of Iron in France, from 1833 To 1840, Inclusive. In Metric Quintals— (220.46 lbs.). 1S33, 1834, 1S35, 1S36, 1837, 183S, 1839, 1 i 22,273,000 2,253,000 25,083,000 ' 2,691,000 27,898,000 2,948,000 31,587,000 3,084,000 33,760,000 i 3,317,000 32,899,000 [ 3,478,000 32,164,000 3,502,000 1,339,000 1,772,000 2,095,000 2, 106,000 2,246,000 2,242,000 2,318,000 1828, 1834. 1839, Malleable quintals. 393 ! 2,209,177 j 1,295 1,513.878 569 12,690,636! 1,687 ' 1. 771. 638 3,502,0001 2,022 j 2,318,000 The production, importation and consumption of coal from 1825 to 1838 also shows great gains in this period. 14.914.C i8,627,c 25,064,0 3i.'33.c 5,069,000 6,309,000 7,669,000 11,636,000 i9,983,< 24,936,< 32,733,< 42,769,( Wool Imported for Consumption. 1820 11,670,000 1830, 2,574,400 1840, 5,997,400 J ^ Metric quintal— 220.46 lbs. PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Statement of Value of Woolbn Yarns and Woolen Cloths Exported. Cloth. i,547,4oo 1S20 f 129,400 1830, 213,000 1840, 399,200 12,220,000 The increase in importations of cotton for consumption from 18 12 to iSigamounted to 11,000,000 kilograms (2.2046 pounds), and from 1S19 to 1835 the increase amounted to 22,000,000 kilograms. The value of cotton manufactures in 1835 amounted to $120,000,000. Between 1816 and 1835 the quantity of cottons manufactured nearly- doubled itself. Raw Cotton Imported for Consumption. 1820, $ 7,365,000 1S30 10,352,200 1840, 18,801,200 Value of Cotton Tissues Exported. 1820, f 5,824,000 1830 11,123,000 1S40 21,404,800 Value of Cotton Manufactures Exported. 1833, 1S40, Silk and Silk Manufactures. $12,267,270 21,700,000 1820, 1835, No. of mul- grown. 9.631-674 14,879,404 Quantity of Hemp and Flax Imported for Consumption. Hemp. Flax. Kilograms. Kilograms. (2.2046 lbs.) (2.2046 lbs.) 1825, 14,292,157 $ 234,049 1S37, 6,284,443 1,102,768 Linen Yarns Imported. Kilograms. (2.2046 lbs.) 1825, I 983,031 1835 2,126,652 1839, 6,817,421 Value of Land. 1821, 1851, I 7,902,800,000 16,748,800,000 FRANCE. Railways. Miles, 1830, 32 1848 1,373 1855. 3.434 1861 .... 6,212 Exportation of French Cutlhry. 1833, I245.306 i835> 303,330 Value of Oil Cakes Exported. 1831. 1132,793 1S37 228,550 1840, 471,557 Beet Root Sugar Production. Kilograms. 1828, 58 establishments producing 2,685,000 1830, 89 " " 6,000,000 1837, 543 " " 36,000,000 1839, 560 " " 40,000,000 Deposits in Savings Banks. Francs. 1834 • 37,015,492 1839 ■ 171,057,904 The industrial development of France from the close of the Napoleonic wars until i860 is without a parallel in any Continental country. The manufacturing, which hitherto had been confined to silks, fine woolens, tapestries, gobelins and more costly and elegant articles, was now extended to everj' branch of production. The cotton industry was developed, the woolen industry made rapid strides. Iron and coal mines were opened and the metal industry extended to all manner of tools and implements in which iron is used. Fabrics from flax and hemp were also made in large quantities. It was not only a period of great expansion and growth, but a transformation had taken place under which old methods were discarded and machinery and all modern appliances were brought into use. It was during this period that the peasantry gained a decisive foothold and most marvelous improvements in the cultivation of the soil and the develop- ment of the agricultural resources of the country took place. The produc- tion of sugar became one of the chief and most valuable industries. But this is not all. Under a favorable balance of trade the country ob- tained an ample supply of gold and silver. Although the ease with which the French people met the German indemnity at the close of the Franco-Prussian war astonished the world, yet the means by which this accumulation of treasure was accomplished is still more important and worthy of much more comment and consideration. The vast accumulation of treasure had been going on for years and was due to the policy of pro- tection. Even after the five milliards were paid to Germany, France still PKOrKCTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. had, and now has, a greater accumulation of precious metals in the banks and circulating among her people, than any other nation. The Republic had been overtlirown, the monarchy restored and from 1852 Louis Napoleon had sat on the throne. During the ten years pre- ceding i860 Mr. Cobden and his as.sociates had been attempting by every means possible to induce France to abandon protection and adopt free trade. Louis Napoleon and Chevalier entertained liberal views upon the question. While the French people were so devoted to the policy of protection that a suggestion of free trade would have made the adminis- tration unpopular, yet by a piece of cuuning diplomacy, under the guise of a commercial treaty, Richard Cobden and Louis Napoleon sought to accomplish in part that which could not be obtained in open daylight. In i860, as has already been pointed out, a commercial treaty was entered into between England and France, under which French silks and manufac- tures were admitted into England free of duty and French wines under reduced duties. While on the other hand France removed all prohibitions from imports and substituted duties ranging from 20 to 30 per cent on competing manufactures. The writer will not undertake to say that either party was the gainer by this treaty. The question who was cheated has remained until this day a subject of controversy which, perhaps, will never be settled satisfactorily. Measured bj' the growth of exports and imports of the two countries, an increased trade is shown. That the shipping interests, brokers and commission men of England gained more than those of France because of the former nation's pre-eminence in the carrying trade is undoubtedly true. Yet the free imports from France, as has been proven, resulted in the annihilation of the silk industry of England and greatly crippled many other manufacturing interests. On the other hand France bought more largely of England of those foreign products and raw materials of which, at that time, English merchants were the distributors. So far as French industries were concerned, it intensified competition in France in many branches, especially in chemicals, paper, coarser woolens, cottons and machinery in which England was superior. The imports into France of these manufactures from England, although they swelled the foreign trade, diminished the home trade by displacing domestic productions and therefore it cannot be said that a benefit arose to the French people. The small increase in the exports from England to France did not compensate her for the destruction of her silk industry or for the dimini.shed production which such imports occasioned in other pursuits. The duties of 20 or 30 per cent, which France maintained, were all that saved a vast number of her industries from destruction. The treaty was binding on the two countries until 187 1, and at that date was renewed for another ten years. But as soon as the voice of the people was heard in the halls of legislation, under the new Republic, the renewal of protectiou and the abrogation of the treaty, became issnes in the politics of the country. In 1882 the French Government refused to renew the treat3' and a more vigorous protective policy was restored. On March 28, 1885, an act was passed by the Chamber of Deputies, raising the duties on all farm products. The act was but an extension of the system of tariff revisions which was begun in 1876 and completed in 1881. . All ad valorem duties were changed to specific. In 1 890 the question of further extension of protective duties came up for disctission, when it was appar- ent that the protectionist sentiment was overwhelmingly in the ascend- ency. In 1891, upon proposals submitted by the government, the Chamber of Deputies passed a new tariff law. Raw materials were admitted free of duty, and to compensate the growers of flax and the breeders of .silk worms bounties were given by the government, that these industries might be maintained and prosecuted with more vigor. The internal tax on sugar was reduced. Increased protection was extended to agriculture and to those manufactures which were being depressed by foreign compe- tition. The treaties with Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Portugal and the Netherlands, which would not expire until 1892, were revoked. The bill provided for two rates of duties, or permitted the import of goods under the lowest duties named in the schedule from those countries which v/ould extend reciprocal benefits on French goods. It was under tliis provision, undoubtedly incorporated under the in- fluence of the Reciprocity clause of the McKinley bill, that the Harrison administration made a commercial treaty with France, under which American pork and farm produce were received into the country under the lowest duties fixed, and in turn, sugar, molasses and skins from France and her colonies were admitted into the United States free of duty. Before examining the agricultural and manufacturing resources of modern France, the reader's attention is called to the speeches of M. Thiers, then a Deputy from Paris, in the Assembly, January, 1870. They are so pregnant with practical wisdom, so full of contempt for the fallacious reasoning found across the English Channel, so prolific in in- structive observations and conclusions, that extracts of considerable length are here given. On January 22, 1870, M. Thiers addressed the Assembly as fol- lows: Every nation has three affairs which should be the object of its ardent and constant solicitude: liberty first, its greatness next, and finally its material pros- perity. Liberty, which consists not merely in the right of the nation to criticise its government, but in the right of governing itself by its own hands, and con- formably to its own ideas; greatness, which does not consist in subjecting its neighbors by brute force, but in exercising over them so much influence that no PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. question shall be resolved in the world against its interests and security; prosperity, finallj', which consists in drawing from its own soil, and from the genius of its inhabitants, the greatest possible amount of well-being. And do not think that this anxiety for the prosperity of the country has anything in common with that passion for material interests which the highest minds despise. There is no work of higher morality than to diminish the sum of the evils, which weigh upon man, even in the most civilized societies. To make man less unhappy, — that is, to make hipi better, — it is to make him more just toward his government, to his fellow-beings, toward Providence itself. We have before us a noble task ; we shall succeed, I hope, in accomplishing it. It is to give to the country liberty, without disturbance, without violence, without revolution. The work of establishing pros- perity where it is wanting is not less grand or less worthy of your thoughts. The government has thought, for a time, that it could arrogate, for itself alone, the right of deciding upon the economical system of the country. I do not wish to recriminate as to the past; this is not the time. We must, on the contrary, forget the past, or remember the past only to derive from it instruction. Our task is to fecundate the present and the future. It was nevertheless a strange pretension, that of thinking that the government could, of itself alone, decide upon the eco- nomical-system of the country. I can understand that the government — when it is composed of the most enlightened men of the country — might believe that it coulil be a better diplomat, a better warrior, than tlie mass of the nation, but a better merchant, a better manufacturer, a better agriculturist, when the nation is composed of merchants, manufacturers, and agriculturists, is an unsustainable pretension. I have exhausted myself in this study, to which I have brought the greatest material disinterestedness, and that moral disinterestedness, which results from the absence of bias for any system. I shall proceed directly to the end which we have in view. In these debates some call themselves protectionists, others free traders, and we have even heard the term compensationists. I accept whatever term you will. It is the thing only which I have in view. It is asked, Shall we, place around France a sort of Chinese wall? No: our object is the national labor, which we wish to preserve in the country ; to give birth to it where it does not exist; but, above all, to preserve it where it does exist. Do we demand, for this, prohibitive duties? No! Duties sufficiently protective? Not even that. Hi.s idea of the proper functions of government reveals a statesman like grasp of the subject. National labor must be protected and main- tained ; new channels for its employment must be created. To show that the dtities then existing were not high enough to afford ample protection to all of the industries of France, he proceeded as follows: I can understand that we might hesitate before undertaking to develop certain industries iu a country; but what I cannot understand is, that, when they are already developed, we should leave them to perish. We are told that we would have a hot-hou.se industry. What, then, are the nations which have sought l>. develop among themselves a national labor? They are the nations which are int..; ligent and free. When the foreigner brings them a product, after they have fouii'; it serviceable, they desire to imitate it. The nations which do not have tliis desire are the indolent nations of the East; intelligent and free nations seek to appropriate for themselves the products brought to tliem by foreign nation.-. We arc constantly referred to England. Here is an example which this great and intelligent nation has given us. In the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth FRANCE. centuries, the people of the Low Countries had become enriched by the beautiful products of their woolen manufactures ; England, who had received these products, as soon as she commenced to wake up to her position, said to herself, "It is out of my wools that these tissues are fabricated. I have the hands, the intelligence, the raw material; and shall the labor of foreigners provide me with my necessities?" She kept her wools; she put herself to work ; and then commenced the great pros- perity of England. Was there any barbarism in that? I am asked, did not Eng- land soon after renounce this system? I answer by the question, did not England, onl3- a few years ago, in order to procure for herself the beautiful industry of flax and linens, cover herself with protective tariffs, forbid the exportation of machines, and even give premiums to the peasants of Ireland to encourage the production of flax? I wish it were in my power to conduct you through the history of civilization. I could show you that there has been no intelligent nation, which has not held it, not only for its profits, but for its honor, to create for itself the productions of other nations, whenever nature did not oppose it. I need not recall Colbert, creating our marine, our woolen industrj-, our silk industry, our lace manufactures, our glass industry, and for this purpose, giving, according to the language of the times, the money of the king, the lands of the king, and even nobility itself, which was at the king's disposal. This is old-time history, you say. I will lead you to the youngest and freest natioji. You shall see that the procedures of two centuries ago are still their procedures. An English member of parliament, SirWentworth Dilke, who has traveled over all the English possessions, has recently published a remark- able book, in which you will find a curious picture of the vast Britannic»Empire. I would have those who think themselves at the head of the science of political economy, and who scoff at the protective system, read this book. Thej- would see that it is not America alone which covers herself with protective tariffs to develop her own labor; the English colonies, Canada and Australia have recourse to the most energetic tariffs against their own metropolis to establish industries upon their own soil. India herself, which has a colony of 500,000 English established upon her territory, makes tariffs, that its cotton may be manufactured by herself. And Sir Wentworth Dilke repeats the words spiritedly uttered by America, of the West: "An agricultural people should become a manufacturing people. We want some- thing besides the seaboard capitals. New York and Boston. We want to sustain the brilliant cities of the interior, such as Cincinnati and Chicago; and to do this we must exclude, by means of protection, the productions of foreign nations." And nevertheless Sir Wentworth Dilke is a freetrader in England; but he compre- hends that what suits one country does not suit all, and t]ia.\.free trade is not the lazv of the world. But I lay aside theory, to return to it again, and proceed to the facts which touch us so nearly. Upon the importance and necessity of building up home industries and the direct benefits which thereby accrue to man, he said : Since all the industries have man for their object and instrument, I shall take as my guiding thread in this debate the order of the necessities of man. It is necessary that man should clothe himself; that he should procure for himself a covering; that he .should feed himself; and finally put himself in com- munication with the world. I shall examine these according to their logical order — the textile industries, those of construction and iron, agriculture, and the merchant marine. Cotton is the grand textile of modern times. It was not unknown to the ancients. Egypt shows us cotton stuffs dating four or five thousand years ago. What is the importance of the industry of cotton among us? We work up 600,000 rROTECTION IN CONTIXENl'AL AXD OTHER COUXTRIES. 700,000 bales, which represent in weight 90,000,000 of kilograms, and in value 300,000,000 of francs. No industry has superior or equal importance. What is its peril? It is exposed to a double rivalry, that of the English and of the Swiss. The English find the material in part upon their own possessions and part abroad. They have created among themselves an immense market, and it is not possible that we can seriously speak of making Havre the equivalent of England. The English have over us immense advantages: great capital, raw material, an enormous commerce, machines in the greatest number, coal at the cheapest price, and finally, which is a capital point, have the cheapness which results from an immense production. Whilst we move 6,000,000 spindles, they move 34,000,000; we work up 600,000 or 700,000 bales of cotton, they work up 3,000,000. Hence the cheapness which creates the grand production by lowering the general expenses. It is difficult to establish the true prices of production, I know; but for myself, I am sure that the difference in the cost of production between England and France is not less than 15 or 20 per cent. In reviewing the historj' of the woolen industry and the conditions under which it was carried on in the two countries, he showed that the fine cloths of France had nothing to fear from Briti.sh competition, but as to shoddy and coarser stuffs, he said : The most hideous and tainted rags are disinfected, carded, transformed into a kind of oakum, then into yarn without solidity, which is made into tissues, which, instead 0/ ten or twelve francs, cost four francs a yard. Whilst we formerly made for the people excellent cloths, entirely of wool, and which could not be worn out, we give them at present these detestable stuffs ; and this for the profits of foreigners. This experience of France overthrows one of the principal economic dogmas held to by free traders. The contention of the inexperienced and theoretical writers that excessive and intense competition causes the introduction of new methods, the application of greater skill and the production of a better quality of goods, is wholly fallacious. Such industrial warfare forces the rivals to adopt all methods of cheapening the quality as well as the price in order to hold markets and sustain themselves. Glutted ijiarkets, excessive production, intense rivalry, have the same influence on the industries of the nation, as over-population has on the moral and physical condition of society. He continued: In certain countries where they have pa.sturage analogous to that of England, and the culture of the large-sized animals has succeeded, the culture of the English sheep, which produce much mutton and wool, has also succeeded ; but upon four- fifths of the territory, where the soil is stony, and only the fine grasses abound, the fine sheep alone can convert this grass into flesh and manure. Kut it is threat- ened that this French sheep must disappear from the soil. [Cries from the Chamber, "It is true."] The wools of Australia do not possess all the qualities of the French wool. They are not so silky, so fine, so supple, and, above all, so tenacious ; but they are very excellent, and they are able to make a very formidable competition, because the pastures in Australia are imtnense, the internal duties are small, and because the facility of transportation permits these wools to be landed upon our shores at very low prices. Our ovine population has gone down from 40,000,000 to 30,000,000. Our production of wool is 65,000,000 kilogr jport 90,CKXj,ooo. Australi FliANCE. already gives 165,000,000, and she will give 300,000,000 if they are wanted. La Plata can produce as much more. In this situation how can the French resist the foreign competition ? The agri- cullural industry of trance cannot dispense with sheep. The facts which I have given ought to inspire you with the most serious concern. On the twenty -sixth of January, he said : A young and very intelligent traveler, M. de Beaumont, has given some curious details about Australia. The wool -growers who commenced with 150,000 francs make as much as 500,000 francs in a year. The reason is that the land costs noth- ing ; there are no taxes ; and a man on horseback can take care of 1000 sheep. Australia will soon export 200,000,000 or 300,000,000 of kilograms. La Plata and the Cape of Good Hope will soon reach the same number. I do not wish to prevent your resorting to these countries. Protection as well as free trade follows the progress of science. But with an indigenous production of 65,000,000 of kilograms, in presence of a foreign exportation which may reach 600, 000, 000, .can you be tranquil? We are told, make mutton. Have you ever seen sheep producing mutton and no wool? You say to agricultixre, grow sheep which produce the most muttou and, the most wool. This unhappy agriculture, which you accuse of being all routine has tried the English sheep in the north of France. It does not think much of it. Is the essay practicable everywhere? Ask our agriculturists. They will tell you that in the centre, the east, the south, the rustic sheep, the old French sheep, is the only one possible. There are no districts hav- ing pastures which grow the mutton sheep, and for four-fifths of the territory the production of 65,000,000 of kilograms remains, in the face of a foreign production which can reach up to 600,000,000 of kilograms. If this situation does not impress you, it is because you are optimists; and this no one has a right to be except for his own affairs. When it concerns the fortune of the community, optimism is nothing but blind improvidence. Upon the growth of foreign trade under the treatj^ with England, he showed that prior to i860 French commerce had increased at the rate of 115 per cent, but that since i860 it had been reduced to 65 per cent. But it is asked how is it possible that French industry, which had shown such prodigies at the Exposition, could not compete with all the world? It is true that the French industry has a superiority; but in what? In articles of luxury? Yes: our workmen are very skillful ; if they have not the patience of the English workmen, they are no less the most intelligent in Europe. Our silk products are superior to all ; and also our printed cottons and stuffs. The English, the Swiss and the Germans borrow our models, and this makes a considerable saving. Our designs are above all comparison ; our machines are superior to the English machines; our irons, at least, before the ruin of the charcoal iron forges, were excellent ; our grains are, at least, as good as those of Aragon and Naples. But in one thing we are wanting— cheapness of production : we have perfection, but we do not have the cheapness. Moreover, we do not have the immense outlets of Eng- land; we have not India and Australia; we have not been able to take in all the markets of the world, the ascendency given by cheapness carried to such a point as to discourage all rivals. We produce 1,000,000 tons of iron; England produces PROTECTION IK CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. 10,000,000 tons; how can we produce at the same price? To desire us to enter into rivalry with England in cheapness, is to mistake the genius of France and the truth of our situation. And now shall France complain that she cannot supply so many nations as England? No. She must understand that all nations cannot be great in the same way. England is the nation of cheap production, and she must seek after cheap production. This is her career. France must seek after perfection, and the elevation of her products. How has she made her fortune in the world, and reached this ascending force, of which I have so often spoken? Is it by ntering into competition with England in the low price of products? No, gentle- men. It is by selling her silks and printed 'goods which have no rivals in the world. It is by her merinos, it is by her wines — not the common wines, but the delicate wines, so superior that we made our fortune out of them before the treaties. Since the new system, the quality of products of all industries has been lowered in France. Have our workmen become less skillful? No. But we have sought to rival our neighbors in cheapness. This is the secret of the situation. But this situation is enviable compared with that of the great and admirable nation which we call England. God forbid that I should utter one injurious word against a nation which has been an inviolable asylum for the proscribed of all revo- lutions! against that nation which has gwen us the most beautiful model of human liberty, and where the government, kept at an equal distance from the passions of the low and the passions of the high, is to my eyes the ideal of governments. But I may be allowed to say that it has in its industrial greatness that which is not so solid as the situation of France. France has her consumers within itself. Its market does not depend upon a cannon-shot fired in Europe. And for exporta- tions she has her beautiful products. England, on the contrary, has an artificial existence. She depends upon the doings of the United .States; upon the doings of her colonies, which already oppose her with hostile tariffs. May not the day come when its immense production will find no purchasers? She produces ten times as much as her consumption ! This little island, in the words of Fox, embraces the world. True; but when she embraces the world, she is vulnerable everj'where. Such was the situation of Holland in the seventeenth century, which had realized a prodigy almost as marvelous. What was needed to make Holland, which gave laws to France, descend from this lofty place? It needed only fifty years. It needed only a Navigation Act in England; it needed only a Colbert in France. God forbid that I should predict for England such a destiny ; but I repeat it, her existence, which depends upon consumers, which she seeks everywhere without herself, is less solid than that of France, which has her consumers in her own bosom. I ardently desire that England should continue her career; but I do not envy that career for our own country. That our country should have her career as brilliant, depends upon your wisdom. It is for you to choose between doctrines puerile and full of illusions, and the doctrines of your old national good On the t\veiity-.sixth of January he resumed the discussion of the economic question, and said before the Assembly: You say that no protection is due to an industry which demands an exaggerated protection, and an eternal protection. That is your principle; that is the prin- ciple of free trade. Let us apply it to France, and come to the bottom of the doctrine. Cotton has been protected ever since it came into Europe. It has been protected by prohibition. I repeal that I condemn prohibition; but I observe that cotton has been protected since the counnencenient of the eighteenth century, a protection of a huudred years. But you have declared that you would not have an eternal protection. You must theu cease to protect cotton, or your maxim is false. Wool has been protected since the time of Colbert, and it still demands to be protected. Must we, then, abandon our woolens to the competition of Germans, Belgians and English? The linen industry has been protected since all time. It ought then, since it has need of permanent protection, to be given up like the others. Iron has been protected since a very ancient period, and still cannot get along without protection. It deserves it no longer, since you admit only temporary pro- tection. Our agriculture has been always protected. It still cannot produce grain at the same price as the Crimea, and the plains of Western America. It deserves to be no longer protected. What, then, shall France do? If you dare maintain that she can make cotton cloth at the price of England, wooleus at the price of Germany and Belgium, if our metallurgy can contend with that of England, and our agri- culture afford grain as cheap as the Crimea and America, then I will acknowledge that there is no longer need of protection ; and thus, all the world being ruined, there will result universal prosperity. I ask again, can our agriculture produce at the price of the Crimea? [A member, "Yes."] My adversary proves that he has .studied the question more in books than in practice. You can never prove to me that France, with the imposts which weigh upon her agriculture, can produce grain as cheaply as the Crimea. What, then, shall we do? Shall we renounce all our industries, and make only wine? Recall the lessons of histor)'? If there is a country which could content itself with its wines, it is Portugal. What has she become ? If France should renounce her industries, her cottons, her woolens, her irons, would not the world say that she had sunk into idiocy? The fallacy that protective tariffs build up monopolies was exposed in the following very able treatment of the question : It is urged that all the protections accorded to industry constitute monopolies, and that, to enrich a few monopolies, we burden the whole country. It is true there is a monopoly ; but it is not in France, it is abroad. I desire to say that this little monopoly, which you accord to French industry, destroys the monopoly of foreign industry. When England and France alone worked up cotton, as you know, what was the price of a kilogram of cotton yarn which is now worth three francs? It was worth twenty-seven francs. It is true that this was at the period of our wars, and when the raw material bore a high price, but after the peace the price was still*as high as fourteen francs. It has gone down now to three francs. And here is the reason why : In proportion as the French production was developed, there was, in spite of prohibition, a sort of penetration between the two markets. We created a competition with England, and thus the cotton fell to three francs. What purpose, then, has the monopoly served? It has compelled the foreigner to lower his prices. Every time that j-ou give a protection to a national product, )'ou cause the price of the foreign product to be lowered, and you prevent monopoly. Another example more recent ; When the linen industrj- was destroyed in France by the English production by power, a kilogram of thread was worth seven francs. We protected the linen industry- in France. This protection permitted competition; and the French product compelled the English manufacturers to lower their prices to three francs fifty centimes. If, then, there is anything evident, it is that this pretended monopoly, this sacrifice of a few centimes, produces a general lowering of price, which is for the benefit of the whole country. ... If you are not willing that the French manufacturers should fabricate, becau.se you have to pay 20 per cent more than in England, it will end in the English making you pay 100 per PRUTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES cent more. If England were the only country to produce certain objects, could j-ou have them at the same price? Certainly not. It is competition, .sustained by a just protection, which destroys foreign monopoly. Those who speak of universal, unre- stricted competition do not comprehend it. Do you know what true competition is? It is that no nation should ever suffer itself to make any surrender of its native industries. It is that no one should say that it will no longer manufacture cotton, because it cannot produce as cheaply as another ; that no one shall say that it will no longer fabricate cloths, because it cannot fabricate at so good an account as its neighbor; that no one should say that it will not raise grain, under the pretext that grain is produced more dearly than in other countries. The nation which should reason thus would exhibit the reasoning of an idiot. Do you know what is the trvie competition of nation with nation, the universal competition? It is a noble ambition on the part of each people, the noble emulation of producing everything and even that which it produces with less advantage than other people. This competition has, as its result, the reduction of prices to the lowest attainable standard, and throughout the entire world. In 1891 France had a population of 38,343,192 and an area of 204,- 092 square miles — equal to the combined area of New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia, or to that of Indiana#Illinois, Wis- consin and Iowa. Of the inhabitants a trifle more than one-half are dependent on agriculture, one-fourth on manufactures, one-tenth on com- merce, while the rest are divided between transportation and the different professions, leaving one million and a half to the civil and military sen-ice of the country. In examining the present condition of industrial life in France it must be remembered that it has been only about fifteen years since she returned to the policy of rigid protection. As most.of the statis- tics available must be taken fromthe returns of 1890 to 1893 they should, as far as possible, be thought of in comparison with the returns for 1882, when a revised and thoroughly protective tariff law went into operation. While France is to-day the wealthiest country on earth considered per capita, she also has the greatest debt, it being nearly $5,000,000,- 000 or $154 per capita, as compared with a debt of $15 per capita in the United States. Nearly one-half the wealth of France is centred in her agricultural interests, which represented in 1889 a value of $19,300,000,- 000, or over 20 per cent in excess of the value of farms in the United States. The total value of the agricultural products in the same year was $2,605,500,000, which is greater by $145,000,000 than the returns for the United States, though, as will be seen in the pages devoted to agricul- ture in the Unitefl States, the amount as returned by the census is a very low estimate. France, however, can show a most favorable com- parison for the reasons that her land is almost wholly productive and yields a larger average per acre, while prices of agricultural products are uni- formly higher than in this country. The following table will show the percentage of land under cultiva tion and cultivable in 1889: ■ FRANCE. Per cent of Per cent of Crops. Etc total area total area of France. cultivable. Cereals, 29.14 31.95 Meadows, etc 19.82 21.7 Fruits, nuts, etc., 6.30 6.91 Potatoes, 2. 82 3.00 Industrial plants, .97 1.07 In fallow, 6.S9 7.56 Forests, 17. S9 19.62 Uncultivated 16.17 8.06 Total, 10000 100.00 Of the total ntimber of fanners in France in 189 1, 65 per cent were farming their own land. To show the production of cereals for the past fifteen years, the following is taken from the report of the United States Department of Agriculture : g Wheat. Oats Rye. Barley. ' Buckwheat. 'Indian Corn.| Meslin. a Bushels. [ Bushels ' Bushels. 1 Bushels. [ Bushels. Bushels. 1 Bushels. 1S7S, 273,685,660220,961,997 71,169,539 46,024,537 32,761,346 '32,662,602 17,768,210 1889,307,379,014241.940,91465,626,937 44,851,352:26,489,362 25,966,513 12,940,945 1890,331,772,193265,708,885,68,588,109 48,687,185 27,172,439 23,816,856 13,524,629 1891, !2i9,257, 240 301, 208,155 61,262,861 72,135,602 29,236,991 26,532,620 10,494,592 1S92, 310,835,719238,342,265' 66,850,803 46,108,414 : 27,724,391 26,604,524 11,625,836 For the purpose of showing the reader the result of a highly diversi- fied system of agriculture in a cotintry but one-third larger than the State of California the following statistics of quantities and values of the princi- pal agricultural products other than cereals are given for the year 1 893 as compiled by the Bulletin of the United States Department of Agriculture: Production. Unit. Quantity. Value. Bushels Tons Gals, of wine Tons Pounds Tons Pounds Bushels 435,099,853 5.95i,.s68 7,619-873 1,339,410,875 1,943,156 2,122,168 1,118,368 7,291.321 26,542 26,109,976 29,504,209 17,660 43,369,726 336,248 Sugar beets, Other beets 30,247,768 36,296,228 Vineyards 227,522,672 Alfalfa 51,181,153 Sainfoin, . Meadows and permanent pastures, . 25.572,724 180,618,597 Hemp, seed 712,899 2,983,947 Flax, fibre Tobacco, Colza, 3,329,124 2,986,179 Rapeseed, Poppies, 244,590 692,797 1 Including millet. PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Aftermath, . . . Sesiiiue Hops Chestnuts, . . Walnuts, .... Olives Cider apples, . . . Plums and prunes, Oranges, .... Lemons Citrons, Millet, ... . Mulberry leaves ', Cocoons, .... Milk Wool Honey Wax, To this can be added the livestock on farms in 1893 as follows: Horses, . . Mules, Asses, . . . Milch cows, 2,767,648 215.755 357,965 6,005,246 Other meat cattle 6,149,395 Sheep 20,275,716 Swine, 5,860,592 Goats, 1,466,451 It will be seen that the wine industry of France is the greatest, or, combining all cereals as one production, the product of. the vineyards ranks second. Many vineyards, are, however, being abandoned owing to the fact that the ravages of the phylloxera have made wine-producing in certain districts unprofitable. In no other part of the world can such diversity of rural production be seen with the exception of the fibres which cannot be profitably grown to any great extent and which are admitted free of duty, but to en- courage their production a bounty is granted, the French agriculturist is advantageously engaged in every pursuit made possible by soil and climate. The farmers of the United States would do well to study carefully the value of this diversity of occupation. They would learn a two-fold lesson. First, that the French farmer does not believe in confining himself to a single product or even a few, knowing full well the value of making every acre yield what it can to the greatest advantage and profit, and second, that France cannot be numbered among the markets of the world so much sought after b}' the free traders. This will be the more apparent when a glance at her manufacturing resources is taken. The total value of manufactures in 1888, as given by Mulhall. amounted to ^485, 000,000, as against /390,ooo,ooo in 1878. In 1888 they were divided as follows: Textiles, Hardware, Food Clothing, Leather, Sundries, The Statesman's Year Book for cerning the textile iudustr>': 64,000, 52,000, 105,000, iSgo gives the following table con- Factories. Operatives. Spindles. Cotton, 1,000 1,926 1,172 119,000 115,000 110,000 5,100,000 3,300,000 1,100,000 Silk, The production and consumption in 1887 were as follows: Cottons, , Woolens, Silks, . . Linens, . Production. ;fl9,ooo,ooo 46,000,000 29,000,000 9,000,000 The metallic industries may be thus compared: Production. Steel, /■15, 900, 000 Iron, 19,500,000 Copper 3,500,000 Lead, 3,100,000 Consumption. .^18,000,000 31,000,000 22,000,000 6,000,000 Consumptions. — 1 530,oco 1,300,000 35,000 In 1 89 1 France exported $376,000,000 worth of manufactures, while we exported only $151,102,376 worth, or only two-fifths as much. The following table will show the value of the principal articles of merchandise exported from France to the United States in 1893: Other articles of leather and fur, .... 691,000 Cream of tartar. 430,000 Hides, prepared. 592,000 Clothing, . . . 1,234,000 Paper, books and engravings. 598,000 Pottery and glassware. 542,000 ARTICLES. 1893. Silk — cloth, ribbon, etc., . . $12,499,000 Wool — cloth, ribbons, etc., . 4,047,000 Fancy goods of Parisian make, 1,588,000 Skins and furs, raw, . . . 648,000 Wines 1,451,000 Cotton goods, 1,100,000 Feathers for ornament, . . . 962,000 Gloves (leather), 3,372,000 During the same year our exports to France amounted to $46,619, 138, of which $30,000,000 was in raw cotton, oils and tobacco. Not only can we not expect to find an increased market in France for our products out- side of cotton and tobacco, but we must reckon France as one of our greatest competitors in other markets, not excepting our own. The French are a courageous people, and may be expected to hold their own in any industrial warfare in which they may engage. Their manufactures have grown in the last fifty years with wonderful rapidity, and have kept PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. pace with scientific and mechanical progress. While in 1840 only 2591 steam engines were employed in manufactures, in 1884 there were 34,350 used, which number it may safely be assumed exceeds 40,000 to-day. " This revolution," .say MM. Lebon and Pelet in " France As It Is," ' ' which has been simultaneous with the immense development of produc- tion and traffic has not, however, hindered wages from rising very con- siderably. Wages have, in fact, doubled — in some cases more than doubled — since the beginning of the centurj-." One million and a half operatives are emploj^ed in .making textiles, there being over 10,000,000 spindles at work. In recent years the export of silk goods have been twice that of cotton goods, while woolen exports have been three times that of cotton. In iron and steel industries also, France has shown great progress. She possesses rich iron deposits, which are, however, at a great distance from the coal mines. Much of her ore is, therefore, imported. Of the many industries grown up in France, under protection, no better example can be taken than the creation and promotion of the sugar industry from beets. At the beginning of the century the price of sugar rose to ninety cents per pound, owing to the system established by Napoleon, excluding sugar of British colonies fronj the countries under his control and because of the blockade by Great Britain. Chaptel, the Minister of the Interior, establi-shed two imperial factories to manufacture the sugar from the beet. Other parts of France followed the example and it was found that it could be made at a considerably lower price than that to which it had risen. The establishment of the beet root indus"try in France was due largely to the efforts of the first Napoleon. Although the process had been discovered by Margraff, a Prussian chemist, in 1747, and further developed by another, named Achard, who received the patronage and encouragement of Frederick the Great, yet it was not until especial assistance was given by Bonaparte to its manufacture that the industrs- became fully established in Europe. He gave encouragement to chemists, agriculturists and manufacturers. In 1812 Napoleon, by decree, estab- lished schools and factories for the extraction of the sugar from the beet. He ordei'ed the cultivation of 100,000 acres, which it was estimated would produce 37,000 tons of sugar, at that time sufficient for the wants of France. It was also exempted from every tax for four years. Soon afterwards the duty on foreign sugar was raised. From 1822 to 1825, icx) factories produced 5000 tons annually. In 1838 a duty of 1.6 cents per pound was imposed on beet root sugar, and in 1840 it was increased to 2.6 cents. In 1843 began an annual increa.se for five years, and in 1848 the duty was equalized with that on colonial .sugar. From 1822 the increase in production of sugar was rapid. In 1828 the production was 4404 tons: in 1838, 43,000: in 1S58, 150,000 tons: in 1875, 462,259, and in 1S84, 1,200,000 tons. Not only vast quantities are exported, but the home consumption is verj' great. It rose from 55,000 tons in 1825 to 200,000 in 1862, and 410,000 in 1887, or from four pounds to twenty-three pounds per inhabitant between the dates given. There is no doubt that France would have been unable to meet, so promptly, the consequences of her last war unaided by her agricultural wealth due to the beet root factories of the north and the vineyards of the .south. A similar policy was adopted in Russia, Germany, Hungary, Belgium and Holland, namely, protection to beet root sugar and with similar results. In 1830 there were no beet root factories in Europe outside of France. In 1876 the returns were as follows: Tons. Germany 346,645 Russia 245, OCX) Hungary 153.922 Belgium 79,796 Holland, 30,000 France 462,259 Total, 1,317,622 The production of sugar from the beet is only one of the benefits arising from the industrj- itself. It benefits every other branch of agri- culture, either directly or indirectly. It draws the surplus labor from other channels. Millions of tons of coal are annually used in the conversion of beets into sugar. The greatest benefit, however, is, of course, to the consumer. In France the price of raw sugar per pound fell from 12.6 cents in 1816 to 5 cents in 1866. In recent years the production of pig iron has a\'eraged about 1,700,000 tons, and of manufactured iron and steel about 1,400,000 tons Concerning the question of wages in France, while reports are to some degree conflicting, yet it is certain that considerable advance has been enjoyed by the French artisan in recent years. From the reports of various British consuls, as found in the Second Report of the Royal Com- mission on Depression of Trade and Industry, 1885, the following is gleaned: Bordeaux. The rates of wages both for skilled and unskilled labor are from 20 to 30 per cent higher than twenty years ago. BOULOGNE. I am informed that wages have increased since 1870 from 12 to 15 per cent, in some special cases more than 45 per cent. The hours of labor for machine and engineering work are ten hours and for mills, twelve hours per day. A gentleman well able to speak on the subject writes as follows from Roubaix : "In the cotton mills the ordinary hands receive now 18 to 20 francs per week (14s. sd. to i6s. ), whereas so late as 1876 for the same work they could be had at 34 J'JiOTECTIUX IN VOXriNENTAL AND (JTHEE COUNTRIES. 14 and 15 francs [lis. 2d. and \2S. ) ; the contreniaitres and acquiseurs, etc., that is, the better class workers in the cotton mills, receive now 28, 30 and 35 francs per week (22 J. sd., 245. and 28^. ) ; ten years ago the wages were 24 and 25 francs (igi. 2d. and 20.J. ) ; rattacheuses, bobineuses, etc. , girls who some years since could be had at 12 francs (ii5. ^d. ), now receive 15 to 18 francs {12s. to 14^. 5a'. ). "In mechanics' shops the contrast is still greater, as they are now paid 50 to 60 centimes per hour (^d. to dd. ), good hands, that ten years ago could be had at 35 to 40 centimes (3>^ to ^d. ), the ordinary men in proportion. "What is said above about cotton operatives may be applied in general to the wool, worsted and other industries, with the exception of weavers, who have, I believe, not enjoyed the same proportionate rise in wages. ' ' CHERBOURG. ' Wages are decidedly higher in every respect. The rate of wages for skilled and unskilled labor has increased from 25 to 40 per cent, in most trades during the last twenty years. The following figures show the rate of wages for some of the principal classes of labor: Wages paid by the hour: Ordinary laborers, 40 centimes; bricklayers, 55; plasterers, 60; stonemasons, 65; joiners, 60; carpenters, 65; plumbers, 65; lock- smiths, 65 ; painters 60 ; glaziers, 65 ; gasfitters, 65 ; whitesmiths, 79 ; gilders, 90 ; decorators, i franc. Wages paid by the day : Engine fitters, 6 fr. ; boiler-makers, 7 fr. ; foundry- men, 5 fr. 50c. ; ship carpenters, S fr. ; caulkers, 8 fr. ; riggers, 6 fr. ; dock labor- ers, 4 fr. 50 c. to 6 fr. The ordinary day's work is ten hours. Wages paid by the week: Spinning mills— Overlookers, 45 fr,.; spinners, 37 fr. 50 c. ; card grinders, 27 fr. ; strippers, 24 fr. ; engineers, 36 fr. ; stokers, 30 fr. ; self-acting minders, 8 fr. Weaving mills— Overlookers, 40 fr. ; warpers, 23 fr. ; slashers, 36 fr. ; winders, 15 fr. ; drawers, 34 fr. ; weavers, iS fr. to 25 fr. The rate of wages in this district [a) for skilled and (*) for unskilled labor is materially above the average of the last twenty years; the quantity of work pro- duced per man not being greater, the quality, perhaps, somewhat improved. The specific (a) rate of wages for mechanics average 6 francs per day, and (b) usual hours of labor ten per day, overtime one and a half hours per hour worked. Unskilled labor (a) generally 4 frs. per day of (6) twelve hours' work. MARSEILLES. Wages for skilled and unskilled labor employed in the local oil and soap works and all other industries have increased by about 30 per cent within the last twenty years. NANTES. The rate of wages, taking into consideration the quantity and quality of the work given in exchange, is considerably in advance of the average of the last twenty years. The rate of wages at St. Nazair for both .skilled and unskilled labor has increased of late years. In 187S the price paid to .■stevedores for di.scharging cargoes FRANCE. was I fr. a ton, and they paid their laborers 30 c. an hour. At the stevedore receives 60 centimes a ton and pays 40 centimes an hour of grain, etc. , present time ; to his laborers. In Aujou from 2 fr. to 3 fr. a day, according to season. At Nazair the average rate of wages paid per week of sixty hours for different trades is as follows : Riveters, . ... 27 Smiths 28 Fitters 30 House carpenters, 24 Joiners, 30 Boiler makers, 27 Francs. Ship carpenters, " 30 Caulkers, 36 Ship smiths, 2S Riggers 30 Moulders, 2S The desire of the American free trader to find a foreign market for our farmers instead of extending the home market, and the recent search all over the world by our Secretary of Agriculture for an outlet particu- larly for American grain, furnish the excuse, if one is needed, for revert- ing to the fact that French markets, as well as those already examined, must be eliminated as markets for American farm produce. Referring for a moment to the question of production and consumption of wheat alone, the following facts are taken from the report of Consul-General Samuel E. Morss, dated Paris, March 16, 1894. From this report it is learned that the normal consumption of wheat in France exceeds 340,000,000 bushels annually, while the domestic production averages about 300,000,000 bushels, leaving a deficit of only about 40,000,000 bushels to be supplied by importation either of wheat or flour. And with the increasing produc- tion of this staple in Russia, India, Hungary and the Argentine Republic, the prospects for an increased demand for American wheat or flour are any- thing but favorable. In France the new duties on wheat and flour, the report says, are higher than those of any other country in Europe. The discrimina- tion between wheat and flour is such as to be almost a prohibition against the importation of the latter from America. The number of flour mills in France or as the Consul puts it ' ' those occupied exclusively with the grinding of grain " is jo.ooo. The milling industry is in entire harmony with the agricultural interests of the country and the financial interests of the cities. Even at the unprecedented low prices of grain prevail- ing in 1893, the value of grain handled amounted to $482,500,000. This .sum would be larger in a year of scarcity and high prices. In 1886 the National Association of French millers was founded, including the owners of all the great mills in France. This association meets annually, and all questions concerning the interests of the trade are discussed. " The organization," says Consul Morss in conclusion, "is constantly on the alert against foreign competition in the French market and is a factor always to be considered by those who are interested in extending the demand for American flour in France. ' ' PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. If there is any lesson to be learned from a stud}- of recent tariff legis- lation in France and from the reports of our consuls it is to the effect that France is, year by year, successfullj' aiming fully to supply her own needs, not only in all products of agriculture but in manufactures as well. As has been shown in this chapter France has developed the diversification of industrj^ as has no other people on earth. She has been compelled to learn severe lessons in the past and her bitter experience is now serving her present statesmen and there is no doubt that in their wisdom they will continue to enact such laws as will make the French nation and the French people, so far as is expedient, industrially independent of all foreign countries. The statistics showing the growth of the foreign trade of France will be found in Table No. ii, at page«3i2. I CHAPTER IV. Austria-Hungary, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland and Other Countries. To-day Austria-Hungary has a population of 42,750,000 (cen.sus of 1890}, and an area of about 264,000 square miles, corresponding almost exactly to the size of the State of Texas. It is the most mountainous country of Europe, save Switzerland, four-fifths of the entire area being more than six hundred feet above the level of the .sea. Since the Treaty of Prague, in 1866, Austria has enjoyed a period of peace and opportu- nities to attain industrial progress, of which she has not been slow to take advantage. On the eighth of June, 1867, the Emperor Francis Joseph and the Empress of Austria were crowned King and Queen of Hungary. Since 1780 when Joseph II. made many changes in the laws of the country, Austria has enjoyed prohibitive custom laws to a greater or less degree. But neither protective nor prohibitive tariffs can give work and wealth to a country whose soil is being trodden by hostile armies and whose people are engaged in defending their very lives. Between wars Austria attained considerable progress in trade and commerce, but only perhaps to have the gains of a decade swept away in as many days. Again, during the preparation for war, as well as during a war period and the years of recovery following, duties must be leyied with a view to revenue as well as food and other supplies for the army, home industries receiving little consideration. In 1853 a commercial treaty was effected with Prussia through the influence of Prussian free traders, which greatly reduced duties on imports. This treaty is of special importance because it was brought about through Mr. Cobden's influence, and was the first assault on protection in Europe b)^ the emis- saries of Manchester. Anj' reduction of duties in favor of Prussia, would be of equal benefit to England, because Austria was bound to admit British goods under the same terms imposed on those of other countries. By adopting free trade Great Britain had nothing to offer to Austria as an inducement to extend favors to her manufacturers so her schemes must be promoted by foreigners working in her behalf. Just preceding and following the war of 1866, duties were consider- ably lowered, arid it was not till 1882 that all thoroughly protective duties were restored. Upon the conclusion of peace, however, followed by the closer union with Hungary, Austria began at once to advance in arts and trades. Manufacturers saw that Austrians could not be successful competitors without a thoroughly protective tariff, and succeeded in (533) PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIEfi. obtaining the general revision of 18S2, which was supplemented in 887 by a still higher rate of duties. This is the tariff now practically in operation. Three hundred and fifty-seven articles are enumerated, of which fifty-six are free of duty. The only article bearing an export duty being rags and other refuse for the manufacture of paper. The Austrian Empire has commercial treaties with nearly every other country, though many of them may be broken off at any time. We must regard Austria-Hungary in the light of a new country, just recovering from centuries of past struggles and still maintaining a standing army of ,500,000 men, burdened with a debt amounting to nearly $3,000,000,- 000, and with annual revenues hardly equaling expenditures. In recent years, however, she has enjoyed a favorable balance of trade, it being as high as $50,000,000 in 1893. Year by year imports of .such articles as can be produced at home are decreasing. Like Russia, Austria is now a large exporting country. Of sugar alone she is now exporting as much as $40,000,000 worth a year. It was not till 1864 that Austria began to export sugar, the foreign sale for that year being only $670,000; yet in the ten years from 1883 to 1893 the value of sugar exports amounted to $256,000,000. It is such figures as these that put to shame the actions of American free traders, who would and do deprive our farmers of an industry worth at least $100,000,000 annually. The Austrian and Hungarian governments do all in their power to promote native indu.stry. The result is that in twenty years an extra- ordinary advance has been made both in manufactures apd agriculture. In textiles and in iron and steel industries most satisfactory progress has been made. There are also glass and leather, paper and copper industries, as well as numerous minor undertakings. Austria is noted for its beer, about 5000 breweries being in operation, while brandy and other liquors are made to some extent. Mining is a verj' important Austrian industry, coal being the chief product. In 1893, 19 1.876 laborers were emplo5'ed of whom 14,500 were women and children. The pro- duction of the mines in 1892 amounted in value to $10,000,000. Agriculture is, however, the chief occupation of the people, the pro- ductive land being nearly 90 per cent of the total area. The principal product is grain, including wheat, rye, oats, maize, barley, buc;kwheat and millet. Flax, hemp, beets, hops, tobacco and vegetables are also raised in large quantities. Fruit and nuts also abound. Nearly one- third of the land is occupied by forests which consi.st mainly of oak, pine, beech, a.sh and elm. The increa.se in production of agricultural products has given a great impetus to the making at home of farming implements, which is to a great extent shutting out the make of foreign countries formerly imported. Not only that but nearlj- all the require- ments of the railways for rails and rolling .stock are made at home. To be sure, British firms with Briti.sh capital, aided by other foreign A U8TBIA-HUNGA E Y. IT A L Y, capitalists, have brought this about, but British capital at work in Austria- Hungary is worth more to the empire than British capital at work in England. Englishmen have a habit when they find their wares Shut out from a country by import duties, of emigrating to that country with the industry itself. This gives employment to the native who soon learns to make his own goods. It has been so with the Austrian. He has been quick to learn and has rapidly become a skilled artisan. Says the British Consul in a recent report to his government : "The imports of manufactured goods decrease from year to year, on account of the pro- duction in Austria being protected by such high duties an increase of which is po.ssible as an agitation is always going on on the part of the Austrian manufacturer. The decrease in imports has been regular and will continue if the duties are raised. New establishments are being founded by Austrian firms and with Austrian money. The rate of wages is on the increase. Skilled labor is in great demand. The wages on an average in all lines of work are about seventy cents per day, though in many occupations they are from eighty cents to one dollar. In most parts of the empire wages have doubled in the last twenty years. The following table taken from United States Consular Report No. 164, page 44, will show the exports of Austria-Hungary to the United States for the calendar year 1893: V.\i,uE OF Declared Exports from Austria-Hungary to the United States During the Year Ending December 31, 1893. Articles. Albumen, Amber, Argols, Art, works of, Artificial flowers, Baskets and basket ware, . Beans and lentils, .... Bed feathers, Beer, Beet-root sugar Black lead Bonnet frames, Brushes and bristles, . . . Buttons, Carlsbad Sprudel salt, . . Chenilles and embroideries, Cloth and woolen goods, . Coffee and surrogates, . . Cotton goods, ...... Cutlery. Cuttle bone Dresses, Drugs and chemicals, . . Fan's Felt Carried forward. Value. p 23,470.43 16,780.93 4,092.76 33.969-17 39,172.70 37,461.32 718,120.73 190,095.38 103,036.23 3,306,954.45 13.43242 2,117.26 14,004.44 315,697.25 33.340.26 15,912.86 120,214.37 219.733-36 259.900-55 14,931.66 13.571-05 2,350.31 120,491.61 209,810.29 10,696.47 $5,839,358.26 Brought forward, . . Fruits, dried, etc., .... Furniture Furs, Glassware, Gloves, Graphite, Gums and glue, Hair: Animal Human Hats, Herbs, roots and leaves, . Hops and lupulin Insect powder and flowers. Jewelry, Leather and skins, . . . Leather goods, Linen goods, Machines and parts thereof. Books and paper Carbon lights Magnesite, Meerschaum, crude, . . . Metal ware Carried forward, . . . Value. 15,839,358.26 247.730-40 83, 200. 29 1,711.29 965,810.55 292,110.93 9.656.31 92,454.18 19,722.83 34,254.88 2.759-42 33,690.34 94,145-62 71,389.22 290,007.47 236,049.94 42,853-07 811,257.52 1,191.00 28,524.24 29.255-75 10,644.77 37,070.70 151.S07.3 PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Articles. Brought forward, . . %<), Miueral water, Mirror glass, Musical instruments. . . . Oils, paiuts and colors, . . Ozcerits and cersin, . . . Paper goods Pearl blanks Polishing earth, ... Porcelain and pottery, . . Potash, P"1P Scientific instruments. Seeds, Shell and bone ware. Shoes and boots, . . Silks and velvets, . . Skeletons Smokers' articles, . . Soap and perfumery, Carried forivard, . ,426,656.35 92,494.81 31.395-22 40,061.85 101,142.28 19.7S1.71 5,819.46 717,666.95 33.846.53 229,228.44 8,774-95 23-750.55 30.235-34 18,462.39 259,179.68 3.596-72 106,706.28 3.775-23 ,196,870.40 Brought forward, . . Sponges, Sparterie, Stained glass, Stationery, Tobacco Toys, Umbrella fixtures and sticks, Wax figures, White lead Wines and liquors, .... Wooden ware, Wool, Miscellaneous Ill, 96,870.40 8,901.70 9,818.57 7,884.92 ii.3'-94 2,059.02 25.466-59 131,248.30 3.497-oS 7,202.63 92.965- 73 28. 944.-89 157,066.52 61,037.12 Total in 1893, Total in 1S92, Total in 1S91, Total in 1S90, Total in 1S89,, . 111,744,325-41 - 10,197,576.17 • 13.595.374-32 ■ 14.355,225.57 . 9,121.84633 It is very evident that we are not going to find a market in Austria for these eighty articles which they are now making for us. Not onlj- must weeUminate Austria- Hungary as a market for manufacturing, but we are hardly likely to sell much grain to a country whose grain crop is the largest in the world oufeide of our own country and Russia, and which exports from 30,000,000 to 50,000,000 bushels annually of grain and flour. At present our exports to Austria are so insignificant that they are classified under ' ' all other countries ' ' in the government statistics. We do sell them half a miUion dollars' worth of merchandise, mostly oils, but it is not likely that we are going to increase our sales. Even if Austria were not supplying her own wants, she is in the centre of a group of nations with unlimited productive power and resources and with rates of wages about one-quarter those of our own workmen. Nor is there any tendency to a lowering of duties; on the contrary, the Chambers of Commerce, as well as the pro- ducers and consumers, are so satisfied with the system of high duties, that there is constant agitation for still higher rates. Should peace continue for another decade or two, the intelligent, skillful, industrious, ambitious Austrian will not only supply all of his own needs as far as possible, but be a sharp and successful competitor in the markets of the world wherever he can gain access. Italy. Italy, prior to 1.S60, suffered from wars, a social and economic evil, which made the development of indu.stries most difficult. In 1859 Victor Emmanuel, King of Sardinia, gained Lombardy, Parma, Modena and some of the Pontifical States. Tuscany was also atniexed and soon after the two Sicilies, the Marches and Umbria. These were all united under AUST£IA-HiL\'GABV, ITALY, ETC. the title of Kingdom of Italy in 1861, with Florence as the seat of govern- ment. By the treaty of Prague, in 1866, Venetia was gained by royal decree and the remainder of the Papal States were annexed in 1870, Rome becoming the capital of the now reunited kingdom. It is only since this date then, that a satisfactory tariff and industrial history of Italy can be given. To-day is found a people numbering 30,000,000, and occupying ter- ritorj' of about 114,000 square miles, or 6000 miles less than the United Kingdom, and 1000 square miles less than New York and the New Eng- land States. With her rich soil, warm and favorable climate, Italy from the earliest time has been noted for the richness and great variety of her agricultural products. Previous to the union manufacturing had been carried on to little extent. Upon the union of the Italian States the old customs barriers were removed to the frontier, and maintained almost solely for revenue purposes. But in about 1870 the necessity of protect- ing agriculture, the importance of establishing industries and adopting an industrial policy in harmony with the other States of Europe, became fully recognized, the revenue policy was abandoned and a system of pro- tection to home industries established. The Suez Canal had made the trade of Asia accessible to her merchants. Two great Alpine tunnels placed them in communication with Central Europe and afforded excel- lent facilities for transportation. At first foreign firms were induced to establish themselves in the country. Water power gave place to steam. Slowly the small factories began to enlarge, thousands of rustic laborers moved to the cities and industrial centres, till to-day Italy is making great strides in manufactur- ing, wholly supplying many of her own wants and becoming an exporter of those articles which hitherto had been imported. The kingdom is amassing wealth, the people are adding to their savings, and when com- pared with conditions of scarcely a generation ago, it may be said that the people are thriving and prosperous. The tariff policy of the country is definitely protective. The method of aiding industrial development is similar to that adopted by Russia ; at first an industry itself is established by any encouragement that will bring about its rapid growth. Gradually the duty on the finished article is raised, and duties are levied one by one on the materials used, as it is seen that they also can be produced at home. The present tariff schedule contains 350 enumerated articles, only sixty of which are admitted free, the latter including raw cotton, wool, metallic ores, hides, seeds, eggs of silk worms and coal. Those articles bearing an export duty are boracic acid, marine and rock salt, tartar and tartar crusts, fruits for dyeing and tanning, metallic ores, sulphur, castor and flax oils and objects of art. The tariff law of 1887, although necessarily an excessive revenue measure was designed also to afford protection to domestic industries. PROTECTIOiX IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTEIES. Perhaps no greater indication of the country's welfare is seen than in the fact that the total number of pupils in the elementarj^ schools has increased 150 per cent since i860, the number of teachers having increased in about the same proportion. Agricultural, industrial, com- mercial and technical education is now being greath- encouraged by both private and governmental aid. Protection has ever been a great lever to promote the mental as well as the material welfare of a people. Every year since 1870 has shown a substantial increase in the savings of the masses. In 1872 the savings amounted to only $95,000,000, while in 1889 the}' exceeded $350,000,000, and it is estimated that they have now passed the $400,000,000 mark. Postal savings banks were established in 1876, and in these institutions, which have been patronized almost exclusively by the laboring classes, the deposits have increased from $500,000 to $57,000,000. No reliable figures are at hand to show the national wealth of Italy, though it is estimated at $10,000,000,000. Compared with some other countries it is, of course, very .small. Bur- dened with a great debt, with an annual deficit which is balanced by foreign holdings and gains, Italy has a .struggle before her that will continue for many years. Italy cannot yet pay goods for goods, nor can she pay for excess of imports wholly with gold. The foreign trade of 1890 can be seen from the following enumeration and values taken from United States Consular Report No. 140, page 60, May, 1892: Table Showing thk Commerce of Italy for the Year 1S90. Iraport-s. . Exports. AKriLLEh. jg^jj ,y^g Spirits, wine and oils $6,916,224 117,886,776 Groceries, spices and tobacco 16,841,340 i, 393, 507 Chemicals, drugs, resins and perfumery, . . 8,924,696 8,389,606 D3'es, dye stuffs and tanners' articles, , , . 4.519.447 i,937.054 Hemp, flax, jute, etc 5.0&7.797 7. 895,577 Cotton, 34,408,561 5.756,342 Wool and hair, 17,898,061 1,951,548 Silk, 16,813,097 57.959-994 Wood and straw 8,345,542 6,670,5,89 Books and paper 2,432,150 2,060,347 Skins, hides and furs, 8,762,123 4,018,816 Minerals and metals 32.503.615 5,387.778 Stones, earths, pottery and glass, 27.691.496 10,078,439 Cereals, flour and vegetable products not elsewhere included, 38,203,374 17,218,565 Animals and animal products not else- where included, 21,140,715 18,644,644 Miscellaneous 3,632,827 1,772,227 Total 1254,101,065 1169,021,809 Gold and silver 11,126,064 12,864,434 Grand total 1265,227,129 |i8i, 886,243 Excess of imports over exports (merchandise) 75.079.256 AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, ITALY, ETC. The trade with the United States can be seen from the following table; United States and Canada.* ARTICLES. iv^vons. Exports. Spirits, wine and oils, f^, 196,533 $2,229,922 Groceries, spices and tobacco, 3,i7'i569 461,270 Chemicals, drugs, resins and perfumery, . . 1,979,794 2,448,205 Dyes, dye stuflFs and tanners' articles, . . . 162,892 305,712 Hemp, flax, jute, etc., i,930 34,547 Cotton, 4,705,533 31,266 Wool and hair . 44,39° 7,334 Wood and straw 489,834 371,911 Silk, 965 991,634 Books and paper, 6,369 152,277 Skins, hides and furs, 105,378 181,420 Minerals and metals, 341,417 216,353 Stones, earths, potter}' and glass 121,204 2,371,777 Cereals, flour and vegetable products not elsewhere included 230,249 4,390,557 Animals and animal products not elsewhere included, 974,264 247,040 Miscellaneous 10,615 ^46,873 Total, 114,542,936 114,588,098 ' *The trade with Canada is insignificant, Btit it must be remembered that Italy, great as has been her progress since 1870, and particularlj- since 1887, is still trying to supply her own wants. Till that is done she cannot have a favorable balance of trade. A foreign commerce does not, however, measure a country's prosperity. It may, on the contrary, be an indication of decline. The nation that cannot produce for itself to a large degree must pay the bill, and the end is bankruptcy. Italy is beginning to supply a large proportion of her needs. She is feeding her own people, and furnishing much of the raw material for her workmen to make up into manufactured goods. Tariffs, however, cannot assure good crops, and in this respect Italj- has suffered considerably since 1886-87. The failure of the crops caused a financial crisis, from which she is now recovering. Labor troubles, too, have had their effect, as has the breaking of the French treaty and the industrial war with that country. And yet Italy has shown wonderful progress, as will be seen from the following statistics gathered from United States and British Consular reports. The average crop and production of six great staples from i860 to 1890 is here presented: 1 United States Consular Report, May. 1S92, p. 7. PEOTECTION IX CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Average Crop. Articles. 1860-62 1870-74 1879-S3. 1 Hectolitres. 35,820,000 16,900,000 17,150,000 1,433,000 71,303,000 Hectolitres. 50,898,000 31,174,000 13,155,000 9,798,000 105,025,000 Hectolitres. 46,655,000 29,661,000 12,172,000 7,381,000 95,869,000 Maize, Other cereals Oil, ... 1,565,000 24,003,000 3,323,000 27,539,000 3,436,000 36,594,000 Wine, Annuai, Produce. Artici.es. Wheat, . . Maize, . . . Other cereals, Rice, . . . Oil, .... Wine, . . . Hectolitres. 38,873000 25,606,000 9,356,000 5,155,000 78, 990, ( Hectolitres. 38,464,000 28,918,000 10,515,000 8,428,000 «6,325,( 28, i48,c i3,9o8,( 7.94o,c To give a comprehensive view of the total agricultural resources of Italy, the following table is cited: Table Showing the Italian Crops for the Year 1889. Crop. Wheat, Corn, Oats, . Barley, Rye, Rice, . Beans, Fave (chick-pea). Hemp, . . Flax, . . . Potatoes, . Chestnuts, ' Oue hectolitre is equal to 2.84 bushels 103,010,270.39 73,142,687.05 16,213,522.38 7,647,320.21 3,832,631.02 19,642,317.35 4.559.777-71 8,516,99409 Tons. 78, 140 13.573-04 564,117.05 264,562.09 77-95 86.89 Si. 15 70 73-4 95-61 80.54 7465 91-59 68.03 64.01 67- 84 1 No. 195 of the British Report on Foreign Countries, AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, ITALY, ETC. According to Crop. Quantity produced. average crop. Gallons Per cent. Wine 574,758,340.96 59-19 Olive oil 35,347,372.52 39-47 Tons. Hay, 7,562,461 Grass, 7,615,900 Green fodder, 9,8:18,795 Tubers 701,194 Pounds. Tobacco 3,873,968.59 Silk cocoons, 75,800,609.36 Number. Oranges, lemons and citrons, 2,787,910,700 73-82' There are about 5,000,000 acres under cultivation, most of which are or can be irrigated by public works. The Italian farmer, however, is not yet able successfully to compete in all his productions with the agricul- turist of Russia, Hungary or even India. As 70 per cent of the people are engaged directly in agriculture and 10 per cent of the remainder are engaged in transportation, etc., it will be seen how dependent the country is on her crops and harvests. Including forest products, livestock and all gardening, the total value of Italian agriculture amounts to but little less than $1,000,000,000 annually. Coming now to manufactures it is found that Italy, considering the difficulties under which she has labored, has made great strides in the last few years under her system of protective tariffs. In textiles there has been a gradual and steady improvement, especially in the production of silk and cotton. Italy holds a foremost position in the production of silk- worms and raw silk, being second only to China, while her silk manufac- tures are increasing yearly. Over 100,000 people, mostly women and children, are engaged in unwinding the cocoons, though the industry is subject to great changes. The imports of manufactured silk fell off 50 percent from 1887 to 1890, which points to a large increase in home manu- facture. The increased imports of raw cotton, amounting to 50 per cent from 1886 to 1890, are indications of the rapid progress that is being made in cotton manufactures. At least 2, 000, Coo spindles are now at work, an increase of 200 per cent since 1870. The woolen industry though improving rapidly has hardly kept pace with other textiles. Perhaps the greatest advance has been made in the manufactures of iron and steel. Italy is now making much of her machinery and implements, as well as becoming an adept in bridge building, locomotive and railway carriage making. The manufacture of paper has made much progress, and many grades are now being exported. Till within a few years many of the owners and nearly all the managers of mills were foreigners. Now year by year native labor and native capital is gradually replacing the foreign. 1 United States Consular Report, No. 140, p. 73. PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. In 1 860 there were not more than five mechanical works of any importance in Italy. The number now exceeds two hundred. As regards wages, some idea may be gained from the following: Wages of Hands Attached to Some Industrial Establishments, in Italian Lire. Description. Cantoni cotton mill, province of Milan- Spinuers. males Weavers, males, Rossi woolen mill, province of Vicenza- Spinners, males, Weavers, males, Sella woolen mill, province of Novara- Spinners, males, Carders, males, Keller silk mill, province of Cuneo — Spinners, females Throwsters, females, ... ... Italian paper mill, province of Novara- Rag workers, Paper makers, Lanza candle factory, province of Turin- Hands, males, Hands, females, Sardinian miners — Sardinians, males From Continent, males, B67. .87.. 1881. ' . c. L.c. L.c. Lc. 40 70 1. 60 1.85 1.70 :;S 94 65 1 4.62 i 5.50 j 5.50 3.96 I 3.96 3.96 1. 21 1.32 1.65 1.76 2.16 0.72 0.78 2.50 3.00 1.30 2.2S 2.40 3.80 2.28 2.56 It will be seen that there has been a constant rise since i860. The same general rise has taken place in all industries save, perhaps, in the sulphur mines, where wages have declined owing to the diminished value of sulphur. Not only have wages increased but prices of all articles of consump- tion have decreased. In 1862 it took the pay of 195 hours' work to pur- chase 220 pounds of wheat. In 1889 it took but 95 hours' work. While food and clothing are much lower, rents are a little higher, as the Italian is, with his improved condition, requiring better accommodations. While the Italian laborer is, perhaps, not so persevering as his fellow workmen in other countries, yet he shows great versatility and not a little quickness of intelligence. As instruction through the schools and press becomes more widely diffused the result is apparent on all classes. The low rate of wages is, in great part, due to the small productiveness of the operatives. In Italy it takes 1 2 men to do the work done by 7 or 8 in the United States or England. Agricultural laborers receive still less than those employed in mechanical pursuits. Never more than 40 cents a day in summer and 30 cents in winter, while the average is nearer 20 cents a ' I L. - 19.3 cents ; loo c. - i lira. = British Foreign Reports, No. 21.. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, ITALY, ETC. day for the whole year round. The women earn from lo to 12 cents a day, though many are working in the mills where they can earn twice that amount. The Italian laborer is, however, on the whole contented. He is frugal, easily satisfied, and slow to advance. It must be many years before the Italian can be on an equalitj- with the inhabitants of most of the other countries of Europe. With a national debt of $2,500,000,000, with an annual adverse balance of trade amounting to $60,000,000 and an aiuiual deficit in the treasury to the same amount, the progress must indeed be slow, and when crop failures for years in succession, earthquakes and epidemics come, discouragement is universal. It is, then, so much more to the credit of the Italian people and the Italian nation that there has been so much progress made since the United Kingdom was estab- lished in 1870. But for her protective tariff Italy would have remained where she was in 1870, without manufactures and without the ambition to reach out as she is now doing, without the impulse and desire not only to supply her own wants so far as possible, but to sell as much as she buys and rise from the position of a debtor to independence and industrial free- dom. In short, as British Consul Colnaghi said in a recent report to his go%-ernment : ' ' Italians are making strenuous efforts to render them- selves independent industrially as they have succeeded in doing from a political point of view." As manufactures have grown the need of shipping has been met by government bounties amounting to half a million of dollars annually. The result is seen in the increase of Italian vessels and tonnage amounting to over 150 per cent since 1870. It may be asked how Italy pays the interest on her debt and settles for the adverse balance of trade as well as the annual deficit in her treasury. The people are, of course, burdened with taxes while foreign holdings increase from year to j'ear. A large source of income, however, not seen in official reports, is the large amount left each year by tourists. This amount has been estimated as high as $100,000,000, though this is probably excessive. It is, however, a most material help in settling the trade balances of the countrj^. With a period of good crops and freedom from disease and war, Italy will soon show a healthy financial condition, the inevitable effect of a reasonable period of protection. Holland and Belgium. In previous chapters the early development of industries in the Netherlands was referred to. In 1652 the Dutch had reached a commer- cial pre-eminence which aroused the jealousy of France and England. Relying almost wholly on foreign trade and commerce as the chief means of commercial prosperity, as her .shipping interests were destroyed and the carrying trade , of the world came to be divided with England, PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Holland began to decline. A small power, unable to cope with her more powerful rivals, England and France, gradually, in the latter part of the seventeenth and during the eighteenth century, as her foreign trade passed from her, she ceased to be regarded as of great commercial importance. Having lost her possessions in the New World, she retained, even at the termination of the Napoleonic wars, her possessions in Asia, which have been a valuable .source of wealth to her merchants. During the latter part of the eighteenth century the industries of Holland and Belgium suffered greatlj- from French and Engli.sh competition. Although deriving some advantage from the Continental policy of Napoleon, yet after the battle of Waterloo these countries, like Ger- many and other parts of Europe, were inundated with British goods which inflicted a great loss on their manufacturers. The separation of the two countries into independent kingdoms in 1830 marked a beginning of industrial policies which, especially in Belgium, have restored the former indu.strial greatness of the people. The Foreign Office has recently issued a summary of the official statistics of the foreign trade of Belgium for the year 1S89, compiled at the British Legation in Brussels. From this it appears that the imports and exports of this little countrj-, of barely six millions of people, amounted for the year to ^244,796,000, an increase of 4 per cent on those of 1888. When English free traders boast of the vastness of the foreign trade of this country as the special mark and test of national prosperity, they would do well to remember that, accepting this test, we should need, in order to bring ourselves up to the Belgium level, to double our imports and exports, and to create a foreign trade of ^1,468,776,000, instead of ovir last year's "prosperous" and "improved " foreign trade of ^748.777,226.' During the centuries that these countries have been subjected to all changes that accompany and follow foreign, civil and commercial warfare, they have retained the spirit of industry exemplified in the quotation given above. A brief review of the early commercial importance of the Netherlands has already been given in the chapter devoted to the Devel- opment of Trade and Industries in Western Europe. It is not within the province of this work to follow the vicissitudes of these countries for the centuries following. " Till 1844," says Robert Ellis Thompson, in his Elements of Politi- cal Economy, "Belgium 'that cockpit of Europe' was a free trade country. ' ' She had prospered to some degree under the rule of Napoleon , and shared somewhat in the general rise of industries. But when peace returned .she was flooded with the cheap wares of England and her manu- factures were almost ruined. Finallj- an inquiry was ordered by the gov- ernment and a report made in 1842 upon the state of industry and commerce. In 1844 Belgium adopted protection for the first time and Holland followed the next year. A reciprocity treaty was effected between the two countries in 1846. The result has been marvelous. > Fair Trade Jourual, Vol, VI., p ji,;. AUSTEIA-HUNGABY, ITALY, ETC. "If any one," says a Belgian free trader, "had left the country in 1835, after having visited our principal manufacturing centres, and were to come back to it now," in 1861, "he would be struck with the transformation that they have under- gone, the advance they have achieved; he would find a numerous, intelligent and active population of working people, where a quarter of a century ago, he would have seen nothing but countrj- houses scattered at wide intervals over extensive plains. As a consequence, production, except of articles of food, has outrun the needs of population, although it has increased in numbers and in wealth, and we are obliged to seek for foreign outlets. " ■ Belgium has continued her protective policy to the present time, while Holland revised her tariff in 1862, to practically a revenue basis. Under protection Belgium has been able to maintain her industries against all competition and has reached such efficiency that she holds pre-eminence over England in the production of many articles. Many Belgian locomotives are run on English railroads. Her iron masters have taken contracts to supply iron goods and bridge material for the construction of bridges in Great Britain. But the position and conditions of both Belgium and Holland are unique, and in a great measure different from tho.se of any other country. The people are willing to work for almost nothing and live in the most frugal manner. From a report of Mr. Fane, British Secretary of Legation at Brussels, one can learn that "there are as many steam horses as there are families in the countrj'," and as he adds, "imagine what they add to the productive power of the nation." He speaks of "the wail of .suffer- ing among the well-to-do people," and then says that "instead of a diminishment, a wonderful increase is going on in the wealth of Belgium and that this progre.ssing increase of wealth is benefiting solely the working classes." In speaking of the "astounding productiveness of industry," and the purchasing power of the people, he saj-s: "Wages themselves have risen absolutely and in a proportion quite remarkable," quoting authorities to the effect that while in 1840 they amounted to 500,000,000 francs, when the population was about .70 per cent of what it is now, at the present time they exceed 1,625,000,000 francs. It may be safely assumed then that the industrial classes of both Belgium and Holland are advancing in productive capacity and purchas- ing power along with the other Continental countries; that in neither is there any hope of any increased market for American agricultural products or manufactured wares. To make this clear and conclusive we have only to glance at the resources of the two countries at the present time. Belgium has a population of 6,000,000, occupying 11,373 square miles, while Holland, or the Netherlands as it is now called, has a popu lation of 4,451,000, with an area of 12,680 square miles. PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. In 1890 the foreign trade of Belgium was as follows: Imports, $615,515,600 Exports, 568,983,300 Of this $307,200,000 represents imports for consumption and $274,- 000,000 the exports of Belgian produce and manufacture. The remain- der is transit trade and shows what an immense depot for distribution Belgium has become. And yet the part contributed by the Belgians in proportion to the population is remarkable, as can be seen from the fol- lowing compilation for the year 1892: Number of mines, 1,631 Workmen, 29,012 Iron ore produced, tons 209,943 Coal 19,583,000 Pig iron 753.268 Manufactured iron, 479.0°° Steel ingots, 260,037 Steel rails, 208,261 Sugar manufacturing establishments, 122 Production of raw sugar, pounds, 64,000,000 Refineries, 36 Output of refineries, pounds, 2,000,000 The exports of leading products in 1892 is seen from the following: Cereals and flour, |24,ooo,ooo Yarns, wool, linen, etc., • . 22,600,000 Machinery, 19,000,000 Raw textiles 17,500,000 Tissues, cotton, wool, etc 13,300,000 Iron and steel, 15,500,000 Qlass, 9,000,000 About one-fifth of the population are agriculturists. The total value of agricultural products in 1880 (the latest authoritative statistics) was $282,000,000 and of animal produce $48,000,000. Wheat, oats and rye form the principal .staples, while to vegetables, sugar beet, flax and other productions more or less attention is given. In Holland no official returns are made of the value of goods, only of the weight. In 1892 the returns were as follows: Imports 6,451,000,000 Exports, 2,956,000,000 In 1892 the value of exports of home production amounted to about $283,500,000, while the imports for consumption were valued at $325,000,000. In 1892 the exports of food products amounted to $120,000,000; raw materials, $60,000,000, and manufactureil products AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, ITALY, ETC. $80,000,000. The products of agriculture are much the same as in Bel- gium. The exports of the principal products in 1892, were as follows: Wheat • . . . $22,000,000 Flour, 3,000,000 Rye, 6,500,000 Barley, Oats, Flax, $3, 200, 000 1 , 700, 000 7,500,000 Enough has been shown of the productive capacity' of Belgium and Holland to dissipate all free trade notions that any increased market for American products will be found in either country. Even if the Belgians, and Hollanders were not so capable of supplying their own wants as they have proven themselves to be, the American farmer and artisan could hardly expect to compete in those markets with the workmen of Eng- land, Germany and Austria. But we find Belgium and Holland making and exporting the very things we should like to sell them. Moreover a still greater production, with additional employment of labor at increased prices, is resulting from the new tariff law that went into operation July 14, 1895. We find, however, that though wages have risen considerably in recent years, yet they are still only about one-fourth or one-fifth of American wages. The inevitable conclusion is then, as it has been in all European countries, that there is no further market than we now possess unless American wages descend to their level, and our workmen are willing to live on scanty food. Switzerland. "Switzerland," says M. Eavollee, "is the country where poverty is the rarest and where wealth is most equally distributed among all classes of society." With a population of less than 3,000,000 and an area of 16,000 square miles, less than the States of Vermont and New Hampshire combined, Switzerland has a foreign trade amounting in 1891 to $349,000-, 000, of which about two-fifths were exports. In 1892 some of her prin- cipal exports were as follows: Silks, jt4i, 000,000 I Food stuffs |i6, 000,000 • Cottons, 26,000,000 Clocks and watches, . . 18,000,000 Woolens, 3,000,000 I Machinery and carriages, 4,000,000 [893, Switzerland had 4606 factories divided as On January i, follows : Textiles Leather, Food, Chemical Wood, Metals, Paper and printing. Building Establishments. ■ ■ ■ 1,943 . . . 115 . . . 410 . . . 115 . ■ ■ 7,234 . ■ ■ 547 . . . 272 . . . 102 Hands Employed. 89,901 6,445 10, 702 2,696 5,048 33,056 7,356 2,751 PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. These industries are fully protected bj- customs duties. In fact the position that Switzerland holds to-day as one of the great producing and manufacturing centres, though having no more inhabitants than New York City and Brooklyn, is due to the excellent system of protective tariffs which this country has enjoyed since the Confederation of 1848, and especially since the general tariff revisions of 1884, 1887 and 1892. Commercial treaties are also in force with several countries. The ingenuity of the people, the industry and thrift displayed by all classes, -encouraged by protection to their labor, render the condition of the Swiss workman the most enviable in Europe. Relations between employer and employee, while not without some occasional friction, are, however, more satisfactory to both, than can be found elsewhere in Europe. Wages are not so high as in England, 'but they approach closely those of Germany and France. The cost of living is such, however, that though much of their food .stuffs are imported, yet the savings of the laboring classes are enormous, being about $50 per capita and far in excess of those in any other country of Europe. As an instance of the extent to which division of labor is carried it may be mentioned that watch-making is enumerated under fifty-three distinct branches, in each of which a work- man attains to the highest degree of skill. The same is seen in the man- ufacture of music-boxes and other wares in which the Swi.ss have become famous. Agriculture is carried on to a considerable extent, but a large pro- portion of food stuffs is imported. The chief industry -is the manufac- ture of chee.se and milk. The value of livestock exceeds $100,000,000. Wheat, rye, oats and potatoes are the chief crops, and in some years as much as 25,000,000 gallons of wine is produced. When it is considered that we bought from Switzerland to the amount of $16,010,728 in 1894, and only sold her $7391 worth, or one two-thousandth part of what we bought, we must exclude this republic from the markets to be gained by American farmers and manufacturers. To be sure Switzerland is one of the great markets of the world, but the grain of Russia and Austria is too near, as are the wares of France and Germany, for us to compete, unless, as the free trader would have it, our wages are reduced to the level of tho.se paid on the Continent. Di-:n-.m.\rk. The tariff of Deinnark is similar to that of Belgium. Germany has of late crowded out English wares to a large extent in the Danish market, although the imports have decreased in recent years owing to the increased home production. Every year the exports are larger, and with increasing rates of wages and general growth of industries little Denmark bids fair to become more and more independent of other countries. AUSTBJA-IIUXGARr, ITALY, ETC. The leading agricultural crops in 1891 were as follows: Bushels. Oats, 33.059.265 Barley 22,571,447 Rye, 18,677,262 Wheat, 4,514,152 Potatoes " 1,^,913,122 Other roots, ^5. 453.952 Besides these Denmark produces vegetables, hay and clover. In 1S88 there were in Denmark proper 4,000,000 horses, cattle, sheep, goats and swine. In 1892, 19,570 tons of beet sugarwere produced andtheout- put of brandy was 7,435,388 gallons. Our chief exports to Denmark are corn, wheat, oil and lard, and yet she buys but a small part of her food and provisions from us and is likely to buj' less rather than more. We cannot compete with Germany in supplying her with manufactured goods. Of her $20,000,000 worth of manufactured goods imported we .supply only about a quarter of a million. We buy only $200,000 worth of her products. We shall, perhaps, continue to send her a little corn, wheat, oil and lard, though the quantity is more likely to decline than increa.se. At present our share of her imports is only about one-twentieth. NoRw.w AND Sweden. The industrial situation of Sweden and Norway cannot be better stated than in the words of British Consul Hay, who calls attention in a recent report to : 1. The marked development of native industries, shielded by protective duties. 2. Competition of German, Belgian and even Dutch manufactures. 3. The development of direct communication by sea between Svfeden and other countries, which is gradually diminishing the importation of transit goods from England. The direct or home trade has shown wonderful development in recent years. For instance, the demand for locomotives and other railroad supplies formerly imported from Great Britain is now fully met b>- home manufacturers. The same is true of almost all machinery and agricul- tural implements. Some iron goods are still imported, but they have of late years been of Belgian and German make instead of coming from Great Britain. Sweden and Norwaj' are now enjoying a thoroughly protective tariff, perhaps, on the whole, more protective than that of any other European country. The protection of years gave way to lower duties in both countries for several years preceding 1890, but duties were gradually increased till in 1892 was enacted what has been termed the "McKinley bill of Sweden." PROTiCTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. The exports of Sweden in 1891 amounted to about $75,000,000, of which more than two-fifths were timber and one-fifth was live animals and animal food. The imports in 1891 amounted to about $85,000,000, con- sisting mostly of coal, textiles, raw materials for textiles and colonial wares. The exports of Norway in 1891 amounted to $30,000,000, being mostly timber and animal food, while the imports of the same year amounted to about $55,000,000, a large part of which was food stuffs. The trade of both Norway and Sweden with the United States shows that we sold them in 1894 a little over $4,000,000 worth of merchandise, third of which was cotton and oils, while we bought of them $3,000,000 worth, over one-third of which was manufactures of iron and steel and nearly one-fourth wood pulp. To Sweden and Norway then, least of all the countries of Europe, can we look for a market. In fact our exports are falling off under the operation of their revised tariff law of 1892. They are practicing our own methods of protecting and promoting home industries with great success. Where England cannot hold a market for manufactures, it is hardly likely we are going to gain one, and as for food stuffs Russia and Austria and France are too near for us to compete with their resources and low rates of wages. Sp.\in and Portugal. The early maritime discoveries of the Spani-sh and Portuguese gave them great wealth which, however, was squandered almost as quickly as it was gained. Large flocks of sheep were owned and even in the tenth century the Moors cultivated cotton, sugar and rice, and were producers of silk. Cordova, Seville and Grenada were famous for their fabrics and arms. Down to the time of Colbert France got her fine cloths from Spain. In 168 1 such bounties and protection were granted that in 1684 Spain and Portugal were supplying all their own wants and prohibiting all foreign cloth. This condition, however, la.sted but nineteen years, when England persuaded Portugal to admit her manufactures, in return for lower duties on Portuguese wines. The complete ruin of Portuguese manufactures fol- lowed, from which they have never recovered. For some time preceding 1859, however, both Spain and Portugal levied high customs duties on most importations. Both countries reduced their duties somewhat between 1859 and 1879, but since 1882 the tendency has been to protect all their industries. It may be said that neither Spain nor Portugal has any free list. Every article of commercial value is subject to duty. The tariffs under which both countries are operating are of recent revision. Commercial treaties exi.st with other countries, but to a mutual and not a one-sided advantage. The one great industry of Spain at present is wine-making. Of her total exports nearly one- fourth is wine. Over 5,000,000 acres are under vines, and in i8go the production of wine was 638,000,000 gallons. In addition large quantities AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, ITALY, ETC. of olives, oranges, raisins and nuts are raised and exported. Wheat, ba^le5^ r)'e, corn, flax, hemp and pulse are the leading crops. The annual value of minerals amounts to about $35,000,000, and next to wines form the most important export. Comparatively few manufactures are exported, but Spain is steadilj' increasing her productive abilitj' and capacity and is well-nigh equipped to supply her own wants in all neces- sary wares. Of the imports raw cotton is double in value that of any other single commodity, machinery' being second in importance. Our exports to Spain in 1894 amounted to $13,114,000 of which $9,000,000 was raw cotton and $1,634,000 was tobacco, leaving less than $2,500,000 for all else, while we bought from her $4,250,000 worth of merchandise. To Portugal we sent $5,200,000 of exports in 1894, of which $4, 100,000 was wheat. From her we bought $2,000,000 worth, of which $1,600,000 was cork and rubber. With the exception of ovir cot- ton and tobacco, then, it is seen how insignificant is our trade with Spain and Portugal. Even the $4,000,000 worth of wheat sent to Portugal is $1,000,000 more than the average, and is not likely to increase when we consider the inroads the wheat of Russia and the Argentine Republic is making into EuropeaTi markets. We must add these two countries then to those already described as unlikely to furnish any increase of markets for American grain or manufactures, always reserving the point that we can, at any time, have a chance if our workmen are willing to work for the wages and adopt the manner of living found in other parts of the world. Other Countries. In the treatment of Eastern countries space will not permit a dis- cussion of their commercial history, and we must confine ourselves to a consideration of the question how far and under what conditions these countries are likely to aflford us a market for our goods. With Turke)-, Greece, Servia and Roumania our trade is too insignificant to be taken into account. As to Asiatic countries generally the following table shows the condition of our trade : Merchandise Trade with Asi.\tic Countries in 1S94. Imports from Exports to China, |i7, 135,028 J5, 862,426 British India and East Indies, 14,829,661 4,329,103 Dutch East Indies, 11,278,725 1,722,876 French East Indies, nothing. 193,049 Hong Kong, 892,511 4,209,847 Japan, 19,426,522 3,986,815 Russia in Asia, 355,476 163,855 Turkey in Asia, 2,204,973 107,162 All others, 63,501 297,628 Total 166,787,497 $21,872,761' * Compiled from Commerce and Navigation of the United States. PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES'. We buy from them three times as much as we sell them. Of the total exports shown above over $12,000,000 represents oils, and only about $2,000,000 bread stuffs. Africa can be treated in the same way as Asia, and our trade in 1894 is shown as follows : Portuguese Africa British Africa, French Africa, Canary Islands Liberia i2,Soo Madagascar 210,729 Egypt and TripoH, 2,208,029 All others 456.799 uports from $4,680 464,087 99,099 23,123 Exports to fS5,54i 3.972,982 215,947 203,133 32,631 42,920 181,252 178,313 $8,055,032 316,791 3,217,713 145,466 $11,735,002 Total, $3. 479.336 $4,912,719 To these countries we sell a million and a half more than we buy from them, but that amount is represented by spirits, rum, oils and tobacco. Our imports and our exports to the diiferent parts of Oceanica, in 1894, were as follows: Imports from British Australasia, $4,017,025 French Oceanica 367,239 Hawaiian Islands, 10,065,317 Philippine Islands, 7,008,342 Total, $21,457,923 As will be seen our principal sales are to the British colonies in Australia. These, however, are declining, having been over $13,000,000 in 1 89 1. For years Victoria has had a protective tariff and has largely pros- pered under such duties, and now New South Wales has also adopted protection. Our sales to both these countries are not likely to increase. The progress made by Victoria under protection has been similar to our own. Wages, in some instances, are as high and the savings and wealth of the people are even higher per capita than ours. Canada and Other American Countries. J. Beaufort Hurlburt in the chapter devoted to Canada, in his " Pro- tection and Free Trade," said : The chief home of manufactures and commerce on this continent will, we believe, in time be in Canada. The physical features of the country, the innumerable streams and waterfalls, the rich mineral resources, the invigorating climate, point to Canada in the new as to the Northern half of Europe in the old world as the centre of the chief industries, of commerce, of wealth and power. While the above may provoke a smile in the United States, yet the over-sanguinenes.s of Mr. Hurlburt is pardonable. Hi.story shows that countries are settled and that industrial progress is from south to nortli. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, ITALY, ETC. There is no doubt of the ability of our Canadian neighbor, of his health}' condition, ef his vigor and endurance, and of his fitness to compete with the rest of mankind. He is an American, and whether Canada is one day annexed to the United States, or, as Hurlburt would have it, the United States is joined to Canada, the day will no doubt come when the people of Canada and the States will be members of the same political and industrial homestead. The first duties on imported goods imposed by Canada were in 1849, when a duty of I2j4 per cent was levied on most goods, but only 2}^ per cent on bar and heavy iron. It %vas purely a revenue duty. In 1856 the duty was raised to 15 per cent on general merchandise, and manufactures of leather and India rubber were made subject to a duty of 20 per cent. It was not till 1858 that a tariff law was enacted in the interest of protection. In that year a duty of 20 per cent on general merchandise was levied, and 25 per cent on manufactures of leather, boots and shoes, har- ness, saddlery and certain wearing apparel. In the following year duties were raised on many goods which were classified under customs rates of 100, 40, 35, 30, 25, 15 and 10 percent. In 1866-67 '^he duties of 1858-59 were lowered, and in 1874 the tariff consisted almost wholly of duties for revenue only. The act of March, 1879, was really the first Canadian tariff that gave thorough protection to home industries. The beneficial results were not only immediate but most significant. The Finance Min- ister in his Budget speech of the twenty-fourth of February, 1882, three years after the adoption of protection, called attention to the fact that while there had been a deficit during the five years preceding the act of 1879, of $5,491,259, in the two years following the act there was collected $2,900,000 more than was necessary for expenditures. He said : That was the surplus for the two years and having been used in the reduction of the debt, diminished our taxation for all time to come When I was asked by an honorable member opposite in 1879, what demand the government expected to create for Nova Scotia coal by the operation of the tariff, I stated that probably within a short time the consumption of Nova Scotia coal in the Dominion of Canada would increase to the extent of 4,000,000 tons. I did not suppose, Mr. Speaker, sanguine as I was with reference to the eiTect of this tariff, that in three years, by the increased demand for steam power, it would make a demand which would require over 4,000,- 000 to meet it ; but we find that these industries have been growing up all over the country to such an extent that it has required more than 4,000,000 tons more from the Nova Scotia mines, and has also caused a largely increased amount to be imported from the United States as well. He then described the increase of manufacturing for the three years, showing that in the cotton, leather and woolen manufactures alone, the increase had amounted to $5,500,000 ; that there was an increase of 17 per cent in the number of employees, and that while in 135 factories out of 430 \'isited, wages remained the same, yet instead of working on short time the laborers were now working full time, while in 277 factories wages PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. had been increased from 5 to 35 per cent. " The rate of wages," said he, has been generally increased throughout the Dominion." Referring to the question of prices he showed conclusively that cotton id woolens had not advanced in price but, on the contrary', had in numerous cases fallen in price since 1878. Canadian free traders, like those of the United States in 1892, tried to circulate the idea of so-called ' McKinley prices." They told the farmer that out of the nine or twelve yards of dress goods bought for his wife, three or four yards would have to be sent to Ottawa. But the farmer's wife on opening the package found the whole number of yards bought, and at a lower price than had been paid for the same goods under free trade. In hats and caps the same result was proven, a larger production, increased employment and lower prices to the consumer. "But," said the Canadian, "if wages are higher how can prices be lower?" To this the minister replied by quoting a manufac- turer whom he had asked the same question: The fact is we used to have to spend a large sum in employing runners to go through the countr}' to make sales, but now we have doubled our production, have orders ahead, our expenses of managemeut have not increased, we can sell at smaller profits than we could before, and }et, in consequence of the increased production, we have larger profits at the end of the year. The Minister of Finance then showed the decreased price of various other articles. Plows were selling at 15 per cent less than in 1878. All agricultural implements from 5 to 20 per cent less, and the business had increased four-fold in the three years. Sewing machines were reduced in price by ten dollars, and the business trebled. Boots and shoes were cheaper, and the price of factor>' labor higher. Nails were lower, and so were count- less other articles of necessity and daily use. In the few cases where prices remained the same or had advanced a trifle, the compensation of higher wages was more than equivalent. Especially was the condition of the farmer improved. Everything he had to buy, whether of clothing or implements, was lower, while his market was increased in some instances faster than he could supply it. It was shown that there were at least 100,000 more employed people to be fed in 1882 than in 1879. The people had plenty of money to buy the farmers' produce and they got their own prices instead of standing around the markets all day as they did in 1879, sometimes taking back home the vegetables they could get no price at all for. Ten million bushels more of Canadian grain were consumed in Canada in the first two years of protection than in the last two years of free trade. But the benefits of protection in Canada at the outset of the new national policy as it was called were not confined to individuals. In 1 87S the securities of New South Wales were the highest colonial securities in the Engli.sh market and were 4 or 5 per cent above Canadian. Two years after protection had been AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, ITALY, ETC. adopted Canadian 4 per cents had increased from 89 to 104, and were i per cent above those of New South Wales. In another year they had increased to 2 per cent above New South Wales and stood higher than any other colonial security offered in the English market. Bank stock was worth $20,000,000 more in 1882 than in 1879. The laborer was getting higher wages, the manufacturer was making more profits, the farmer had a demand at good prices for all his produce, the merchant had doubled his business and the government credit and finances were in a most satisfactory condition. Said the Minister of Finance in concluding the speech already quoted from: Adding the manufactures from the various factories that are sending their pro- ducts all over the Dominion, it will be found that the railway proprietors have a large interest in this new polic}-. Ever}- interest in the country has been, in ray judgment, largely and materially benefited. This policy, supplemented by our legislation secur- ing the rapid construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, has combined to place us in the enviable position we now occupy — the best position of any people on the face of the earth. To-day the Dominion of Canada comprises an area of nearly three and a half million of square miles, almost equal to that of the United States, with a population of about 5,000,000. Agriculture is the chief industry, the crops for 1890 being as fol- lows ; Crops. Bushels. Wheat 44,144,779 Barley, 17,152,438 Oats 82,514,513 Potatoes, 52,407,677 Crops. Bushels. Rye, 1,328,262 Peas and beans, . . 15,514,841 Hay, tons, .... 7,604,096 Taking the livestock as regards ratio to population, Canada com- pares favorably with the United States. The fisheries of British North America are, perhaps, the most important and extensive in the world, reaching a value of nearly $25,000,000 annually. The wealth per capita is almost equal to that of the United States. Protection is extended to agriculture as well as to manufactures, and in 1894 the foreign trade of Canada was as follows: Exports, $117,524,949 Imports, 123,474,940 Commerce with the United States is second only to that with the United Kingdom, and for several j^ears preceding 1892, trade with us exceeded that with the United Kingdom. Since 1890 our imports have fallen off one-third, while our exports have advanced about one-third. In 1894 we sold the Canadians $44,636,914 worth of domestic merchandise and bought from them $22,922,030 worth. PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. We sold them $9,000,000 worth of coal; $4,280,000 worth of corn; $1,000,000 worth of tobacco; $4,000,000 worth of wheat and wheat flour, and $4,000,000 worth of cotton and cotton goods. We bought $1 ,400,000 worth of bread stuffs and $6,000,000 worth of lumber. Canada has prospered so well under her protective tariff that she is not likely to become a much greater market for our products. We .shall, no doubt, continue to exchange millions of dollars worth of goods with her annually, but as her own resources and capabilities increase she will become more and more independent and able to supplj- her own wants. As regards the rest of America to the north, our trade is as follows: Imports from Exports to Nova .Scotia, New Brunswick, etc. , .... 14.474,653 $3>756.6o5 British Columbia 3.394.233 i, 647.351 Newfoundland and Labrador, 535. Si5 1.641,019 Going now to the south of us in both North and South America, we find our trade, in 1894, was as follows: Imports from Exports to Bermuda $444,595 1928,876 British Honduras "2.959 3'6.ii7 Costa Rica, 2,287,384 961,216 Guatemala, 2,225,586 1,610,509 Honduras, 765,138 537,463 Nicaragua, 1,564,472 814,012 Salvador 2,926,469 1,059,292 Miguelan Islands, Langley and St. Pierre Islands, 1 17-255 • i49,902 British West Indies, 13,017,178 8,387,220 Danish West Indies 5",970 579,977 Dutch West Indies, . . 62,687 595,596 French West Indies, 18,336 1,822,808 Hayti 840,046 5,342,630 Santo Domingo 3,200,852 1,715,782 Mexico, 28,727,006 12,441,805 Cuba, 75,678,261 19.855,237 Puerto Rico, 3,135.634 2,705,646 Argentine Republic 3,497,03° 4.593.41* Bolivia nothing. 10,071 Brazil, 79,360,159 13,827,914 Chili 3.536.197 2,262,011 Colombia, 2,234,787 2,702,106 Ecuador 816,484 759.474 British Guiana 4,223,970 2,360,938 Dutch Guiana, 1,078,541 381.641 French Guiana, 23,400 98,837 Paraguay 1,001 none. Peru 491. 3S4 586,761 Uruguay, i,4'9.573 971.547 Venezuela, 3,464,481 4,089,732 Total 1229,837,735 I93.478.538 AUSTRIA-HVNGABY, ITALY, ETC. Here we find countries from which we buy considerably more than twice as much as we sell to them. Here is the great market for our sur- plus food stuffs and manufactures. Instead of hunting the world over, instead of going to Africa, Asia and the islands of the sea, we enjoy the advantage of having near at hand a vast territory which needs our pro- ductions. Mr. Harrison and his Cabhiet saw this great advantage and, with the co-operation of the Fifty-second Congress, brought about such legislation as bade fair to secure these markets with no sacrifice to our own interests. England has for centuries gained markets by force. We gained these markets by diplomacy only to have them taken away by the free traders of the following Congress. The value of these markets and the subject of reciprocity will be treated hereafter. Conclusions. The brief treatment of the tariff histor^^ industrial development, resources and economic conditions of the countries mentioned in this part of our work scarcely makes a summary necessary. Yet the experience of these nations during the past fifty years has developed so many facts which prove the wisdom of the policy of protection that they deserve more than a passing notice. The growth of manufacturing in France, Prussia, Germany, Austria, and, in fact, in all of these nations, had its beginning with the adoption of protective regulations. The inauguration of this policy in every instance brought stability and confidence to their busi- ness interests. Its effect as a stimulating agency in encouraging and induc- ing the people to become artisans and manufacturers cannot be overesti- mated. That the industrial activity of these nations is associated with the adoption of protection is a fact in the commercial history of the world which should not be lost sight of in determining the importance to be attached to the policy of protection as the best means of promoting the industrial welfare of a nation. The advocates of free trade can no longer say that the progress made by these nations was in spite of protection or that the same or better results would have followed the policy of free com- petition oi free trade. Thej^ have all tried free trade or a low tariff. The business depressions and injuries inflicted on the industries of Germany upon the return to free trade during the thirteen years between 1865 and 1879 have been pointed out. That this was a most disastrous period there is not the slightest question. A similar result followed a departure from protection by Russia and every other C9untr>' which has attempted to depart from the policy of developing and fostering its domestic resources. Even the slight reduction of duties in France placed a check on many industries. The sudden and rapid expan.sion of industries immediately following an increase in protective tariffs in Spain, Portugal, Germany, Austria, Russia, France, Sweden, Switzerland, and, in fact, in all countries during the past twenty-five years, affords the most striking PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. example of the universal benefits to be derived from protection. European countries have tried free trade, repudiated it, and returned to protection. Under protection they have all enjoyed and are enjoying a degree of prosperity which was proven to be impossible of attainment under free trade. It is the pronounced sentiment of all countries (Eng- land excepted), that it is better for a people to provide for their own wants by the development of domestic resources, than to purchase from other nations things which might be made at home. This has been proven to be the most wise and beneficent policy and the surest and most profitable means of advancing the material welfare of the nations of the world. It has been pointed out that the ultimate purpose of Mr. Cobden and his associates, in abandoning protection in England and adopting the policy of free trade, was to induce other nations to remove their tariff barriers and open their markets to the admission of British goods. Immediately after the legislation of 1846, the work of converting other nations was vigorously entered upon by the English people. Mr. Cobden visited the Continent and devoted the remaining years of his life to the task. Free trade parties were organized in every part of the world, sup- plied with literature, arguments, and ideas from England. The whole world was thrown at once into a discussion of economic questions. The campaign was carried on in Europe for a number of years without any material progress being made. Germany, France, Belgium, Switzerland were fast adopting the use of machinery, building factories, educating artisans, and building up rival industrial centres, which made protection not only more necessarj' to their welfare and progress, but more difficult to overthrow. The sentiment in favor of protection in Europe was found to be much stronger than Mr. Cobden had expected. A most ingenious device was hit upon by which protection could be overthrown and free trade established, without consulting the people, and in fact in open violation of public sentiment, simply by getting control of the treaty- making power. Protection was then assailed in Europe, not by open dis- cussion and debate, but by intrigue and diplomacy. A system of commercial treaties was carried into effect which practically broke down the tariff barriers of the Continent. Great Britain by adopting free trade had nothing to offer a nation in order to induce a reciprocity treaty, consequently the scheme must be worked through emissaries in foreign countries. We are informed by Yeats that. Free trade principles did not make such rapid way as did the previous schemes of protection. The new system asserted itself by economic argu- ments, which, though logically irresistible, did not appeal so much to the feelings, and therefore to the convictions, of the people at large, as did measures for the immediate relief of poverty, such as those of legislative protection of industry. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, ITALY, ETC. The following list of commercial treaties entered into between various nations will serve to show how successfully Cobden's scheme was carried out: 1853, Austria w th Prussia, for twelve years. 1S62, Turkey with Sweden. 1854, England ' Japan. 1865, Zollverein " Belgium. 1S55, England ' Switzerl and. 1865, Zollverein " England. 1 858, Russia ' Japan- 1865, Zollverein " Switzerland 1858, England ' China. 1865, Zollverein " Holland. 1859, England ' Russia. 1S65, Holland ■' France. i860, • China. 1866, France ' ' Austria. iS6o, England ' France, now to terminate. 1S66, Zollverein " Austria. 1S62, Prussia ' France. 1867, Austria " Italy. The failure of other nations to change their policies convinced him and his associates that the most effective means of paving the way for universal free trade was through treaty stipulations. A clause was inserted in the commercial treaties known as " the most favored nation clause," by which it was agreed, for instance, in the treaty between Prussia and England, that British goods should be admitted upon the same terms or rates of duty as those of other nations. Under a treaty stipula- tion of this character, which had become common to commercial treaties between all nations, when a new treaty was effected between nations which stood in this relation to other countries, under which import duties were reduced and more liberal trade relations established, Great Britain enjoyed the same advantages as those extended to the contracting parties. Under such an arrangement the existing commercial treaty with Great Britain would at once, by virtue of its terms, attach to the lower rate of duty thus established. By this means a control of the treaty-making powers of the various nations, by Great Britain, would secure a great advantage in the advancement of free trade. Mr. Cobden had no sooner hit upon this plan than all free traders throughout the world were co- operating with him to undermine the protective policies of nations through this system of diplomacy. The whole scheme is exposed by Julius Faucher, in an article on "A New Commercial Treaty," ' in which he boasts of the sharp practice resorted to by free traders in overthrowing protection in Europe. The first victim of Mr. Cobden's sagacity was the Emperor of France. Louis Napoleon became a free trader during his sojourn in England, before ascending the French throne. Through the aid of Michel Chevalier, the reciprocity treaty heretofore spoken of was secured, under which British goods were to be admitted into France under duties ranging from 20 to 30 per cent, a material reduction over former rates; and French silks and many other articles were to be admitted into England free of duty, under the act of parliament which removed all protective tariffs, while at the same time duties were reduced on the import of French wines and liquors. The prospect of capturing the French ' Cobdeu Club Essays, 1-72, p. 265. rROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. market was held out as an inducement to the manufacturers of Germany and other countries, as an advantage which they were all to share in under similar treaties. France was selected by Mr. Cobden as the coun- try which was to take the lead and set the example before Europe in the free trade movement. Julius Faucher says: In his idea she was the ram that was to jump over the free trade stick to make the whole Continental herd follow, lie- could not get it out of his head, because fashions spread from Paris that opinions on legislative questions do so too. What was reallv gained for the free traders l3'ing in ambush all around the French frontier, was. the alliance of the manufacturers in their respective countries, desirous of sharing with the English manufacturers the advantage of the French market, as far as it had become open. The German free traders, however, were ambitious to establish uni- versal free trade and follow the example of England instead of France. It appears that when Mr. Cobden visited Germany he did not have in mind this policy of reciprocity treaties, for Mr. Faucher, speaking of a conversation with Mr. Cobden at this time, and one had ten years later in London, said: I had not quite so sanguine expectations, but thought at that time as little of the auxiliary usefulness of commercial treaties as he did. The very name ol them was odious to me. Ten years later, conversing at London, we found that we had both alike altered our opinion. There lay the whole Continent motionless, and America too. All round the horizon no encouraging symptom, except the evident desire of the Emperor Napoleon to render his people happy against its own will, and beyond its own comprehension. A resort to intrigue and diplomacy after the confidence of the people in protection had remained un.shaken, through open discussion, was most discreditable. The great free trade movement which had been forced into public notice with so much noise, conjecture, prophecy and extra\'agant claims, had made no apparent impression on the Continent, except among theorists. The policy of gaining a point here and another there, and by slow degrees binding a nation to more favorable commercial terms, was seized upon as a last resort of a desperate cause, as expressed by the emi- nent disciple of Cobden quoted from above. Thus the novel form of commercial treaties was artfully brought about in two steps; the first owing to Mr. Cobden and Michel Chevalier, the second owing chiefly to the German and Bfelgian free traders. No particular conspiracy had been necessary. Every one of the wide-spread voluntary forces knew at once himself what he had to do, and every one knew what the other would do. No doubt Europe, to a certain extent, has been taken by surprise. It looked as if commercial treaties were made as of old; what, however, was made, was/rrr trade, nothing but free trade, as much free trade as could be secured on the occasion, here a bit, there a bit— if summed up, a good deal altogether -and yet by far not enough. That this was a deep laid .scheme, a con.spiracy on the part of Mr. Cobden and his aiders and abettors against the industrial life of other AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, ITALY, ETC. nations, carried through by deception and fraud on the people under the guise of commercial treaties, is fully admitted by Julius Faucher, in the fol- lowing passage : It is no longer necessary to keep up even the semblance of such commercial treaties as in olden times had the character and purport of mutually admitting the subjects of the two contracting States as sellers to their respective markets. That was a mere dodge, good for the beginning, and which only the French traders, whose posi- tion in their country was and is still the weakest, were compelled to adopt. Treaties may now at once be clothed in that form which, as was privately understood, the orig- inal Anglo-French treaty, was AestineAJinally to receive on both sides; namely, that of contemporaneous reduction or abolition of protective positions in the tariff of the two contracting parties without reference to the difference in the national origin of the article. Experience has shown that the political advantage — for it is exclusively political— of the alliance of such producers as feel themselves strong enough for com- peting in the foreign market may thus be secured for free trade reforms just as unich as if exclusive advantages were offered to them. That both contracting parties became lied, for a given time, to the respective tariff reforms on which they have agreed, is an advantage into the bargain. It helps over the danger of a reflux of public opinion arising from the trials of the first years.' Mr. Faucher further said, in justification of what he concededly believed to be the advancement of the cause of free trade by underhand and secret means, that ' ' to anticipate the complete victory of reason by using strategy is fully justified in this case morally as well as practically." The principle that the end justified the means and that deception and fraud may be employed, to advance the cause of free trade, has undoubt- edly eased the conscience of free traders in the infamous practices resorted to by the Anti-Corn Law League in getting the best of the farmers of Eng- land as well as in the circulation of falsehoods throughout the United States; in playing all manner of tricks with statistics; misrepresenting the facts of history; in playing the role of demagogues and cheats wherever votes could be secured, custom house officers evaded and the cause of free trade advanced. This distinguished free trader, in speaking of the victories gained in Germany, said: But it has been the result of political strategy being not disdainfully scorned in the great international cause of free trade. . . . For us German free traders the danger of an impending rupture was but one reason more to prefer a treaty of com- merce with Austria, if that was possible, to all others, and early did I communicate to Mr. Cobden that such a treat}- was our next step ; but that I was' afraid of its being extremely difficult to bring about. But the intrigue and deception of Mr. Cobden and his associates have been exposed and rebuked, and the policy which they sought to rivet upon the people of Europe has been repudiated. Although a short period of free trade and a few short years of flooding Continental markets with British ,goods was the result of their effort, yet the actual experience with free trade 'Cobden Club Essays. 1871-2, pp. 278 aud 279. 36 PROTECTION IN CONTINENTAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES. Contrast bctiveen the of England and those of the Con- principles, which was afforded to the people of Europe, has done more to open their ej-es and to expose the errors of Cobdenism than all the books that could have been written. Unemployed labor, idle machinerj', business de- pressions, bankruptcy and starvation, brought about by an application of free trade principles to industrial countries and communities, which had enjoyed prosperity under protection, teach lessons which no amount of sophistry can counteract. European countries were induced to abandon protection because they had not tried free trade. They returned to protection because they had tried both policies. One of the most discouraging fea- tures of the question which to-day is presented to the dogmatic free trader, is the fact that free trade has been abandoned by European countries, after a short trial, which proved mo.st disastrous to their interests, and that they are now more devoted to protection than ever before. The Australian colonies, Canada, India and all of England's possessions have refused to abide by the teachings of the home government. In South America, China and Japan, on every continent, among all civilized and industrial people, the selfish purposes of Great Britain are fully understood. She is no longer able to deceive the people of any country. The principles of protection are everywhere in the ascendency, more cherished than ever before, more potent for good than at any time in the history of the world. They have been vindicated by an actual trial, and will remain as a shield for struggling humanity until the strong cease to oppress or destro}' the weak, and until competition ceases to be waged with a spirit of enmity. It is most important that the investigation pursued by the Royal Com- mission on Depres.sion of Trade and Industry disclosed the fact that while there was a downward tendenc}' of wages in free trade England, between 1876 and 1885, in protectionist countries during the same years the rate of wages had advanced. While the army of unemployed has constantly been increased and less work has been afforded to British laborers tinder their system of free imports, the very reverse has been the result in protected Europe. Factories have been built instead of destroyed. Increased employment has been given to labor in all parts of the Continent through the system of protection. The encouragement given to the cultivation of the soil and reclaiming of waste land, adopting improved methods and increasing the home supply of food, have not only greatly aided the rural population, but prevented that overcrov.-ding of the large cities which has occurred in England. The wi.sdom of securing the widest possible diver- sity of industries and occupations in a den.sely populated country is fully demonstrated by the improvement of the masses which has taken place on the Continent during the past thirty years. Again, the high degree of perfection in manufacturing which is being attained is one of the chief proofs of the wisdom of protection. The aid extended by governments in the establishment of schools for industrial instruction is bearing fruit in the high degree of artistic skill and taste AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, ITALY, ETC. which is being reached. In chemistry, in the dyeing, printing and weav- ing of textile fabrics, the skill displayed in France, Switzerland and Ger- many far excels that possessed bj' the workingmen of any other countries. In the working of metals, the making of delicate and intricate machinerj-, beautiful and artistic wares of all sorts, the pre-eminence of Europe is unquestioned. This high degree of skill has been reached under the .shield of protection. Artisans have been enabled to study designs, make experi- ments and develop a genius and faculty which never could have been brought out under the blighting influence of vigorous competition. While the artisans of the Continent have had room to develop these higher facul- ties, the British manufacturers, in their race for "cheapness," in their efforts to undersell everybody else, have necessarily drifted into the channel of making cheap goods and at last rivals have arisen in nearly ever)- country to take from them their markets by imitating their cheap wares. One of the chief advantages of protection in Europe from a practical commercial point of view is the competitive strength which it gives to their manufacturers. With their own home markets secured they are all now engaged in making a surplus for export, which is not only being placed on the English markets, but distributed throughout the world everywhere in competition with British wares. The excessive production which is taking place in Europe through the u.se of machinery, modern appliances, abundance of capital and by the mo.st highly skilled and efiicient arti.sans in the world, is an important fact to be taken into consideration by the people of the United States in measuring their chances of gaining a foot- hold in the markets of the world. Over 300,000,000 people in Europe are not only preserving and maintaining their home markets, but are glutting ever>' market on the face of the globe with everj' conceivable commodity made by the handicraft of man. Every port in the world, ever}' warehouse is filled with articles from their factories offered for sale at prices which furnish small reward for capital, and but a scanty return for labor. These are the conditions under which the United States is asked to contest for foreign markets. Never in the history of the world has it been so difficult for the United States to maintain its wage rate and the comfort and opulence of its people under free competition as to-day. The very fact that Continental countries are undermining the industrial life of Great Britain and that her industrial centres are filled with alarm and her manufacturers and artisans crying out with distress, makes the proof doubly strong that if the United States should let down or remove her protective barriers every industry would be closed, every wheel silenced and every laborer thrown out of employment. There is .scarcely an article made in the United States but that can be made cheaper in some other part of the world. So long as this situation remains, the only hope of our industrial prosperity lies in the perpetuation of the policy of protection. PART VI. THE TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. CHAPTER I. Early Tariff History to 1833. The greatest want of civilized society is the market for the exchange and sale of its surplus produce. This market may exist at home or abroad, but it must exist somewhere if society prcspers. The home market is first in order and paramount in importance. The object of the bill under consideration is to create this home market, and to lay the foundation oi a. genuine American policy. — Speech of Henry Clay in the House of Representatives, March jo and 31, 1824. The American system of protection has been referred to by writers and speakers for about seventy-five years. It re.ally dates from the tariff of 1824. It is now proposed to show in what way the American system has differed from the .system of any other country, what led to the adoption of the .system, and what has been the result. The keynote is sounded in one .sentence of the above quotation, viz.", that a market must exist if society is to prosper, and that the home market is first in order and paramount in importance. To recite the early history- of our country would be to repeat over and over again the iniquitous methods of Great Britain in keeping us in subjection and preventing us from developing manu- factures. England ever kept one idea uppermost, to strangle in its infancy any attempt on the part of the American colonists to manufac- ture anything for them.selves. All through the early part of the eigh- teenth century laws were continually pa.ssed by parliament to this end; prohibitions of all natures were frequent. Lord Chatham's declaration that he would not permit the colonists to make even a hobnail or a horse- shoe for themselves, has been repeated by writers and speakers for gen- erations, and in that sentence is found the whole policy of England toward the colonies as long as .she was able in any way to control them. To keep the American coloni.sts an agricultural people .solely that they might be dependent upon her for her manufactured articles at her own price, seems to have been the prime object of every act of legislation tending in any way to aiTect the colonies, and for years England was successful in carrying out this policy. EABLV TARIFF HISTORY TO 18SS. By the Navigation Act Great Britain had decreed that no goods or commodities whatever, of the growth, or manufacture of Europe, Africa or America, should be imported into England or Ireland or into any of the plantations (that is, American colonies), except in ships belonging to English subjects of which the master and greater number of the crew should also be English ; consequently the prices of all articles imported as well as those exported, were controlled entirely by the English. They demanded and got their own prices for what we bought of them and they offered their own prices for what we sold them and we had to accept whatever they offered. The efforts on the part of the British parliament to prevent the estab lishtuent of rival industries in the colonies, has been referred to in the treatment of the commercial policy of Great Britain. The effort to compel the colonists to confine themselves to agricultural pursuits did not contemplate that they should furnish the mother country with farm products, because at that time a rigid system of protection to agriculture was being pursued and was continued up to 1846. The expression of parliament that the establishment of manufactories in the New World tended to make them less dependent on the mother country, should be viewed in its commercial rather than its political bearing. These expressions occurred before there was any indica tion of an intention on the part of the colonists to set up an independent government. To maintain the market for British wares was the end that the mother country had in view. The care with which the colonists were watched and the interests of British manufacturers guarded is dis closed by the constant reports of the king's representatives in the colonies upon the subject, and the investigations which were successively made to see that all efforts at iron smelting, and textile manufacturing were immediately suppressed. But, however powerful the British Govern- ment might have been it could not control the domestic pursuits of the people. The raising of flax, the keeping of sheep, the weaving of linen and woolen, and the making of rude implements in the households and on the farms, could not be suppressed. In the efforts to supply their own wants every farmer became a mechanic or a jack-at-all-trades; this gave birth to that Yankee ingenuity which fitted the people of the colonies to become great inventors, artisans and mechanics as soon as an opportunity was given them to establish fiscal regulations and direct their energies to industrial pursuits. The efforts on the part of the mother country to restrict the enterprises and curb the energies of her aspiring and ambitious sons played no small part in arousing that .spirit of patriotism and sense of justice which ultimately found expression in the Declara- tion of Independence and in the establishment of a free government. In 1 77 1 the imports of the colonies exceeded the exports by $13,750,000, a vast sum for that period. The people were not only TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. impoverished but were fast losing spirit and ambition. The leaders of the times saw that it could continue no longer, and there was no recourse except through a revolt, with what success need not here be recounted. In 1776 the Continental Congress, after signing the Declaration of Independence, urged the colonies to form .separate State governments. This had already been done bj- the State of New Hampshire, which adopted a con.stitution in June of that year. Following this suggestion of Congress the colonies all adopted con.stitutions with the exception of Connecticut and Rhode Island, which continued under their royal charters. The form of government under which the Revolutionary war was fought consi.sted of a confederation of these new States for mutual defence. Representatives were sent by each State to a Con- tinental Congress which in a general way directed the affairs of the Confederacy in the conduct of the war. Articles of Confederation were adopted in the spring of 1781, under which bills of credit or Continental monejr were issued and a postal system and war department established. The executive officers were the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secre- tary of War and Foreign Affairs, who performed the duties of Secretary of State. This form of government continued until the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. As a directing body to press the Revolution through to a successful termination the Continental Congress had thesjni- pathetic assistance and aid of all of the States. Yet as a legislative body to make laws for the government of a nation, it lacked authority. During the period of the confederation no duties could be imposed excepting by the States themselves for the protection and encouragement of indus- tries. It is during this time that we find in the action of the State legis- latures the first step toward the encouragement of manufacturing. Prior to the establishment of these State governments such regulations were strictly prohibited by parliament and when the constitution was adopted in 1789 the power of imposing duties on imports and of regulating commerce between nations was vested in the general government. Certain States had attempted to impose duties on imports, but for the want of concerted action such attempts invariably failed. Penn- .sylvania e.stablished a duty of 2>^ per cent, but New Jersey's free port at Burlington served to nullify Pennsylvania's action. New Jersey voted to allow Congress to impose a general tariif but New York objected. New Jersey then retaliated by opening a free port at Paulus Hook oppo- site New York City, and New York merchants took advantageof it and got their goods free of duty through this port as did Philadelphia merchants through Burlington. But such action was of course suicidal. Congress could impo.se no duties without the consent of all thirteen States and this could not be had. Each State regulated its own trade and imposed duties not only on foreign products but on the products of other States. Each one was jealous of the other and none were prosperous. Wisdom EABLY TARIFF HISTORY TO 1S33. finally prevailed and a constitution was adopted empowering Congress to impose uniform duties. . At the close of the Revolutionary war the colonists occupied the same position with relation to the nations of Europe as Venice occupied in the fourteenth century toward the city of Damascus and the industries of Asia. They were in the same condition that France and Germany were in the .seventeenth century as regards Holland, Flanders and the Italian cities, and the English people in the sixteenth century when their markets were controlled by the Dutch, Flemish, Italians and Germans. From Maine to Florida every separate seaport and market from the time of the earliest settlement in 1607 had been supplied with the manufactures of Europe. The 3,000,000 of people who gained their independence had devoted their energies to agricultural pursuits. In 1777 John Dickinson, of Pennsylvania, wrote: "We are tillers of the earth from Nova Scotia to West Florida." An experience of one hundred and fifty years proved that the climate and soil were suited to the growth of a great variety of cereals, vege- tables, fruits and fibres. The mineral resources of the country were not imknown. The vast water power of the New England States, together with the wants and needs of the people, had suggested the advantages which might be derived from manufacturing and mining as well as from agriculture. Agriculture was regarded as of the highest import- ance, as shown in the language of Daniel Webster: "Agriculture feeds, to a great extent it clothes us; without it we .should not have manu- factures; we should not have commerce. The3' all stand together like pillars in a clu.ster, the largest in the centre, and that largest is agriculture. ' ' While the statesmen of the time recognized the importance of agri- culture, they were familiar with the economic policy by which the nations of Europe, especially England, had not only improved this industry but developed manufacturing and mining, and had increased the opportunities for industrial progress, by which larger employment was found for their people and greater national prosperity and opulence secured. At the close of the Revolutionarj' war Great Britain was in the midst of that protective period which had been so vigorousl}- pursued since the time of Elizabeth. During the so-called period of Confeder- ation, from 1783 to 1789, we find for the first and perhaps the last time in the recent history of the world, a nation under absolute free trade. It took but little time to demonstrate what such a system will bring upon a country. In three years' time nearly all the country's money had passed into the pockets of British merchants and manufacturers, and we were almost without the means to make or raise anything for ourselves. With no tariff whatever, our shores were heaped with the products of every nation, of such kind and description that we could not make even a feeble attempt to establish any competing industries of our TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. own. Our imports from Great Britain alone in 1784 and 1785 were $30,000,000, while to her we exported only $8,000,000. The following table will show our whole trade with England from 1784 to 1790, inclusive: Exports. Imports- 1784, /749.345 .^3,679.467 1785 893,594 2,308,023 1786, ■ 843,119 1,603,465 1787 893,637 2,009,111 1788, 1,023,789 1,886,142 17S9, 1,050,198 2,525,298 1790 1,191,071 3,431,778 ^6,644,753 ;fi7,443,284 Thus it will be seen that in seven years the excess of imports over exports exceeded $52,000,000, an enormous drain in those early days of our history. This was the result of absolute free trade. In the words of David H. Mason : As this was the closest approach to absolute free trade tried by this country, so there was the largest harvest of dangers and calamities ever experienced by the American people. Had there been no free trade there would have been no inunda- tion of foreign goods. Had there been no inundation of foreign goods there would have been no drain of specie. Had there been no drain of specie there would have been no lack of a circulating medium. Had there been no such distress there would have been no impulse toward insubordination to the State. At last our forefathers awakened to the real cause of their condition and took steps to bring about a change. A constitutii3nal convention was called, a constitution was adopted and in the face of the declaration of the Democratic party of the United States in their platform adopted at Chicago in 1892 that protection is unconstitutional, it may not be amiss to inquire for a moment what ideas were in the minds of our forefathers and the early statesmen of the government, when they met in 1789 and established a con.stitutional government. Daniel Webster, in a speech at Buffalo, June, 1833, declared that, ' ' The protection of American labor against the injurious competi- tion of foreign labor, so far at least as respects general handicraft produc- tions, is known historically to have been one end designed to be obtained by establishing the Constitution." In a speech at Albany, in August, 1S44, he said: In Colonial times, and during the time of the convention, the idea was held up that domestic industry could not prosper, manufactures and the mechanic arts could not advance, the condition of the conmion country could not be carried up to any consideral)le elevation, unless there should be one government to lay one rate of duty upon imports throughout the Union, regard to be had, in laying this duty, to the protection of American labor and industry. I defv the man in any degree conversant with the history, in any degree acquainlt'd with Ihf annals'of this country from 17S7 to 17S9, when the Con.^^titution EARLY TARIFF HISTORY TO 1833. was adopted, to say that protection of American labor and industry was not a lead- ing, I might almost say the leading, motive. South as well as North, for the forma- tion of the new government. Without that provision in the Constitution it never could have been adopted. Ruftis Choate, who made a careful study of this matter, declared: A whole people, a whole generation of our fathers, had in view, as one grand end and purpose of their new government, the acquisition of the means of restrain- ing, by governmental action, the importation of foreign manufactures, for the encouragement of manufactures and labor at home; and desired and meant to do this by clothing the new government with this specific power of regulating com- merce. This whole countrj', with one voice, demanded to have inserted in the Constitution the power to enact protective legislation, a power which they held as another declaration of independence — a power by which we are able to protect all our children of labor. This power must not be surrendered, must not sleep, until the Union flag shall be hauled down from the last mast-head — a slight which, I trust, neither we nor our children to the thousandth generation are doomed to see. In the debate on the first tariff bill in 1789, Fisher Ames said: " I conceive, sir, that the present Constitution was dictated by commercial necessity more than by any other cause. The want of an efficient gov- ernment to secure the manufacturing interests, and to advance our com- merce, was long seen by men of judgment and pointed out by patriots solicitous to prouiote our general welfare. ' ' A mass of evidence of this nature could be cited but the fact that many of the very men who made the Constitution helped to frame the first tariff law with its protective features, coupled with the fact that the first President of the Republic concurred in their views must be conclu- sive as to their motives and intentions. Section VIII of the Constitution reads, that Congress shall have power : I. "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the commoji defence and ge7ieral welfare of the United States, but all duties, imposts and excises shall be tmiform throughout the United States. 3. "7(7 regulate commerce ivith foreign nations," etc. In the light of what followed and has continued till the present day it seems superfltious to attempt a defence of the fact that protective duties have been for the "general welfare of the United States," and that they have served to "regulate commerce with foreign countries." There could be no stronger or more conclusive proof that the makers of the Constitution intended to bestow upon Congress the power to impose duties for protection as well as revenue than the fact that the very first measure, save an act to regulate the form of official oaths, was a tariff bill embodying the principles of protection. The preamble to this act read: TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. "Whereas, it is necessary for the support of the government for the discharge of the debt of the United States, and/or the enco7irageme7it and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on imported goods, etc., therefore be it enacted," etc. Here was a bill framed and passed within a few months after the making of the Constitution. The same men, the same minds, contributed to both. There was not a protest that the bill was unconstitutional. It not only carried out the letter and spirit of the Constitution, but there is not a particle of doubt but that the main causes that led to the adoption of the Constitution was that .such a bill should be framed and made a law by Congress. As has been shown we were an. agricultural people. We could not manufacture for ourselves under the rule of England. Our Congressmen were farmers. They saw that a home market was essen- tial to their prosperity. They saw that we must manufacture for our- selves. And in the minds of those farmer statesmen were awakening into life the first thoughts of an American tariff system, a system with a home market as its foundation, with protection to all industries as its keystone. They had no thought of the welfare or ruin of England or France or the rest of the world. They made a constitution and passed laws for America and Americans. Five of the leading men who sup- ported that first tariff bill afterward became, presidents. That the thought of establishing an American system was foremost in the minds of tho.se patriot fathers can be gleaned from what Jefferson said upon accepting an election to membership in a Society for the Encourage- ment of Domestic Manufactures, in 1817. He wrote: The history of the last twenty years has been a significant lesson for us all to depend for necessaries on ourselves alone; and I hope twenty years more will place the American hemisphere under a system of its own. essentially peaceable ami industrious and not needing to extract its comforts out of the eternal fires raging in the old world. Wa.shington, Adams and Jefferson were outspoken concerning the need of protection. "The safety and welfare of the people," .said Wash- ington, "require that they promote .such manufactures as to render them independent of others for essentials. " John Adams, in speaking of the tariff and its effects, in his last annual message, said: "This result affords conclusive evidence of the great resources of the country and of the wisdom and efficiency of the measures which have been adopted by Congress. ' ' Jefferson continually referred to the beneficence of a protec- tive tariff in his messages, in public papers and private correspondence. Our fourth President, James Madison, gained the reputation of being "the father of the Constitution." He was also supposed to be the author of the preamble of the fir.st tariff law. Mr. Madison him.self intro- duced that fir.st tariff bill into Congress, defended and with thu aid of EARLY TARIFF HISTORY TO 1S33. his fellow statesmen, excepting eight only, passed it. Afterward, in a special message to Congress, May 23, 1809, he said: " It will be worthy of the just and provident care of Congress to make such further altera- tions in the laws as will more especially protect and foster the several branches of manufactures which have been recently instituted or extended by the laudable exertions of our citizens. ' ' In Pitkin's Statistics we find the following: One of the objects which claimed the attention of the First Congress, under the new form of government, was the encouragement and protection of the manu- facturing as well as the commercial interests of the country. In laying duties on imports in July, 1789, Congress had reference, as the preamble of the act impos- ing them declares, to "the protection and encouragement of manufactures." This was, also, openly avowed, on the iioor of the House of Representatives, in the debates on the first tariff established by the general government. The first Secretary of the Treasury (Hamilton), whose powerful mind seemed intuitively fully to comprehend ever>- subject to which it bent its force, was the great advocate of American manufactures. In his celebrated report on this subject, presented to the House of Representatives, in January, 1791, every argimient was urged and we may truly add, exhausted, in favor of the policy and expediency of protecting and encouraging this branch of domestic economy. The constitutionality of a protective tariff was never questioned in those early days. It is doubtful if there was any anticipation that it would ever be. But the question was settled once and for all not onls' by the speeches of "the father of the Constitution," but by all his coad- jutors. Those statesmen were in perfect accord. The Constitution was adopted and a tariff bill framed and passed providing for both revenue and protection at the will and command of the people. Said Mr. Madi- -son : ' ' The people adopted the new con.stitution, I believe, under a uni- versal expectation that we should establish higher duties." Having in mind the duties impo.sed by the different States he added, "Those States have now relinquished the power of continuing their systems, but under the impression that a more eflScient government would effectually support their views." There was no equivocation, no attempt at ambiguity. Says R. W. Thompson, in his "History of the Protective Tariff," con- cluding an exhaustive treatment of this subject: The tariff law of 17S9, therefore, must fairly and justly be accepted as having settled, as far as could be done by legislation, the constitutionality of giving protection to manufactures, and as having laid the foundation upon which the pro- tective policy has since rested. He, who, after becoming familiar with the plain and precise facts, perversely insists upon putting a different interpretation upon them, makes his "wish father to the thought," or is singularly incapable of understand- ing history and the philosophy it teaches. It is not necessary to fill pages, as could be done, with testimony corroborative of the honesty of purpose of the founders of the Republic. The reader, however, will not think too much has been said or quoted TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. when such scholars as Professor Taussig declare that: "For twenty years after the formation of the Union other subjects so absorbed the attention of public men that no distinct opinion appears in their utterances for or against protective duties." ' A careful reader of the history of the early days of the Republic on finding it teeming with very distinct and most emphatic utterances in favor of protective duties would advise Professor Taussig to reconstruct his tariff history. The act of July 4, 1789, levied duties on thirty-five articles. Fur- ther acts were passed in 1790, 1791, 1792, 1794, 1795, 1797, 1800, 1804, 1807, 1808. In the law of 1808 over one hundred and seventy-five arti- cles were enumerated bearing duties and about thirty articles were admitted free. Shortly after the passage of the first tariff law a resolution was passed in the House of Representatives instructing Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, to prepare and report a plan, "for the encour- agement and promotion of such manufactures as will tend to render the United States independent of other nations for essential, particularly for military, supplies. ' ' The report has ever been considered a masterpiece. No public document has ever shown greater care, greater clearness, greater wisdom. Hamilton showed that he was a thorough protectionist, in entire harmony with the leading statesmen of the day. He argued for a home market, for diversification of industry, and for industrial independence. It is needless to add that the report was approved and acted upon. The reader has seen how England drained us of over $50,000,000 during the Confederation when we had absolutely free trade. In five years after the tariff law of 1789 went into operation the balance of trade with Great Britain stood in our favor. During the seven years from 1795 to 1801 inclusive, our exports to the mother country exceeded our imports by $90,000,000. Our revenue soon began to exceed our expenditures. Our public debt was reduced from $80,000,000 in 1793 to $45,000,000 in 1812, at the breaking out of our second war with Great Britain. Our prosperity was manifest on all sides for twenty-five years following that first tariff. In 1808 came the embargo to meet the Berlin and Milan decrees of Napoleon and the British Orders in Council. This retaliatory move was extremely unpopular and in 1809 it was followed with the Non-Intercourse Act, which applied only to our trade with England and France. One complication after another followed, till in 18 12 war was again declared against Great Britain and all connnercial intercourse cea.sed. As a means of raising a war reveime all existing import duties were doubled. European trade was virtually at an end and American manufactories sprang up to supply the demand for those articles hereto- fore imported. It may not be uninteresting before going further 1 T;irin Uislurv of tlic mitcil Stales, p. I.'. EARLY TARIFF HISTORY TO 1833. to Study the returns of manufacture in 1810 prepared by order of the government. The estimate was prepared by Mr. Tench Coxe, and was follows : Goods manufactured by the loom, from cotton, wool, hemp, flax, and silk, including .stockings Other goods spun from the fine materials above enumerated, . . . Instruments and machinery manufactured, estimated at 1186,630, carding, fulling, and floor-cloth staining by machinery, estimated at |5,957,8i6, Hats of wool, fur, etc., and from mixtures thereof, Manufactures of iron, Manufactures of gold, silver, set- work, mixed metals, etc., . . . Manufactures of lead, ... Soap, tallow, candles and wax, spermaceti, and whale oil, . . . Manufactures of hides and skins, Manufactures from seeds Manufactures from grain, fruit, and case liquors, distilled and fermented, . Dry manufactures from grain, exclusive of flour, meal, etc. , . . . Manufactures of wood, Manufactures of essences of oils, Refined sugar, Manufactures of paper, paste boards, cards, etc., Manufactures of gla,ss, Manufactures of marble, stone, and slate, Earthen manufactures, Tobacco manufactures, Drugs, dye-stuffs, and dyeing, Cables and cordage, Manufactures of hair, Various and miscellaneous manufactures, $ 39.497,057 2,052, 120 6,144,446 4,328,744 14,364,526 2,483,912 1,766,292 17,935.4' 858,589 16,528,206 75,767 5,554,708 179, 150 1,415.724 1,939.285 1,047,004 462,115 259, 720 1,260,378 500,382 4,243,168 129,731 4.347,611 Total $127,694,602 This would be a remarkable showing under any circumstances, but considering the condition of the people when a tariff was adopted, con- sidering the constant hostility of England to our industrial progress and considering the fact that we had only the crudest of machinery, the progress of our forefathers in manufacture was indeed marv-elous. Eng- land had passed the most stringent laws again.st the exportation of any textile machinery. In 1774 a restrictive statute was enacted, and in 1 78 1 still another statute was enacted amending the former act and pro- hibiting the exportation of Any machine, engine, tool, press, paper, utensil, or implement whatever, which now is, or may at any time be, used or proper for the preparing, working, press- ing, finishing, or completing of linen, cotton, wool or silk manufactures of this kingdom, or any other goods wherein wool, cotton or silk is used, or any part of such machine, etc., or any model or plan of such machine. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. It was not till 1845 that these prohibitions were wholty removed and while in existence they were strictly enforced and very rarely evaded. Attempts were made to smuggle models into this country, but all such efEorts failed. The consequence was that we were thrown entirely on our own resources and we became a creative and inventive people. As she had done before the Confederation, so again did England overreach herself and compel us to become industrially independent. We were equal to the occasion as England soon learned to her cost. We would willingly have bought her machinery, but she compelled us to make our own. In the words of John Hayes: "Forced to be self-reliant, our textile arts and our machinery are as original and characteristic as our indigenous plants, and, we may add, as noble and symmetrical as our native elms." The close of the war in 1815 brought with it a change of import duties, and as the result was so disastrous it will be well to examine closely the causes. President Madison in his special message of 1815, declaring the war at an end and the treaty of peace, said : The reviving interest of commerce will claim the legislative attention at the earliest opportunity, and .such regulations will, I trust, be seasonably devised asshall securetotheUnitedStatestheir just proportion of the navigation of the world. . . . But there is no subject that can enter with greater forceand merit into the delibera- tions of Congress, than the consideration of the means to preserve and promote the manufactures which have sprung into existence, and attained an unparalleled maturity throughout the United States during the period of the European wars. This source of national independence and wealth I anxiously recommend, there- fore, to the prompt and constant guardianship of Congress. Mr. Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury, in approving of the report made by Mr. Coxe, said : And it is not improbable that the raw materials used, and the provisions and other articles con.sumed, by the manufacturers, created a home market for agri- cultural products not very inferior to that which might have arisen from foreign demand— a result more favorable than might have been expected from a view of the natural causes which impede the introduction, and retard the progress of manu- factures in the United States. Here we find another allusion to the home market which was rapidly becoming of no inconsiderable importance. As the years went on, in .spite of war and foreign hostility, the American people, becoming more and more self-reliant and industrially independent, were building up both consciously and unconsciously a home market that was to be the corner-stone, yes. the very foundation of the American System of Protec- tion. As we follow the development of this system we shall see what made .such a market po.ssible and profitable; a market destined to over- shadow all the markets of the world combined. As James Madison was the leading mind in making the Constitution and framing the first tariff law, so he was a prime mover in the adoption of the tariff law of 18 16. He was ably seconded by his Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Dallas, who EARLY TARIFF HISTORY TO 18SS. made a report to Congress recommending an increase of duties not for revenue alone but for the express purpose of giving further protection to manufactures. In this report he sa}-s: The interests of agriculture require a free and constant access to a market for its surplus, and a ready supply of all the articles of use and consumption on reasonable terms; but ike national interest may j-eqiiire the esiablis/iment of a domestic in preference to a foreign market, and the employment of domestic in preference to foreign labor, in furnishing the necessary supplies. The Committee of Commerce and Manufacture of the Fourteenth Con- gress was composed of Representatives from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the North and South being equally represented. All were practical men. They considered the resources of the country' and the efforts of England to break down our industries. The high duties of 1812 imposed to meet the demands of the war failed in their object, owing to the cessation of foreign commerce, especially with Great Britain, but this very lack of importations was a blessing because of the impetus given to the manufac- turing of articles before then imported. To preserve these industries that had arisen during the war was the chief concern of Congress in 18 16. In the discussion which took place on the then pending tariff bill can be found frequent allusions to an American policy and system of pro- tection. The main defence of the bill was entrusted to John C. Calhoun, who in the course of his debate referring to the fact that since the close of the war England was flooding our markets with her goods, said: "To this distressing state of things there are two remedies, and only two: one in our power immediately, the other requiring much time and exer- tion; but both constituting, in my opinion, the essential policy of this country. ' ' The bill had been reported unanimously from the above men- tioned committee and was supported by the leading statesmen of the day, including Henry Clay, William Lowndes, Samuel D. Ingham and others besides Mr. Calhoun. It was passed in the House by a vote of eighty- eight to fifty-four, and in the Senate by a vote of twenty-five to seven. Thirty-one of the negative votes came from the Southern States though it is not contended that as yet any sectional opinion as such had arisen on the tariff question. It matters not what was the effect of the bill on the prosperity of the country. It was meant to be a thoroughly protective measure and was supposed to be framed with duties high enough to give encouragement to new industries and protection to those already established. That it did not succeed to the extent anticipated was due to causes unforeseen at the time of its pas.sage. England now realized as she had not hitherto done that the United States was fast becoming a manufacturing nation. By the Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts and the War of 1812, England had been deprived of our market much to her loss and our gain. We TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. had been compelled to rely upon ourselves, and with the passage of the thoroughly protective tariff of i8i6webade fair to continue and preserve by protection what we had gained by prohibition and war. It would never do to lose the American market without a struggle and England was peculiarly prepared at this time to make a most vigorous attack upon our industries. She was overburdened with accumulated goods of all kinds and her leaders saw the opportunity to overwhelm us with cheap wares, of which they were not slow to take advantage. The matter was brought before parliament, and though a part of the oft-quoted .speech of Lord Brougham has been used elsewhere in these pages, it was at this time that the speech was made and its suggestions first carried out. The sentence that Americans should always have in -mind when considering England's policy toward this countrj% is as follows: " /i is worth while to incur a loss 2ip07i the first exportation, in order, by the glut, to stifle in the cradle those infa^it manufactures in the United States, which the war has forced into existence.'' The system of commercial warfare, the battle of fabrics, referred to by Lord Brougham, should not be lost sight of in framing an economic policy for a country. The fact that free and fair competition does not exist and is wholly disre- garded by commercial rivals; the fact that strong and powerful pro- ducers take advantage of conditions and overwhelm and deliberately ruin weaker competitors, and then, after securing the market, raise the price of their commodities and compel consumers to make good the loss which their successful rivals have incurred in order to secure a monopoly of trade, is entirely lost sight of and little understood by many who have been misled by the plausible theory of free trade. The deliberate exercise of this unfair method played a large part in arousing the American people to the necessities of raising a protective barrier to shield the labor and capital of the country from such invasion of the country. Not only did England glut our markets with the cheapest of wares, but she adopted other measures tending still further to destroy our indus- tries. Says Niles in his history: It is notorious that great .sums of money were expended bj- the British to destroy our flocks of sheep, that they might thereby ruin our manufactories. They bought up and immediately slaughtered great numbers of sheep ; they bought our best machinery and sent it off to England, and hired our best mechanics and most skill- ful workmen to go to England, simply to get them out of this country, and so hinder and destroy our existing and prospective manufactures. Weighted down as we were, by a large war debt, with our markets continually filled with English wares, we suffered from a ruinous drain of specie. Our import duties, intended though they were to keep out foreign goods, were far too low to accomplish that end and we were at England's mercy. Our debt had increa.sed from 5^45, 000,000 in 1812 to EARLY TARIFF HISTORY TO 183.3. $127,000,000 in 1816. Our imports in 1814 amounted to less than $13,000,000. In the four j-ears succeeding they were as follows: 1815 $113,041,274 l,Sl6 147,103,000 1S17, 99,250,000 1818, 121,750,000 Our exports for these four years amounted to $252,000,000, a balance against us of $229,000,000 which had to be paid for in specie as we were unable to settle the account in goods. Our condition became mo.st deplor- able. Says Benton, writing of this period later: No price for property ; no sales except those of the sheriff and the marshal ; no employment for industry; no demand for labor; no sale for the products of the farm ; no sound of the hammer, except that of the auctioneer knocking down prop- erty. Distress was the universal cry of the people ; relief, the universal demand, was thundered at the doors of all legislatures, State and Federal. Though a protective tariff law intended as such had been enacted, >et it really was a free trade statute and brought about a free trade period. It matters not how high an import duty may be, if it is not sufficiently high to keep out foreign goods, it is not protective. No duty is protective if the foreign manufacturer is willing to pay this duty, sacrificing his own profit, and sell us his goods cheaper than we can make theiii, in order to ruin our industries and then step in and control the market. A tariff, however high, is still a low tariff when it will not prevent the importation of manufactures that should be made at home. In 18 16 young as were our industries and small as was our population, 70,000 operatives were discharged and made idle or driven to the farms. The agriculturist thereby not only lost his market but had to divide his profits so that his productions hardly paid for the marketing. Prices, especially of agricultural products, continued to fall rapidly throughout 1819, for the European harvests were again abundant and the English Corn Laws began to have their effect. That general readju-st- ment of industry and scaling down of prices, inevitable after the long and costly Napoleonic wars, fell now with crushing weight on the Ameri- can ship-owner and farmer. It is during the decade from 1819 to 1828, inclusive, that we may trace the very rapid growth of sentiment in favor of the "American System," as the writers and speakers of that daj' delighted to call it. As a prominent writer says: "The distress that followed the crisis of 18 18- 19 brought out a plentiful crop of pamphlets in favor of protection, of societies and conventions for the promotion of domestic industry, of petitions and memorials to Congress for higher duties." Of the protective literature of this epoch there is nothing better or more to the point than an "Address of the Society of Tammany, or 37 TARIFF QVESriOX IN THE UNITED STATES. Columbian Order, to Its Absent Members and the Members of the Several Branches Throughout the United States. ' ' From this address the follow- ing is taken : Brothers: A deep shadow has passed over our land, a commercial and individ- ual gloom has created a universal stillness. In our remotest villages the hammer is not heard, and in our large cities the din and bustle of thrifty industry has ceased. A remedy for this evil would be precious as rubies to him who values the institutions of the country, and glories in its indigenous greatness. It is the most grateful to the American ear and nearest to the American heart ; it is the encour- agement of our own manufactures. Towards the close of the year 1819 a convention of the "Friends of National Industry ' ' assembled in the City of New York, at which were present delegates from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, IMassachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Ohio. That indefatigable champion of protection, Mathew Carey, acted as secretary. On motion, it was recorded: That it be recommended in the most earnest manner, to the manufacturers and their fellow citizens in the different States, to form societies for the encouragement of domestic industry; and to call a convention in each State on the third Monday m December following, for the purpose of ascertaining the rise, progress and decay of manufactures throughout the Union. A memorial was then ordered to be transmitted to Congress and printed. The memorial itself portrays vividly the existing prostration of manufactures, concluding as follows: While so manj- of our manufacturers are thus ruined — our working people desti- tute of employment and of the means to support their families — and our water powers, with which we are pre-eminently blessed, unemployed ; our cities and towns are filled with the manufactured productions of other nations, by which we have been and are ruinou.sly drained of our wealth. That these complicated evils which oppress us, and which have taken place during a season of profound peace of nearly five years' duration, after a war closed with honor which left us in a state of high prosperity, evince that there is something radically unsound in our policy, which requires a radical remedy, in the power of the national legislature alone to supply. A comparative table of British and American import duties on manu- factured goods was appended, showing that the British rates averaged over four times the American rates. Early in 1820 a determined effort was made to change the tariff. A committee on manufactures had been appointed on December 8, 18 19, by the House of Repre.sentatives, and petitions and memorials were almost daily pouring in ; but it was not until the twenty-second of March, 1820, that the .subject was finally taken up. The bill presented by the Connnittee on Manufactures having been read in the House, on the twenty-first of April, Mr. Baldwin, of Penn- sylvania, chairman of the committee, .spoke in its defence: If this bill, said Mr. Baldwin, either in its general principles or in its details, cannot be supported on national principles, we are willing that it shall fall. We EAELY TARIFF HISTORY TO 1833. have thought that this nation can never be flourishing and independent unless it can supply from its own resources its food, ,its clothing, and the means of defence ; that to be dependent upon foreign nations for the articles essential for these pur- poses, is inconsistent with true policy, and that the system which has entailed on us this dependence must be radically changed. The present is not a forced, but the natural settled state of the country ; and it requires no reasoning to prove that measures calculated on a general war in Europe will not suit a general state of peace ; they must and -will be controlled by circumstances. Gentlemen tell us of the advantage of a free exchange of the produce of the world ; but they tell us of that which never existed, does not exist, and perhaps never will exist. They invite us to give perfect freedom on our side, while in the ports of every other nation vfe are met with a code of odious restrictions, shutting out entirely a great part of our produce and letting in only so much as they cannot do without. If the governing consideration were cheapness, if national independ- ence were to weigh nothing, if honor nothing, why not subsidize foreign powers to defend us? Why not hire Swiss and Hessian armies to protect us? We should probably consult economy by these dangerous expedients. I repeat it, let us proclaim to the people of the United States the incontestable truth that our foreign trade must be circumscribed by the altered state of the world ; and leaving it in possession of all the gains which it can now possibly make, let us present motives to the capital and labor of our country to employ themselves in fabrications at home. Referring to works on political economy, Henry Clay said with fine sarcasm : I, too, sometimes amuse myself with the visions of those writers, as I do with those of metaphysicians and novelists; and if I do not forget, one of the best among them enjoins upon a country to protect its industries against the injurious influ- ence operating upon it from the prohibitions and restrictions of foreign countries. The war of our Revolution effected our political emancipation ; the last war contributed greatly toward achieving our commercial freedom ; but our entire independence will only be consummated after the policy of this bill shall be recog- nized and adopted. Among the political pamphlets that appeared during this year of tariff agitation was a "Circtilar and Address of the National Institution for Promoting Industry in the United States," to their fellow-citizens. This pamphlet attacks the current interpretations of Adam Smith's economic doctrines, so far as they relate to freedom of trade ; and goes on to show the expediency and justice of protecting home manufactures. Another pamphlet of the year 1820 worthy of mention, was a stir- ring address to the people of the United States, called by its author "Plain Sense on National Industry." In one place the author says: "Adam Smith 7v>-ofe and the British Government adcd, taking care to have Mr. Smith's book sent to foreign countries and translated into foreign languages. These countries were much influenced by it, while Great Britain practiced directly against it." The tariff bill finally passed the House of Representatives, on April 28, 1820, the vote .standing ninety to sixty-nine. It was twice read in TMUFF QVESriOX IN THE UMTED STATES. the Senate on May i, and three days later was postponed indefinitely, by a bare majority, twenty-two to twenty-one. But little eiTort was made to increase the tariff until early in 1824, when, on the eleventh of Feb- ruary, the House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill to amend the several acts for imposing duties on imports. We have now come to the year which was to .see enacted the first di.stinctly protective tariff — that of 1S24. The tariff bill of this year was passed by a combination of Middle and Western States, together with Rhode Island and Connecticut. The South was strongly in opposition. It will now be in order to examine the educational forces that were at work throughout the country, both upon the people and upon their repre- sentatives in Congress, during the early months of 1824. There was one publication of that time which seems to comprehend and sum up all the current arguments and pleas in behalf of a protective policy. It was a sixteen-page serial pamphlet called "The Political Econonii.st, " edited by Mathew Carey, father of Henry C. Carey. It was published weekly in Philadelphia, from January 24, to April 24, except that no number appeared from February 28 to March 20. Each number was headed with this quotation from "The Wealth of Nations:" "Whatever tends to diminish in any countrj- the number of artificers and manufacturers, tends to diminish the home market, the most important of all markets for produce of the land ; and thereby, still further discourage agriculture. ' ' The -second article of the first number was a comparison of the policy of Great Britain with that of the United States on the subject of manu- factures. To make this comparison more forcible, the "deadly parallel" was employed. There was a .series of letters written b>- Mathew Carey on the .subject, "Extravagant Importations the Bane of National Prosperity, " and signed "Hamilton." He began by assuming, as undeniable: (i) That this country enjoys advantages — natural, moral and political — never excelled and rarely equaled; (2) that a nation possessing such transcendent advantages, and free from the desolation of war, famine and pestilence, could not — except under a policy radically unsound — fail to enjoy uninterrupted prosperity. ■ He gave statistics and arguments to prove that the financial depre.s- sion and wide-spread suffering had been due to over-importation, result- ing in a constant drain of specie and the breakdown of American manufactures, and concludes as follows: Since the first formation of government, there probably never was a greater sacrifice made of national wealth and prosperity or of individual happiness in a time of peace; — and never had the rulers of a free people a heavier account tosettle with history and posterity, by whom the pernicious system we pursue will be duly appreciated. "A Memorial of the Farmers, Mechanics and Merchants of the County of Rensselaer, New York," praying for a revision of the tariffs; EARLY TARIFF HISTORY TO 1833. and ail extract from an address delivered before an agricultural society of Northampton, Mass., were among the contributions to the " Political Economist.". There was also a unique series of articles entitled "The Wealth of Nations," under which head were presented — to use the words of the author — Those sound maxims of political economy by the practice of which the pros- perous nations of Europe have attained to the high degree of wealth, power and resources which they have enjoyed. They (the maxims quoted) shall all be simple and intelligible, and from the most unexceptionable authorities. Among the works quoted from were Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures," Anderson, "On Industrj-," Jefferson's "Report on United States Commerce in Foreign Countries, " and others. Through- out the "Political Economist" runs a series of "Examinations" of Judge Cooper's "Tract on a Modification of the Tariff. " In 1S23 Judge Cooper, at that time president of Columbia College, S. C, had appeared as the relentless enemy of the manufacturers, whom he characterized as "an associating, club-meeting, committee-forming, paragraph-writing, memo- rializing, urging, teasing set of men," governed solely by their own interests. And he even went so far as to hint darkly that the South would not submit to further protection of the manufacturing interests. This same Thomas Cooper was, in 1813, Judge of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, at which time he had published his views on the tariff, giving lucid and forcible arguments in favor of protection to manufac- tures. Another series of articles is signed "A Looker-on, ' ' and a foot-note says that the writer is a Southern planter. His breadth of view and liberality of sentiment will be shown from the following quotation : There is too much capital and skill employed in every department of political economy in Europe to be rivaled here without some aid in the commencement. Dint of circumstances alone cannot be depended upon to overcome the mass of experience that Europe presents. To develop and bring into requisition the extra- ordinary resources of the country' calls for federation aid — calls for premiums and temporary sacrifices. ShaU we let such masses of iron, copper, lead, zinc, coal and salt — materials connected with our very independence — slumber in the bowels of the earth, when a little protection, a little sacrifice, would bring them all in active production. And is it extraordinary that we should ask our government to aid in developing our own resources? The last number of the "Political Economist" was entirely devoted to Henry Clay's great speech delivered before the House of Representa- tives, March 30 and 31, 1824. Of all the economic ideas enunciated in the course of this remarkable speech, it will be possible to notice only one or two in addition to the one already quoted at the beginning of the chapter. He said, "The great desideratum in political economy is the same as in private pursuits, /. e., what is the best application of the aggregate industry of a nation that can be made honestly to produce the largest sum of national wealth?" And then in somewhat different TARIFF QFESTJOX IX THE FXITED STATES. phraseology he enunciates Professor List's doctrine of the importance to a nation of a gain in productive power, saying, "The object of wise gov- ernments shall be by sound legislation so to protect the industry of their own citizens against the policy of foreign powers as to give it the most expansive force in the production of wealth." Near the close of his speech he took occasion to eulogize Mr. Mathew Carey as follows: I hope I shall give no offence in quoting from a work of Wathew Carey, of whom I seize with great pleasure the occasion to say that he merits the public gratitude for the disinterested diligence with which he has collected a large mass of highly useful facts, and for the clear and convincing reasoning with which he generally illustrates them. During the years 1S25 and 1826 the question of the tariff was not a prominent one in American politics but the excitement springs up afresh in 1827, and the pamphleteering becomes as vigorous and as prolific as ever. An important document was an "Examination of a Memorial from the Chamber of Commerce, Charleston, S. C Against Increasing Tariff Rates." This "examination" was a series of five pamphlets, signed "Jefferson" (who, it was thought, was Mathew Carey). Each of the following arguments against the protective system, which had been used in the "memorial" are taken up and refuted in detail: 1. That it will provoke retaliation. 2. That it will impair the national revenue. 3. That it is uucon.stitutional. 4. That it will tax the many for the benefit of the few. 5. That it will impose unequal burdens on the different classes of society. 6. That it will introduce smuggling. 7. That it will tend to abridge the foreign market. In the third number of the series the author turns aside from the main purpose of the "examination" to reply with spirit and eminent fairness to a speech of Judge Cooper on the tariff, which had appeared in a Southern newspaper on the thirteenth of thAt month (July, 1827). He says: Already threats of resi.stance and glances at separation far from ver>- obscure appear in your papers and appear in the declamations of your orators, and are not regarded with the abhorrence to which they fairly lay claim. Let me implore you, gentlemen, by the immortal memory of the illustrious Wa.shington— by the salvation and prosperity of the blessed country we enjoy— by everything else you hold near and dear— and I was going to add, by all your hopes of happiness here and here- after—to pause in your career. Do not kindle infinite passions between brethren of the .same family. But the vSouth was by no means as yet a unit in its opposition to the "American vSy.stem." "The Question of the TantT Di.scussed," is the heading of a pamphlet which was published in Charleston, EARLY TARIFF HISTORY TO 1S3S. S. C, and contained as a sort of preface the following "Address to the Public:" A number of your fellow citizens, esteeming the following communication — which originally appeared during the last summer in the Charleston Courier and City Gazette — calculated to extend a more correct understanding and better information upon the subject of their discussion than at present to be found, have taken the liberty of collecting them together and submitting them in their present form. They are aware of the excitement which prevails against the doctrine of the tariffs and protecting duties; but believing, as they conscientiouslj' do, that the ill-feeling which has embittered party distinction throughout the country owes its origin in a great measure to prejudice or misrepresentation, they respectfully offer to your candid and serious consideration this brief synopsis of the facts and argu- ments upon which their own convictions are based. They are, in fine, anxious for the establishment of truth and the promotion and prosperity and independence of our common country. The communication to the "Courier", signed "Old '76" — included extracts from the public utterances of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, each of whom, saj-s the writer, warmly advocated the "American System" — the old Republican system, when men were proud to wear homespun. Franklin, Hamilton, and even Adam Smith, were made to fall in line in support of protection to home industries. The term "American System" appears in this series of articles at every avail- able opportunity. Another important addition to the tariff literature of 1827 was an "Essay on the Expediency and Practicability of Improving or Creating Home Markets for the Sale of Agricultural Productions and Raw Mate- rials, by the Introduction and Growth of Artisans and Manufacturers," by George Tibbits, of New York. The writer quotes liberally from Smith and Say, showing their inconsistency of argument; and he attempts to show from their writings — as well as from tho.se of Ricardo — the indispensable necessity of manufactures to the landed interest, to the internal and external commerce of the country, to the revenue from duties on imports, and to the political consideration, strength and power of the government. A series of letters entitled "Outlines of American Political Economy, ' ' were addressed by Frederick List, formerly professor of Political Economy at the University of Tiibingen in Wiirtemberg, to Charles J. Ingersoll, vice-president of the Pennsylvania Society for the Promotion of National Industry. At the time of writing these letters, Professor List was residing at Reading, Pa. His attention being drawn to the subject of the Harrisburg Convention — soon to assemble — he vol- untarily addressed the series of letters to Mr. Ingersoll. He began by saying : After having perused the different addresses of the Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of National Industry, the different speeches delivered in Congress on that subject, etc., it would be but arrogance for me to attempt a further supply of matters so ingeniously and shrewdly illustrated by the first politicians of the nation. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATE I confine tny exertions, therefore, solely to a refutation of the theory of Adam Smith & Co., the fundamental errors of which have not yet been understood so clearly as they ought to be. I am disposed to assail the main pillars of the S3'stem of Messrs. Smith & Say, leaving the task of attacking less essential points to those who feel disposed to overthrow the whole building. As these theorists confounded Cosmopolitan prin- ciples with Political principles, so they entirely misapprehend the odj'ect of Political Economj-. This object is not to gain matter — as it is in Individual and Cosmopoli- tan Economy — it is to gain production and political power, bj' means of exchange with other nations; or to prevent the depression of production and political power by restricting that exchange. They (the theorists) treat, therefore, primarily of the effects of the exchange of matter, instead of treating of productive power. We now come to the famous Harrisburg Convention of agriculturists, manufacturers, and others friendly to the encouragement and support of the domestic industry of the United States, which convened at the Capitol at Harrisburg, on Monday, July 30, 1827. Delegates were present from all the New England States, except Maine, which sent a letter, from the Middle States as far south as Virginia, and from Kentucky and Ohio. Prominent among the delegates from Pennsylvania were Mathew Carey and Charles J. Ingersoll. This convention had been recommended bj'' and was largely due to the efforts of the Philadelphia Society for the Pr<3- motion of National Industry. Early in the session the following resolu- tions were unanimously adopted : Resolved, (l) That a committee of nine persons be appointed to inquire into, and submit to the Congress of the United States at the next session thereof, such facts as they may be able to collect tending to show the injurious effects on domes- tic industry of the existing revenue laws of the United States. (2) That a similar inquiiy be made in relation to the effect of domestic manufactures upon the navi- gation and commercial interests of the countrj-. Among the results of this convention were the issuing of an address to the citizens of the United States, accompanied by numerous statistical tables, and the submitting of a memorial to Congress containing a schedule of tariff duties satisfactory to the convention. The suggestions related specifically to wool and woolen goods, with incidental mention of iron, flax, hemp, cotton, and distilled spirits. The outcome was the tariff law of 1828 in favor of which petitions and memorials without number were poured into Congress from nearly every State in the Union, prior to its passage. We have now seen how the idea of protection to Ameri- can industries — once the demand of a few manufacturers, and almost unheeded in the halls of Congress — had grown in the minds of the people till it had lost itself in the larger and grander conception of an "American System." In the words of Professor List: "American common sense had at last made a sy.stem of Political Economy of her own, and for her- self, and had sent the founders of the pseudo-Co.smopolitical system to the Westminster Abbey of the .science." EARLY TARIFF HISTORY TO 18.13. The postponement of the tariff question in 1820 was a severe disap- pointment. In 1822 another attempt was made to increase the duties but was not carried through. In 1823, however, the demand of the countrj- was so great that it could no longer remain unheeded and a bill largely increasing duties became a law and went into effect July 11, 1824. Pro- tection to home industries became the issue of the campaign following and John C. Calhoun then the leading champion of a protective tariff was on all four tickets as the candidate for Vice-President. Henry Clay advo- cated the "American System" far and wide, but Daniel Webster was as yet in favor of low duties. In fact most of New England, save Rhode Island and Connecticut, was opposed to the bill of 1824, being fearful that it would injure its shipping interests. But the effect of the law was so instantaneous and beneficial that all New England was .soon in favor of still higher duties and the South alone remained favorable to free trade. It was at this period that sectional feeling began to grow into a flame. The growth of manufactures in the North only served to increase the feeling there in favor of protection. In the South the planters becom- ing jealous and fearing that their fast increasing cotton trade would be injured listened to the dogmas of English writers, dogmas that England would not then listen to or heed herself, but seeing her opportunity to foment discord in the South, did so and most effectually. For three years following the tariff of 1824 every trick of trade in which she has ever been most adept was resorted to by England to break down our industries. But at this time the attempt was unsuccessful. The country was daily acquiring a home market, the foundation of the now well-devel- oped system. The greatest activity prevailed, and best of all, a large rise in wages took place which increased the spendable income of the people and added to the value and stability of the home market. The tariff of 1824, however, was full of defects, particularly the ad valorem rates which resulted in undervaluations and fraudulent invoices to the great injury of domestic industries. The people were then prepared for the "highest and most protective tariff ever adopted," as Horace Greeley termed it, the tariff of 1828. This measure received the support of Mar- tin Van Buren, Richard M. Johnson, John H. Eaton, Thomas H. Benton, Silas Wright, Jr., James Buchanan and William Hendricks, the most prominent and influential Democratic leaders of the Northern and border States. It matters not that it was called by its enemies "the Tariff of Abominations." It gave a still further impetus to the country's pros- perity. It gave more employment to the people. It gave higher wages to the laborer. It gave wealth and wonderful growth to the nation. The era following 1824 was one of great progress and benefit. Says Henry Clay in 1832: "If the term of seven years were to be selected of the greatest prosperity which this people have enjoyed since the estab- lishment of the present constitution, it would be exactly that period TARIFF QUESTION IX THE UNITED STATES. of seven j-ears which immediately followed the passage of the tariff of 1824." In 1832 a so-called modifying bill was passed but the thoroughly protective features of the bills of 1824 and 1828 were not materially changed. In only two years previous to 1825 had the balance of trade been in our favor. In the year following the tariff of 1824 as well as in 1827, 1829 and 1830 our exports exceeded our imports. The public debt had rapidly disappeared, having been reduced from $90,000,000 in 1824 to $7,000,000 in 1833, and was practically cleared off in the two years following. In 1830-31 the revenues so exceeded the expenditures as to leave a surplus in the treasury. It is difficult to show the effect of the tariffs of 1824 and 1828 upon our industries as completely as can be done in these days. No census previous to 1840 gave any complete returns. From Macgregor's ' ' Commercial Statistics, ' ' however, we can learn the fol- lowing: The value of cotton manufactures in 1831 amounted to$32, 036, 760, the exports.being $1,126,313. Our total exports of manufactures amounted to $7,147,364 in 1831. The number of sheep in 1831 was 20,000,000. The quantity of wool produced was about 50,000,000 pounds. Thewoolen manufactures of that time amounted to about $10,000,000; flax and hemp manufactures to about $6,000,000. Leather and leather manufactures to about $16,000,000; cabinet ware, $10,000,000; paper, $6,000,000; soap and candles, $10,000,000. Regarding the production of iron the following will show the increa.se from 1810 to 1832; Tons of Iron Produced. 1810, 54,000 1821 The industry was ruined. 1828 130,000 1829 142,000 1830 165,000 1S31 191,000 1S32, 200,000 The country made wonderful .strides during the operation of the protective tariffs of 1824 and 1828. From the ruin and distress of 1820 we had again become a prosperous nation in 1830. The American system was developing fast. The home market was becoming year by year of greater proportions. Wages had advanced and the American laborer was even then enjoying a condition unknown elsewhere. But amidst all this prosperity and national advancement there was slowly arising a .sentiment that was destined to play a most important part in the nation's history. CHAPTER II. Low Tariffs, 1833 to i860. The campaign of 1828 had been a bitter one and productive of intense feeling. Some of the features of the campaign were unique. Both candidates, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, were accused of not being strong enough protectionists. Mr. Adams, though a thorough protectionist, had not been aggressive enough to sati.sfy even many of his own friends. Jackson's letter to Coleman was quoted far and wide and he was hailed as the great champion of the ' ' American Sy.stem. ' ' John C. Calhoun, who was the vice- presidential candidate on the ticket with Jackson, had for some time shown a leaning toward free trade, and Jackson no doubt gained the electoral vote of South Carolina because of Mr. Calhoun. The election, however, was a thorough triumph for protection and Mr. Jackson became the seventh of an unbroken line of presidents who advocated and sup- ported a protective tariff. In 1S30 a .small surplus existed in the treasury and it became a matter of no little concern to the administration. Free traders have always shown hostility to a surplus. An increasing debt, an empty treasury, an issue of bonds are satisfactory' conditions to a free trader's mind; but a diminution of debt and a surplus of revenue is cause for the deepest concern. The free traders of South Carolina under the leadership of George McDufiie, were now muttering about the unconsti- tutionality of the tariff. It was the first time the issue had been raised since the adoption of the constitution and the passage of the first tariff law in 1789. Ex-President Madison had declared as late as 1828, eleven years after the close of his presidential term, that "A further evidence of the constitutional power of Congress to protect and foster manufactures by regulations of trade (an evidence that ought itself to settle the question), is the uniform and practical sanction given to that power for nearly fort}- years. ' ' Mr. Jackson met the issue squarely. In his message of 1830, he said; Among the numerous cau.se.s of congratulation, the condition of our impost revenue deserves special mention, inasmuch as it promises the means of extinguish- ing the public debt sooner than was anticipated, and furnishes a strong illustration of the practical effects of the present tariff [that of 182S] upon our commercial interests. The object of the tariff is objected to by some as unconstitutional ; and it is considered by almost all as defective in many of its parts. The power to impose duties on imports originally belonged to the several States. The right to adjust these duties with a view to the encouragement of domestic branches (587) TARIFF qUESTION IN THE V SITED STATES. of industry, is so completely identical with that power, that it is diflacult to suppose the existence of the one without the other. The States have delegated their whole authority over imports to the general government, without limitation or restriction, saving the very inconsiderable reservation relating to the inspection laws. This authority having thus entirely passed from the States, the right to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in them ; and consequently, if it is not possessed by the general government, it must be extinct. Our political system would thus present the anomaly of a people stripped of the right to foster their own industrv', and to counteract the most selli.sh and destructive policy which might be adopted by foreign nations. This surely cannot be the case; this indispensable power, thus surrendered by the States, must be within the scope of the authority on the subject expressly delegated to Congress. In this conclusion, I am confirmed as well by the opinions of Presidents Wash- ington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, who have each repeatedly recommended the exercise of this right under the Constitution, as by the uniform practice of Congress, the continued acquiescence of the States, and the general understanding of the people. But the free trade party of Sotith Carolina wa.s becoming more and more hostile to the tariff, and sectional controvers}' and strife were imminent. In December, 1831, as soon as Congress convened, the battle of words began. The tariff of 1832, intended as a conciliator}- measure, failed of its object, and the feeling in certain portions of the South became more and more bitter. Whether it wasdue to a jealousy of the North and its prosperous manufactures, or to the fear that the now rapidly growing cotton industry of the South would suffer, or to the influence of England, can hardly be stated ; probably all three causes added to the flame. The speech of Robert Y. Hayne in 1830, denotmcing the whole revenue system and attacking the administration, was well replied to by Mr. Webster, but the fight went on. Mr. McDuffie had been appointed chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in 1832, and his infltience was far-reaching. The report made by the committee was the first attempt to give recognition to an organized free trade party in the United States. Much was said about foreign markets being the natural markets for the cotton-growing States and a specious plea was made for the "free intercourse of the Southern planters with their natural markets abroad." To show the animus of the report the following will suffice: It would be worse than voluntary blindness in those to whom the rights, the interests, and the destinies of the Southern people, are, in an especial manner, committed, not to perceive and give warning of the inevitable doom that awaits them if that protecting policy which impoverishes and destroys one branch of indus- try to enrich and sustain another be not utterly and absolutely abandoned. This • Congress .should adopt no halfway measures, no temporary expedients, but "rcfonn it altogether. ' ' The .sectional feeling was now growing day by day and liad already asstuned mo.st dangerous proportions. The administration, however, was well supported. Mr. Adams, who had been defeated by Jackson in LOW TARIFFS, 1S33 TO 1S60. 1828, was now at the head of the Committee on Manufactures, and made a report completely answering the free traders. While Mr. McDuffie, who had supported Jackson, was now his bitterest enemy and lost no opportunity to assail the administration, which, however, was sustained. The pending bill was passed by a vote of 132 yeas to 60 nays in the House, and 32 to 16. in the Senate. This was a thoroughly protective tariff and was intended as such, though a few concessions were made to appease the now rabid free traders of the South. The year 1S32 was a memorable one indeed. The debate on the tariff had been acrimonious and productive of bitter hatred. The campaign followed in which Jackson and Clay were the opposing candidates for the presi- dency. Martin Van Buren became the candidate for vice-president with Jackson, Calhoun having joined the free traders. The electoral votes of the cotton States, except those of South Carolina, were given to Jackson and \'an Buren. The storm now burst in all its fury. As soon as the election of Jackson was announced, the free traders of South Carolina met in convention on the nineteeth of November, 1832, and declared that "the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional, null and void and not binding on the State, its officers or its citizens," and that it should be unlawful for any officer of the State or the United States to collect the duties within the limits of South Carolina. They went still further and declared that any attempt of Congress to enforce the laws would be inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union, and further, the Legislature declared that military resistance should be made if necessary. The ev^ents of this time show in a marked degree the influence of a few strong leading men. The active free traders of South Carolina were but a handful compared with the masses. The politicians managed the affairs of the State. They were a band of free trade slave- holders and men of wealth and influence, who to further their own ambi- tions sacrificed the interests of the people, beginning in nullification and ending in secession. It was indeed a trj'ing situation for Jackson and his administration. No man was ever endowed with more patriotism, with a greater love for his country than Andrew Jackson. He was reluctant to depart one iota from the protective policy that had grown into an American system and had given such impetus and prosperity to the nation. On the other hand, he wished to avoid disunion. There seemed one outlet of escape, viz., through concession and compromise. In the interests of harmony Jackson practiced the utmost patience and for- bearance. He was willing to grant concessions, to advocate compromise, for the sake of peace, and it ill becomes any writer removed by two gen- erations, to criticise the motives that influenced the mind of Andrew Jackson to depart from its supposed settled convictions. And yet in the light of later events it is certain that he made a grievous error. Firmness gave way to kindness. A determined purpose was TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. supplanted by a desire for peace at any cost. The free traders would not accept the offers of concessions. They wanted free trade and nothing else. That sectional hatred was at the bottom of this demand, cannot be doubted. In fact, it was not only manifest but outspoken. The cry of "robber baron" had not then been invented but the prosperous Northern manufacturer was an object of envious enmity and must be crushed. The concessions already made only whetted their appetite for more. They were not satisfied with a part, they must have the whole. And they obtained it. What produced the result concerns us not so much as the result itself. The administration was willing from the first to reduce the revenue to provide against an increasing .surplus. The least the free traders would accept was a horizontal tariff of about 15 or 20 per cent. They knew that would serve their purpose as well as the abolition of all duties. A law was framed considerably modifying that of 1832, but it was not satisfactory to the nullifiers and an open rupture was threatened and seemed likely to take place at once, but Henry Clay came to the rescue, if rescue it can be called, and introduced and defended the famous com- promise law of 1833. The tariff of 1832 was taken as a basis. It was then provided that all duties exceeding 20 per cent were to be reduced by 10 per cent Janu- ary I, 1834, by another 10 per cent January i, 1836, another 10 per cent January i, 1838, and another 10 percent January i, 1840, that on Jan- uary I, 1842, one-half of the duties remaining over 20 per cent were to be taken off and the remaining excess on July i of the same year. So that after July i, 1842, there would be a uniform duty of 20 per cent. This act was finally' accepted and the free traders professed to be satisfied. War and bloodshed had been averted for the time, but national ruin and disaster were to come instead, while war itself was only postponed. The tariff of 1832 practically remained in force till the close of Jackson's term, though the effect of the finst reduction of the act of 1S33, was more or less severe. It should be stated that both Jackson and Clay expected that if any disastrous consequences should follow the reductions the law could be at once amended. Their chief aim was to pre.serve the Union and pacify the nullifiers, but they intended to maintain the American system by restoring the duties after a few years had passed. The effect of the new act was first felt on the revenues. In 1833 revenues from customs were $29,032,529; in 1834 only $16,214,957, a falling off of nearly $13,000,000 in one year. The revenues from public lands, how- ever, served to augment the customs revenue enough to meet the expen- ditures of the government, and as the effect on the countn,- at large was not yet ruinous, Jack.son left office with a national debt extinguished and the national finances in good condition. But soon came the effect of the second reduction, and with the third reduction came disaster and ruin. The country has probably never passed through such a disastrous panic t LOW TARIFFS, 1S3S TO as that of 1837. Mr. Van Buren entered upon his terra of office March 4 of that year, and was at once obliged to convene Congress in special session. The revenue was now insufficient to meet the wants of the government. Banks were suspending, factories were shutting down, labor was everywhere idle and the wages of the few employed cut down to one- half and less. Mr. Van Buren was blind to the true state of affairs and still more so to their causes. The jubilant free traders were maintaining that the tariff law of 1833 '^^'^s irrevocable and were hailing the breakdown of Northern manufacturing interests with unconcealed joy. Southern men now began to talk openly of secession. McDuffie had been elected governor of South Carolina and at once fanned the growing flame of discontent by expressions like the following: However they may be amalgamated in the crucible of an executive proclama- tion or of speculative theor\', history bears testimony that the States are, in point of fact, distinct and separate communities, mutually independent of each other, and each possessing the inherent and underived attribute of sovereignty. Not only are they separated geographicall)-, and by a distinct and independent political organiza- tion, but they are still more practically separated by the diversity of their staple productions, creating a direct and irreconcilable conflict of interest between the exporting and the manufacturing States, as decided as ever exi,sted between any two independent nations, ancient or modern. It is, for example, the undoubted interest, as it is the sacred right of the planting States, to exchange their staples for the manufactures of Europe, free from, every obstruction or incumbrance. Here is a repudiation of the accepted compromise,a reopening of the question of nullification, a declaration of State sovereignty and a sugges- tion of secession. It was no longer confined to South Carolina. It was spreading throughout all the cotton-growing States. The seed of section- alism and free trade had begun to bear fruit. By threat and bravado they had gained one victory, they were now preparing to attempt another. The sacrifice of 1833 meant as a peace offering was simply an added torch to light the future fires of secession and rebellion. Better by far would it have been had the conflict been entered into at once. Compared with the events of 1861-5 it would have been but trifling. There is no language adequate to picture the extent of that profitless sacrifice, to describe the effect of the compromise of 1833. The fol- lowing from a speech delivered before the Chicago Philosophical vSociety in 1882, by Van Buren Denslow, is an apt de.scription of the prevailing conditions: The act was as complex and multitudinous in its effects as it was simple and child-like in its provisions. It deranged the industrial future of every man, woman and child in the United States. What it said could be written on one's thumb nail. What it did, no human hand could write. Ruin flew to every fire- side on the fascinating wings of cheapness; famine stalked into every household, leering under the drunkenness of inflation, yet griped with the sharp pangs of hunger. One flood of imports destroyed our manufactures ; their sales on credit TARIFF QUESTIOK IN THE UNITED STATES ruined our merchants, and the merchants then destroyed our banks; and yet, while the whole people were remitted to farming in the years of 1838 to 1842, we were importers of food. The planter pointed to the starving free laborer and mocked at him, because he was less comfortable than the slave. Coltoii, in his life of Henry Clay, after referring to the period follow- ing the tariff of 18 16, .says: The revulsion of 1S37 provided a far greater havoc than was experienced in the period above mentioned. The ruin came quick and fearful. They were few that could save themselves. Property of everj- description was parted with at prices that were astounding, and as for currency there was scarcely any at all. In some parts of Pennsylvania the people were obliged to divide bank notes into halves, quarters, eighths, and so on, and agree from necessity to use them as money. Bnt it is unnecessary to pile up testimony of this kind. There has been no period in our history like it and none approaching it save that of twenty years afterward under another and different free trade tarifif. Cotton now became king, and Martin Van Buren bowed low to the sovereign. From 1830 to 1833 the annual production was about i ,000,000 bales. In 1838 it had reached 1,800,000 bales, and in 1840 it was nearly 2,200,000 bales. Our exportations increased from 270,000,000 pounds in 1831 to 7i8,ooo,ooo_pounds in 1839, nearly threefold. This in itself was most gratifying, but cotton was made lord over every industry in the land. It was forgotten that we had other agricultural products, or should have, and yet with the resources to feed the world we were actually being fed by foreign countries. For the first time in our history we had a President hostile to the best interests of his country. The most charitable thing that can be said of Martin Van Buren is that he was weak. If he was not a free trader at heart he was thoroughly under the influence of free traders. When speaking of our agricultural interests he had in mind only one product, cotton. His weak, almo.st criminal course, was thoroughly rebuked in 1840, when he received only sixtj- out of the two hundred and ninety-four electoral votes cast, the sixty of course includ- ing Sotith Carolina. It was a mistake to suppose as Mr. Van Buren pre- tended to at least, that the tariff of 1833 could not be repealed before the horizontal scale of 20 per cent was reached. In fact, both President Jackson and Mr. Clay, as well as all who lielped pass the bill had that very thought in mind that it could be changed at any time if necessary-. But no change was made, and when William Henry Harrison was elected in 1840, he found a country with only a total of $370,000,000 in manufac- tured prodticts of which over $1 10,000,000 was the product of grist mills, saw mills and the leather industry. We had made but little if any advance in the decade. We had less sheep and less wool in 1840 than in 1830. There was as yet little attempt at any form of iron making. Our textiles advanced but litlk-. Our agriculture, our manufactures and all industry, were sacrificed that the growers of cotton might have free trade with LOW TABIFFS. 1S33 TO 1S60. British manufacturers. Our imports of goods that we should have made ourselves exceeded $100,000,000 annually. They would have far exceeded this amount had we been able to buy and pay for them. We were exporting about $8,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, more than one-quarter of which was cotton goods. Our only real material advance in ten years was the growing and exportation of cotton it.self. General Harrison became the President of a country with credit impaired, with ruined industries and an impoverished people. Some means of relief must be found and it could come only through a change in the tariff. A special session of Congress was called, but Mr. Harrison died before it assembled. Mr. Tyler, who succeeded, was another Van Buren. He too had the opinion that the act of 1833 could not be changed till all its provisions had expired. During Van Buren's term the expenditures of the government had exceeded the income by over $30,000,000. The treasury was in an exhausted condition. The com- promise tariff had not only failed to protect our industries, but was unsuccessful as a revenue measure. In 1840 an attempt was made to place a loan abroad but it failed. The government was then offered a paltry quarter of a million at from 8 to 32 per cent interest, and yet seven j'ears before the treasury had an annual surplus. The condition of the gov- ernment was deplorable indeed, but the condition of the business houses and individuals was far worse if possible. The "American Almanac " esti- mated the loss in six leading lines of trade at $785,000,000; 34,000 mer- chants failed with net liabilities of $440,000,000 and 50,000 more settled at a loss of nearly $300,000,000. That was Democracy and free trade. They were mated and wedded in 1833. They have never been divorced. Though no change was thought of by Tyler during i84i,in March, 1842, he .sent a special message to Congress, wherein he said: The diminution in the revenue arising from the great diminution of duties under what is called the Compromise Act, necessarily involves the treasury in embarrassments, which have been for some years palliated by the temporary expe- dient of issuing treasury notes — an expedient which, affording no permanent relief, has imposed upon Congress, from time to time, the necessity of replacing the old by new issues. The condition of affairs could continue no longer. Free trade was a failure and worse than a failure. Tyler issued another message only three weeks after the one referred to, urging Congress to action and yet when Congress passed a tariff bill it was vetoed by the President. From some source he had picked up the term "incidental protection," probably from Jackson, though his understanding of the meaning intended to be con- veyed by Jackson was .slight indeed. Again a tariff bill was passed and again it was vetoed, but this time the bill was passed over the Presi- dent's veto and became a law. It provided for both revenue and protec- tion and was a positive success. Its effect was instantaneous. First TARIFF QUESTION m THE UNITED STATES. came confidence. Then the fires were lit, the wheels began to revolve and the industries and business of the country improved daily. Not only that, but the treasury gained relief at once. The customs receipts for the 3'ear ending June 30, 1843, were $25,234,750, as against $14,487,216 for the previous year under the compromise tariff. Under the free trade tariff there had been a steady decrease of revenue. Under the protective tariff of 1842 there was a steady increase of revenue, and this too in the face of a most decided falling off in certain imports as can be seen from the following values of imports into the United States for the full years 1841 and 1842 and for nine months of 1843: ♦ BuUii 1S41 111,757,036 ; |i 1,001,939 |i5.5ir,oo9 I 14,255,966 $6,846,807 ] f4.988.633 T842 9.578,515 I 8,375,725 9.448.372 ' 3.572.0S1 : 3,659,184 I 4,807,016 184V1 2.958,1661 2,252,,S95 I 1,136,268, 734.737; 1,484.9211 22,320,335 In 1S44 Henry Clay and James K. Polk were the Presidential candi- dates, and the tariff question became a leading issue. The tariff of 1842 had been made distinctly protective. Not only had duties been raised but ad valorem rates had been changed in many instances to .specific. The committee which had framed the bill showed that the balance of trade had been $200,000,000 against us during seven years. "All branches of industry are paralyzed," said the report, but perhaps the most interesting point made was the difference between our tariff and the tariffs of foreign countries. On our products valued at $91,000,000 in Europe, duties were levied to the amount of $1 13,000,000 while on products which we imported to the amount of $73,000,000 our duties were only $17,000,000. It can readily be seen that the protectionists of 1844 had something to talk about that was based on actual conditions. Mr. Clay was considered a protectionist though his connection with the Compromise Act lost him many friends who thought he had conceded too much. But he had now fully realized his mistake and was an earnest advocate of the principles of a protective tariff. In a speech made during the canvass he said : Let the amount which is requisite for an economical administration of the government, when we are not engaged in a war, be raised exclusively on foreign imports; and in adjusting a tariff for that purpose, let such discrimination be made as will foster and encourage our domestic manufactures. AU parties ought to be satisfied with a tariff for revenue, and discrimination for protection. On the other hand Mr. Polk was a free trader at heart though not an outspoken opponent of protection. He was in thorough sympathy with 1 .Nine mouths only can be given, as Congress changed the end of the fiscal year from September LOW TARIFFS, 1S33 TO the free traders of the South, but the electoral vote of Pennsylvania was necessar}', and Mr. Dallas, a professed protectionist, was put on the ticket with Polk. lu the North was heard the cry, "Polk, Dallas and the Tariff of '42." In the South it was changed to "Polk, Dallas and free trade." The campaign and election of Polk was the greatest fraud, the most stu- pendous imposition ever perpetrated in American politics. Finst Polk entered into an intrigue with the vSoutherners, satisfying them that he would carry out their wishes. In Pennsylvania and other parts of the North he posed as the friend of protection. vSuch a course could not suc- ceed in these days but it must be remembered that 1844 was not an age of the telegraph, railroad and press, as they exi.st to-day. It took weeks for information to travel long distances, and the fraud was not discovered till too late. That deceit was intended is evident from the celebrated Kane letter written by Polk from which the following extract is taken : I am in favor of a tariff for revenue, such a one as will yield a sufficient amount to the treasury to defray the expenses of the government, economically adminis- tered. In adjusting the details of a revenue tariff, I have heretofore sanctioned such moderate duties as would produce the amount of revenue needed, and at the same time afford reasonable incidental protection to our home industrj*. I am opposed to a tariff for protection merely, and not for revenue. Acting upon these general principles, it is well known that I gave my support to the policy of General Jack- son on this subject. " In my judgment, it is the duty of the government to extend, as far as it may be practicable to do so, by its revenue laws and all other means within its power, fair and just protection to all the great interests of the whole Union, embracing agri- culture, manufactures and the mechanic arts, commerce and navigation. And yet this very man had only one year before while running for the office of Governor of Tennessee expressed himself as follows, in a circular letter distributed throughout the State : I have steadily, during the period I was a representative in Congres.s, been opposed to a protective policy, as my recorded votes and published speeches prove. Since I retired from Congress I had held the same opinions. In the present can- vass for Governor I have avowed my opposition to the Tariff Act of the late Whig Congress, as being highly protective in its character and not designed by its authors as a revenue measure. I had avowed my opinion in my public speeches, that the interests of the country — and especially of the producing and exporting States — required its repeal, and the restoration of the Compromise Act of 1833. The two extracts given show the man fully. But a Presidency was at stake, and to be honest meant defeat. He is said to have spent forty days in penning the famous Kane letter, and no doubt weighed well every sentence. It was a mass of ambiguity, skillful evasion and meaningless assertions. Not satisfied with this, however, reports were circulated in the North by the Democrats to the effect that Clay was not as sound a protectionist as he should be and if elected would advocate the repeal of TARIFF qVESTWN h\ THE VNITKD STATES. the tariff of '42. The result was very close, Polk having a popular plu- rality of only 38,185 votes in a total of 2,698,611. If a portion only of the votes given to James G. Birney had been given to Clay the electoral vote of New York would have been counted for Clay instead of Polk and elected the former. It is by such narrow margins that the fate of the nation has more than once been decided . However, Polk and Dallas were elected and we paid the cost. The perfidy of Polk cannot be too emphatically .stated. He was fully aware of the intentions of those Southern leaders should they come into power. He knew they had abandoned no part of their free trade desires. That Mr. Polk gained his seat by dishonest methods cannot be gainsaid. -His own historian admits as much, and of course his party friends and leaders were not ignorant of the deceit that was being perpetrated upon the people. The campaign has been dwelt upon for the reason that it was fraught with consequences most disastrous to the nation. A large majority of the people in 1844 were protectionists and yet the free traders won. The attack upon our protective policy under which the country was then in a most prosperous condition was begun at once, and with new vigor by the free traders. Mr. Polk chose as his Secretary of the Treasury the distinguished free trader, Robert J. Walker, of Mis- sissippi. His Attorney-General and Po.stmaster-General were also Southerners and free traders. The administration became as it was intended it should become, a sectional one. It was cotton against the rest of the country combined. Robert J. Walker was a most able man. The hour of complete triumph for free trade was at hand. The astute Secretary of the Treasury skilled in diplomacy and political warfare knew fully the ground upon which he was standing and the necessary steps to bring about the desired end. A report was prepared and presented which was as ingenious as it was disingenuous. It was a plea for agriculture and for a removal of all so-called restrictions. We were to feed the world with our food and clothe them with our cotton. He made the idea look plausible to .some, though the theory- was thoroughly exploded as it had been time and time again since the days of Washington. But England again came on the scene, and her statesmen found for the first time powerful allies in this country. The policy of the free traders in the United States was in entire accord with that of the free traders of England. They were to repeal their corn laws and buy our food, we were to repeal our protective law and buy her manufactures. It was a glorious vision, a millennium of universal pros- perity, but withal the thinnest and mo.st transparent bubble that ever floated in the air. Could we look upon the statesmen of that period as men in error instead of being influenced by sectional hatred the crime upon future generations would be no les,s, but in the light of later history we cannot even give them ;he benefit of a charitable doubt. Their crime 7.0 ir TARIFFS, hs'.lS TO 1S60. was too great, too far reaching in its effects, too awful in its consequences, to be condoned in the year 1896 when we are living under another free trade administration. Onty a few of the readers of these pages can remember the changes of 1844 and 1846. They have but to substitute 1844 for 1892 and 1846 for 1894, a°d the story is told. In the midst of prosperity a change was made to free trade, a change brought about by deceiving the people. This is no idle assertion. James K. Polk, in 1S44, and Grover Cleveland, in 1892, were elected through misrep- resentation and deceit. Both were friendly to and received the undivided support of the Southern free traders. The election of both was followed by a free trade law and free trade calamity. Before going on to the Walker tariff, or tariff of 1846, and its consequences, a glance at the benefits of a brief interval of protection in the midst of what was for the most part a period of free trade will be instructive. The year 1842 found us a bankrupt people. A large portion of the iron furnaces were closed, and the product was but a little more than 200,000 tons. In 1846 and 1847 the production was estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury at 800,000 tons, having quad- rupled in four years. Till 1843 "ot a single ton of railroad iron had been made in this country, yet in 1 845 under protection we made 50,000 tons, and in 1847, 100,000 tons. The consumption of coal in 1841 was less than 1,000,000 tons, in 1847 it was over 3,000,000 tons nineteen-twentieths of which was domestic mining. In 1843 our sheep numbered 19,000,000: in 1847, 27,000,000. Our woolen manufacturers used 48,000,000 pounds of domestic wool in 1842, and 67,500,000 pounds in 1847. The average number of bales of cotton annually used by our manufacturers from 1835 to 1842 was 263,000. In 1846-47 this had increased to 428,000 bales. The average production of lead from 1835 to 1841 was 298,000 pigs. In 1846 the production was 785,000 pigs. The shipping built in 1842-43 amounted to 91,000 tons. In 1848 it had increased to 316,000 tons. From 1835-41 the average number of steamers annually built was 92. In 1846 we built 225. How did our agriculture fare ? In 1843 we exported 4,519,000 bushels of wheat and flour. In 1835-36-37-38 we had even imported over 5,000,000 bushels. Yet in 1847 we exported 26,312,000 bushels. With this increased exportation came an enormous increase of consumption at home, due to the demands of employed labor. The production of certain staples can be seen from the following, the figures for 1840 being from the census returns, those of 1847 being patent office estimates: 1840 — Wheat, 84,823,000; barley, 4,161,000; oats, 123,071,000; rye, 18,645,000; buckwheat, 7,291,000; Indian corn, 377,531,000. Total, 615,522,000. 1847 — Wheat, 114,245.000; barley, 5,649,000; oats, 167,867,000; rye, 29,222,000; buckwheat, 11,673,000; Indian corn, 539.35o,ooo. Total, 868,006,000. Let US look a moment at the sugar crop of Louisiana. In 1841 the utunber of pounds produced was 77,000,000; in 1848, 240,000,000. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. These figures showing our great advance under the tariff of 1842 are taken from Henry C. Carey's "Harmony of Interests," p. 23, and are the most reliable that can be obtained for that period. Says Carey writing of this period: The power of producing food thus kept pace with the power to apply labor and capital to the conversion of food and other raw materials into iron, cloth, and other commodities requisite for the use of man; and thus both kept pace with the tendency to the concentration of population. With every increase in the power of production, consumption grew, and the laborer received larger returns for his labor. As an illustration of the folly of free trade and the benefits of pro- tection in connection with this period which we are now examining, the following is given from Carey's " Harmony of Interests: " ' In 1839 we imported forty-three iiiillions of yards of cotton cloths of various kinds, the consumers of which were customers to the planter to the extent of eleven millions of pounds of cotton, or less than 28,000 bales, being as much as would be worked up by twenty-eight mills of moderate size, or fourteen of larger size. To produce those mills in any single cotton-growing State would require no effort whatsoever, and when produced it would be found that they would be all profit, for it would be attended with not the slightest diminution in the amount of agricul- tural production. The laborers are there, and a large portion of their time is abso- lutely waste. The horses and wagons are there, to a great extent unemployed. The timber is there, encumbering the best lands of the plantation. The men and horses must be fed, and the wagons must be kept in order. Make a market for this waste labor, and the laborers will consume more food, but the chief increase of expendi- tures will be in clothing, thus making a market for cotton — in houses, making a market for stone and lumber — in furniture, for which lumber will be required — in books and newspapers, making a market for rags — and the cloth-makers, and car- penters, and masons, and cabinet-makers, and paper-makers, and printers, will want cloth, and shoes, and houses, making a further market for cotton and leather, and lumber and stone. Exchanging thus on the spot, each and every man would be a producer, whereas when exchanges are made at great distances, the transporters and exchangers are more numerous than the producers, and as consumption must go to the extent of production and can go no further, we ma}- now see why it is that con- sumption tends to increase so rapidly wdien men work in combination with each other. In four years we erected mills that worked up 300,000 bales of cotton, or eleven times as much as was contained in all the cloth imported in 1839. To have created treble that number would have required no effort, nor would it have been attended with any loss of agricultural products, for the labor was being wasted in everi' county of the South and West; and to carry them on would now be attended with no diminution in the jiroduct of food or cotton, for treble the labor required for a factory is now being wasted in almost every county of the Union, and in everyone south of New England. To the labor-power of men and horses, and women and children, now absolutely unemployed, let us add the quantity that is wasted on the road, and to that let us add the manure now wasted on the road, and then we may form an estimate, but even then a very in.sufficient one, of the increased product that would have resulted from the creation of those mills. Let us then reflect that all these people are now fed, and that their surplus earnings would be applicable to the purchase of other things than food, and we may then see what would be the extent of the market thus made on the land for the products of the laud. ' I'agc 45. LOW TARIFFS, IS.ll TO 1S60. Meagre as are the statistics relating to the years under the tariff of 1842, enough has been given to show a wonderful change for the better as compared with the disastrous period just preceding under the com- promise tariff of 1833. The result as affecting the finances of the gov- ernment will be given in comparison with the effect of the tariff for the four years following 1846. To give an account of the birth of the Walker tariff is but to add another chapter to the fraud of 1844. The Southern free traders were now at the helm and though their acts were contested at every step they carried the day. Mr. Polk in his first message said: The attention of Congress is invited to the importance of making suitable modifications and reductions of the rate of duty imposed by our present tariff laws. The object of imposing duties on imports should be to raise revenue to pay the necessary expenses of government. Congress may, undoubtedly, discrimi- nate in arranging the rates of duty on different articles; but the discrimination should be within the revenue .standard, and be made with a view to raise money for the support of the government. Here was a surrender at the outset to the free traders and a repudi- ation of the Kane letter. He was ably seconded by his secretary of the treasury and the tariff of 1846 became a law. Only one incident con- nected with its passage need be noted. It passed the House by a vote of 114 to 95. The vote in the Senate was a tie. Mr. Dallas, the "protec- tionist" from Pennsylvania, who had been elected as such, whohadhimself endorsed the cry of "Polk, Dallas and the Tariff of '42" in the campaign, gave the deciding vote that made this iniquitous bill a law. Thus was con.summated the fraud of that campaign and election. The passage of the tariff bill had been fought at every step. Perhaps the greatest speech made was that of Daniel Webster during the three days July 25, 27 and 28. As the speech abounds so in economic truths and as free traders delight in quoting from the earh' speeches of the great Massachusetts statesman, a considerable extract from the speech is here given: But, sir, before I proceed further, I will take notice of what appears to be some attempt, latterly! by the republication of opinions and expressions, arguments and speeches of mine, at an earlier and a later period of my life, to place me in a position of inconsistencies on this subject of the protective policy of the country. Mr. President, if it be an inconsistency to hold an opinion upon a subject of pub- lic policy to-day in one state of circumstances and to hold a different opinion upon the same subject of public policy to-morrow, in a different state of circumstances, if that be an inconsistency I admit its applicability to myself. You indulge in the luxury of taxing the poor man and the laborer! That is the whole tendency, the whole character, the whole effect of the bill. One may see everywhere in it the desire to revel in the delight of taking away men's employment. It is not a bill for the people or the masses. It is not a bill to add to the comfort of tho.se in middle life, or of the poor. It is not a bill for employment. It is a bill for the relief of the highest and most luxurious classes of the country, and a bill imposing onerous duties on the great industrious masses, and for taking away the means of living from labor everywhere throughout the land. The interest of The pas- sage of the 1 1 alter tariff. TAUIFt QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. every laboring community requires diversity of occupations, pursuits, and objects of industr}-. The more that diversity is multiplied or extended the better. To diversify employment is to increase employment and to enhance wages. And, sir, take this great truth ; place it on the title page of every book of political economj' intended for the use of the government; put it in ever}' farmer's almanac; let it be the heading of the column in every mechanic's magazine; proclaim it everywhere, and make it a proverb, that where there is work for the- hands of men there will be work for the teeth. Where there is employment there will be bread. It is a great blessing to the poor to have cheap food, but greater than that, prior to that, and of still greater value, is the blessing of being able to buy food by honest and respectable employment. Employment feeds and clothes and instructs. Employment gives health, sobriety and morals. Constant employment and well-paid labor produce in a country like ours general prosperity, content and cheerfulness. Thus happy have we seen the country. Thus happy may we long continue to see it. I hope I know more of the Constitution of my country than I did when I was twenty years old. I hope I have contemplated its great objects more broadl)-. I hope I have read with deeper interest the sentiments of the great men who framed it. I hope I have studied with more care the condition of the country when the convention assembled to form it. . . . And now, sir, allow me to say that I am quite indifferent, or rather thankful, to those conductors of the public press who think they cannot do better than now and then spread my poor opinions before the public. But the bill became a law and protection was abandoned. The new law went into operation December i, 1846, and the "golden era" of free trade began. In some senses it was at first a golden era, but the gold came from California, not from Congress, and it all went to England as fast as we could mine it. We saw it, even felt of some of it, but we did not use it except to pay our debts to foreign countries. But even all the vast amount of gold dug out of the mines of California in -the years from 1846 to i860 was not sufficient for this purpose. In examining this, period of free trade it will be well to divide it into three or four parts. First taking the four years 1847-48-49-50 and comparing these years with the four years under the tariff of 1842, a most significant result is seen. The imports and customs revenue during these two periods were as fol- lows: Dutiable Per Imports. Duties- cent- Receipts. Expeuditures. Four years of tariff of '42, ^309,178,151 197,109,411 33 ^97, 109, 411 180,220,444 First four years of Walker larifl", 517.963.037 ■?3.92o.4ii ^AM 123,920,411 176,128,155 Thus it will be seen that the excess of receipts over expenditures in the protection period was $16,888,967, while during the first four years of free trade the deficit was $52, 108,144. So much for the revenue. How did the national debt fare? The following table will show: 1S43 132,742,922 1S46 15,550,202 1847 38,826,534 1850, 63,452,773 LOW TARIFFS, ISJS TO 1S60. During the four years of protection it was reduced bj- $17,192,720. The first year of free trade increased it not only by this amount but by $6,083,612 more and in the four years it had increased $47,902,571. One year of free trade more than wiped out the reduction of four years of protection. How did cotton fare? In 1845 the last full year of pro- tection the exportation was 2,072,000 bales. In 1847 tbe first year of free trade the exportation had fallen to 1,241,000 bales. The price fell from $35 to $27. The loss in exportation was 831,000 bales or in value to the amount of $29,000,000 at the price in 1845, or $22,000,000 at the price in 1847. We had surrendered everything to England and the South. For a single year it seemed as if we were to be rewarded. Whether the crops of Europe failed in 1847 to vindicate the tariff of 1846 or whether the tariff of 1846 had the effect of bringing about failure in foreign crops, is left for the free trade advocates of the "golden era" to determine. The crops di'd fail, however, and for a single year the balance of foreign trade was in our favor. Such a result did not occur again for a decade and then but for a single year. It is hardly probable that the free traders in 1846 foresaw the failure of European crops in 1847. They should not then have the credit for the balance of trade for that year. The Mexican war broke out in 1846, by which we acquired California and New Mexico. Did the free traders of 1S46 know of the gold hidden in the mines of California? Did the tariff of 1846 bring that gold to the surface? If not, they must not have the credit for the benefits derived. jThese benefits were many. The increased demand for transportation facilities made railroad building necessary and our mileage doubled in the six years following the discovery of gold though the total was small compared with the increase afterward under protection. This will be shown further on. It would take too many pages to show in detail all the faults of the tariff of 1846, but there is one iniquitous feature that is too prominent to be overlooked. The act of 1842 framed, as all protectionist measures are, to promote the growth of domestic manufactures, increased the duties on finished goods and placed on the free list those raw materials which were required to be purchased in foreign countries and which were used in manufacturing, such as dye woods, dye stuffs, certain chemical products, etc. The most infamous feature of the act of 1846, and the one which exposes the enmity which existed in the minds of its framers against the industries of the country, is the manner in which it treated raw materials. Not satisfied with exposing this branch of production to ruinous competition under low duties, the struggle for existence was made more difficult bj' placing duties on those raw materials which could not be produced at home. This feature of the bill is contrary to the principles advocated by both protectionists and free traders. That it was an effort to strike down the manufacturing interests of the North is TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. absolutely certain. No more definite means could have been adopted to accomplish this end. In the same year the British tariff had been changed in a large degree, and as compared with the changes made by our free traders the comparison is most significant. The following table prepared by Mr. Edwin Williams in an article in Fisher's National Magazine for Septem- ber, 1846, will illustrate the point to be explained: Tariff of 1842. Tariff of 1846. British Tariff. 5 per cent. '' frei: 7 per cent, free. 2)i per cent. 5 30 per cent, fr 5 ;; 30 20 15 5 20 5 20 10 5 10 5 10 " 10 10 " 5 10 " 5 " . 5 5 10 10 5 5 5 15 5 5 " ee. Raw hides and skins, Wood, mahogany, etc. Other kinds, except timber Antimony, crude Barilla Bark of the cork tree, Berries used for dyeing Brimstone or sulphur, Ebony, . . Crude saltpetre Burr stones, unwrought Precious stones, . Pearl mother of, . . . ... Ivory, unmanufactured, Madder, Palm leaf, unmanufactured, ... Rattan and reeds, unmanufactured, • • Tin, in sheets or plates Tin, in pigs, bars, or blocks, .... "We might extend this list," says Mr. Williams, "but enough is given to show the comparative legislation of the American and British governments, with regard to raw materials and other articles essential for the use of manufactures and in the arts. While the British parliament are removing all duties on articles required for the use of their manufactures, our American Congress have increased the burdens of our manufacturers, by , additional duties on the raw materials imported for their use ; at the same time they have reduced the protective duties. Was there ever a parallel case of injustice in the history of legislation in any country? "The plain truth is, and it is folly to attempt to conceal it, that the worst evil, the skill, capital, and labor of this country have to contend with, is its own present government, who, not content with demanding specie in all payments made to thorn by the pi'ople, have, by the enactment of the tariff of 1846, legislated against America, and in favor of England." LOW TARIFFS. 1S33 TO 1860. This was free trade legislation in 1846. Free trade legislation was somewhat different in 1894. Yet each and everj' act has been accom- panied by the destruction of American manufactures and the degradation of the American laborer. In 1848 the Democratic platform declared: That the fruits of the great political triumph of 1844, which elected James K. Polk and George M. Dallas, President and Vice-President of the United States, have fulfilled the hopes of the Democracy of the Union ... in the noble impulse given to the cause of free trade by the repeal of the tariff of 1S42, and the creation of the more equal, honest, and productive tariff of 1846; and that, in our opinion, it would be a fatal error to weaken the bands of a political organization by which these reforms have been achieved. Zachary Taylor, however, defeated Lewis Cass, the Democratic can- didate. Taylor lived but a short time and was succeeded by Millard Fillmore. Here is what President Tavlor said in his first annual mes- I recommend a revision of the existing tariff and its adjustment on a basis which may augment the revenue. I do not doubt the right or duty of Congress to encourage domestic industry. I look to the wisdom and patriotism of Congress for the adoption of a sj-stem which may place home labor, at last, on a sure and per- manent footing, and, by due encouragement of manufactures, give new and increased stinmlus to agriculture and promote the development of our vast resources and the extension of our President Fillmore expressed himself as follows iu his message of 1851: The value of our exports of breadstuffs and provisions, which it was supposed the incentive of a low tariff and large importations from abroad would have greatly augmented, has fallen from $68,000,000 in 1847 to |2i, 000,000 in 1851, with' almost a certainty of a still further reduction in 1S52. The policy which dictated a low rate of duties on foreign merchandise, it was thought by those who established it, would tend to benefit the farming population of this country by increasing the demand and raising the price of our agricultural products in foreign markets. The foregoing facts, however, seem to show, incontestably, that no such result has fol- lowed the adoption of this policy. And now followed in rapid succession events which had great influ- ence upon our home and foreign trade. The discovery of gold has been mentioned. Then the famine in Ireland, creating an abnormal demand for our flour, grain, potatoes and other products: variotis upheavals in Europe culminating in the Crimean war, continued the demand for our staples, giving us a temporary prosperity. It will hardly be contended, however, by the most arrogant free trader that the tariff of 1846, brought about either war or famine abroad, any more than it did the short crops, the Mexican war or the discovery of gold. Only by attributing all these results to the Walker tariff can we place any part of the temporary pros- perity of those times to the credit of the free trade tariff under which they happened to occur. Even with all these extraordinary happenings TARIFF QVF.STION IX THE UNITED STATES combining to give us most unusual advantages, the result was far differ- ent from that seen in protection periods with no outside causes contribut- ing to our gain. The year 1854, however, brought an end to it all, and we were then thrown on natural resources and the workings of free trade were seen in their true light. During the first jears of the decade the receipts from customs duties had equaled the expenditures, but this state of affairs ended with 1854, and debt and ruin came fast. From this time on until 1861 the condition of the national treasury, of business in general and of individuals grew worse and worse. The events of that time have been pictured time and time again. The following from the New York Tribune of January 15, 1855, written by Horace Greeley himself, has been quoted in many reviews of this period, but coming generations should read it over and over again and know just what free trade means: Who is liungr}? Go and see. You that are full fed and know not what it is to be hungry — perhaps never saw a hungry man — go and see. Go and see thou- sands, men and women, boys and girls, old and .young, black and white, of all nations, crowding and jostling each other, almost fighting for a first chance, acting more like hungry wolves than human beings, in a land of plenty, waiting till food is ready for distribution. Such a scene may be seen every day between eleven aud two o'clock around the corner of Orange and Chatham streets, where charitj' gives a dinner to the poor, and soup and bread to others to carry to their miserable fam- ilies. On Saturday we spent an hour there at thehourof high tide. Wehavenever seen anything like it before. Upward of a thousand people were fed with a plate of soup, a piece of bread and a piece of meat, on the premises, and in all more than sixteen hundred. On the same day one thousand one hundred and thirty portions of soup were dealt out from Stewart's "soup kitchen," corner of Reade street and Broadway. At the rooms on Duane street for the relief of the poor, on the same day, they gave food to two thousand two hundred and fifty-six. In the Sixth ward alone over six thousand persons were fed by charity on Saturda3', January 13. And this is only one day in one ward. Meanwhile, scenes of a like nature are being enacted all over the city. The cry of hard times reaches us from every part of the country. The making of roads is stopped, factories are closed and houses and ships are no longer being built. Factor}' hands, road makers, carpenters, bricklayers and laborers are idle, and paralysis is rapidly embracing every pursuit in the country. The cause of all this stoppage of circulation is to be found in the steady outflow of gold to pay foreign laborers for the cloth, the shoes, the iron and the other things that could be produced by American labor, but which cannot be so produced under our present revenue system. The convulsion would have come upon us sooner but for the extraordinary demand in Europe for bread.stuffs, growing out of huge famines and big wars, and but for the dazzling and magnificent discovery of gold mines in California, by which hard money, sufficient to buy an empire, has been called into existence and exported to Europe. If we could .stop the import of the foreign arti- cles, the gold would cease to flow out to pay for them, and money would then again become more abundant, labor would tlien again be in demand, shoes, clothing, and other commodities would then again be in demand, and men would then cease to starve in the streets of our towns and cities. If it be not stopped the gold must continue to go abroad, and employment nmst become from day to day more scarce. LOW TARIFFS, 1S33 TO 1860. until where there are now many thousands we shall see tens of thousands of men everywhere crying: "Give me work! Only give me work ! Make your own terms — my wife and children have nothing to eat!" Shortly after this Mr. Greeley made a personal tour of the States to investigate for himself and everywhere he found the condition of the people the same. The West and South were appealing to the North for bread. The country was held in the vice-like grip of free trade, and gold was daily going abroad to pay for what we were buying and had bought. Said Hon. William D. Kelley in Congress, February 1 6, 1887, speaking of the causes that led to such a condition of affairs: The decade that followed that year (1847) was a memorable one. . . . The potato rot decimated Ireland, affecting the other British islands, and spread to the continent of Europe, and we exported in one year the then unprecedented amount of f 68, 000, 000 worth of grain. , . . . We imported and consumed immense quan- tities of foreign goods, and as the quantity of these increased, the demand for the labor of the American workman dimini.shed. We imported coal for use in the manufactories and the propulsion of locomotives. We imported rails to lay over our coal fields and iron beds; wages fell to rates as low as they had been in 1S20 and 1821, or in 1840 and 1841. California gold had fled from us as from a pestilence. We had nothing to show for our unusual exports of grain and provisions. . . . The resources of the government were shrinking monthly and its credit was again destroyed; and in little less than ten years from the going into effect of the revenue tariff of 1846 the entire banking system of the country collapsed. . . . The peo- ple were prostrated, and idle and discontented. And yet in the face of all this the Democratic platform of 1856 con- tained the following: "That there are questions connected with the foreign policy of this country which are inferior to no domestic question whatever. The time has come for the people of the United States to declare themselves in favor of free seas and progressive free trade throughout the world." This was followed by the tariff law, of 1857, still further reducing the duties. Franklin Pierce became President in 1853, and on the last day of his term, March 3, 1857, he signed the new tariff law. James Guthrie, of Kentticky, was Secretary of the Treasury, and Jefferson Davis, Secretary of War, both free traders, and both having unlimited power and influence in the administration. At this time the slavery question had become the one absorbing sub- ject of national importance. Every other question and issue was sub- ordinate and sank into insignificance. Since the passage of the Missouri Compromise in 1820, which prohibited slaves from being held in the States and Territories north of the Mason and Dixon line, the controversy had grown with increasing interest. While public sentiment was steadily growing throughout the North and West against the institution of slavery it had not yet become so crystallized that the elements entertaining different views upon the best means of restricting its further extension or accomplishing its total abolition, had not been moulded into one party TARIFF QUESTION IN THE VNITEl) STATES strong enough to carry the country. There were the extreme abolitionists who believed that the question should never be allowed to rest so long as the institution remaiued. There were those of more moderate views who opposed its further extension and believed that it should be confined in the States where it had existed, and that the nation should wait patiently until the Southern people themselves became more enlightened on the subject. The fact that the people of the North, who to a greater or less degree were opposed to the institution, were divided into factions and could not unite on a common platform, left the pro-slavery party in con- trol of the government. A sufficient number of Democrats in the North believing in the institution of slavery united with the South and made it possible for the Democratic party to control the executive and legisla- tive branches of the" government. Between 1850 and i860 the South dominated the country. The vigorous agitation against slavery which was carried on bj' the abolitionists intensified sectional hatred. Hence the Southern leaders became more aggressive, bold and defiant. They repealed the Missouri Compromise in 1850, so that slavery could be carried into Kan.sas, Nebraska and the great Northwest, and in fact, into any State which might adopt it. The Fugitive Slave Law was also passed in 1850, which directed the return of slaves who had escaped from their masters and authorized and directed United States Commissioners in the North to compel their surrender without trial by jury, and com- manded citizens of the North to aid in making arrests and the enforce- ment of the law. It has been pointed out by free traders that the acts of 1846 and 1857 were acceptable and satisfactor\- to the North and sup- ported and concurred in by Northern representatives in Congress from manufacturing districts. The fact that members of the Democratic part}' of the North voted for these measures, when the political conditions of the times are taken into consideration, affords no evidence of benefits or satisfactory business results arising from this legi.slation. The South shaped and directed the policy of the Democratic party, made its platforms and dictated the legislation of the country, not only on the slavery ques- tion, but upon every other question. They al.so controlled the patronage, dealt out all offices, and members from the North were compelled to bow to Southern dictation and abide by party caucu-ses or become ostracized, stripped of political influence and humiliated. The .social as well as the political influence of the Capitol was exacting and unrelenting in its enforcement of every principle championed bj' the South. Under these circumstances it is not difficult to di.scover the motives which led to the passage of the law of 1857. There was no excu.se for it, on other than sectional grounds. The tariff of 1846 had failed even as a revenue measure, and increase of revenue could not be hoped for under further reduction, which included even the duties on luxuries. To recite the effects of this law is Init to continue the account LOW TARIFFS, 1S3S TO ISGO. of the embarrassment of the national government, the ruin of trade and business, and the misery of the people. Each year the national debt increased and the balance of trade against us for the years 1857 to 1861, inclusive, amounted to $174,160,123. The revenues from customs were less in 1858, 1859, i860 and 1861 than in 1857, and the expenditures for the four years exceeded the receipts of the government by $77,234, 1 16. As a revenue measure then, it was a far worse failure than the tariff of 1846. In increasing the national debt it was a perfect success, our debt going from $45,000,000 in 1857, to $90,000,000 in 1861, or just double, and as a bankrupt treasury was the apparent aim of the free traders it must be admitted that they fully realized their hopes. In the fall of i860 President Buchanan and his Secretary of the Treasury offered authorized bonds for sale, but there being little response Congress authorized the issue of Treasury notes, one-twentieth only of which were bid for at from 12 to 30 per cent discount. The credit of the government was low indeed. It was far below that of the States and of most individuals. Turning now from the condition of national finances, let us examine a moment the condition of business men and the masses. Peter Cooper said : British iron and cloth came in and gold went out, and with each day the dependence of our farmers on foreign markets became more complete. With 1857 came the culmination of the system, merchants and manufacturers being ruined, banks being compelled to suspend payment, and the treasury being reduced to a condition of bankruptcy nearly approaching that which had existed at the close of the free trade period of 181 7 and 1839. The distress was iniiversal and deplorable in the extreme. We can hardly conceive in these days of the misery of those times. In the midst of this universal distress, when our industries were prostrate and idle, when the people were appealing for work, when the results of the act of 1846 could not be mistaken, the Democratic party carried its ruinous policy still further and enacted the law of 1857. The effect of this was to increase imports, intensify the suffering, and make more terrible the calamities which had already befallen the country. President Buchanan described the situation in his message of December 14, i860, in the following language: "Panic and distress of a fearful character prevails throughout the land. Our laboring population is without employment and consequently deprived of the means of earning their bread. Indeed all hope seems to have deserted the minds of men." But quotations are not proof. To learn the real cause of the hope- less condition of the people we have but to examine the following table showing the increase in .some of our imports from 1846 to i860. England was manufacturing our goods for which we were sending her our gold, while our own workmen were idle and their families starving : o/the ' people. TARIFF QVFSTION IN THE UNITED STATES. Imports of Twenty Principal Manufactures in 1846 and Cent Increase. Brass, Clocks and time pieces, Clothing, Cotton goods, .... Flax, Glass, Gunny bags (1847), . . Iron, .... Laces and embroidery, I- which the free trade policy inflicted upon the country during this period from 1846 to i860 has been fully illustrated. It is but just and fair to note any benefits that came, even though they were temporary. The one and only really lasting benefit was in our cotton production. The crop and exportation were as follows, from 1847 to i860 inclusive: Bales Produced, Value Exported. 1847 1,77^.651 #53.415.848 184S 2,347,634 61,998.294 1849 2,729,596 66,396,967 1850, 2,096,706 71,984,616 1851 2,355,257 112,315,317 1852, 3,015,029 87,965,732 1853, 3,262,.S82 109,456,404 1854, . • 2,930,027 93,596,220 1S55 2,847,339 88,143,844 1856, 3.527.845 128,382,351 1857, 2,939,519 131.575.859 185S, 3. "3.962 131,386,661 1S59 3. 851. 481 161,434,923 1S60 4,669,770' 191,806,5552 This is certainly a most gratifying showing, nor is it known that a single inhabitant of the United States begrudged the South a bale pro- duced or a dollar's worth exported. We are all proud of this magnificent result taken as one branch of our industrial growth, but it would have been the same had the law of 1842 remained in force. This was a period of great expansion of the cotton industry in Eng- land and on the continent of Europe, caused by improvements and the introduction of machinery. Under protective tariffs Germany, France and Belgium, by the building of cotton mills, greatly increased the demand for this product. This, too, would have occurred had the tariff of 1842 continued in force. Our total agricultural products in 1850, as given by the census, were in value $1,326,691,326. No total comparison can be made with 1840, but the census estimates the crop of the latter year at $800,000,000. The gain is largely attributable to cotton and rice, the latter product increa.sing from 80,840,422 pounds in 1840 to 215,313,497 poimds in 1850. In the production of rye, potatoes, tobacco, sugar and miscellaneous farm products, there was a decline from 1840 to 1850. In horses, sheep, swine, barley, buckwheat and orchard products, we made but little advance and but little more in wheat, hay and wool. Eliminating the four years of prosperity under the tariff of 1842, the effect of the Mexican war, foreign famine and the discovery of gold, the decade would make a poor showing indeed, save in cotton and rice. 1 New York Commercial and Financial Chronicle. ■ Annual Report on Commerce and Na%-i. LOW TARIFFS, 1S33 TO ISGO. Nor does the decade from 1S50 to 1S60 show any better results. The highest estimate of the value of farm products iu i860 is $1,600,000,000, while many estimate the value as low as $1,400,000,000. Admitting the highest figure and deducting the value of cotton produced, and again for a decade we find no material advance. The true figures would probably show a considerable decline. And j-et, it was in behalf of agriculture that we were made to sacrifice so much. We were to feed the world, yet our own people were star\-ing. This is what free trade did for agricul- ture. What did it do for manufactures? The following table will show the total and per capita value of product and the number of hands employed in 1840, 1850 and i86o: The decade f.um iSso :n ,Sbo. 1840. 1S50. Populatiou, Value of manufactures, Per capita value of manufactures, . Number of hands employed, . . . Per cent of hands employed, . . . 17,069,453 1370,451.754 21.70 370,167 23,191,876 f 1, 019, 106,616 43-94 957,059 4 |i, 8851861,676 59.98 1,311,246 4 It must be remembered that the gain from 1840 to 1850 is due largely to the impetus given by the tariff of 1842. The real effect of free trade unaided by unusual causes is seen from 1850 to i860. There was no gain in the percentage of hands employed, while in 1890 the percentage of hands employed compared with the total population was eight, or just double the per cent in i860. The increase of per capita value of manufactured products was 37 per cent, small indeed when com- pared with the per capita increase of 150 per cent from i860 to i8go under protection. But a comparison of percentages is at best misleading, and it is only by a comparison of percentages that the free traders can make any favorable showing for this period. Let us suppose that there was made of any article $50 worth in 1850, and $100 worth in i860. There is a gain of 100 per cent. Now if $200 worth was produced in 1870 there was another gain of 100 per cent. Should $400 worth have been produced in 1880 there was still only a gain of 100 per cent, and if $800 worth was produced in 1890, there was still the same gain of 100 per cent. But if in 1896 there was $1500 worth produced, making the gain only 87 J-^ per cent, still the actual gain in the last period would be fourteen times that of the first. Thus do free traders take many of the newly started industries of 1842-46, and with their columns of percentages make a wonderful showing. In 1847 "we made 40,966 tons of iron rails. In 1853 five years after, we made 78,450, a gain of 37,484, or 92 per cent. In 1867 we made 410,319 tons which in 1872, five years after, had increa.sed to 808,866 tons, a gain of 398. 547 tons, or 96 per cent. The per cent gain is about the same in both Eslimalei ages are misleading. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES: cases, while the net gain of the latter five years is ten times that of the former. In 1846, 638 patents were issued. In i860 there were granted 4.778, a gain of 650 per cent. In 1876 there were 15,595 issued, and in 1S90, 26,292 issued, a gain of only 68 per cent for the fifteen years of pro- tection, against a gain of 650 during the fifteen years of free trade. And yet, the total number of patents issued during the latter period was 288,- 207, against 29,017 in the former period, or about ten times as manj% or, per capita, five times as many. While this allusion to the number of patents issued is given to illustrate the fallacy of a comparison of percent- age increase, it will serve to point out most significantly the effects of free trade and protection on the inventive genius of the people. Without ambition or hope, the mind does not reach out very far ; it must be wholly occupied in solving the problem of existence, while under pros- perit>-, in the enjoyment of comfort and contentment, there is a constant desire to grasp higher attainments, and the result can be clearly seen from the returns of the patent office. But all the percentages of free trade conception and calculation can- not make wealth from poverty, prosperity from bankruptcy, or gain from loss. Treat the period from 1846 to i860 as you will, the best that can be said of it is, that we stood still in proportion to our increasing popu- lation. And had it «ot been for a succession' of domestic and foreign advantages such as had never before occurred, and probably never will occur again in a single decade, the ruin that came would ha\-e come ten years sooner, or been ten times as great, if it were possible to reach such a result. But if we suffered, England did not. She gained to the extent of millions; yes, hundreds of millions of dollars. Professor Taussig, says ;' " T/ic revenue was redundant in iSjj, and this was t lie chief cause of the reduction of duties. ' ' And again : In fact, the crisis of 1S57 was an unusually simple case of activity, speculation, over-banking, panic, and depression; and it requires the exercise of great ingenuity to connect it in any way with the tariff act. As it happened, indeed, the tariff was passed with some hope that it would serve to prevent the crisis. Money was accumu- lating in the treasury ; and it was hoped that by reducing duties the revenue would be diminished, money would be got out of the treasury, and the stringency, which was already threatening, prevented. - What are the facts? In 1855, '56 and '57. Ae customs receipts and expenditures of the government were as follows : Receipts. 1S55 fe^,o25,794 1856 64.022,863 1857 63,875.905 iHistory of the Tariff, p. 11.S. =Id., p. ilS. Expenditures. $56,316,197 66,772,527 66,041,143 LOW TARIFFS, JS.13 TO 1860. Had it not been for the unprecedented receipts from the sales of pubhc lands which amounted to $28,885,492 during the three years pre- ceding 1857 there would have been a deficit in the treasury each year. Whether these sales were made for the purpose of meeting the require- ments of the government or not, it is certain that any redundancy was not due to the workings of the tariff. How about the balance of trade for these years? Since 1847 it had been as follows: Domestic Exports. Imports. 1S4S, $130,203,709 8148,638,644 1549, 131,710,081 141,206,199 1550, 134,900,233 173,509,526 1851 178,620,138 210,771,429 1S52, 154,931,147 207,440,39s 1S53 189,869,162 263,777,265 1S54, 215,328,200 297,623,039 1855 •I92.75i>i35 257,808,708 1S56, 266,438,051 310,432,310 1857, 278,906,713 348,428,342 Total, 11,873.658,569 12,359.635,860 Balance against us, $485,977,291 Or an annual average of 48,597,729 Now, how much coin and bullion were we compelled' to send away to pay for this excessive importation ? Exports of Goi,d .\nd Silver Coin and Bullion from the United States. Domestic. Foreign. ■ Total. 1848 • • 1849 12,700,412 956,874 2,046,679 18,069,580 37,437,387 23,548,535 38,062,570 53,957,418 44,148,279 60,078,352 $13,141,204 4,447,774 5.476,315 11,403,172 5,236,29s 3,938,340 3,2iS,934 2,289,925 1,597.206 9,058,570 115,841,616 5,404,64s 7,522,994 29,472,752 42,674,135 27,486,875 41,281,504 56,247,343 45,745,485 69,136,922 1850, 1852, 1853, 1854, . • 1855 1857, Total, . $340,814,274 Not in a single year of the ten was the balance of trade in our favor; not a single year passed without our sending away our gold in large amounts. And yet Professor Taussig would have us believe that the reduction of duties in 1857 '^^'^s due to the "redundant" condition of thenational finances. The experience of the United States under a high tariff or a low tariff has been well understood by the statesmen, economists and histor- ians of the world. The result has not been different from that in other TARIFF QCESriOX fX THE UNITED STATES. countries when protection has been extended to their industries, or when they have been exposed to the ruinous competition of rivals possessed of superior advantages. The dogmatic free trader does not dispute the effect which the practice of protection or free trade has on the industries of a country under those conditions. Their position, however, being that it is better for a nation to forego the production of those articles which it is unable to make at a lower cost than they can be produced in other coun- tries having superior advantages either of capital, skill, or cheap labor, and to buy in the cheapest market. When there is no dispute among economists or between protectionists and free traders upon the effect of the two systems on the industries of a country; when the controversj' only arises over their relative benefits, it is idle for free traders who are advocating the " buy in the cheapest market " doctrine, to attempt to dis- guise or misrepresent the effect of those low tariffs on established indus- tries, or to claim for them different results from those actuallj- intended or achieved. That we purchased more largely of the manufactures of for- eign countries under the low tariffs than we did under the high tariffs, and that labor and capital under the low tariffs found less employ- ment at home in the industries thereby affected, there is not the slightest question. That high tariffs encouraged the building of factories and gave employment in them is equally conceded; the contentions of the free traders, however, being that industries thus brought into existence and supported, are artificially fostered, and that the result is to compel the consumers to pay more for their goods than they would be able to buy them for in other countries where they can be made cheaper. This being the common argument of free trade writers, the free trade press and the free trade stump speakers, why they should seek to misrepresent the effect of the acts of 1846 and 1857, is inexplicable on any other grounds than that they are attempting to evade the responsibility of the busi- ness depression and calamities which have ever befallen the people under an actual test of their dogmas. The unwise course of Southern statesmen was fully demonstrated when between 1861 and 1865 they came to measure their strength with the people of the North. Under their leadership and teachings the South had become imbued with the principles of free trade. Although possess- ing one great staple product, cotton, for which their climate was so well adapted and in the production of which they could hold a monopoly of the world's markets and supply cotton factories whether located in Europe or America, yet, as is now being demonstrated, it was but one source of wealth and formed, in fact, but a small part of the natural richness and resources of the country. With inexhaustible iron mines and coal meas- ures in nearly all their States, with fuel and raw material lying side by side, with their cheap labor they could have established cotton factories, worked up their raw material at home, and rivaled Manchester LOW TAHIFFS, IS-IS TO in the production of this fabric. With the natural resources and richness of the South, a diversity of industries would have attracted capital, skilled labor, and developed a degree of genius and business enterprise which would have made the States unrivaled in their wealth; but instead of this, they turned their energy to the production of one great, staple commodity; following out the teachings of British economists, they neglected every- thing else for one great industry. The result was that in 1861, and during the war, their cities and towns were unprosperous, their capital was in\-ested in cotton plantations, and the only way they could get this product to the market was by running the blockade of Federal cruisers. They had been talking secession and preparing for war for nearly thirty years. Industrially they were little prepared for it. On the other hand, the North,without believing in the danger of a rebellion and with no inten- tion of preparing for internal strifes, had availed itself of the advan- tages afforded by the protective regulations and in every way possible built up a system of diversified industries which had attracted to it immigration, skill and capital. Large commercial cities, numerous industrial centres had arisen in the North, which had a population of 22,000,000 and nearly all the wealth of the country ; while the Confederate States had only 11,000,000 of people, and limited and undeveloped resources. In these circumstances, the contest from the outset, when the chances of war are measured by property and wealth alone, was an unequal one. The South had threatened secession for nearly thirty years, and yet in 1S60 it had only seventy -five hands engaged in making firearms, while in the North there were 1987 in this occupation. The South had only 1768 persons employed in the woolen and worsted industry, while in the North there were 31,500. Although producing the raw cotton, the South had only 9966 hands engaged in its manu- facture, while in the North the number had reached 111,378. With an inexhaustible supply of coal and iron easily accessible, the South gave employment only to 5087 persons in the production of iron manu- facture, while in the North there were 63,045. So we might go through the whole line of manufacturing with a comparison of establishments, hands employed and value of the product, and by a similar comparison fully illustrate the folly of a people possessed of great natural resources and facilities for carrying on almost every kind of industrial pursuits, in becoming wedded to an unwise industrial system, neglecting the very opportunities which nature had given them, and failing to avail themselves of the advantages of the fostering care of protection, which was enacted to promote the welfare and advance the prcsperity of every section of our common country. North, South, Ea,st and West. CHAPTER III. Protective Legislation, iS6o to 1890. It is the province of this and succeeding chapters to show bj- facts and figures the industrial changes of our country since the enactment of the Morrill tariff in March, 1861. It was on March 12, i860, that Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, introduced a tariff bill from the Ways and Means Committee. It passed the House May 10. In the Senate, however, it was put aside till December, but was finally passed March 2, 1861, receiving President Buchanan's signature a few hours before his leaving office. The bill went into effect April 2. This bill increased the duties by about 10 per cent, and by the changing of many duties from ad valorem to specific gave the new law a dis- tinctively protective character. But this act was not adequate to meet the increasing expenditures made necessary by the war. An extraordinar>' session of Congress was convened July 4, 1861, and a bill further increas- ing tariff duties became a law August 5. This was practically the first of the war tariffs. On December 24, of the same j'ear, duties were increased on sugar yi cent per pound, tea 5 cents, and coffee i cent. The Republican party, in nominating Abraham Lincoln in the preced- ing year, had made protection to native industries one of its cardinal prin- ciples, and inserted in its platform the following plank, written by Henry C. Carey: 12. That while providing revenue for the support of the general governments by duties from imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imports as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the couutrj' ; and we commend the policj' of National Exchange which secures to the workingmen liberal wage.s, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an ade- quate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence. On the other hand, the South had adopted free trade pure and simple. Article i, section 8, clause i, of the Confederate Constitution reads: The Congress shall have power : To lay and collect taxes, duties, imports and excise, for revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defence and carry on the government of the Confederate States ; but no bounties shall be granted from the treasury, nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry. It may not be amiss to state here that the events and results chroni- cled in the following pages are a true histors- of the times. The terms Nortli and South are used in no partisan or offen.sive spirit. No historian PEorEcriVE LKaisi,ATTO.\; ison ro ism. could be just to himself or his subject should he ignore the overshadowing fact that the North had adopted and was maintaining the policj- and [irinciples of a protective tariff, while the South had espoused free trade, and was carrj'ing on her battles under the banner of Cobdenism. And it can safel)' be contended that protection contributed no small part to the successful issue of the war in favor of the North. We are told bj- free traders that it was the war itself which brought about the wonderful indus- trial advance of the North. The truer statement would be that our progress and prosperity came under protection not because of. but in spite of, the war. In addition to tho.se already mentioned, the following tariff acts were passed during the war: July 14, 1862, general increase of rates; March 31, 1863, on unsized printing paper, crude petroleum and coal illuminat- ing oil, 20 per cent; April 29, 1864, joint resolution, increase of rates 50 per cent for sixty days, extended to July i, 1864; June 30, 1864, general increase of rates; March 31, 1865, rates changed on cotton manufactures, oils, tobacco, silk, ready-made clothing. In April, 1865, came Appomat- tox and the close of the greatest civil and industrial struggle of modern times. Without protection in the North, the struggle would certainly have been longer — the result might have been different. It is pertinent now to inquire into the effects of the two tariff policies during the finst half of the decade from i860 to 1870, or the war period. Various reputable estimates place the expenditure of money, property destroyed and production prevented during the war at $9,000,000,000. Nor does that represent the whole loss to industry. Half a million producers had been killed and a million disabled. The nation's debt at the close of the war was $2,808,549,337.55. Our expenditures during the war amounted to $3,752,844,234.30. These figures are unprecedented in the history of nations, and yet not once did we ask a loan from any foreign capitalist. Secretary of the Treasury Fessenden, in his message of i864,said: This nation has been able thus far to conduct a domestic war of unparalleled magnitude and cost without appealing for aid to any foreign people. It has chosen to demonstrate its power to put down an insurrection by its own strength, and fur- nishes no pretence for doubt of its entire ability to do so, either to a domestic or foreign foe. The people of the United States have felt a just pride in their posi- tion before the world. . . . After nearly four years of a most expensive war, the means to continue it seem apparently undiminished, while the determination to prosecute it with vigor to the end is unabated. But this was not all. Our people had not only supported themselves and the government, besides furnishing the latter with nearly $4,000,000,- 000, but in this same period they had increased their savings from $149,277,504 in i860 to $242,619,382 in 1865, an increase of over 65 per cent. Had the tariff of 1857 or even that of 1846 remained in force during the war whence would have come the nionL'\ to meet the above expenditures — to furnish the government with even the means to exi.st, to TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES say nothing of carrying on the war ? Well might Secretary Fessenden refer to the pride of the people of the United States. The figures quoted show the monetary condition of the country at that time. Only ap- proximate figures could be given to illustrate what we had accomplished in industrial pursuits, and after all this will appear from the figures quoted. This favorable financial condition is traceable directly and solely to our system of protection inaugurated by the Morrill act and maintained by suc- ceeding tariff laws, and if we want conclusive proof of this we have but to step across the Mason and Dixon line at this same date and observe the con- dition of a people wedded to free trade. The cotton crop of i860 was the largest ever known up to that time. Their mines were teeming with ore. But with their resources was that clause of their Constitution, "JVor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry .' ' This was their past, present and would-be future policy. Had they encouraged manufacturing before the war, it could have been maintained to some degree at least to meet domestic need and the men who were not battling in the ranks could have battled at the loom and forge and the women and children as well might have been a hundred times more efficient in aiding the efforts of those under arms. And yet no sadder picture can be drawn than the condition of the Southern people at the close of the war. It were better not to recall the memor\- of that time in detail. It can all be summed up in a single sentence : Worthless money, idle mills, ruined homes, with barely the food and clothing neces- sary to maintain life itself Far pleasanter is it to consider once again a united countrj' and note the progress and prosperity for the succeeding years of a people under one government, one flag and one system of fiscal legislation. The various tariff acts from 1865 to 1870 were as follows : March 15, 1866, July 28, 1866, March 2, 1867, when the duties were raised on wool and woolens and many other articles; and February 24, 1869. By referring to table on page 631 our progress in this decade can be readily noted. In wealth we gained 90 per cent; in savings nearly 300 per cent; in per capita .savings 250 percent; in manufactures 130 per cent; in wages over 100 per cent. We began at once to reduce our national debt and the following table shows not only the reduction for the five years following the war, but the increase during the last five years preceding the war. Both were times of peace but the former was free trade times, the latter years of protection. National Debt. Last five years preceding the war— free trade. 1S57, $28,460,958 185S 44,700,838 1859 58,290,738 1S60, 64,640,838 1S61, 90,380,873 J 16, 239,880 14,589,900 6,350,100 25.740,035 PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, 1S60 TO 1890. First five years following the zcar— protection. Year. Debt. Annual Decrease. 1S65 12,381,530,294 1866 2,332,331,207 549,199,087 1867 2,248,067,387 84,263,820 1868 2,202,088,727 45,978,660 1869, 2,162,160,522 39,928,205 In 1870 the debt was $2,046,455,722 a decrease of $115,704,800. It must be remembered that the so-called war tariffs were framed with a view to both revenue and protection, and that all revisions made since that time up to 1890 have been made by the Republican part)- solely to eliminate all excessive duties, and with the paramount idea of protection to American labor and industry. For example, at the close of the war there were only eighty articles on the free list. In the McKinley bill 289 articles were left free, and over 50 per cent of our total importations under that bill came in free. Protectionists do not frame laws based on vision- ary theory. Practical experience has been made the ground-work of each and every law, whether wholly new or a revision. With the exception of a few luxuries, protectionists would impose no duties on non-competing products. The following table will show the gradual increase in the per- centage of free imports from 1867 to 1894, inclusive: 1S67, Per Cent Free. 4- 50 4.40 5-50 4-74 1870,, 1871 S.12 1872 S.51 1873, 26.90 1874 26.73 1S75. 27-83 1876, 30.26 1877 32.02 1878 32.24 1879 32-45 1S80 33.15 1882, 1883, 1SS5, 1886, 1887, 1891 1893. 1894, 31-13 29-42 29.52 31-15 33-28 33 -S3 34-11 34-27 34.61 34-39 45-41 56.30 52.60 59-53 Note the large increase under the operation of the McKinley bill in 1891, 1892 and 1893 over the years following the law of 1883. A consistent protectionist measure puts on the free list all articles tlie like of which cannot be produced at home, excepting certain articles of luxury, such as wines, spirituous liquors, etc., and imposes adequate pro- tective duties on all commodities the like of which can be produced in our own factories by our own labor. The tariff changes during the decade from 1870 to 1880 were as follows: July 14 and December 22, 1870, rates reduced on many articles, increased on a few, free list largely increased; May i, 1872,' tea and coffee TARIFF QUESTION IX THE UNITED STATES. made free; June 6, 1-872, reduction of 10 per cent, free list further increased; revised statute of June 22, 1874: Februarys, 1875, known as the Little tariff bill, some rates increased, others reduced; March 3, 1875, rates increased on sugar 25 per cent, repeal of 10 per cent reduction of act June 6, 1872; July i, 1S79, quinine made free. The most important of these acts affecting a single industry was the duty of one and one-quarter cents per pound, or $28 per ton, imposed on steel rails in 1870. The manufacture of steel rails in the United States began experimentally in 1865, and as a commercial product two years later. It was not till 1870, however, when the industry received adequate protection, that we really began to show the world what we could do. The following tables will show our production from 1867 to 1S94: 1867, 1S6O, 1S&9 1S70 ($28 per ton duty), 1871, 1S74, Sross Tons Produced, 2,277 6,451 8,616 30.357 34,152 83,991 115,192 129,414 S92, 1S75, 259,699 1876, 368,269 1S77, 385,865 1S78, 499,817 1879, 618,850 1S80, 864,353 As our manufacture of steel rails has rails has decreased. In 1872 we made 808,866 gross tons of iron rails — our largest annual production, while in 1894 ^^'^ made only 4674 tons — our lowest production. It will be pertinent also to note the importations during this period, and to that end the following table is appended: Importation ok Rails of All Kinds. Gross Tons Produced. 1,210,285 1,304,392 1,156,911 999,367 963,750 1,599,395 2,119,049 1,390-975 1,513,045 1,871,425 1,298,936 1,541,407 894, 1,017,098 ncreased, the production of iron 1867, 145,580 186S 223,287 1S69, 279,609 1870, 356,387 1871 505.537 1872 473,973 1873 231,046 1S74, 96,706 1875, 17,364 1S76 256 1877 3' 1878, 9 1879, • • • 39.417 18S0 259,543 1S86, 1S87, Tons. 344,929 200, 1 13 34,801 2,829 2,189 41.587 137.830 63.037 6,217 204 253 347 2,8SS PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, ISGO TO 1S90. The 3'ear of largest production and consumption was 18S7. It was also the year of largest mileage of new railroad construction in the United States. The decline in both production and consumption in recent years is due of course primarily to the decline in railroad consumption. Two marked declines in the imports will be noted. The first during the years 1874-79 can be attributed to the financial depression of that period. The second, since 1887 to the present time, is due to the cheapening of prices of the domestic rails. In 1870 the price of a ton of steel rails was $106 in gold. During the first three months of 1895 the price was $22 In 1872 steel rails were included in the 10 per cent reduction of duty but the old duty was restored three years later. In 1883 the duty was reduced fo $17 per ton; in 1890 by the McKinley act, to $13.44 per ton, the present duty ( Gorman-Wilson act ) being $7.84 per ton. No better example of the workings of a protective duty can be cited than the figures given above. First, the establishment of the industry itself; second, constantly increased production and consequent decreased importation; third, gradual reduction in price. It will be seen also that the duty was twice materially reduced in protection measures to meet altered conditions, while in our present free trade law the duty is just 28 per cent of that originally imposed in 1870. So long as the duty added to the foreign price with cost of trans- portation exceeds the home price so long will it be protective. The differ- ence in wages and labor cost will be found elsewhere and will show just how much duty is needed to protect and maintain this industrj' in which we have not only overtaken but left far behind the free trade mills of Great Britain. May I, 1872, in accordance with our protection doctrine, the duties on coffee and tea were entirely removed. In June of the .same year Con- gress also passed the following: That on and after the first day of August, 1872, in lieu of the duties imposed by law on the articles in this section enumerated, there shall be levied, collected and paid on the goods, wares and merchandise in this section enumerated and pro- vided for, imported from foreign countries, 90 per centum of the several duties and rates of duties now imposed by law on said articles severally, it being the intent of this section to reduce existing duties on said articles 10 per centum of such duties. The .section included the iron, steel, cotton, gla.ss, wool and woolen schedules as well as many other important articles. It was, to say the least, most unfortunate and untimely, and while not the sole cause yet it no doubt contributed much to the financial trouble of the following year known as the panic of 1873. Free traders love to dwell on this panic as having occurred under a protective tans' — all other panics and periods of financial prostrations having been accompaniments of free trade. But it is not difficult to analyze and account for the disastrous times of 1873 and the six years following. First we find a general reduction of duties before we had fully recovered from the war. We had not yet restored TARIFF QUKSriOX IX THE UNITED STATES. the number of producers lost nor the vast property destroyed. When the national debt was funded there was $150,000,000 needed for annual interest, a great proportion of it going to Europe in exports of gold or its equiv- alent. Pensions too took a large part of the nation's income, over $200,- 000,000 having been disbursed from 1866 to 1873, inclusive. Two hundred million dollars more were diverted from the ordinary channels of busi- ness by the rebuilding after the great Chicago and Boston fires of 187 1 and 1872. But these were not the only burdens the people had to bear at this time. Being on a paper money basis all gold payments added a hea\'y premium. The panic had been averted for over eight years and when it did come it did not bring general disaster so much as individual loss and sacrifice. "And strongest of all points (quoting Mr. Blaine in his answer to Gladstone), the financial distress was relieved and prosperity restored under protection, whereas the ruinous effects of panics under free trade have never been removed except by a resort to protection. ' ' We had been living during and after the war under inflated valuations. When prices began to fall toward a normal basis, it brought about a readjustment of every department of production, and every kind of business. One of Presi- dent Grant's first messages to Congress recommended a speedy return to specie payments. This was the first step toward bringing the country down from the inflated condition that existed. While the panic of 1873 in the United States was followed by a period of great industrial prosperity and growth, the reverse has been the case in free trade England. The depression which set in there in 1876 has grown in intensity up to 1895, when relieved in part by our Democratic Congress. While England was neglecting her home market under free trade, the people of the United States were preserving and protecting theirs by which they were enabled to save all of the results of the enterprise, energ}- and industry of their own people. In June, 1874, the tariff was revised and in March of the following year the 10 per cent reduction of 1872 was repealed. It was now thought best to begin the preparations for a return to specie payments and a law to that effect was passed in 1875 to take effect January i, 1879. Notwithstanding the financial disasters which continued for six years of this decade and the changes consequent upon a return to coin payment, a most wonderful industrial advance was made. In population we gained 30 per cent. Of wealth we added over $13,000,000,000, a gain of 44 per cent. In savings we gained 49 per cent. In total manufactures 27 per cent, and iron and steel production nearly 200 per cent. We increased our railroad mileage by over 40,000. In fact we gained in every branch of industry, at the same time reducing the national debt by $322,462,622. Again, for a decade were the wisdom and strength of a protective tariff demonstrated. It had withstood war and its effect ten years before. It had now with- stood a prolonged financial depression. In each case the nation had done PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, 1860 TO 1890. an increased business, added to its wealth and paid oflF much of its obliga- tions. While other nations were declining in material welfare or at best standing still, the people of the United States were advancing with rapid strides to the foremost position the3' now occupy in all things pertaining to the welfare of man. The causes which led to the revival of the tariif question as a party issue soon after iS8o, will be discussed in a later chapter. It, however, was forced into prominence after the Congressional elections of 1882, and important legislation followed. President Arthur was empowered to appoint a tariff commission and its report was accepted and a law framed upon the lines suggested. This law became operative in 1883 and its con- sequences were very manifest. The law was supposed to reflect the wishes of the people. The "War Tariff" and " Robber Baron " cries were repeated over and over again, till certain weak Republicans suc- cumbed and the law of 1883 was passed, making most radical changes. It was thought bj- protectionists that if concessions were made, even at a sacrifice, the tariff agitation would cease for years to come. In fact it was a general belief that the bill of the Tariff Commission if accepted would stand for at least twenty years. Consequently the changes were made. The cotton schedule was cut down, while the duties on mauy forms of iron and upon agricultural products were lowered beyond the point of safety. More- over such changes were made in the wool and woolen schedule as to affect those industries most disastrously. And here is to be seen the insidious craftiness of the Cobdenites and their American allies. In 1883 as in 1888 and 1894 the fiercest part of the battle was waged against our wool and woolen interests. England could not hope to break down our iron industries. We have long since ceased to depend upon her for those products. But in the wool industry she inserted an entering wedge and that wedge has already made a large gap. In 1 867 when the protective wool tariff went into effect we had 39,385,386 sheep. In 1884 they numbered 50,626,626, the highest number this countn,' has ever known. But the effect of the tariff of 1S83 was such as to reduce the number to 42,599,079 in 1889. The true measure of the growth of the wool industry, however, is not so much the number of sheep as the amount of fleece. The number of pounds of wool grown in 1S67 was 160,000,000. In 1884 it had increased to 300,000,000 pounds, but had fallen off again to 265,000,000 pounds in 1889. These figures most vividly illustrate the workings of the tariff in wool produc- tion. With adequate protection we would soon have 100,000,000 sheep and grow every pound of wool we need. " But," says the free trader, "we can't grow all kinds. It is necessary to import a certain quantity of the finer wools and we should not tax that when by importing it free it would give increased employment to laborers in our woolen mills and cheaper clothing to all." This fallacy has been exploded so many times TARIFF QUESTION IN THE CXITED STATES. that it seems superfluous to refer to it again. Pages of testimony can be given to prove that we can raise as fine wool here as in any part of the world — that we can by proper protection and development raise afir and a// kinds. The following quotation is from a letter written by Secretary of Agriculture, Hon. J. M. Ru,sk, to Colonel Albert Clarke, dated February 28, 1890: " // [the United States] fan produce ivith no limitations of practical importance, all the races and breedi of sheep in the ivorld. Another extract from the same letter is as follows: "As to carpet wools: The principal reason why they have not been produced in sulficient quantities is because the}- have been discriminated against in tariff rates." The American Consul at Sidney, New South Wales, G. \V. Griffin, in his report to the Department of State, March 23, 1891, says: ' ' The samples of American wool and especially those grown iu the State of Ohio, sent to Melbourne International Exposition, were admitted by experts to be far superior to anything of the kind ever grown in these colonies. ' ' William Whitman, president of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, in an ofiicial letter to Je.sse Metcalf, November 22, 1889, said: " In my judgment the American staple wools are better adapted for the fabrication of satisfactory clothing for the American people than any other wool grown." But we are told by the free trader that we must needs import certain wools to " mix " with our own. The following testimofiy of a manufac- turer of woolen goods will refute this claim. Charles Fletcher, of the Providence Worsted Mills, in a letter, February 18, 1890, to the Boston Home Market Club, said: ' ' The talk of ' mixing ' Australian wool to make goods required for this market is all nonsense, as Australian wools are only used largely here when they are cheaper than domestic wool." On February 21, 1890, Ju.stice, Bateman & Co., with a knowledge of the real facts unsurpassed by any experts in the world, wrote: These statements are not correct iu any particular. The iinest and strongest wool ever raised in any part of the world has been rai.sed from Saxony sheep in the section of the country where the rivers flow toward and into the Ohio Valley. It has decreased because the American wool -growers are handicapped by the reduced tariff of 1883, and cannot compete with the .\nstralian wool -growers. With regard to carpet wool, the wool liouses of Philadelphia formerly sold millions of pounds of carpet wool from New Mexico. Carpet manufacturers declared that it was the best carpet wool in the world. William L. Black, of Fort McKavett, Menard County, Texas, a prominent wool grower of that State, in a letter January 7, 1889, pub- lished in the Philadelphia Manufacturer of March, says: PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, 1860 TO 1890. " It is, in my opinion, quite possible to produce carpet wools profitably in the United States, and this will certainlj' be done if the tariff is amended to protect this branch of the industry." A. E. Shepard, president Texas Wool Growers, in a letter to William Lawrence, January i6, 1888, said: " I say most emphatically tliat with sufficient wool protection the United States can produce a sufficient quantity of carpet wool to supply the carpet wools of this country." J. F. Gibbs, of Greeley, Colo., January 2, iSgo, before Committee of Ways and Means, First Session, Fifty-first Congress, Tariff Hearings, p. 184, said as to carpet wool sheep in Colorado: "Ten years ago the coarse-wooled American sheep were abundant. The low duty on carpet wool has driven them all from the field. They were the poor man's sheep, good ' rustlers,' good mothers, and prolific. They were the sheep for the plain lands where there was no chance to put up hay for the winter." Surely this is conclusive testimony as to our ability to raise our own wool. With our own decline in wool products came of course increased impor- tation as shown in the following table : Importation of Wool and Woolens. 1S83. 1SS9. Wool. Pounds. Pounds. Clothing . 11,546,530 29,226,317 Combing i,373.ii3 6,869,871 Carpet, 40,130,322 90,391,451 Manufactured goods, 92,991,518' 157,000,000 146,041,483 283,487,729 But the loss is not only one of sheep and wool. Increase of sheep means increased labor in raising them, and corresponding wages. The industry would add a quota to the railroads and canals, with increased demand for labor to those engaged in transportation. It would increase farm values. It would give value to lands fit for no other industry. It would add to the number of pelts — again giving employment and wages to an increased number of men. It would give an increased mutton supply, benefiting producer and consumer alike, the farmer gaining a double revenue from meat and wool. Moreover sheep consume grain, and with 100,000,000 sheep there would be no com burned, no wheat or oats gone to waste. In short, the benefit would be incalculable and we can well see why England and her allies in the United States, when they want to strike down an important industry, attack our sheep. Continued free wool means ruin to our sheep industry. The flocks of Australia, the Argentine Republic and other countries are too large, their pasturage and labor too cheap, for us 1 Average 6 years, 1877-1882. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. to compete with them. If we are to raise our own wool we must have adequate protection. The onh- contention then remaining is regarding price. Free wool may mean cheaper wool, but even if protected wool is little higher than foreign wool, any increased price is far more than compensated for by the benefits of the wool industry'. But free w^ool would not rdean cheaper wool permanently. Protection does for a time enhance prices, but our vast area and abundant tracts of land suitable for sheep raising, and the competition that would result with sufficient protection, would soon bring the price to an equitable basis, as it has in the case of evefy other American product. It has been wondered why a Republican Congress should have given such a blow to the sheep industry as was done in the bill of 1883. In this connection, the following, from a speech by Mr. McKinley in the House, April 7, 1884, will be interesting: It is only proper that I should state that the last House never had an oppor- tunity to vote upon the wool duty as a separate proposition, but was compelled to vote upon the Senate bill as agreed to in the conference committee as a whole. The alternative was then presented to the House of passing the bill as an entirety, which involved reductions in custom rates and large reductions of internal revenue taxes amounting to $40,000,000 annually, or defeat it, and thus lose everj-thing of good which the bill contained. Had the question of disturbing the wool duty been presented distinct and separate, the reduction would never have taken place. This was shown when the Ways and Means Committee authorized one of its mem- bers to offer as a committee amendment the wool duties of 1867, which would have been presented and passed had the consideration of this schedule ever been reached in the House. Nor would the conference committee have failed lb correct the wrong if it had not been made manifest by repeated votes in the Senate that the increase proposed upon wool would certainly have defeated the bill in the Senate. It has been stated that the law of 1883 was a law of compromises and concessions; that it was a general belief that the tariff question would re.st for manj^ years; but as soon as the Democratic House of 1883 got to work a free trade measure was reported, known as the Horizontal Reduction Morrison Bill, but it failed to pass even the House. Other bills were reported in 1886, but failed, and the tariff of 1883 was left undisturbed till 1890. In 1884, however, for the first time .since the war, a Democrat and free trader was elected President. The influence of the Cobden Club's tracts had been effective. Mr. Cleveland, though an accidental man, was destined to leave his mark on the industrial and financial interests of the countrj-. When a Democratic Congress assembled in 1887, he submitted his famous free trade message. Tliis message was only a reiteration of the chief arguments of the Cobden Club pamphlets, which had deluged the country and showed that Mr. Cleveland had read them closely and with a good memory. The President was evidently an easy convert to Cobdenism. His message gave no sign of originality, no new points, no fresh thought. It PROTECTIVE LEIUSLATION, 1S60 TO 1890. was simplj' one more threshing of the old straw. The London Times then said: " It is certain that the arguments which President Cleveland urges are those which Cobden used to employ forty-five j'ears ago, and which any free trader could employ now. ' ' The message was hailed with joy in Great Britain, as may be seen from the following dispatch .sent to the New York Herald by a member of parliament : " To convert the United States is indeed a triumph. The Cobden Club will henceforth set up a .special shrine for the worship of President Cleveland and send him all its publications gratis. Cobden founded free trade, Cleveland .«aved it." In 1888 came the Mills bill, and a reopening of the whole question. It was impossible to pass any kind of a free trade bill, but months were spent in speech-making by members of both House and Senate. The so- called Mills bill was one of the mo.st iniquitous acts ever framed. But Mr. Mills was at least honest in his utterances. He did not hesitate to say free trade when he meant free trade. There were others, too, in the Demo- cratic party who used the same term without flinching, but most of our free traders preferred another term. The New York branch of the Cobden Club, which for years had been called the Free Trade Club, was now called the Reform C1u1d. Congressmen and college professors followed by Democratic speakers and editors, took i\p the word, and ' ' reform ' ' was used instead of ' ' free trade. ' ' Especially was the blow aimed at the American farmer. Free wool was made the keystone, free raw material the war cry, free trade the end in view. Unlike other free trade measures, the Morrison bill for example, it fa\ored the industries of one section of the country, while it menaced those of another. The following from a speech of Senator Plumb, states tersely the class of men who framed the bill as well as their methods: The committee consists nominalh- of thirteen members, five of whom are Repub- licans and eight Democrats, but six of the latter come from States recently under the thraldom of slavery, namely, Texas, Arkansas, Kentuck}', Georgia and West Virginia — these States thus furnishing six-eighths of this important committee; and I say this advisedly, for while there are nominally five Republican members, the bill comes solely from the eight Democratic members, not one of the Republicans having been permitted to see the bill, or even to know a single .syllable it was to contain until it had been published to the country. Every Republican on that committee might as well have been at their homes as dancing attendance at the committee-room while this bill was being formulated. It is a delusion to think that there were thirteen members on that committee; there were but eight, the five appointed from manufacturing States and favoring protection were absolutely ignored ; they were not permitted to participate in the work of the committee, and were not recognized as having any right to act or to have a voice in its delibera- tions; and of the eight practically constituting the committee, six, as I have shown, come from a particular section.' Congressional Record, p, 4924. TAUIFF QUESTWX IX THE UMTEI) STATE^^ Tabic Showing Comparative Growth of Principal Compiled from Census ■m Agricultural implements, Ammunition, . . Bags, other than paper, .... Boots and shoes, Bread and other bakery products, , Brick and tile, Carriages and wagons, Cars, street railroad, Chemicals and allied products, . . . Clay and pottery products Clothing, men s, ... Clothing, women's, factory products. Coffins, burial cases, etc Confectionery, Corsets, Cotton, Coke, Dentistry, mechanical, Dyein..; and finishing textiles, . . . Electrical apparatus and supplies. Engravings, etc., Fertilizers Foundry and machine shop products, Furnishing goods, men's, Furniture, Glass. Hats and caps (not wool) Hosiery and knit goods, Iron and steel, Jewelry ..... Lumber mills and saw mills, . . . Marble and stone work, Musical instruments and materials, . Newspapers and periodicals Paints, Paper Paving and paving materials Petrol'jum, refining, Roofing and roofing materials, ... .Saddlery and harness .Salt, Silk, Smelting and refining Steam fitting and heating apparatus, Wool :,erof Establishments. Hands Employed. 1880. 1890. ■880. 1890. 1.943 910 .39.5S0 42,544 4 35 1,066 2,267 37 64 2,242 3,760 1.959 2,082 111,152 139333 6,396 10,484 22,488 52,762 5,631 5,828 63.355 109. 151 3.841 8.614 45,394 73,453 130 166 14,232 35,929 1,349 29.520 43,701 752 707 10, 221 20,296 6,166 18,658 160.813 243,857 562 1.224 25.192 42,008 769 1,562 4.415 9,65s 1,450 2.921 9.S0I 27,211 "3 .205 8,802 11,370 756 go5 174,659 221,585 126 218 3,140 9. 159 753 3,214 541 4,737 191 248 16,698 20.627 76 189 9.4S5 479 817 3.347 5,642 364 390 8,598 10.158 4,958 6,475 145.351 247,754 161 586 11,174 22,211 6,008 5,973 62,662 92504 211 317 24,177 45,987 4S9 705 17,240 27,193 359 796 28,885 61.209 792 719 140,798 175.506 752 859 i2,8So 16,053 25,708 21,011 147,956 286,197 2,846 3,373 21.471 35.989 429 674 11,350 19428 3.467 16,566 58,478 165.227 244 382 4,483 8.737 692 567 24.422 29,568 46 704 757 22.730 86 94 9,869 12,47" 493 2,140 3,082 13.333 7,999 7,931 21,446 30,326 268 200 4.2S9 4.455 382 472 31,337 50,913 4 50 1.765 95 217 2,474 i',779 2,689 2,489 161,557 219,132 PROTF.CriVE LEGISLA TIOX, ISOO TO 1S90. Manufactures in the United States, i88o-i8go. of the United States. wages Paid, Cost of Material Used. Value of Product. l| II ,880. .8,0. 1880 1890. 1880. 1890. « Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. — 15,359,610 ii,%n.rM 31.531.170 31,603,265 68,640,486 81,271,651 42 18 I 361,778 1,110,482 1,223,452 2,759.782 1,904,966 6,538,959 207 243 2 776,026 1,462,011 8,027,770 12,657,270 9,726,600 16,355.365 88 68 3 43,001,438 66.375.076 102,442,442 118,7,85,831 166,050,354 220,649,-^58 54 33 4 9,411.328 28,789,047 42,612 027 72,507.579 65, 824, .^96 128,421 535 206 95 5 13.443.532 32,695,189 9.774,834 12,639,597 32,833.587 67,770,695 143 106 6 18,988,615 40,198,522 30,507,086 49,889,173 64,951,617 114,551,907 112 76 7 5,507,753 19,445.698 19,780,271 47,528,561 27,997,591 76,352,199 253 173 8 11,840,704 25.321,077 77.494,425 106,521,980 117,377,324 177,811,833 114 51 9 3,600,727 ■0,138,143 2,909,063 5,618,401 8,977.333 22,057,090 182 146 10 45,940,353 111,389,672 131,363,282 179,425,661 209,548,460 378,022,815 142 II 6,661,005 18,812,787 19.559.227 34,277,219 32,004,794 68,164,019 1S2 i'3 12 1,895,895 5,554.409 3.776,222 9,203,941 8,157,760 20,013,694 193 145 13 3,212,852 11,633,44s 17.125,775 31,116,629 25,637,033 55,997,101 262 lis 14 1,745.969 4,062,815 3,686,821 5,662,140 6,494.705 12,401,575 133 91 15 42,040.510 69.4S9.272 102,206,347 154,912,979 192,090,110 267,981,724 65 40 16 1,197,744 4,186,264 2,995,441 11.509.737 5,359.489 16,498,345 249 208 17 269,014 3,481, 189 455,037 1.475.255 1,860,647 7,864,299 1194 323 18 6,474,364 13,664,295 12,385,220 32,297,420 28,900,560 50 '10 19 683,164 5!366,'i88 1,116,470 8,819,498 2,655,036 19,114.714 685 620 20 2,744.821 4,104,361 1,006,891 1,396,912 4,999.273 7,294,143 50 46 21 2,648,422 4,671,831 15,595,078 25,1:3,874 23,650,795 39,180,844 76 66 22 65,982,133 148,3.89,063 103,345.083 171,145,156 214,378,468 412,701,872 125 93 ' 23 2.644,155 7.589,349 6,503,164 15,280,572 11.506,857 29,870,946 187 165 24 25,048,414 48,792,752 40,011,090 55,125,830 85,004,618 135,627.332 95 60 25 9,144,100 22,118,522 8,028,621 12,140,985 21,154.571 41,051,004 142 94 26 6.635,522 14.111,747 9,341,352 16,160,802 21.303,107 37,311.539 113 75 27 6,701,475 18,263,272 15,210,951 35,861,585 29,167,227 67,241,013 173 131 28 55.451,510 95,736,192 191,271,150 327,272,845 296,557,685 478,687,519 73 61 29 6 492,688 10,857,967 10,373.540 16,593,660 22,333,291 36,215.511 67 62 30 31.845,974 87,784,433 146,155.385 23i,5.'i5,6i8 233,268,729 403,667,575 176 73 31 10,238,885 25,363.521 12,743.345 26,868,904 31,415,180 62,595,762 147 99 32 7,098,794 13,306,383 8,361,227 14,435,563 19.254.739 36,868, 169 87 91 33 30,531657 105,083,075 32,460,395 68,858,915 90,789,341 275,452,515 244 203 34 2,132.255 5.605,626 17,062,552 24.930.532 42,223,314 23.390,767 40,438,171 163 35 8,525,355 13,746,584 33,951,297 55,109,914 74.309.38S 61 35 36 244,339 10.450,970 576,301 13,891,005 1,024,243 30,644,072 85,001,198 4177 2892 37 4.381,572 6,989478 34.999,101 67,918,723 43,705,218 60 94 38 1,411,133 8,553,026 3,382,354 14,712,379 6,227,284 29,412,813 506 372 39 7,997.752 16,030,845 19,968,716 24,674,225 38,081,643 52,970,801 39 40 1,260,023 1,782 49' 2,074,049 1,826,770 4,829.566 5,441.303 41 13 41 9.146.705 19,680,^8 19.208,683 46,351,200 34,519,723 69.154,599 115 100 42 158.300 1,122,353 8,171,900 25,285,191 8,411,100 28,188,826 609 235 43 1.305,739 7,594,395 2,857,000 10,628,314 5,127,842 23,147,434 482 351 44 47,389,087 76,660,742 164,371,551 203,095,572 267,252,913 337,768,524 62 26 45 TARIFF QUFSTION IX THE UNITED STATES. The chairman of this committee, Mr. Roger Q. Mills, had declared on the floor of the House in favor of " free men, free labor and free trade." He had further said: "The more confu,sion the tariff makes to bu.siness the better I like it, because then it will the .sooner be done away with. I desire free trade and I will not help to perfect any law that stands in the wa)^ of free trade." At the close of the debate the following colloquy occurred: Mr. McComas (Rep.). " Has any friend of this bill in this debate uttered one sentence in favor of the American tariff system \\-liich dis- criminates in favor of the home producer and laborer ? ' ' Mr. Hooker (Dem. ). " No; there was no one, and you will not find any Democrat to utter one." But to consider some of the main features of the bill. There were free wool and free lumber, free salt and free stone, free meat and free vegetables — on the other hand, rice, sugar and peanuts were left with a high duty on each. In short, while the duties on Northern productions were reduced to an average rate of 27 per cent, the duties on Southern productions were left at more than 75 per cent. The bill was a mass of inconsistent tariff legislation, and fortunate was it for the country that a Republican Senate stood in the way of its becoming a law. It became, however, the i.ssue in the ensuing Presidential campaign with the result that Benjamin Harrison was elected President and a Republican majority was returned to the Fifty-first Congress. The ten years from 1880 to 1890 were the most prosperous decade the United States ever experienced. The adverse legislation of 1883 and the constant menace of free trade brought about bj' Mr. Cleveland's election and message of 1887, together with the Mills bill agitation, had its effect, especially on the wool industry', but the beneficence of a pro- tective tariff was felt on every hand and with the most marv-elous results. Our wealth increased from ^43,000,000,000 to $65,000,000,000, a gain of over 50 per cent. Our savings gained in like propor- tion. Our manufactures increased over 75 per cent; hands emploj-ed, 75 per cent ; capital invested, 133 per cent, and wages paid, 140 per cent. We built 73,000 miles of railroad, and our production of iron and steel showed an increase of about 200 per cent. During these years, too, our national debt was decreased by $998,679,940 — nearly $1,000,000,000. An examination of Table No. 23, on pages 628 and 629 exhibiting the comparative growth of the principal manufactures of the United States from 1880 to 1890, will be found mo.st satisfactory. The increase in wages earned being 118 percent, while the increase in the value of the product is 73 per cent. It is safe to state that not in the hi.story of the world is there to be found a period of ten years of such industrial progress as is .shown by this table. PROTECTIVE LEGISLATIOX, 18G0 TO 1S90. In closing the brief review of the legislation between iS6o and 1890, and the reference in a general way to the progress of the nation during the several decades spoken of, the writer has compiled the following table exhibiting the general features of the wonderful progress which has been made during the thirty years beginning with i860 and closing with 1890. Table No. 24. Tabic Showing General Progress of U7iited States, i860 to i8go. Com- piled from Census Reports, a?id United States Statistical Abstract. banks^de™ Products of manufactures Number of establishmenl Capital invested Hands employed. . . . . Wages paid in mauufactu Products of agriculture, . $16,159,616,068 J ?5!4 $149,277,504 $4.75 693,8701 $1,885,861,676' : 140,403 »l,009.855,7!5 : 1,311.246. $378,878,966 .$1,131,005,092; : $6',645io45!oo7 1 of cottou. bale Manufacture of silk. . . . clay products, pottery, el' Printing and publishing. Foreign trade, Immigration, total up to, . , National debt (interest bear $98,330,584 183,070 11,838 173.104,924! 838,792.7421 95,452,1591 422,704,975 $4,705,741 $6,607,771 $2,463,681 $31,063.8981 $6l7:l92',!76l 5,285.3351 $65,037,091. :97| $1,039 $1,524,844,5061 $24,351 4,258,893 $9,372,437,283 355.415 $6,524,475,305 $2,283!2l6i529| $5,162,044,076 8$2,46o,lo7,454 $13,279,252,649 "$587,230,662 166.706 $207,208,696 $296,557,685 $478,687,519 1,558,371! 50,155.783 1,518.507, $43,642,000,000 $780; $870; I.874.358J $819,106,9731 $14.26' $16,331 .630,8461 2,335,5821 1,325,442; $5,369,579,191 252.148' 253.852I 1,208,769 $2,790,272,606: 1,058,996 2,732,595! 1,584.343 $947,953,795' i.427,242 $3,396,823,549 ?I77,489.739! 287.745.626 760,744,549 1,305.212 1.247.335 3.835. 191 232,500,000 40,765,900 5,755.359 $267,252,913! 44.336,072 7.472.511 $338,231,109 214,373,219 287,597.334 35i.i58.< 750,343,981 ^8,173.658! $41,033,045; $41,810,920' $90,789,341 $21,154,571! . . - $828,730,176! $1,503,593,404! 81,647, 7,735.855' 10,690,550^ 398,308,257; $19,417,194' ^.045,536 $66,862,447, $19,! -- :. "7,945, 776 $59,352,548 $87,298,454 $84,827,785 $275,452,515 $41,051,004 >.772 38 ! Debt, per capita. l'$2>38i.5: 30.295! $70,051 39! ^3 391 1 24 132; 25 3.343 32 787; 33 368 34 140; 35 The renewed agitation of the tariff question brought to the notice of the public not only the industrial development which had taken place under protection during a period of thirty years, but the condition of the 1 Deduct one-fifth from all values. 2 From Poor's Manual, ron and Steel Association. * From Department of Agricultur Estimated. ' 1879. ' 1889. ' 1865. a Decrease per cent. TAKIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. people; what they were doing, and what the}- were capable of accomplish- ing. Not only the great variety of articles which we had learned to make, but the vast number which we were still buying from Europe and unable to manufacture in our own factories under existing duties was brought to light. It was found that notwithstanding the marvelous development which had taken place in the manufacture of textiles, metals and other articles that the people of the United States were still importing each year vast quantities of goods which might be made at home. It was discovered that, while the duties were sufficiently high to afford ample protection to those engaged in the manufacture of nearly all coarser and more ordinary articles, it had as yet in many lines, not been increased to a point which would insure the production of more elegant and costly fabrics, as well as a number of the commoner sorts of articles. The dutj^ upon tin plate had been so low that every effort to establish factories in America had been defeated by com- petitors from England. We had been buying $250,000,000 worth of goods a year, which under proper tariff regulations could be made as well at home. The duties were so low on lace curtains, plushes, pearl buttons, worsteds, ladies' dress goods and a large variety of the finer fabrics that foreigia manufacturers were successfully competing with our own people and preventing the establishment of these industries in the United States. The result was to deprive our own labor of emplo3anent in their production. By increasing the duties on this class of articles capital and labor would be turned to their production which would add greatly to the field of our enterprises and give additional employment to our capital and labor. Again, we were annually importing $89,000,000 of sugar and molasses which was depriving the American farmer of a valuable industrj-. Continental countries, as has been shown, had developed a system of making sugar from beet roots. It was found that the States of Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska, and many other sections of our country were well adapted to the growth of this product, and that bj' extending to them proper protection, the incomes of their farmers could be greatly enhanced by the establishment of this industry. Not only the beet root industry was remaining undeveloped, but the cane sugar industry of Louisiana and Texas was languishing. Our population was increa.sing. The pro- ductive capacity of our people, through the use of machinery, was year bj"- year greatly augmented and it was desirable to make as man^' opportuni- ties for the employment of our labor as possible. Besides the tendency of all nations, with the exception of England, was found to be in the direc- tion of de\-eloping domestic resources and producing and making at home everything possible. The protection and growth of agriculture, even in den,sely populated Europe, had been so great that the demand for foreign farm products was diminishing. Besides, the development of agricultural regions in South America and Australia had brought into the field new PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, 1S60 TO 1S90. and strong competitors with our fanners in the European market. Again, Russia, x\ustria-Hungary and Roumania through the introduction of agri- cultural machinery arid improvements in farming, were every year raising a large sui-plus of farm products, which were seeking this same market in competition with American farmers; and through railway communications lying nearer the markets of Western Europe than the United States, they were able to undersell them. With these economic changes taking place throughout the world, with vast agricultural producing countries lying on every continent, with a surplus product for sale, and only a comparatively few people in the United Kingdom and Western Europe, who were purchasers of farm pro- ducts, the chances of a foreign market for our farms were not only yearly diminishing, but the competition had become so great that sales must be made at prices which were unremunerative. The necessity for preserving the home market was not only greater than ever, but these circumstances had forced upon us the imperative duty of enlarging the home market. How then could this be accomplished ? Not by moving in the direction of free trade and destroying indu.stries already established; not by relying on the sale of our products in foreign countries, but by increasing the incomes and purchasing power of our own people, by enlarging the field of their occupations and employments. Not by tearing down, but by building up. Not by separating the farmer further from the consumer, but by bringing him nearer to the one who was to purchase his commodi- ties. This could be accomplished by increasing the number of factories, the number of artisans and extending further that policy which since 1 860 has brought about the most marvelous industrial growth and develop- ment. But the wonderful advancement made during the past third of a cen- tury is, after all, but an indication of the possibilities within our reach. Our accomplishments, great as they have been, are yet but a beginning. Our vast territory, our almost inexhaustible resources, our tireless and ambitious people, possessing endless capabilities, all point to an expansion of national growth and industrial activity of a magnitude only to be meas- ured by opportunity and time. It is only by a diversification of industry, employing every hand and with the greatest advantage to all, that this can be brought about. It is only by a vigorous and continued policy of pro- tection that we can reap the advantages of our opportunities. The Statistical Abstract of the United States .shows that in 1890 we purchased from foreign countries manufactured articles of the value of $295,897,655. The following computation, based on the imports of 1889, was made by Colonel Albert Clarke, of the Home Market Club, of Boston, showing the employment which would be given to labor by the production of some of the principal articles imported into the United States, as follows: Need of increasing the home TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. Dutiable Imports, 1889, .-l/id the Number of Me7i, Women a7id Children 'who would have been Em- ployed in Producing them in this Country. Kind of Goods. Amount Imported. Men. Women. 2,013 Total. 16,389,325 1,721,428 2,460,390 1,159,157 1,686,456 4,025 14,088 Musical instruments and parts thereof, Steel billets, 8 000 3,250 800 1,500 3,250 1,500 19,000 Files . . 65,223 3,696,194 35,122,766 2,445,379 9,609,687 979,861 Cotton manufactures (bleached, dj'ed. 1.343 1,672 74 3,089 35.000 4,500 100 Still wines 4,000 2 100 1,600 13,332 150 liC 38,050 2,250 5,000 150 200 2,300 75 2,000 1,000 500 '500 1,600 Wood manufactures, Feathers and flowers (artificial), . . . 13.332 2,150 Soo 2,000 420 320 '•IS 5,000 1,250 50 4,600 ' 150 ■ " • 5,000 ■ 50 700 Yarns, ... 600 21,669,669 2,362,537 14,741,295 869,957 420,822 3,899,294 164,292 1,807,532 431,839 574,738 1,435,331 2,465,394 2,542,383 1,249,811 860,703 654,651 5,422,949 84,600 1,623,736 2,105,092 5,328,056 39,Soo Krown or bleached linens, ducks, can- 1,400 300 7,600 75 Cotton manufactures (not bleached, dyed, etc.; bleached, dyed, colored). Iron and steel forging, Iron and steel. Manufactures of cotton ties, hoops, bands, etc., Stone 1,000 Thread, twine, etc., yarn 329 300 40 204 6,000 45 5,600 ■ : : : 329 650 Paper, . . . ' 350 26^ 10 309 Paints and colors. 65 Thread (not on spools), Brushes 775 1,500 Earthen, stone and china, Chains of iron and steel, 3,000 1,500 10,500 45 200 Fish Fur dressed on the skin (not including manufactures of fur) Totals 5,800 » 50,000 1139,588,391 94,553 35,657 9.906 248;593 Now, if the importations of 1139,588,391 worth of goods kept out of employ- ment in the same lines of production 248,593 persons in this country, it is inferable that the total dutiable imports deprived«of similar work in this country nearly 800,000 people. and children two months lated to be employed in V.w ' One hundred and PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, ISGO TO 1S90. These figures standing alone, important as chey are, express only a small part of what might be accomplished by a revision of the tariff on the lines of protection to home industries. The Republican party, in entering upon the legislation of 1890, was prompted not only by a spirit of patri- otism, but controlled by the same wisdom and statesmanship which had guided the founders of the republic in establishing the ' ' American System." It had in view, not only the preservation of the industries already established but the extension of our field of production to all of those articles and wares which were being imported. This was a step in advance. It was an effort to plant new industries, to give increased employ- ment to labor, to add to the incomes and opulence of our people and to aid in the development and enrichment of every State and territory'. The future industrial growth of the United States involved a steady expansion of industries to keep pace with the increasing population, not only in the East, but in the South and West as well. Wonderful changes and new conditions had been forced upon us. The most important were found within our own borders. During the last quarter of a century an empire had arisen west of the Mississippi River, with boundless resources and a future filled with immeasurable industrial possibilities. The great North- west, the States of Minnesota, the two Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Wash- ington and Oregon are larger in area than all the States lying east of the Mississippi River, excluding the State of Maine. With inexhaustible agri- cultural and mineral resources, with vast water power and with an industri- ous, enterprising and ambitious population, this territorj' alone is capable, under a proper system of diversified industries, of sustaining a population of 100,000,000 of people. Kansas and Nebraska, although presenting, during the past twenty-five years, a most mar\'elous accumulation of wealth, are now ready to add to their great agricultural development nearly every department of manufacturing. The Pacific States, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah and Nevada can all increase their wealth and importance by diversifying their industries. The cities of the West would furnish a market for the fruits of California, while the wool and cotton of Texas would be worked up in factories near by. The new South has just entered upon an industrial career which is attracting to it the capital, skill and enterprise of the country. The last few years have produced most wonderful results as compared with the inactivity of a generation ago. Mills are being erected and put in operation to make up the cotton grown in the neighboring fields. Foundries are consuming the coal of the mines near by. Labor is being more and more fully employed, resulting in a constant increase of markets for products of Southern farmers. Within a few months the industrial exhibition held in Atlanta, Georgia, attracted the attention of the whole world, and from now on the South must be reckoned a most important factor of our industrial system. The pur- pose of the policy of tSgo. TAHIFF (K'ESTION IN THE IWlTEn STATE.' rndustiial Not until 1880 had the South recovered sufficiently to begin manu- rrfnr facturing on a substantial basis. What it accomplished in ten years can from iSSo to ,S90. be seen from the following: protection. State. Year. wages. Valueof Product. 1880 ;s 1890 18S0 ;is 1S90 1880 ;lo '^ 18S0 1880 ;^£ 1890 18S0 ,8,0 1 2,500,504 12,676,029 925.358 5,749,888 1.270,875 6,513,068 5,266,152 17,312,196 11,657.884 27,761,746 4,360,371 13.159.564 18.904,965 41.526,832 1.192,645 4.913.863 2,740,768 7.830,536 2,836,289 6.590,983 5.254.775 16,899,351 7.425.261 19,644,850 51,226.605 Arkansas 6,756.159 Florida, 5,546448 Georgia, 36,440,948 126,719 857 Louisiana, 24,205,183 Mississippi, 7.518,302 18,705,834 20,095,037 South Carolina i6;738,'o88 31.926,681 Texas, 20,719,928 70,433,551 Virginia, 51,780,992 88,363,824 It should be noted that, great as was th e increase of product, the per cent increase in wages paid was still greatei in everj- State. It is most amazing to the protectionist. of the countrj- that the business men of the South should give a blind adherence to the policy of free trade, when the very progress which has taken place among them during recent years has been made possible through the protective tariffs which shield them from ruinous foreign com] Detition. If manufactured goods were being poured into the country from the Old World they could not induce capitalists to build factories in the ir midst. They would be forced to sell their wares under such sharp anc injurious competition that their enterprises would become unremunerative and languish and die out, and they would be left again to the production of cotton as the principal means of support. Their cities and towns would cease to g row and their people would be doomed to rural pursuits. The progress which has been made in developing diversified industries in the Southern States, during the ten years from 1880 to 1890, should furnish them a profitable les.son in economics. l-tnther The following table, compiled from the ct nsus of the United States, nfprogrcis exhibits still further the progress which has been made in the Southern South. States under protection from 1880 to 18 50: PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, 1S60 TO 1890. Total population Whites, Colored, Actual wealth, State debts (net) Total public indebtedness, .... Total State revenues Banking capital, Capital invested during decade, . Railroad mileage, ... . . Men employed, Cost of railroad equipment, etc., . Number of manufactories, .... Capital Value of product Cotton mills Value of products, Cotton seed products, value, . . Pig iron produced, tons, Steel proiluced, tons Coal produced, tons, Precious metals, value, Total minerals, value, Value of lumber output, Value of forest products Lands under crops, acres, .... Value of agricultural machinery, etc., , . . ... Cotton produced, bales, Value, Fruit, value, Total value of farm products, . . Value, livestock, Schools, Teachers Pupils enrolled, Attendance, School revenues, 14.638,936 9,007,187 5.631.749 56,098,000,000 1118,195,252 1189,345,464 j$i3,249,S66 J92.S75.000 19.572 86,250 J5l2,OOO,O0O 34,563 S179.366.230 1315,924,704 161 |i6,353,i82 17,690,921 290,772 4.380 3,820,550 ■ 1225,176 J3, 643, 020 135,680,151 ^(46,979,062 54.679.145 $67,372,500 5.733.675 1258,524,911 $9,084,173 1611,679,145 $360,066,883 44,260 49,182 2,018,640 1. 39 1. 743 $5,607,081 17.556,920 11,361,996 6, 194,924 $9,751-815.635 $96,460,126 $183,772,353 ■^26,533,260 $171,690,670 $2.339, '70,000 41,118 ib8,73i $1,301,096,740 56,714 ^551,483,900 $742,865,200 334 $54, 19'. 600 $27,310,836 1,684,663 183.625 17.536.456 »7i2,789 $35,608,615 $102,122,100 $123,998,800 75.551.429 $120,750,000 7,776,215 $340,268,005 $24,620,500 $984,707,000 $555,905,108 66,647 74,055 3.359, '73 2,181,109 $14,767,396 19.9* 26.2* lo.o* 62.5* i8.4t 3-ot lOO.O* IIO.l* 118.S* 110.9* 64.2* 207.0* 135-2* 107.4* 231.4* 267.1* 480.9* 4,121.0* 362.9* 218.0* 877-5* 183.4* 163.8* 79.2* 3.6* 32-6* 171. o* 60.9* 54-1* 50.1* 50.5* 67-5* 56-9* 163.6* The States lying west of the Mississippi River are just entering upon industrial careers, and so far as manufacturing is concerned, are where the Eastern and Middle States were in i860, yet not so far advanced. To them the application of protection to infant industries is as necessary as it has ever been to the Eastern and Middle States since the formation of the government. Their future prosperity and development requires that manufacturing centres shall be established everywhere within their borders. The near markets which this would afford to their farmers, the exchange of commodities between the farms and villages, the increased employment to labor, the expansion of business enterprises would add immeasurably to their wealth; but if the development of manufacturing in the United States should be arrested, their energies would be confined almost exclusively to agriculture. TARIFF QVESriON IN THE UNITED STATES. If the New England States needed protection to infant industries in 1828; if the Northeastern and Northern States needed protection to infant industries thirty-five years ago to assist them in a diversified industrial development, certainly the great States of the South and West have quite as much need of protection to-day, because they are new countries, just upon the threshold of their industrial lives and require all the influences of protection to aid them in the establishment of industries. The future industrial progress of tlie United States requires the extension of manu- facturing to the South and the West. The people of those sections will not long continue to pay freight on their cotton, wool, iron and coal to send it to New England for manufacture and again pay freight on agri- cultural implements, building materials, household utensils and cloths to carry them all the way back to the South and West for consumption. If their home markets are secured to them from the destructive competition of cheap foreign manufactures, they will soon manufacture for themselves a large portion of those coarser fabrics and wares for which they have been depending on the Northeastern and Eastern States. That this is the ultimate destiny of these States is absolutely certain, unless through the adoption of free trade the development of this side of their industrial life is made impossible. A continuation of protection will insure the devel- opment of manufactures in the South and West. But what of the East, of New England and the Central Northern States ? What of the old seats of industry ? It is an important fact to be taken into account in considering the farther extension and development of manufacturing in these States, that notwithstanding the wonderful pro- gress that has been made in the various lines of manufactures, the appli- cation of machinery and inventions, and the cultivation of taste and skill, the people of the United States have scarcel}' passed beyond the production of coarse and ordinary articles. Yet still we may be said to be approaching the highest degree of skill and taste. We have certainly shown ourselves capable of making many things which the free traders for years contended could not be produced outside of Europe. In bleaching, dyeing, printing, and especially in designing the more beautiful and costly textile fabrics we are inferior to France, Germanj' and Switzerland. We rely on Europe for over $200,000,000 worth of manufactured goods and articles which find a market among us solely because of their superior excellence. The production of these fabrics and articles in Europe has been at- tained through long 3'ears of education and training of artisans, aided and encouraged by a most vigorous sj'stem of protection. The establishment of .schools of technical learning in which the study of cheniistrj' and all the scientific phases of textile manufacture is pursued and in which in.struc- tiun is given in the art of designing has placed Continental Europe ahead of the re.st of the world, and the superior fabrics manufactured there find markets among the wealthy families of all countries, despite protective PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, 1S60 TO 1S90. tariffs. The question arose, was the United States to advance to the pro- duction of the more refined and costly articles which are now being made in Europe? It had been demonstrated by years of experience that the duties on certain articles of this class were not sufficiently high to induce the application of capital and labor to the development of a high degree of proficiency in these departments. This was the great industrial problem confronting Congress in 1889, as it appeared to the Republican party upon its being restored to power. This presented a progressive question, not onlj^ in its application to changing economic conditions in the United States, but it also had a direct bearing on the future industrial pre-eminence of the country. As the pro- duction of many of the coarser articles would be transferred to the West and South, the older manufacturing centres of the East, with their capital, their plants and their industrial population would be directed to the manu- facture of the more costly and refined articles which were then being imported from Europe. The most enlightened advocates of this progres- sive policy had in view the establishment of technical .schools in which the artistic skill and taste, which is becoming so marked among our people, would become fully developed and directed to designing and making the most beautiful, costly and elegant wares and fabrics. Through this policy the industrial life of the people would become fuUj' rounded out and the United States would ultimately become supreme in every department of manufacturing, and every faculty, every taste, every aptitude, and everj- phase of the genius of our people would be given an opportunity to a.ssert itself and reach the highest degree of perfection. The world has reached such a point in industrial development through the progress of manufacturing in all countries that foreign markets are contested for with more strife than ever before. We are living in an age of excessive production. If the United States gains a foothold in foreign markets it must be through the superior skill of its people. When we make articles more beautiful and more de.sirable than our competitors, thej' will be sought after and readily sold, but we cannot rely on cheapness as a means of conquering foreign markets without reducing the wage rate of our artisans to the same level or below that of Europe. Industrial supremacy based upon a sacrifice of the homes, comforts and incomes of our wage- earners is purchased at too high a price. In keeping with the will of the people, as expressed in the elec- tion of 1888, and in harmony with the principles of the Republican party, the Fifty-first Congress entered upon a revision of the tariff for the pur- pose of promoting the welfare of the people of the United States, to whom alone it owed allegiance. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, was elected Speaker of the Hou.=e of Representatives, and selected as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, William McKinley, Jr., of Ohio. Mr. McKinley's associates on that committee were as follows: Burrows, Michigan; Dingley TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. Maine; Payne, New York; Bajme, Pennsylvania; McKenna, California; La Follette, Wisconsin; Gear, Iowa; Carlisle, Kentucky; Mills, Texas; Breckinridge, Arkansas; McMillin, Tennessee; Flower, New York. It will be seen that the whole country was represented from Maine to Cali- fornia — from Michigan to Texas. New York as the Empire State was rep- resented by one Republican and one Democrat. The Southern States had four representatives, the Western States five, Pennsylvania one and New England one. The committee met with open doors and gave a respectful hearing to all interests from every part of the country. Even importers and representatives of British industries were treated courteously and their statements given consideration. When the bill reached the Senate it had the benefit of the revision of men like Morrill, the author of the tariff of 1861, of John Sherman and John P. Jones, and of Nelson W^. Aldrich and Mr. Hiscock, of New York, all of whom had had large experience in tariff matters and intimate knowledge of the industries of the country. The bill became a law October i, 1S90, going into effect October 6. While no tariff bill can be perfect or entirely acceptable to all, still the McKinley act was the most protective tariff law ever framed. The principles of protection were kept paramount to everything else. There was no discrimination as to any section or any class. Mr. McKinley in his speech in the House, May 7, 1890, said: The tariff part of the bill contemplates and proposes a complete revision. It not only changes the rates of duty, but modifies the general provisions of the law relat- ing to the collection of duties. These modifications have received the approval of the treasury department and are set forth in detail in the report of the committee, and I will not weary this committee in restating them here. A few of the more important changes, however, are deserving our attention. There has been for many years a provision in the law permitting the United States to import for its use any article free of duty. Under this provision gross abuses have sprung up, and this exemption from duty granted the United States, has served as an open doorway to frauds upon our revenue and unjustifiable dis- criminations against our own producers. Not onl}' has the government imported supplies from abroad, but its officers, agents and contractors have been held to enjoy the .same privilege, which has been exercised to the injury of our own citizens. The result has been that the supplies imported by contractors for governmental work have, in many instances, been in excess of the demand for such public work and have been applied to other and different uses. This provision of law has been eliminated in the proposed revision. Your committee have been actuated in this by the belief that the government should buy what it needs at home; should give its own citizens the advantage of supplying the United States with all of its needed supplies, and that the laws which it imposes upon its own people and taxpayers should be binding upon the government itself. The committee have also fixed a limit upon the amount and value of personal effects accompanying the passenger returning from foreign travel to J500. It has been too common for citizens of the United States visiting other countries to supply themselves not only for their immediate uses, but for future uses and for the uses of their friends, and there has heretofore been no limit to the amount and value of foreign articles which could be brought in free of duly under the designation of PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION. "personal effects" if accompanied by the returning passenger. The practical effect of this provision was that the wealthy classes who were able to visit distant countries secured exemption from the payment of duties, while the average citizen unable to go abroad was compelled to pay a duty upon the articles which he might want to use. The limit of fcoo is believed to be sufficient for all honest purposes. We have also introduced a new provision in the bill which requires that foreign merchandise imported into the United States shall be plainly stamped with the name of the country in which such articles are manufactured. There has been a custom too general in some foreign countries to adopt American brands to the injur>- of our own manufacturers. Well-known articles of American production with high reputation have been copied by the foreigner and then by the addition of the American brand or American marks have fraudulently displaced American manu- facture, not in fair competition, but under false pretences. The counterfeit has taken the place of the genuine article, and this we propose to stop. England has felt the injustice of fraudulent marking, and stringent laws have been enacted to provide against false indications of origin abroad. Section 49 of the bill provides that goods, wares and merchandise and all arti- cles manufactured in whole or in part in any foreign country by convict labor shall not be entitled to entry at any of the ports of the United States, and the importa- tion thereof is prohibited. Nearly, if not all, of the.States of the Union have laws to prevent the products of convict labor in the state penitentiaries from coming into competition with the products of the free labor of such States. The committee believed that the free labor of this country should be saved from the convict labor of other countries, as it has been from the convict labor of our own States, and so recommended this provision. It will be of small account to protect our workmen against our own convict labor and still admit the convict-made products of the world to free competition with our free labor. By way of encouraging exportation to other countries and extending our markets, the committee have liberalized the drawbacks given upon articles or products imported from abroad and used in manufactures here for the export trade. Exist- ing law refunds 90 per cent of the duties collected upon foreign materials made into the finished product at home and exported abroad, while the proposed bill will refund 99 per cent of said duties giving to our citizens engaged in this business 9 per cent additional encouragement, the government only retaining i per cent for the expense of handling. We have also extended the drawback provision to apply to all articles imported which may be finished here for use in the foreign market. Heretofore this privilege was limited. This, it is believed, will effectually dispose of the argument so often made that our tariff on raw materials, so called, confines our own producers to their own market and prevents them from entering the foreign market, and will furnish every opportunity to those of our citizens desiring it to engage in the foreign trade. Now, the bill proposes that the American citize; may import any product he desires, manufacture it into the finished article, using in part, if necessary, in such manufacture, domestic materials, and when the com pleted product is entered for export, refunds to him all but i per cent of all the dut he paid upon his imported materials. That is, we give to the capital and labor of this country substantially free trade in all foreign materials for use in the markets of the world. We do not require that the product shall be made wholly of the foreign material. Already, under special provisions of laws and regulations of the treasury department, parts of a finished product made here and attached to the finished article do not deprive the exporter of his drawback. We have extended this provision and in every way possible liberalized it, so that the domestic and foreign product can be combined and still allow to the exporter 99 per cent upon the duty he pays upon his foreign material intended for export ; which is, in effect, TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. what free traders and our political oppouents are clamoring for — namely, free raw material for the foreign trade. And if you are desirous of seeing what you can do in the way of entering the foreign market, here is the opportunity for you. ' Eighteen articles were taken from the free list and made dutiable, while forty-four articles were transferred from the dutiable to the free list, making 288 articles altogether that came in free. Not only that, but it was found that under the actual workings of the law over 50 per cent of our imports bore no &aX.y. This was thoroughly in accordance with the principles of a protective tariff, that any article which we do not and cannot produce with profit in this country with the exception of a few luxuries, the dutj^ on which serves for revenue and is in no way burden- some, shall come in absolutely free. We were, at the time of the passage of the McKinley bill, producing about one-eighth of the sugar we consumed. To be exact, during the year 1890 we consumed 1,578,478 tons, of which 1,357,704 tons were imported, paying a duty of $53,985-874- This $53,000,000 came out of the pockets of the people, who were saved this whole amount by the re- moval of the duty. But the sugar industry of the country was not to be abandoned. We were producing one-eighth of our consumption and with encouragement and protection would in another decade produce at least one-half our needs, in fact many experts estimate that in twenty j-ears at the longest we could produce our total consumption, amounting then probably to 6,000,000,000 pounds. It was not an industry, however, to be built up in a day or a year, although it was show-h to be capable of wonderful development in a number of years. $50,000,000 to $60,000,000 was, however, too great a sum to be annually drawn from the purses of the people for this purpose. Accordingly a bounty of one and three-quarter cents and two cents per pound were given to the producers of sugar from beets, sorghum or cane grown in the United States. Again had the prin- ciples of protection triumphed. The producer of an American product only partlj' developed received ample protection without directly taxing the consumer. We were following in the footsteps of other nations, such as Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Holland, Russia, Italy and Spain, all of which had built up and were maintaining their sugnr industry by bounties, excise or export laws. The effect of this portion of the bill was a thorough vindication of the policy adopted. Our consump- tion increased from 1,500,000 tons in 1890 to nearly 1,900,000 tons in 1S91. The consumption was about the same in 1892 and 1893. The difference in price enabled the people to save over $100,000,000 annually in spite of the increased consumption. And to do this the government paid a bounty of $7,330,044 the fir.st year. Rut the .saving to the ]ieo]ik- was not all. Over $20,000,000 capital was put into new establishments. PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, ISGO TO 1S90. giving employment and wages to thousands of men, with the following result: 1S90. 1893. Tons, Tons. Production of cane sugar, 134.844 270,000 " beet sugar, 2,Soo 24,500 To sum up: The abolishment of the duty on sugar and the giving of a bounty .instead, reduced the revenue about $60,000,000 annually. It saved this amount to the people besides saving over $100,000,000 annually in price. It gave employment and wages to thousands of people, enabling them to double our production in two years, and the total cost was less than $10,000,000 annually, which was no loss, as it all went into the pockets of our own people. Perhaps there was no paragraph of the McKinley bill which met with greater opposition from the free traders than the paragraph which levied an increased duty on tin plate. In 1864 a duty of two and one-half cents per pound was fixed on tin plate in the following words : ' ' On tin plate, and iron galvanized or coated with a7iy metal by electric batteries or otherzvise, two and one-half cents per po^md.'" \ This clause covered tin plates, terne plates and galvanized and enameled plates, the latter being unimportant manufactures, of which tin is not a part. Had this duty remained in force it would have made a dif- ference of hundreds of millions of dollars to the American laborer and consumers of tin plate in this couutr}\ The Secretary of the Treasury, however, Mr. William Pitt Fessenden, acting under a power vested in him, rendered a decision which practically nullified the law. On July 22, 1864, Mr. Fessenden wrote to Hiram Barney, Collector of the Port of New York, as follows: It would appear that an error of punctuation was made by some one; most prob- ably a clerk who engrosssed that part of the act. If the comma which is inserted after the word "plate" be omitted, and a comma be placed after the word "iron," the true sense will be had, which unquestionably is, that tin plates, as well as iron, must be galvanized or coated with any metal by electric batteries or otherwise, in order to bring them within the provision. There was another clause in the tariff law, which read : " Tin in sheets or plates, terne and taggers' tin, 25 per cent ad valorem.'''' The consequence was that tin plate was made subject to a duty of 25 per cent ad valorem instead of two and one-half cents per pound. The latter duty would have protected and developed the tin plate industry in this country; the former did not, and the attempt to manufacture it was a failure. In 1873, however, there were four tin mills started here and tin plate as good in every respect as that imported was made — and at a lower TARIFF qVICSriOX IN THE UNITED STATES. price than the foreign, namely, $ii per box. But as soon as the English- men heard of it what did the}^ do? Just what they have always done and what they always \<'ill do when they find us unprotected. First the>- reduced their prices lower and lower until they went to less than $5 per box. By this time our manufacturers could no longer compete and were forced to stop manufacturing. Just as soon as this was accomplished up went the English prices again and for nearly twenty years we were at their mercy. The total quantity of tin plates imported in the twentj' years from 1871 to 1891 was 3,622,750 gross tons, the foreign value being $307,- 341,404. In addition to this we paid freights and importers' profits. But for that decision of Mr. Fessenden all those millions and doubtless many more would have gone into the pockets of the American people. There is no better example of the cut-throat methods of English manufac- turers than in this tin plate history. They could well let us have their tin plates for a year or two at cost and then as soon as our own industry- was ruined and our market gained make us pay year after year double price as they did compel us to do. But the McKinley bill finally came to the rescue. A duty of 1.85 and 2.2 cents per pound varying according to gauge was imposed and so confident were the framers of the bill that American manufactures would at once be established that a clause was inserted providing that if in six years we did not make at least one-fourth our consumption of tin and terne plates, lighter in weight than sixty-three pounds per hundred square feet, they should be admitted free. What was the result ? First as to imports: Imports of Tin Plates. Fiscal Ye, 189I, 1894, Pomuls. ,036,489,074 454,160,826 Value. $35,746,920 11.969,51s It must be remembered that the tin plate clause of the McKinley bill did not go into effect till July i, 1891. Now what have we accomplished ? The following is from the report of the secretary and treasurer of the Tinned Plate Manufacturers' Association of the United States, for 1S95: We have now in this country, completed and in course of construction, thirty- four tin plate works. These works have a total of one hundred and seventy-seven hot fini.shing mills, all of which will be completed and in operation by the month of June next. The capacity of these mills will exceed an annual production of 260,000 tons of finished product, and \\\\\ furnish employment to 11,000 or 12,000 hands. In looking over the returns we have at hand I find that there are one hun- dred and eight finishing mills completed and in operation at the present time. These, as you will perceive, have a capacity of a little over 160,000 tons of finished product per annum, give employment to 7000 or 8000 hands, capital invested about fo, 500, 000 and wages paid about 14,500,000, if the mills are operated full time — that is to say, about forty-five weeks in the year. The tin plate clause of the McKin- ley bill wont into effect on July i, 1S91. In less than a period of four years the American tin plate industry has so developed as to more than meet the requirements I PEOTECTIVE LEGISLATION, 1860 TO 1S90. of the home market. Such growth is unparalleled. No other industrj', even with the stimulus of highest protective duties, has ever made such progress in the same period of time. It may be interesting to all concerned to know that the tin plate works in England and Wales have an aggregate of five hundred and nineteen mills. Of this number two hundred and thirty-two mills were idle during the year 1S94. This has been done with no material increase in price, so that the consumer has not suffered in the least. Not only have many thousands been given direct employment with American wages, but thousands more have been employed in allied and kindred industries. The carpenter who builds the mill benefits as does the workman within the mill. The brake- man on the railroad engaged in transportation, shares the fruits of manu- facture with the worker on the product itself. Mr. W. C. Cronmeyer, a competent authority, made the following estimate of the number of persons that would be given employment in the production of the tin plate necessary to supply the present demand of the American people: Material required to produce the 350,000 tons Persons required to tin plate, of terne plate, taggers' tin and produce such ma- taggers' iron annually imported. tenal in one year. 2,000,000 tons of coke and coal, 2,000 men. 1,000,000 tons of iron ore 1,200 450,000 tons of pig iron, 4.50° iS.oootonsof Dakota block tin, S.ooo " 3000 tons of lead, ' 6500 tons of tallow or palm oil, 20,000 tons of sulphuric acid, 30,000,000 feet of box lumber, To turn pig iron into fine sheet iron, 50 men to every 1000 tons, . . . To turn fine sheet iron into tin plate, terne plates, etc., to every 1000 tons five women To every 1000 tons seven men, To keep machinery in repair and produce packing, lubricating oils and mill supplies, Railroad carriage to transport these materials from place to place, 300 750 750 1,750 wo 2,450 me 2,000 1,000 Total, 39,800 These men so employed will in turn again give employment to preachers, teachers, lawyers, farmers, physicians, butchers, grocers, shoemakers, tailors and dressmakers, carpenters, masons, state, county and municipal employees. These people will provide a livelihood for about 240,000 people, these 240,000 people thus employed, being 4-10 per cent of the present popula- tion of the United States. When Mr. Lascelles Carr, editor of the Cardiff, Wales, Western Mail, visited Washington in 1893, he was introduced to President Cleve- land. One of the newspaper correspondents accompanying the party facetiously remarked to the President t^t Mr. Carr had come from Wales TARIFF qUESriON IN THE UNITED STATES. to look for some tin plate works which the Republican party had estab- lished, whereupon Mr. Cleveland made the following reply : " Well, Mr. Carr, when you do find them be sure and let me know their exact locality for we have been searching for these tin plate works for some years and have failed to find them." Perhaps the rank and file of free trade orators and editors can hardly be blamed for their wholesale misrepresentation about tin plate when the head of the firm, the great leader, the "savior" of free trade in this couutrj^ weighted down with the mantle of Cobden, could sneeringly make such a statement when more than a score of works and more than a hundred mills were even then turning out thousands of boxes daily, when on thousands of roofs tinsmiths were nailing American-made terne plate, when tons of fruit and berries were being preserved in cans made irom American tin plate, and thousands of laborers were daily carrying to their work dinner pails made of American tin plate. If James G. Blaine had left no other legacy to the people of the United States, the reciprocity clause of the McKinley bill alone would have left us forever in his debt. No sooner did he become Secretary of State than he began to think of closer commercial union with the countries south of us and his scheme of a Pan-American union became a reality and a success. Mr. Blaine found that 87 per cent of the importations into the United States from Central and South American States were free of duty, while nearly every class of articles forming the total of our exports to those States was subject to high duties on entering their ports, and besides, that many of the articles sent from those states to this country, and entered here free, were subject to heavy export duties at home. He recommended the so-called reciprocity amendment to the McKinley bill. It was an innova- tion and produced no little controversy. Senator Mitchell, of Oregon, was the first to advocate it and he was soon followed by all the Republican Senators. The New York Produce Exchange held a meeting and passed resolutions in favor of the scheme, which action was followed by nearly all the commercial bodies in the country. Public sentiment was strongly in favor of it, all opposition of Republican members of Congress soon vanished and the following paragraph was made a part of the McKinley law : Section 3. That with a view to secure reciprocal trade with countries producing the following articles, and for this purpose, on and after the first day of January, 1S92, whenever and so often as the President shall be satisfied that the government of any country producing and exporting sugars, molasses, coffee, tea, and hides, raw and uncured, or any of such articles, imposes duties or other exactions upou the agricultural or other products of the United States, which in view of the free introduction of such sugar, molasses, coflfee, tea, and hides into the United States he may deem to be recijjrocally unetjual and unreasonable, he shall have the power and it .shall be his duty to suspend, by proclamation to that effect, the provisions of this- act relating to the free introduction of such sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, and PR TECTI VE LEGISLA TION, hides, the production of such country, for such time as he shall deem just, and in such case and during such suspension duties shall be levied, collected, and paid upon sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and hides, the product of or exported from such designated country as follows, namely : All sugars not above number thirteen, Dutch standard in color, shall pay duty on their polariscopic tests as follows, namely : All sugars not above number thirteen, Dutch standard in color, all tank bottoms, syrups of cane juice or of beet juice, melada, concentrated melada, concrete and concentrated molasses, testing by the polariscope not above seventy-five degrees, seven-tenths of one cent per pound; and for every additional degree or fraction of a degree shown by the polariscopic test, two hundredths of one cent per pound additional. All sugars above number thirteen, Dutch standard in color, shall be classified by the Dutch standard of color, and pay duty as follows, namely : All sugar above number thirteen and not above number sixteen, Dutch standard of color, one and three-eighths cents per pound. All sugars above number sixteen and not above number twenty, Dutch standard of color, one and five-eighths cents per pound. All sugars above number twent}', Dutch standard of color, two cents per pound. Molasses testing above fifty-six degrees, four cents per gallon. Sugar drainingsand sugar sweepings shall be subject to duty either as molasses or sugar, as the case may be, according to polariscopic test. On coffee, three cents per pound. On tea, ten cents per pound. Hides, raw or uncured, whether dry, salted, or pickled. Angora goat-skins, raw, without the wool, unmanufactured, asses' skins, raw or unmanufactured, and skins, except sheep-skins, with the wool on, one and one-half cents per pound. Immediately upon the passage of the tariff bill negotiations were entered into with the governments of Central and South America and with Germany and France for the purpose of effecting commercial treaties in accordance with its provisions. On June 27, 1892, the President of the United States sent to the Senate a message containing the following state- ment of the treaties which had been signed and those which had been agreed upon but not fully ratified: These agreements, so far as proclaimed, are as follows : 1. With the United States of Brazil, concluded January 31, proclaimed Febru- ary 5, went into effect April i, 1891. 2. With Spain for the colonies Cuba and Puerto Rico, concluded June 16, pro- claimed August I, and went into effect September i, 1891. 3. With Santo Domingo, concluded June 4, proclaimed August i, went into effect September 1, 1891. 4. With the German Empire, concluded January 30, proclaimed February i, went into effect February i, 1892. 5. With the Republic of Salvador, concluded December 30, proclaimed Decem- ber 31, 1891, and went into effect February i, 1892. 6. With the British West India Colonies, including Trinidad, Barbados, the Leeward Islands, the Windward Islands, British Guiana, Jamaica and their depen- dencies, concluded February i, proclaimed February i, and went into effect Febru- ary I, 1892. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. 7. With the Republic of Nicaragua, concUided March ii, proclaimed March 12, and weut into effect March 12, 1S92. S. With the Republic of Guatemala, concluded December 30, proclaimed Slay went into efEect May 30, 1892. 9. With the Republic of Costa Rica, still pending ratification by the Congress of the Republic. 10. With the Republic of Honduras, concluded April 29, proclaimed April 30, went into effect May 25, 1S92. 11. With France and her colonies, still pending ratification by French Chamber. 12. With Austria-Hungary, concluded May 25, proclaimed May 25, went into effect May 26, 1S92. This was a practical and definite step taken toward the extension of our foreign trade. By admitting free of dutj' sugar, tea, coffee, hides, rtibber, dj'ewoods and tropical fruits from these countries, while we would not injure a home industry we would force them to admit our produce upon favorable terms. By the concessions gained, France and Germany were compelled to withdraw discriminations against our pork, and the South American countries placed many of our commodities on the free list and reduced duties on many others 25 and 50 per cent. The treaties made with the ten countries in the Western Hemisphere secured favorable concessions on over two thousand diff'erent articles. The distribution of our foreign trade in 1892 is exhibited by the table on the next page. It will be obsen^ed that the total balance of trade in our favor was $202,875,686. That this was made up of favorable balances with all countries of Europe, excepting Italy ; while the balance of trade was against us, with the British North American possessions and all Central and South American countries, amounting to over $117, 000, 000. The excess of goods purchased from South America was paid for in cash or its equiva- lent, which was sent to Europe by these people to purchase manufactured articles. Take the trade of one country with Great Britain and we find that England increased her exports to Brazil from $18,691,759 in 1S59 to $35,212,000 in 1889; while the exports from the United States to that country were only $6,018,901 in 1859, $7,137,000 in 1888, and $11,- 972,214 in 1890, Similar figures might be given for other countries. It is sufficient, however, to state that if there is any part of the globe in which American manufacturers are able to compete with Europe in any line of production, such as coarse cotton goods, farming implements, hard- ware, tools, etc., it is in South America. While the establishment of trade relations in foreign countries cannot be effected in a day, and an increased trade, even under favorable conditions, must be of slow growth, yet the results which immediately followed the signing of these treaties attested their benefit to the people of the United States and proved the wisdom of the policy. PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, 1S60 TO 1890. ^ If l!ll!l!M?P^S Si slrg^s^t^ 1 Distribu- 1 1 tion of foreign trade of the United Stales. i +++++ 1+ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +111111' + 1 1 ?H8^tlKSI$t|g^ o| l^ll^U 2 h tmimttnu i\ :;>SK? ^^2^ i ag. 4 S?^ K F!, R fi - VO_ "^ r§ ^^§?^ti>ii%i.^-i^i io 4K£^^^2- ^ ^ ^"" --i NN « » •> & ^1 ** «. 1 ggg^s^^^g^l^B-s? i'l f^g&^g'l T 1 8^^K|ij^?|||Rg| s f?E?^5?;s 1 ^ ^-5<§2 2 s;5;-g g^^g^-;^?^ t^ 1 -' ^ O' d t^ lO m' tN t> t^ toco CS ^ - -| ^J4S"- s. "^ PI=«Hlg*8s;5§:l ^;' &-:^^Hi ^ s lo - vo ip t^ 1-- lo "-.X " t-^ -4 c lo 1 <5; s p.s=^Tr^^roE8.Tg,g^s>£-^cg 1 fH |S^^=^5i5^«i^'^'^5 c. d i/S CO cS i/5 u^ 6 ^ ^ lo o m " ■- fn ^5 1 lll*^- iPl^^lts^^^Hl 5'i tsusn ^ o" m ^sb "n ■c bo rZoo'^^r^iot-^r^- Miol •S\ ^rT ^a. tCvo M- ■^ « 1, a w •2 S T? •S 1 IsH'^f ^^KR§'52-'S| ■-■1! NMNvD^wn ~ s . oJ |^|°f^^ q ,s mttUMMiu 'o rO;*lCrCr;)^r;r^tC-a^u5c^t^rO ^ °-i, £^"'"" ^ 0, ^ « «►!] *% ^ ^ § ■ i 1 i > w . ■ s Q Si • t/T g; C g i (2 .2 • o ■ • 2 • ^ • > • 5 o g 1 •1 ■ 5 • § § :- : ; : ■H uT • Q • ■ • ■ of "^ < a "2 1 < •c § S i • • • - < ■ - 3 3 ■<3 z c . ■ -c 1 i ■ -c s S •a S: § 5 >; „- s 1 i ilj > 1 g o £§ 1 1 ol§z 1 Is 01 (i W^ lis industrial .systems through which they are becoming her rivals. Southern and Central America during the past twenty years have been a fruitful field for her commercial transactions. Great Britain is guarding this trade by all the means at her disposal. To step in and divide this trade with PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, ISGO TO 18f>0. her and Europe would greatly benefit American commerce. There has been no dispute but that the extension of our trade in this region could be secured in this way. If the advocates of free trade were really solicitous of the welfare of the United States and desirous of extending our markets in foreign countries, instead of destroying the reciprocity treaties, they should have upheld them. But the dogmatic free trader was jealous of a policy which was certain to result in such benefits to the country as would prove most damaging to his pet theories. To secure trade advantages in foreign countries by this class of treaties is not by any means a new device. It was embraced in the recommendation of the merchants of Loudon in their petition to parliament in 1820. Failing to secure free trade in France Mr. Cobden himself favored and negotiated a reciprocity treaty with Napoleon III. in i860. Mr. Althusen, an eminent and experienced manufacturer, in giving evidence before the Royal Commission on Depressioti of Trade and Industry in 1S86, stated that he had come to the conclusion that England made a mistake in adopting free trade instead of resorting to reciprocity treaties; that by adopting free trade her ports were thrown open to the free admission of the wares of other countries, and she had nothing to offer in return for trade advantages. Her bargaining power had been thrown away. Even as late as 1892 Germany entered into reciprocity treaties with four of the principal nations of Europe. Had the advocates of free trade committed no other act to prove their hostility to the commercial interests of the United States the repeal of this provision of the McKinley bill would be sufficient. The effects of three portions of the McKinley bill have been given somewhat in detail, namely, the change from duty on sugar to bounties, the imposing of an adequate tariff on tin plate, and reciprocity. These, however, make up only a small portion of the benefits which resulted from the tariff law of 1890. Our progress for the two years following that law was unprecedented. Every feature of the law was fully vindi- cated and the wisdom of its framers proved beyond question. When the measure was pending Senator Carlisle declared that under it our foreign commerce would decline, and yet our foreign commerce for the year 1891 was larger than it had ever been before, and it was larger still in the year 1892. Our domestic exports for the last named year amounted to $1,015,732,011, against $730,282,609 in 1889, and $278,392,080 in 1859, our last previous free trade year. The first object of the bill was to reduce revenue, but without destroy- ing any protective feature of our tariff system. This was done to the extent of about $42,000,000, and for the finst time in the hist6r>' of the United States more than half of all our imports in value were admitted free of duty. While the average rate per cent is at best misleading, it may as well be stated in the face of false free trade calculations, that the McKinlev bill— How TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. average ad valorem rate per cent on all imports for the j'ear 1S92 was 21.26 — less than during anj- year since 1861. The second object of the bill was to develop and increase- American industries and give employment to a greater number of American laborers. The two years following the enactment of the bill showed results that surprised even its most sanguine friends. New industries were established on every hand; other industries were imported from abroad; thousands of establishments were enlarged, all of which gave employment to an increased number of laborers, and in most instances at higher wages. Millions of dollars worth of goods formerly imported were now made by American workmen. In woolen manufactures, for instance, our consump- tion increased 1 7 per cent in three years, while the value of woolen goods imported decreased to the amount of $21,000,000 during the same period. The consumption of cotton in our mills increased 24 per cent in two years. The production of pig iron in 1891 for the first time surpassed that of Great Britain. In silk manufacture there was an increase of 25 percent in 1S91 over any preceding year. Our various industries will, however, be treated more specifically in the following pages. It must not be thought that the McKinley bill was framed with a view to benefit our manufacturers and miU hands alone. The agricultural interests and the American farmer received the same attention and reaped the same fruits as did the manufacturer and his employees. American farm pro- ducts received adequate protection in nearly every instance, with the result that in a single year the value of our imports of farm products was reduced by $20,000,000, while our agricultural exports increased from $532, 141,490 in 1889 to $799,328,232 in 1892, a gain of $267,186,742. These in general were the benefits to American labor. What advantage did the American people as consumers derive ? The answer has been given in the following words of President Harrison in his message to Congress, December, 1891: "Rarely, if ever before, in the history of the country has there been a time when the proceeds of one day's labor or the product of one farmed acre would purchase so large amount of those things that enter into the living of the masses of the people.^' The following corroborative testimony may be given in the words of Edward Atkinson in the Forum of May, 1892: There never has been a period in the history of this or any other country when the general rate of wages was as high as it is now, or the prices of goods relatively to the wages as low as they are to-day, nor a period when the workman, in the strict sense of the word, has so fully secured to his own use and enjoyment such a steadily and progressively increasing proportion of a constantly increasing product. And further, the following is taken from the Weekly Review of Trade, published by R. G. Dun & Co.'s Commercial Agency, June 30, 1892; ' ' A fiscal year never matched in the whole history of the country in PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, 1S60 TO 1S90. volume of industrial production, in magnitude of domestic exchanges, or in foreign exchange, has just closed." If further testimon)- be desired it can be found in the following extract from a Senate Committee appointed to investigate the result of the ^IcKinle}' law on prices and wages. The investigations were conducted b)- Carroll D. Wright, Commissioner of the Department of L,abor, Gen- eral Francis A. Walker, Professor H. C. Adams, Edward Atkinson, Pro- fessor E. J. James and William Grosvenor. Of these the first is, if possible, independent on the tariff question, the next three are pronounced free traders, and the last two are protectionists. The report, which was unanimously accepted by a Senate Committee composed of both Repub- licans and Democrats, stated that: ""Duri7ig the twenty-eight tnonths from Jime i, i88p, to September /, iSgr (the act took effect October 6, 1S90), average retail prices of 21^ articles of common consumption among the people declined .6if. per ce7it; wholesale prices of the same articles dcclijied .jj per cent; prices of agricul- tural prodiicts advanced i8.6j per cent, and 7i>ages advanced on the average .75 per cent." The following brief summary of the McKinley bill and its re.sults is given by Mr. D. G. Harriman, in his " American Tariffs from Plymouth Rock to McKinley," page 73: Increased duties 011 about 115 articles. Reduced duties on about, 190 articles. And left them unchanged on, 249 articles. Increased our foreign commerce in eleven months, $74,768,639 Increased our free imports, 112,013,081 Made the percentage of free imports, of all our imports, 55-75 Increased free imports over the last tariff, per cent, 22.48 Reduced the duties per capita from J3.80 to $3.07. Reduced the total revenue ("tariff taxes") in twelve months, . . . $41,396,425 Increased the cost of no necessity of life and reduced the cost of many ; stimu- lateil business, and thereby tended to make people busier and earnings surer, if not larger. Fair Trade CEng.) in discussing the merits of the McKinley bill gave the following four points in its favor : The manufacturers of Great Britain don't like the McKinley tariff bill. The manufacturers of Germany don't like the McKinley tariff bill. The manufacturers of France don't like the McKinley tariff bill. The Anglomaniac Free Traders of the United States don't like the McKinley tariff bill. This furnishes four excellent reasons why the bill should become a law.' The growth of other industries and of industrial activity in general after the passage of the McKinley bill will be further pointed out in the > Vol. v., p. 413. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. treatment of special iudustries, and the conditions immediately preced- ing the passage of the Gorman-Wilson bill. The writer has compiled from the statutes of the United States and other official sources the following brief description of the tariff laws of the United States, from the formation of the government to the present time: AMERICAN TARIFFS FROM I7S9-1S94. Dates of Passage and Operation ivith Salient Features and Cor\sequences. Act of July 4, 1789 — Went into effect August lo, 17S9. Duties imposed upon 75 articles, 40 specific — 35 ad valorem — 15 free. Average rate on total imports 7>^ per cent. August 10, 1790 — Went into effect January i, 1791. Imposed 50 new duties and increased many of previous year. Average rate on total imports 8 per cent. March 3, 1791 — Slight increase — unimportant — rates increased on spirits. Average rate on total imports 8.43 per cent. May 2, 1792 — Went into effect July i, 1792. Over 150 articles vcere enumerated in this bill. General increase of i]i per cent. Average rate on total imports 10.93 psr cent. June 5-7, 1794 — Went into effect July 1, 1794. Imposed additional duties and made slight increase in many existing. Increased rates on tobacco, snuff and refined sugar. Average rate on total imports 13. 88 per cent. January 29, 1795 — Rates changed on types, sugar and wines. Man}' changes, some reductions. Twenty-five articles on free list. Average rate on total imports 8.04 per cent. March 3, July 8, 1797 — Increased rates on sugar, tea, molasses, velvets, cotton goods, candy. Average rate on total imports 9. 25 per cent. March 13, 1800 — Went into efEect July i, 1800. Increased rates on sugar and wines. Average rate on total imports 13. 11 per cent. March 26, 1S04 — Went into effect July i, 1S04. Increased all ad valorem rates iVz per cent. Increased rates on goods in foreign vessels 10 per cent. Addi- tional rates on many specific articles. Mediterranean Fund. Average rate on total imports 13.06 per cent. March 3, 1S07; March 4, 1808 — Salt and copper, saltpetre and sulphur made free. Increased duties on brass, hats, iron, linen, wines and many other articles. Average rate on total imports 28.71 per cent. Embargo Act passed in December, 1807, prohibiting all imports from England and France, repealed May 15, iSog — This was not a tariff measure, but at the same time had the effect of .stimulating many industries. The people of the United States were thrown entirely upon their own resources and the result was new industries established, and increased production in existing manufactures. Act of July I, 1812 — Went into effect same day. Known as the war tariff. All duties were doubled. Supplementary Acts, February 25, 1S13; July 29, 1813; March 3, 1815 ; Februarys, 1816. Great activity in manufacturing due both to high duties and the war. Average rate on all imports 32. 73 per cent. Act of April 27, 1816— Went into effect July I, 1811. Known as the Lowndes- Calhoun bill. War rates were considerably reduced. Ad valorem duties ranged from lYz to 33 per cent. Unenumerated goods paid 15 per cent. Iron and other metals 15 per cent. Woolen goods 25 per cent. Minimum PROTECTIVE LEG ISOLATION, TO 1890. principle adopted. Intended as a protective measure but failed because of duties being too low to prevent vast importations from England at less than cost prices. Average rate on all imports 26.52 per cent. April 12, iSiS — Rates changed on iron and alum. March 3, 1S19 — Rates on certain wines reduced. Average rate on all imports 35.02 per cent. Act of May 22, 1824 — Went into effect July 1, 1824. Decided increase iu duties with most significant and gratifying results. Average rate on all imports 37 per cent. Act of May 19, 1828 — Went into effect September 2, 1828 and July i, 1829, Known as the "Tariff of Abominations." Minimum extended. Rates increased. Average rate on all imports 47. So per cent. May 20, 1830 — Rates reduced on teas, coffees and cocoa and molasses. July 14, 1832 — Went into effect March 4, 1833. Known as the "Modifying Tariff." Duties on iron reduced, on woolens increased. Act of March 2, 1833 — Went into effect January i, 1834. Known as the "Com- promise Tariff. " Rates reduced 10 per cent of all duties in excess of 20 per cent, etc., each alternate year till January i, 1S42, one-half the remain- ing excess of 20 per cent to be taken off on that date and the other half July I, 1842. L,inens, worsted goods, shawls and manufactures of silk made free. Average rate on all imports about 17 per cent. July 4, 1836 — Rates reduced one-half on wines. September 11, 1841 — Articles free and those paying less than 20 per cent to pay 20 per cent. Railroad iron reduced to' 20 per cent. Act of August 30, 1842 — Took effect immediately. General revision and increase of rates 50 to 75 per cent. A thoroughly protective measure. The result was a revival of industry and trade, followed by general prosperity. Act of Juh- 30, 1846 — Went into effect December i, 1846. Known as the "Walker Tariff. ' ' General reduction of duties. Changes from specific to ad valorem rates, duties for revenue only. Effects of this tariff were most disastrous in spite of foreign war, famine and the discovery of gold. Act of March 3, 1857 — Went into effect July i, 1857. General revision and further reduction of duties. A culminating free trade act, resulting in panic and commercial ruin. The worst period in the nation's history. Act of March 2, 1S61 — Went into effect April 2, i86i. Intended to raise the neces- sary revenue for the government expenditures. August 5, 1861 — First of the war tariffs, large increase in duties. December 24, 1S61 — Duties increased on sugar, tea and coffee. July 14, i862^Vent into effect August 2, 1862. Further increase of rates. March 3, 1S63; April 20, 1864; June 30, 1864; March 5, 1865; March 15, 1866 and July 28, 1S66 — Bills changing and generally increasing duties. Act of March 2, 1S67 — Took effect immediately. Rates increased on wool and woolens giving great benefit to those industries. February 24, 1869 — Rates increased on copper. July 14, December 20, 1870. —General changes. Free list largely reduced. Duty of I2S per ton on steel rails. May I, 1S72 — Tea and coffee made free. June 6, 1S72 — Went into effect August i, 1872. Reduction of 10 per cent. Increased free list. June 22, 1874 — Revised statute, with slight and unimportant changes. February 8, 1875 — Known as the "Little Tariff Bill." General changes. March 3, i875^Took effect immediately. Rates increased on sugar. Repeal of 10 per cent reduction of act of June 6, 1872. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. July I, 1879 — Quinine made free. Juh- 14, iSSo — A few unimportant changes. May 6, and December 3, 18S2 — Repeals' discriminating duty. Act of March 3, 1883— Went into effect July i, 1S83. Known as the Tariff Commis- sion Bill. General revision, reductions and increased free list. Severe blow to wool industry. Act of October i, 1890 — Went into effect October 6, 1S90. Known as the McKin- ley Bill, the most perfect tariff measure ever framed. Changes from ad valorem to specific rates. Enlarged free list. Sugar made free, a bounty beiug substituted. Reciprocity law. Unusual prosperity in all lines of industry. More men employed and at higher wages than ever before iu the history of the nation. Act of 1894 — Went into effect August 27, 1894. Known as the Gorman-Wilson Bill. Became a law without the President's signature. General, reduction of duties. Wool put on free list. Great falling off in number of sheep. In- creased importations of competing commodities to the detriment of Ameri- can manufacturers. Great increase in national debt. Deficiency of revenue. Impairment of gold reser\-e, necessitating repeated bond issues. Decline in foreign trade. General depression in business throughout the entire country. A most important act of tariif legislation was the so-called Administra- tive Customs I^aw of 1890, which went into effect August i of that year. It was an act to simplify the laws in relation to the collection of the revenues, and to do away with fraud and many underhanded methods then resorted to by importers. The act proposed the appointment of nine general appraisers by the President. They were to receive a salary of $7000 yearly, to be under the general direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, not more than five were to be appointed from the same political party, and penalties were imposed for briberj' in any form both for giver and receiver. Thus have been described the various tariffs of the United States. Those which gave protection gave also prosperity. Those which failed to give protection brought disaster. In those tariffs which were protective the rates were different, but the results were the same. They were each adapted to cause protection in a greater or less degree at the time the\- were enacted. At another time each one of them might not be successful, for changed conditions require different rates, and it is the task of practical business men at any time to so adjust rates that they may operate to make secure the American markets for the American people. CHAPTER IV. Growth of Agriculture, 1850 to 1890. The tariff history of the United States, with a general resumi of the effect of fiscal legislation, has been given up to 1893, when our country and its industries reached the highest pinnacle of advancement and prosperity. Our principal industries will now be taken up somewhat more in detail, although only the most essential features can be touched upon. The following statement from the census of 1890 shows the distribu- tion of the whole number of males and females engaged in gainful occupa- tions according to the number and percentage in each class : Males. Females. Total. Number. Per cent. Number. Per cent. Number. Perc.nt. All occupations, .... 18,820,950 100.00 3,914,711 100.00 22,735,661 1 100.00 Agi-iculture, fisheries and mining, S.333,692 44. 28 679,509 17-36 9,013,2011 39.64 Professional service, . . . 632,641 3-36 311,682 7-96 944,323 4-15 Domestic and personal 1 service - . 2,692,820 14-31 1,667,686 42.60 4,360,506 19.18 Trade and transportation, 3,097,653 16.46 228,309 5-S3 3,325,962, 14.63 Manufacturing and me- 1 chanical industries, . . 4,064,144 21-59 1,027,525 26.25 5,091,669: 22.40 Agriculture is the largest and most important industry of this countrj', and in it are engaged more people than in any other one occupation. The farmer feeds not only himself but all the rest of the inhabitants. Great then, is his responsibility when he provides for a people that consumes more than any other people in the world. There are certain essential requisites indispensable to the farmer's prosperity. First, good crops; second, a good market; third, reasonable prices for what he has to sell and buy. The American farmer is blessed as is no other tiller of the soil on earth, when all is considered. Our soil and climate give him good crops in nearly all food products consumed by man. Our protective tariff gives him a substantial home market and pro- fitable prices for his products. It is impossible to consider the agricul- tural progress of this country without at the same time bearing in. mind our growth in manufactures. Prosperity in the latter is indispensable to 42 (657) TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. the healthy growth of the former. It was with this thought uppermost that the founders of the RepubUc avowed and adopted protection. Wash- ington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Adams all recognized the importance of a protective tariff to the farmer, and Andrew Jackson, in a letter to Dr. Coleman, of North Carolina, dated April 26, 1S24, said: I will ask what is the real situation of the aijriculturist ? Where has the American farmer a market for his surplus produce? Except for cotton he has neither a foreign nor a home market. Does not this clearly prove, when there is no market at home or abroad, that there is too much labor employed in agriculture ? Common sense at once points out the remed)\ Take from agriculture in the United States .six hundred thousand men, women and children, and you will at once give a market for more breadstufFs than all Europe now furnishes us. In short, sir, we have been too long subject to the policy of British merchants, it is time we should become a little more Americanized, and, instead of feeding the paupers and laborers of England, feed our own ; or else, in a short time, by continuing our present policy, we shall all be rendered paupers ourselves. This polic)- of Jack.son's was pursued and has been continued ever since, with the exception of the two free trade periods from 1833 to 1842, and from 1846 to i860. A home market of almo.st incalculable magnitude has been built up and maintained — a market greater by far than all the markets of the world combined, and in this market the American farmer has for a generation and more sold over nine-tenths of his productions. Prosperous though he has been in the enjoyment of this vast market, he has suffered cruelly from inadequate tariffs, and has been the special object of attack by Great Britain and her American allies. Not only has the farmer suffered from this cause, but he has shared any misfortune to manufacturing interests as well. President Jackson, in his inaugural address, March 4, 1829, said: "With regard to a proper selection of the subjects of impost, with a view to reveime, it would seem to me that the spirit of equity, caution and com- promise, in which the Constitution was formed, requires that the great inter- ests of agriculture, commerce and manufactures should be equally favored. ' ' This idea should ever be borne in mind that agriculture and manufac- turing interests are inseparably united, and that the farmer needs protec- tion, not only for himself but for his customers as well. If any exception can be made to this principle it is only during a period of war at home or abroad — failure of crops or foreign famine. From such causes our farmers have benefited more or less. On the other hand, they suffered much from the ruinous effects of free trade periods preceding 1824 and from 1833 to 1842. Of the former period Henry Clay .said: " If I were to select an}' term of seven years since the adoption of the present Constitu- tion which exhibited a scene of the most %videspread dismay and desola- tion, it would be exactly that term of seven years which immediately preceded the establishment of the tariff of 1824." Of the next free trade period Col ton writes in liis life of Henry Clay, Vol. I: GROWTH OF AGUICULrUKE, 1S30 TO 1890. In Ohio, with all her abundance, it was hard to get money to pay taxes. The sheriff of Muskingum County, as stated by the Guernsey Times in the summer of 1842, sold at auction one four-horse wagon at I5.50; ten hogs at 6% each; two horses (said to be worth I50 to ^75 each) at $2 each ; two cows at $1 each; a barrel of sugar at $1.50, and a store of goods at that rate. In Pike County, Missouri, as stated by the Hannibal Journal, the sheriff sold three horses at I1.50 each; one large ox at 12J/2' cents; five cows, two steers and one calf, the lot at J3.25 ; twenty sheep at I3,!< cents each; twentj'-four hogs, the lot at 25 cents; one eight-day clock at I2.50; lot of tobacco, seven or eight hogs- heads, at Is; three stacks of hay, each at 25 cents, and one stack of fodder at 25 cents. The tariff of 1842 came to the re.scue, and the farmer shared in the prosperity of the whole countrJ^ The decline of the English agriculturist during fifty years of free trade has been fully stated in previotis pages. It now remains to give a concise exposition of the progress of the American farmer in the same period, during thirty-three years of which he has enjoyed the benefits of a protective tariff. Several causes conspired to give more or less prosperity to our agricultural interests during the years immediately following the tariff of 1846. Among them may be mentioned short crops abroad, foreign wars and famine, together with the fact that from 1847 to 1857 we built 20,000 miles of railroads, bringing agricultural and manufacturing sections together, thus giving the farmer constantly increasing markets and lessening the expense of reaching them. Another catise of rapid progress, especially in the grain trade, was the increase in lake commerce. In the year 1845 the tonnage of the lakes consisted of only 380 vessels of all kinds, with an aggregate tonnage of 76,000 tons, while in 1863 it had increased to 1870 vessels and a tonnage of 470,034 tons. The gold discoveiy of 1 849 was another most potent element acting to the farmer's advantage. The greatest factor, however, was the increase in farm implements and labor-saving machinery during the decade from 1850 to i860. The value of labor-saving implements in 1850 was $6,842,611, while in i860 it was $17,590,960, an increase of 156 per cent. This was exclusive of all articles made on the farm, and also excludes cotton gins, scythes, hoes, shovels, spades, forks, and some other articles to the value of $11,796,941, which might appropriately be added to the above, making a total of over $29,000,000 in i860. It will be interesting to note where this great increase occurred which will be seen in the fol- lowing table, showing per cent of increase in the manufacture of farm labor-saving implements and machinery from 1850 to i860: Per cent increase. Middle States, i34-2 Western States 352-5 Ohio 405-5 Illinois 212.2 Iowa 1208.6 Kentucky 755-4 Southern States 3°- TARIFF qUKSTlUN IN THE UNVrE]) STATES. •Pyogfess ofagriciil- 1S50 to 1S90. While the increase in Ohio, as seen above, was over 400 per cent, the increase in population was onlj- 18.14 per cent. In short, both foreign and domestic causes of exceptional character operated to favor the American agriculturist during the decade from 1850 to 1S60. In fact, the whole period from 1842 to i860 showed a general increase in farm values and more or less prosperitj- for the farmer. And yet after all there were no elements so potent as the indomitable will, the unceasing perseverance, the .strict economy and frugality, and the untiring labor of the agriculturist himself. He had to contend against much; he accomplished much in spite of adverse legislation. From Canada and Europe came millions of dollars worth of products which the farmers of the United States should have had the privilege of raising. To get a general idea of our agri- cultural progress since 1850, when the first complete agricultural returns were enumerated, Table No. 25 has been prepared: Table No. 25. Table Shoiving Progress of Agricultuic in United States, from 1830 to i8go. Compiled from United States Census. farms improved, 113,032,614 1.449,073 53,27'.575.426 $6,645,045,007 ural product, . 111,326,691,326:$ ' $151,537,638 $246,118,141 $544,180,5:6 $1,089,329915 $111,703,142 $213,618,692 22.471.275 60,264.913 5.3S7.052 566.867 4.720.145, con.. " Oats. Barlev, BiK-kw1ic.it. jusheis; ; ; ; ; leese, lbs V h, li,l)ushels, . . Tobacco? lbs Number of s Rice, lbs., . wine," : ; : : ; 188.921,099! 284,771.042 357.6l6.755 2.659.9S5 4.008,907 4.564.64' $9,262,803,861 $10,197,096,776 $13,279,252,649 $2,477,538,658 $2,212,540,927 $2,460,107,454 52,516,969 $336,87S,429 [1.525.276,457 $398,956,376 28,477 .951 282, M57 764.939: 208,993 331.345.836 199.752.655' 30.354.213' 215.313.497 236,7 317.298,6 23.310.7 434.209,4 33.512.S 187,167,0 29.761.305i 9.821,721 567.5S4.836 27.316.048 1,632.205 213.706 132,895.245, 23.564,4691 262,735,341 25.134.569! 73,635.021 ■.$406,520,055 $1,500,384,707 $303,562,413 40,765.900 232,500,000 5 755.359 7.170.951 1. 565. .546 459.48.!,137 19.831.595 ■,754,591.676 407,858.999 43,997,495 I1.817.327 804,522,776 $564,667,035 7 44.336.072 8 7,472!5li to 10,250.410 II 241.3S9 12 468,37.1.96** 13 28,421,398 14 2 122,327,547 15 809,250,666 16 78,332,976 17 12.110,349 18 1,042,950,286 19 66,831,480 20 334.237.322 23 51.902,823 24 488,256,646 25 It will be seen that there has been a steady growth and that in the last forty-five years our agriculture has made most wonderful strides. In studying the table it must be remembered that all values in 1870 were on a paper money basis and the amounts should be decreased by about one-fifth. This alone will account for an apparent discrepancy in 1 About one-fifth should be deducted from all values of 1S70 to allow for a paper money basis. GROWTH OF AGRICULTURE, 1850 TO 1890. the item of " value of products," the aggregate for 1870 appearing larger than 18S0. The census of 1870 also included "betterments and addition to stock," while the returns for 1880 did not include these items. Again it must be borne in mind that there was a decline in prices from 1870 to 1880 ranging from 10 to 50 per cent, which will also account for the apparent decrease in the total value of agricultural products during this decade. There was, however, a large increase in quantities, as can be seen from the following table. There are no official figures for the total value of agricultural products for i860, and estimates vary from $1,400,000,000 to $1,600,000,000, the latter probably being more nearly correct. Wheat, bushels, . . . Oats, bushels, . . . Indian corn, bushels, . Cotton, bales, . . . . Ha}-, tons Rice, pounds Tobacco, pounds, . . Irish potatoes, bushels. 287,745,626 282,107,157 760,944,549 3,011,996 27,316,048 73,635,021 262,735,341 143.337,473 459,483,137 407,858,999 ,754,591,676 5,755,359 35,150,711 110,131,373 472,661,157 169,458,539 59-7 44.6 130.6 91. 1 2S.7 49.6 79-9 18.2 The superintendent of the census, General Francis A. Walker, says: The value of the farms of the United States as returned in 1S70, was $9,262,- 803,861. Were this to be discounted at the rate of the then existing premium on gold, it would yield about 17,500,000,000 as the gold value of the farms of the United States at that date. But it is a familiar feature of paper money inflations that the value of real estate, especially rural real estate, seldom begins to rise so early or continues to rise so long as the prices of commodities. Were we to assume the average enhancement of the value of all the farms of the country, east and west, north and south, in 1870, by reason of the depreciation of the currency, to have been 12 '< per cent, being one-half the premium on gold, we should have as their true gold value about $8,250,000,000. This would give as the increase in the gold values of 1870 over those of i860 (viz, $6,645,045,007), about 24 per cent, and in those of 18S0 over 1870 about 24 per cent. The foregoing tables, with the accompanying explanations of General Walker, give a comprehensive view of the American agriculturist's prog- ress during the past fifty years, while during the same period the English agriculturist, under free trade, has been going steadily from bad to wonse, till he is hardly a factor iji the industrial life of Great Britain. The table shows most decided gains in every feature of farm life. While the total value of products shows an increase from 1850 to 1890 of less than 100 per cent, it must be remembered that there has been a great change in prices of all commodities both agricultural and manufactured. The table shows clearly, however, the increase in quantities ol the various TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. products of the farm, and, although prices have fallen in agricultural pro- ducts, or what the farmer sells, they have fallen by a far greater margin in manufactures, or what the farmer buys, making his net gain a most sub- stantial one. The census returns of agricultural products, however, are by no means complete. In the first place returns from no farm of less than three acres were given unless the product exceeded $500. The census gives only ' ' principal vegetable productions" and ' 'livestock on hand. ' ' Under the head of ' 'manu- factures" we find values of meats produced in the packing-houses, but of all the livestock killed by over 75,000 butchers by whom the people are supplied with the best of their meat, the census gives no return whatever. It gives the number of livestock kept but not the number killed for food. The amount killed by the butchers is ten times that which goes through the packing-houses. It has been estimated that the per capita consump- tion of meat in the United States is from fifty to seven t>--five dollars per year. Taking the lowest of these estimates our annual consumption of meat would now reach the enormous value of $3,700,000,000 including that enumerated in the census. The census also omits "garden truck," so-called, except potatoes. Nothing is said of turnips, beets, celery, cresses, asparagus, pumpkins, squash, melons, citron, cauliflower, let- tuce, onions, cabbage, parsnips, carrots, berries of any kind, beans, peas, peanuts, nuts of any kind, quinces, grapes, currants, cider, cider brandy, applejack, oysters, clams or other water products, cordwood, building materials, quarries, game, or manj- other products of count- less farms. Certainly $2,000,000,000 is a fair estiinate for all these. Our total farm products, then, on a most conservative estimate, reach a grand total in excess of $7,500,000,000, of which we sent abroad in 1894 $628,000,000 worth, or about 8 per cent, and if we exclude cotton and tobacco it will only be about 4 per cent. But we imported $270,000,000 of farm products in the same year so that our actual consumption is from 96 to 98 per cent of our production. In a word then the American farmer during the past half centur\-. and especially during the past quarter century, has enjoyed amazing pros- perity, and American agriculture has shown a wonderful growth. And yet we hear the constant refrain from free traders in Congress and on the platform, in pamphlet and paper, " Why is not the farmer prosperous ? ' ' the answer being, of course, protection. It has been shown that the farmer has been prosperous, and it can be shown with equal facility and clearness how he can be more prosperous. In the first place, he has never had suflScient protection. Had it not been for the causes enumer- ated from 1846 to i860, our agricultural industry would have suffered as it did in 1820 and 1840, and as it has whenever the manufacturing intere.sts were depressed by low tariffs. For the last thirty years wher- ever the farmer has had a market without foreign competition, he has GROWTH OF AGllICULTUBE, 1850 TO 1890. prospered ; wherever he has lacked a market or had foreign competi- tion, he has only held his own or lost ground. First to consider foreign competition. It does not need a volume to prove that the American farmer cannot pay his laborer a dollar a day and compete with the farmer of India who pays six or ten cents a day. The wool grower of Ohio, Montana or Texas cannot compete even in the home market with the herdsman of Australia and Argentine, who enjoys the advantages of immense flocks, government lands and cheap pasturage. The cotton grower of the South is even threatened with an invasion of his staple product. The sugar grower of Louisiana and the beet raiser of Kansas must have aid of some kind to enable them to compete with the Cuban. The increase in transportation facilities the world over, the cheapness of lands and labor in foreign countries, and the eagerness to compete not only in neutral markets, but to gain a foothold in our own, make it absolutely indispensable that the American farmer should have ample pro- tection for each and every one of his productions. There are to-day 10,000,000 agricultural laborers in the United States, upon each of whom two other persons depend for support, and with a protective tariff sufficient to maintain our maiuifactures, thereby creating and preserving a home market, and sufficient to keep out all staple agricultural products, the American farmer can and will in a short time raise wool enough, produce sugar enough, harvest grain enough, and furnish enough of every product to supply a market almost at his own door, that in turn will be amply sufficient to give him profitable returns for his labor. Having ample protection then for himself and his customers, what next must the farmer do to continue prosperous ? If the 10,000,000 all grow wheat no one will prosper. If proper proportions grow wheat, corn, cotton, rye, oats, hay, sugar, flax, wool, meat, fruit and vegetables, all will prosper. Manufacturers adapt themselves to demand, farmers must do the same. There is no need of going to Cuba for sugar, nor to Australia for wool, nor to India for cotton, wheat or jute. Our farmers must study markets, must consider their own resources, must adapt themselves to conditions and vote to sustain protection to home industries. It has already been shown on another page, how 100,000,000 sheep would con- sume all our surplus hay, corn and oats. Our beet raising resources are unequaled, and if taken advantage of would not only result in sup- plying enough sugar for our needs, but withdraw labor' and capital from unprofitable forms of production. We can and do grow the best flax in the world, and yet it is almost exclusively used for seed. The rich soil of certain of our States is as well adapted to the cultivation of flax as that of any other part of the world, and our linen factories should be entirely supplied with the American product, which can be done and to the advantage of the growers of all other products. No better exposition of Need of diversifies^ TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. this idea could be given than the following by J. R. Dodge, former sta- tistician of the Department of Agriculture: In a primitive country the first business of farmers is to produce food to cater to the wants of the stomach; if they go no farther, as population advances and its wants increase with the progress of culture and civilization, and so neglect to sup- pl}' the "raw materials" for the uses of the industrial arts, their countr}- will for- ever remain primitive and poor. This country can not claim exemption from the inexorable rule. Nine-tenths (at least) of all the raw materials required for textile, metallic, mechanical, chemical, oleaginous or other manufacture can be produced, primarily by our farmers, diverting their labor to profitable channels, nd swelling the value of their products, steadying the prices of the food staples, and insuring prosperity and comfort to all. No other panacea will cure hard times; a profitable outlet, by diversification and extension, for constantly augmenting rural labor, can alone make rural industry profitable. If the policy of going abroad for all fibres except cotton shall be put into permanent practice, and for all sugar and fruits, barley and oil seeds, to be paid for in corn and wheat and cotton, which are already crowded into foreign markets to the last pound and bushel, there will be no necessity for a "single tax" to make the farmer's land valueless, and no need of account-books, or pocket-books, and little demand.for books of any kind. And 5'et there is gross ignorance abroad of the extent of these limitations of our agriculture, and of the means of recuperation. Many of our farmers are delay- ing the emancipation of rural industry and seeking to import cordage to bind upon their backs still closer their present burdens. Instead of enlarging the range of profit- able production, they are seeking to restrict it. The wheat growers insist upon going to the antipodes for binder twine, while a million acres of flax are wasted in adjoin- ing fields, and when they could produce hemp enough within six months to bind the wheat of the world. The cotton-growers want to go to India for jute, which will grow in their cotton-fields as readily as weeds. If we will not produce the twine to bind our sheaves, or the jute or hemp or flax to cover our bales, we shall have no right to complain of 50 cents per bushel for the one or 5 cents per pound for the other. With ample protection, and diversified occupations, the remaining factor of the farmer's prosperity lies in the nearness of the factory-. This is no theory. It is a condition based on experience and capable of the clearest proof. The farmer who in his own wagon carries his grain and vegetables to the neighboring town where dwells the well-paid mill hand, enjoys a far greater return for his labor than the farmer who sends hi.^ produce to a foreign or far-awaj'^ domestic market, with freights and the profits of middlemen to be deducted from his selling price, even if the selling price to the consumer were the same in both instances. The farmer who sells at home not only makes a quick sale with no loss from decay, waste, expenses of carriage, or other profits, but the farmer of the United States has a customer with a purchasing power far in excess of any other customer or consumer of food on earth, who is not only able and willing to pay better prices for his food, but who purchases Uvice the quantity or more. This fact has been clearly established in tables com- piled by the Agricultural Department showing that farm values and produc- tion as well as prices are greater in the manufacturing countries and States. GROWTH OF AGRICULTURE, 1S50 TO 1S90. This is seen clearh' by taking two representative States and showing the cash value of farm products per acre in 1S87, as per report of the Department of Agriculture for that year: Cash Vai,ue of Products per Acre. Indiana. Massachusetts. Corn, J9.00 $24.78 Wheat, 9.72 14.81 Rye 6.3S 7.70 Oats, 7. S3 12.21 Barley, 11. 71 16.53 Buckwheat, 5.48 9.72 Potatoes, 31.35 60.72 Hay, 11.52 1S.96 Tobacco, 22.00 242.25 Quoting further from the same authority, the yield per acre is seen: Indiana, bushels of corn per acre, 20 Massachusetts, " " " 35.4 Indiana, price per bushel, 45 cents. Massachusetts, " " 70 Further still, the wages of agricultural laborers for the same States, taken from the Commissioner of Agriculture's report for 1885, were as follows: Indiana, per month per year, jt22.2o Massachusetts, " " 2S.75 Indiana, day transient, i.oS Massachusetts, " " 1.50 Nor is this all. One of the Eastern investment companies, whose sole business is to effect loans on Western farms, reports among the buyers of farm mortgages, ten savings banks in Vermont and thirty-three savings banks in New Hampshire. As the two States named are principally agricultural, it is fair to presume that the loans are mainly from Eastern to Western farmers. These figures, let it be clearly understood, are given for the one purpose of showing the advantage of proximity of facm and fac- tory ; and since the date of compilation Indiana and all her sister States have yearly reaped more and more the benefits of this very condition, and will continue to do so as new industries, fostered and protected by an adequate tariff, are planted and operated near the great farms of the West. The loans made by Eastern to Western farmers bring us to the subject of Western farm mortgages. Perhaps no feature of our industrial eco- nomics has given the free trader so much apparent concern as this matter of Western farm mortgages. Certainly no subject has furnished the ground for so much deceit and fraudulent presentation of figures, inaccurate premises and false conclusions. A vast number of farmers owe their present prosperous condition to the fact that they have gone West, bought farms, and been able to borrow the money to improve and develop them. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred a farm mortgage is an evidence of thrift and progress, and not of embarrassment or shiftlessness. Farm mortgages for the most part represent cultivated and productive farms and comfortable homes, where otherwise there would haye been waste lands. Farm mortgages have enabled the day laborers to become prosperous farmers on their own account. They have enabled a farmer to increase his acres two, four, ten, and even fifty times with production of like ratio. It is true that some mortgages are foreclosed and some farmers fail to make their payments, but so do some manufacturers and merchants. Pages might be filled with illustrations of misleading statistics which have been circulated by the agents of the Cobden Club, regarding these farm mortgages, but one or two will suffice. During the campaign of 1888 a table was compiled and went the rounds of the free trade press purporting to show the farm mortgages of six States as follows: Western Farm Mortgages. Kansas 1235,000,000 Indiana 635,000,000 Iowa, 567,000,000 Michigan, 500,000,000 Wisconsin, 357,000,000 Ohio 1,127,000,000 Now by ttirning to the compendium of the tenth census the reader will find: Vai,ue of Farms. Kansas, $235,000,000 Indiana 635,000,000 Iowa, 567,000,000 Michigan, 500,000,000 Wisconsin, 357,ooo>coo Ohio 1,127,000,000 It will be seen that the census figures of farm values is published as farm mortgages. It seems that such a gross error as this could only have been committed with a deliberate intent to deceive. Comment on such reprehensible methods of free traders in arousing concern for the farmer is hardly necessary. Another instance of free trade fabrication pure and simple was a statement made by the New York Times that the farm mortgages of Illinois amounted to $620,000,000. As this item went the rounds it grew larger and larger till the St. Louis Republic made it $3,000,000,000. At the time this item was to.ssed around it was impossible to give any authoritative figures of any kind. Subsequently, however, in 1889 the Illinois bureau of labor completed inquiries and com- piled the statistics. The facts were these : The total mortgage indebted- ness on farms was $123,733,098 of which $20,633,072 were for defeiTed payment on the purchase money. According to the census of 1880 tliere GROWTH OF AGKlCULrURE, ISSO TO 1S90. were in the State of Illinois 34,694,172 acres outside of Cook Count}- (Chicago) valued at $979,703,337, showing that the mortgage indebtedness for loans was only 10.52 per cent of the census valuation. The average life of a mortgage was found to" be three years, and the average rate of interest not 20, 15 or even 10 per cent, but 6.g per cent. So, too, with Nebraska and Kansas and Iowa and other Western States. When the free traders" claims are analyzed and reduced to truth, little remains but a small per cent of debt which is being rapidly liquidated. So much was said and written on this subject in 1888 and 1889 that the superintendent of the census made a thorough investigation in 1890 and since his reports have been published free trade papers and orators have left the subject severely alone. Besides the general statistics gathered, a thorough can- vass was made by trained statisticians in counties in Illinois, Iowa, Massa- chusetts and New York. Superintendent Porter summarizes the results of the canvass as follows: First it was shown (by the Cattaraugus County, N. Y. , investigation), with a fair degree of accuracy, that only eight-tenths of i per cent of the total debt repre- sented by mortgages recorded prior to 1869 remained unpaid. Less than 8 per cent of the mortgage debt in force is represented by mortgages recorded prior to 1S79. The other experimental inquiries made by the census office fully corroborate the fact brought out in Cattaraugus County. It was ascertained, for example, that only 3 per cent of the mortgage del t of the people of Hampden County, Massachusetts, was created prior to iSSo, and that only 5 per cent of the debt in Scott County, Iowa, was created before 18S0. These three conclusions, all pointing in the same direction, would indicate in the Western States certainly, and to a considerable extent in the Eastern States, that a comparatively small percentage of the existing recorded indebtedness of the present time was created previous to 1S80. The Motive for MojiTG.\GiNG Property in Nine Towns of Cattaraugus County. Percentage. For purchase money 54.55 For improvements, 17.30 To pay previous mortgage, 1.81 To pay debts i .38 To use in business, 1.68 To secure indorsements, 1.40 To raise money for investment, 60 To sink oil wells 29 To secure annuities, • . . .25 To pay off heirs, l5 For support and family expenses, 14 Sickness, 16 Extravagance 14 Speculation 08 Miscellaneous 30 Total, 80.24 No motive ascertained, 19.76 Total, 100.00 TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. Mr. Edward Atkinson (free trader) took occasion to investigate the matter from the standpoint of the Mortgage Loan Companies, and his conchisions were published in Bradstreet's, November 12, 1887. We quote the following: The reduction in the rate of interest has been from 10 per cent annual interest and 10 per cent commission on a five years' mortgage to an average of 6;i to 7^2 per cent at the present time, without commission. :Many of those to whom loans were first made are now lenders through the same corporations. The present conditions indicate widespread and almost universal prosperity. Mr. Atkinson says further on this subject in the Forum of May, 1894: There are within the United States 4,564,641 separate farms, averaging about 137 acres each, of which, in the Eastern, Middle, Western and Pacific States, So per cent are occupied and managed by their owners. Far more than one-half these farms are free of any mortgage whatever ; the rest are mortgaged for far less than half their value. The result of that investigation has sustained the conclusions which I had reached by a very partial investigation of the same subject in the preceding five years, namely : 1. That the larger part of the Western farms cultivated by owners were free of any mortgage whatever. 2. That the Western farmers were creditors rather than debtors. 3. That the burden of farm mortgages is a very light one. In fact, the statistics of this partial investigation, which was necessarily very limited, had led me to the conclusion that there existed no great body of the people of any class in this country, who were, as a w^hole, so free from debt and so abso- lutely independent as the Western farmers of the grain-growing States. In making provision for the census of i8go, a special appropriation of |i,ooo,- 000 was set apart to be expended in ascertaining the exact condition of farms and homes with respect to mortgages. A more useful appropriation could not have been made for any statistical purpose. Mr. George K. Holmes and Mr. John S. Lord were deputed by the superintendent of the census to do this work, and there could have been no more judicious selection. On the nineteenth of December an extra census bulletin was issued, giving the statistics of the decade from 1S80 to 1889, inclusive, in thirty-three States and territories. The total mortgage indebtedness of the whole country has been ascertained, and it is stated that this detailed report of thirty-three States covers seven-ninths of the mortgages made in the United States during the decade, and that the outstanding mortgage debt on the first of Jauuarj', 1890, given in this report, covers substantially five-sixths of the entire mortgage debt on acres and lots in the whole country. The first startling fact developed by the mortgage statistics is that in these speci- fic thirty-three States and territories nearly 7,000,000 mortgages have been recorded in ten years for a total sum of nearly $9,500,000,000. The final statement, covering the whole country, which has not yet been published, discloses the fact that 9,517." 747 mortgages were executed in the decade 1880-89, to the amount of f 12,094,877,- 793. On the first of January, 1890, the amount of these mortgages remaining unpaid in thirty-thur StaUs was 14,935,455,896; in the whole United States, 16,019,679,- 9S5. It, then r. Ml, ii]. pears that during the decade one-half the mortgages incurred had already been p.ml. GBOWrn OF AGRICULTURE, 1850 TO 1S90. These original mortgages executed prior to iSSo must have Iieen wholly liqui- dated, mostly by payment. Evidence obtained from solvent farm mortgage compa- nies proves that, as fast as they matured, they were either finally paid, or else in some instances new mortgages were executed at much lower rates of interest than were customary in the era- of paper money in the previous decade. On this basis the summary would be : Mortgages in force January i, iSSo, estimated $ 1,500,000,000 Executed since 12,000,000,000 Total, $13,500,000,000 In force Januarj- i, 1S90, 6,000,000,000 Paid, ■....$ 7,500,000,000 The payments, therefore, amounted to 55 per cent. We find that the average life of a farm mortgage is a little less than five j'ears — rather longer in the East than in the West, but practicall}' five years in the grain- growing States. In order to bring out the evidence of prosperity rather than adversity developed in these conditions, one must ask, What does a man, in fact, borrow, when he executes a mortgage upon land ? He does not borrow money in a true sense. In a vast number of cases only a title to money passes in the form of a check, a draft or a bill of exchange. What he in fact borrows is the land itself, or such part of it as the encumbrance represents. If we regard foreclosure as a sign of lack of benefit to the borrower, the figures show that in all but an insignificant proportion of these negotiations it has been as much or more to the advantage of the borrower to borrow the farm or home as it has been to the benefit of the lender in securing interest on the loan. The advantage is mutual, but distinctly greater on the part of the borrower, who has been enabled to become the owner of a homestead and the improvements thereon at lessening rates of interest throughout this period. The first effective analysis of farm mortgages which has ever come under my notice was made by Mr. A. H. Heath, the Commissioner of Labor Statistics of Michigan for the 3'ear 1S88. He obtained the data for 58 per cent of all the farms of Michigan, numbering 90, S03, assessed for 1194,854,633. Out of 90, S03 farmers 43, 079 stated that their farms were mortgaged. A few refused to reply. The greater part of the rernainder stated that their farms were not mortgaged. The true value of the farms which were mortgaged, estimated to be about one-half the total number, was |ioo,ooo,ooo; the mortgage debt #37,500,- 000. Of the farms investigated, 31,570 were owned or occupied by men of foreign birth, the rest by Americans. In answer to the question put to the foreign element, "Had they any money when they arrived in the State?" 8067 answered, "Yes," giving the sum of money in their possession at $4,633,188 in all; 23,503 answered, ' ' No. ' ' From these data we reach the following conclusion : Foreigners brought money into the State to the amount of, . . | 4,633,188 The mortgage debt on these specific farms was, 11,191,714 Making a total of, $ 16,824,902 The assessed vSlue of these specific farms was, 52,537,871 The true value, 65,672,333 It follows that these 31,570 foreigners who came from Germany, Canada, England, Ireland, Holland, Scotland and nearly every other countrv' in Europe, from the East Indies, Australia, Hayti, Mexico and South America, had been TAIUFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. enabled, b}- borrowing money on mortgage to become possessed of real estate worth 150,000,000 more than the encumbrance and the cash brought in by themselves : and this estimate does not include the farm animals, tools and furniture used upon the farm. The principal Western indebtedness on mortgage is in and around Chicago, but there is one startling fact to which my attention has been called by Mr. Holmes. In the great urban region in and around New York City, in Kings, Queens, New York, Richmond and Westchester Counties, in the State of New York; and in the counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Monmouth, Passaic and Union, in the State of New Jersey, the real estate mortgage debt is 11,279,343,703. This amount is 21.25 per cent of the whole real estate mortgage debt of the United States. It is 51.04 per cent of the real estate mortgage debt of what is commonly known as the West, extending from Ohio westward to Kansas and northward to the Dakotas, w ith its populous cities of Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Omaha, St. Louis and St. Paul. It is doubtless true that the value of the real estate in and about New York is far more than sufficient to sustain this indebtedness, yet it is an important fact to know where the indebtedness lies, and what is the relative burden contrasting the East with the West. It will be remarked that the amount of the encumbrance in the eleven counties in and around the City of New York exceeds the amount of mortgages on all the farms of the United States. Speaking further of the Censtus Inqtiirj-, Mr. Atkinson saj-s: Thus far the mortgages upon acres have been dealt with as if the}' were the same as mortgages on farms. As yet no complete separation has been made, but I am permitted to make the following statement on the authority of the census officials. In Bulletin No. 63 a partial analysis is made of the specific mortgages on actual farms which are occupied by owners apart from hired farms, and acres which are not strictly farms. Deductions from these figures, applied to the total mort- gage on acres in the United States, would give the following restilt : Total mortgage on acres in the whole country, Jaimary i, 1890, ■ ■ • $ 2,209,148,431 On farms occupied and worked by owners (estimated), . 1,009, i48>43i On hired farms and acres not strictly farms, 1,200,000,000 The encumbrance on hired farms is believed to be verj' small. The value of all the 4,564,641 farms in the United States in 1890, including improvements, was ^13,279,252,649. The estimated mortgage thereon, January i, 1S90, was |i, 009, 148,- 431, equal to 8 per cent, subject to the addition of a small amount on hired farms. In substantiation of these views of Mr. Atkinson, the following can be added from the last annual report of the Secretary' of Agriculture, Sterling Morton. Speaking of the indebtedness of various classes of owners he says : ' ' These figures show an enormous and constant indebt- edness of the banks and bankers alongside of which the mone)' in farm mortgages and the debts offered bj' farmers are relatively insignificant. The debts of railroads, bankers, manufacturers and merchants entitle them and not the farmers, to be called the ' debtor class ' in America." In closing this subject it may not be amiss to note that according to Mulhall the mortgage of real estate in England is 58 per cent of its value, and Sir Edward Sullivan says: "Since 1876 value of lands and GROWTH OF AGRICULTURE, 1S50 TO 1S90. incomes from farms in England have fallen from 30 to 50 per cent, but the interest on the mortgages remains the same." Of these same farm- ers Henry Fawcett, the eminent free trade economist, says: There are few classes of workmen who in many respects are so thoroughly wretched as the English agricultural laborers. They are in many respects so miser- ably poor that if they were converted into slaves to-morrow it would be for the interest of their owniers to feed them far better than they are at present. Through out large agricultural districts not a single agricultural laborer will be found who has saved so much as a week's wages. A life of toiling and incessant industry offers no other prospect than a miserable old age. But the condition of the English farmer is not the subject of this chapter, nor is it necessary to place the American agriculturist in contrast with the degraded and ruined tillers of other lands to prove his prosperity. He is the most happy, the most contented and withal the most prosperous of all our people. His labors, his cares, his responsibilities are all lighter than those of the average worker. His acres are his own. The products of his lands he can consume himself or sell at will. His house is a home and not a hovel. CHAPTER V. Textiles, Iron and Steel, and Miscellaneous Industries'. Half a million persons were employed in the textile industries of this country in 1892 with wages exceeding $165,000,000. The cotton industry dates back over a century, the Slater Mill of 1790 being the first .successful one started in this countrj-, and in 1890 221,585 persons were employed, turning out $267,981,724 worth of cotton goods. Without a protective tariff this result could never have been accomplished. Great Britain had many years the start of us, and exerted herself by law and otherwise to crush out the industry here. American grown cotton was not then used. Slater insisted on importing his cotton from India, and the man who had predicted that the United States would one day grow cotton for the world would have been an object of ridicule. American cotton has been in use for about sixty years. In 1829 the crop amounted to 870,415 bales. In 1891 it exceeded 9,000,000 bales. A duty of three cents per pound was imposed in 1790 and remained with slight changes till 1846. From that year it continued on the free list till 1862. It was again made free in 1868 and has remained on the free list since. In 1799 we exported 9,000,000 pounds, in 1817 95,000,000 pounds, in 1845 872,000,000 pounds, and in 1894 2,669,026,886 pounds valued at $207,964,384. We grow three-quarters of the world's crop and our American mills consume one-quarter of it. Our early cotton mills endured a hard struggle. The low duties (15 per cent ad valorem) were not sufficient to enable our manufacturers to withstand English competition. In 1807 we imported about $11,000,000 worth of cotton goods from England, but in the fol- lowing year came the embargo act, when imports of foreign goods were prohibited and our cotton manufactures took a rapid stride. The war of 1812 increased the output and in 1815 we had 500,000 spindles at work consuming 90,000 bales of raw cotton. At the same time England was using 235,350 bales and turning out far superior goods. In 1816 a uni- form duty of 25 per cent ad valorem was imposed, this being increased to 35 per cent (minimum) in 1824. Even free traders like Professor Taussig admit that the protective duties of 1816 and 1824 were necessarj- for the continuance of the cotton industry of this countrj-. Coarse cotton cloths at Hint time were worth twenty -five and thirty cents a yard. By 1846 the industry was firmly established and though the duty was reduced that year the reduction was slight and still sufficient. We were, however, making only the coarser grades. When the war of the rebellion came, and with it higher duties, finer grades were made. Since 1870 our prog- ress in all grades of cotton manufactures has been rapid and constant. (672) TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. The table on page 674, from the Bulletin of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers,' compiled from official sources, will show not only our own progress but a comparison with England as well. The world has about 80,000,000 spindles in operation. France, Germany and Russia about 5,000,000 each. In India there are about 150 cotton mills with 3,500,000 spindles. In Japan there are over twenty mills in operation, and the manufacture is increasing with great rapidity. With the establi.shnient of cotton mills in the Southern States our growth in cotton manufacture is likely to continue, and with a return to protection and a restoration of a home market it w'ill not be many years before we shall overtake England in the product of our cotton spindles. As for a foreign market of any value, we cannot obtain it as long as we pay 117 per cent higher wages than England. Our exports have not changed in ten years. For the present, at least, the home market under a protective tariff with an adequate duty on all grades of cotton goods to cover the difference in cost of manufacture, will suffice to sustain our great cotton industry and continue its progress. The following table, showing the difference of wages in American and English cotton mills, was compiled by William Whitman, Jr., of Westerly, R. I., and the comparisons are drawn from two mills, one in Bolton, I^ancashire, England, the other in New England, with both of which he had been connected: CL.tss OF Help. Boss pickers, . . . Helpers Boss carder, . . . Second hand, . . . Card grinders, . . Card boy, Card girl, Comber tenders, . . Silver lap tenders, . Ribbon lap tenders, Drawing lap tenders, Slabbing lap tenders, Inter lap tenders, Roving lap tenders, Jack lap tenders, Mule spinners, . . Mule overseer, . . Mule back boy, . . Engineer Fireman, Machinist Packer, •Comber overseer. Boss warehouse, . . dill ; English mill. Itl.oo 6.00 24.00 15.00 11.00 5.00 3-75 7.00 5.00 5-50 6.00 6.50 7- 50 8.00 S.55 i5.oo 24.00 3.00 iS.oo 13.00 15.00 10.00 15.00 14.00 Total, I257.80 Page a6i, Bulletin, i 15.04 2.40 8.64 6.50 504 2.40 2.16 3-48 2.16 2.76 3.00 3-48 348 4.20 9.12 9.60 1.92 7.20 6.00 6.72 5-04 7.20 7.20 I118.72 15-96 3.60 15-36 8.50 5-96 2.60 1-59 3-52 2.84 2-74 3.00 3.02 4.02 4.02 4-35 6.88 14.40 10. S 4.96 7.80 6.80 TAB IFF QVESriOX IX THE UXITED ."STATES. O O O Q O O CTv t^ VD ■* CO S S S P 2sJ o 8 ^ " K c ro -^tvo o o *.t in i, u 5>3 i?«^ ' 8 6 - VD (N Q ^ O O O 1- « O " §" 8' t^ si ^ R " _ q a* .^ o^o^ lo ON ro O"" O' ro r^ O pvO t^CC CO i t?^^;f^l i |8Sg>k 1 > l^pJ'lll ^mm Q. ^6 i^l^E^ 11 K § s 36,058,000 159,469 000 150,178,000 ' 24,403,000 352,042,000 367,602,000 1 1 §§§§§§§ s ^1 lil^ES 3! 1 1 Is till tit TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. It will be seen that the difference in favor of the English manufac- turer is 117 per cent in labor cost. Besides this he has the most efficient machinery in use, abundant capital, long established markets and trade relations, and artisans as skillful as any in the world. The advantage derived from labor cost alone enables the British manufacturer to undersell the American in every foreign market, and if our duties were removed we should be compelled to reduce our wages to the British level or close our mills. It has been proven in preceding chapters by the evi- dence of English manufacturers, that we not only owe the establishment of this industry to protection, but that without protection it would be ruined. This is true notwithstanding the fact that it is an old industry; that it has received the most constant and highest protection of all indus- tries, and that there has been attracted to it abundant capital, and our ablest and most competent manufacturers, who have placed it on the most efficient basis, so far as the best machinery, the latest and most approved appliances are concerned. Again, it has the advantage of free raw mate- rial, as cheap raw material as the industry of any country. Yet we can- not pay 117 per cent higher wages than are paid in England and make goods as cheaply as they can. It is all nonsense to talk about the supe- riority of our labor when many of our operatives came from England, where they learned their trades. If our manufacturers could make goods cheaper than they can be made in England, they would be quite as apt to find it out as the free trade agitators. Our manufacturers are anxious to extend their business, and if, in fact, they could make goods cheaper than foreign rivals, they would be shipping their fabrics to South America and other points as accessible to them as to any one. Customers would be found, goods sold and our exports would increase, but this has not been done and cannot be done so long as they pay 117 per cent, or more than double the wages paid in England. This fact, well understood by the cotton trade of the entire world, is questioned only by the free trade agitators. Knit goods though classified in the census imder woolen manufactures come properly under cotton. In' 1850 there were but 85 knitting mills in this country. In 1890 there were 807 paying $18,000,000 in wages and producing $67,000,000 worth of fabrics. In three years under the McKinley bill these 807 knitting mills had increased to 993. It was almost impossible for hosiery and knit goods manufacturers to get suffi- cient hands to meet the demands. And yet in a single year imder the Gorman tariff this condition has been reversed, and mills and thousands of operatives are idle. The protection afforded by the McKinley bill is necessary for the continuance of the industry on anything like the scale of 1893. A dollar is paid in Philadelphia for precisely the same service for which a mark is paid in the knitting mills of Germany. TARIFF qVKSTION IN THE UNITED STATES. But the benefit is by no means confined to the laborers in the industrj- itself. A demand has been made on American genius and invention with the result that there has been wonderful development and improvement in the manufacture of machinery, much of which is now used in European mills. But for the establishment of the knitting goods industry here neither we nor our competitors in Europe would ha\-e had the machinerj- now used and not only our own people but the people of Europe would be paying much higher prices for the comfortable clothing now obtained so reason- bly. The lace curtain industry was hardly known in this country till the McKinley bill imposed a duty of 60 per cent on fabrics that previously had a duty of only 40 per cent. In three years instead of one plant with 12 machines there were 122 machines capable of producing weekly from 50,000 to 100,000 pairs of curtains. Our manufacturers were compelled to pay 50 per cent more for their machinery than their foreign competitors paid, as it is not yet constructed in this countrj-. As for the difference in wages the following table shows the prices paid for labor in Scotland and the United States : Scotch labor (per week) Fixers, men f 10.00 Weavers, men 6.00 Shuttlers, boys, $1.50102.50 Brass winders, females 2.50 Menders, females, 3.50 Winders, females, 3-00 Operators, females, 3-0O Odd lielp, females, 2.00 |;20.oo f 12.00 to $15.00 4.00 to 6.00 "6.00 to 7.00 ^.00 to 9.00 6.00 to 8.00 6.00 to S.oo 4.00 to 8.00 And with the increased duty and the increased employment of labor came a reduction of 25 per cent in the price of lace curtains. Messrs. Cleland & Campbell, of the Columbia (Pa.) Lace Company, who also operate a factory in Scotland, declared that if the McKinley bill had remained in force another year seven-eighths of the lace manufactories of Nottingham and Scotland would now be located in America. Bttt the duty was made 45 per cent by the Gorman-Wilson bill, and like scores of other industries that of lace curtains hangs in the balance. Mr. Cleland, the senior partner of the above-mentioned firm, talked freely to a newspaper correspondent in 1892, as follows: We had to come. We were knocked out completely by the raising of the duty. America is the greatest consumer of lace curtains in the world. There are more people here than in any other country who can afford to have lace curtains in their homes. So, when the American market was closed to us there was nothing TEXTILE A^^D OTHER IXDUSTHIES. for us to do but to get inside of the tariff fence. If President Harrison is elected, as I most earnestly hope he will be, there will be lots of other concerns in our line of business who will move over also. We are loaded down with orders for months ahead, and the outlook is good for a most prosperous business in spite of the high wages we must pay. As to wages, we will have to pay more than double what we did in Scotland. The men who tend the machines we paid over there 24 shillings a week — about J6 in 3'our money. Here we must pay them $15 a week. The same proportion runs through the whole scale. As to the cost of living, it is not much greater here than in Scotland, with the exception of rents. But even that difference is not as great as it seems, because the accommodations here are so infinitely superior. There families live in two rooms, a kitchen and a bed-room. Here we are building a row of houses for our workmen with four rooms each. Where the men paid $3 a month rent over there they will pay f8 here, but the quarters are three times as comfort- able. The prices of food are about the same in both countries. Clothes are a little higher, but that is compensated for by the fact that they don't need as heavy clothes here. Some of my men bought a lot of clothes before they came over, and now find them so heavy they can't wear them here. In fact, they laid in a stock of ever}'tliing, down to pipes and matches, on the supposition that prices were so much higher here, and now they find in many cases that they could get better things for their money in this country. In short, they can live here on the money they earned in the old country and save the difference between wages there and here. We are all delighted with America, and have received the kindest welcome here. For myself, I haven't been homesick a day Now that I am a resident of the United States I am a firm believer in Republican principles and the policy of protection. In the lace business it's the only thing that protects you from the competition of the old countries. If it were not for the duty there wouldn't be a bobbin turning in this country. I presume the same holds good in other industries. Wool and its manufacture in the United States are so closely identi- fied as to warrant their being treated together. Without our woolen mills our sheep industry would amount to but little. Without our sheep and their wool our woolen mills would be at a great disadvantage. As early as 1657 protection was afforded to wool and woolens in Virginia by prohibit- ing transportation of sheep out of the colony and by a bounty of five pounds of tobacco for every yard of woolen cloth made in the colony. Various laws were made for the encouragement of the woolen industry up to the Revolu- tion. It was not till 1816, however, that a duty was imposed on wool and from that time till the Gorman- Wilson tariff of 1894 the whole duty has never been removed, though certain grades were admitted free under the laws of 1833 and 1857. The industry was of slow growth up to i860. In 1840 we had 19,000,000 sheep and during the next twenty years under a revenue duty the number increased only 3,000,000 while in the next twentj'-five years under protection the number had increased to 50,000,000, a gain of 125 per cent. The subject of sheep and wool has been treated somewhat in detail elsewhere. To show our progress in the manufacture of woolens the following table is appended : IVooland mavufac- TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. Effect of tariff legh- 7vool ajid woolens. Manufacture and Importation of Woolens. 1820, 1830, 1S40, 1850, 1S60, i8So[ Domestic manufactures. $4,413,068 14,528,166 20,696,999 43.207,545 65>596.364 177-495,689 267,252,913 338,231,109 I .46 .88 .82 $7,238,954 8,290,062 13.950,772 ^3,005,852 31.333,273 33,046,521 39.537.694 54,165,422 Percentage of total con- On no branch of American industry has the tariff so much effect as on wool and woolens. This has been shown most clearly in the last five years. The effect of a most judicious adjustment of duties by the McKinley bill was the running of every mill in the country at full time, and in many cases at over time. In the year ending June 30, 1893, the importations of raw wool were thp largest ever known, and amounted to 1 68 ,000,000 pounds. Our mills consumed not only all of our own products, but this 168,000,000 pounds of foreign wool besides. As our imports of manufactures did not materially increase, it proved clearly an increase in the demands of the American market, and yet the price of clothing was lower than ever before. But the menace of free wool and lower duties on woolens turned all this -prosperity of both producer and consumer into disaster and ruin. The Commercial Bulletin of Boston sums up the situation as follows: In all lines of business 1893 will be remembered as a year of agony. In the wool trade it has been a more fearful succession of disaster and breakdown than could have been imagined. During the year the price of wool has been reduced almost one-half. Shut-downs, cut wages, strikes and failures have been the daily pabulum for ten months of the last twelve. Yet this year opened more prosperously from a commercial standpoint than any we have known. An unprecedented condition of prosperity has in twelve months been converted to an unprecedented condition of adversit)'. Financial disturbances helped, but the one primal cause of this wide-reaching suffering is the vote of the American people in November, 1892, in favor of breaking protective tariff. The effect of the reduced duties under the act of 1883 in stimulating employment of business in Bradford. Kngland, may be .seen from the following table, compiled from the reports of the Hon. John A. Tibbit, United States Consul: TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. Exports from Bradford to United States in 1S83 and 1890. 1SS3. 1890. Camel's hair tops 159.332 I446.275 Card clothing 25,120 65,960 Carpets and rugs, 272,686 303.037 Cotton goods 51.663 169,189 Cow and calf hair, 1,191 65,891 Hair cloths, 120,709 12,127 Hemp bagging, . . . • 394 Machinery, 207,298 468,796 Mohair goat's hair 28,191 223,071 Noils, 39.451 114,042 Shawls, etc., ii,450 16,441 Shoddy ... 7,724 Silk, silk seals, plushes, etc 54,iSS 2,244,311 Silk waste, 37.372 19.590 Stuff goods 6,239,074 10,601,794 Tapestry, damask, etc 13.330 20,357 Waste, worsted, 386,500 445,152 Wool, 886,988 1,338,061 Woolen goods, 245,953 271,775 Worsted coatings, 1,603,011 5,310,107 Yarns, worsted, 312,675 914,123 Yarns, mohair, ... 174.779 Yarns, other, ... 120,453 Total, 110,596,182 ^23,353, 449 It was the constantly increasing imports of such articles which, in 1890, prompted the protectionist party in the Congress of the United States to raise the duties on those articles in order that they might be made in American factories by American labor. The result of such legislation has been the decline in imports of some of the principal articles from Bradford, England, as shown by the report of the United States Consul, Hon. John A. Tibbit, as follows: Imports During the Twelve Months Closing June 30, i8go, and June 30, 1891. iSgo. 1891. Stuffs $2,178,524 $ 957.907 Worsted coatings, 1,091,153 518,425 Woolen goods, 55,845 24,380 Carpets and rugs, 62,270 24,386 Silks, seals and plushes 461,176 62,270 Worsted and mohair yarns 187,138 41,628 Total 1:4,036,106 Jr, 628, 996 The increase of duties in 1890, which checked imports into the United States, was met by the British manufacturers in their struggle to hold a TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. share of the market by a reduction in wages. It was in the face of such recent results and experience that the free trade party in the United vStates Congress, through the Gorman-Wilson bill of 1894, reduced the duties on woolen goods to a point much below the act of 1883. This could only have been done for the definite and specific purpose of placing the American woolen market in the hands of British manufacturers. The revival of business, which is now going on in the Bradford district, is solely the result ^f such legislation. With their cheap labor, efficient machinery and vast facilities for manufacturing, the English manufactu- rers can supply the entire Ameri'^an market and completely supplant the vast industry which has been built up and maintained by the system of protection. It is apparent, from the evidence of English manufacturers given elsewhere, that they will be benefited bj' the recent work of the free trade party in the United States and that the people of this country, under their present wage rate, are powerless, even under low import duties, to resist an inundation of the American markets of the goods made by the low paid labor of England. Not only does the injury fall upon our manufacturers and operatives, but the sheep owner is deprived of a market for his wool, thereby decreas- ing his income and means to purchase manufactures. Here again is shown the interdependence of all our industries. A blow to one injures all. The loss is felt throughout the land. Transportation suffers. Capital is idle. Labor is unemployed. Not only does the individual suffer, but there is loss of national revenue and national wealth. But it is not to England alone that we must look for an invasion of our markets. Germany, France and Belgitmr are successfully contesting neutral markets with English manufacturers. Under the shield of protec- tion their home markets are made secure, while a vast surplus is being poured into England. How shallow and senseless becomes the talk indulged in by the United States free traders of our capturing the markets of the world. When the scheme is unmasked it is found that the United States markets are the ones which will be captured. To show exactly what we must contend against the following table is given showing the wages in the worsted industrj' in Massachusetts, Eng- land, France and Belgium; the wages in Germany being about the same as Belgium. The table is valuable for the reason that it was prepared by Mr. F. W. Hobbs, of Boston, after months of thorough investigation in all the countries named and because a specific industry was taken, the wages in every case representing the same grade of labor and same grade of work: TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. Overlookers (English SystemJ, Yarn Inspectors, ... Spinners ifull time), ... Spinners (two half timers), . Overlookers (mule), .... Spinners (mule), Coffers (head), DoflFers, Takers-oflF, Cleaners, Tape fixers Boy helpers Wool Sorters : Average earnings, Wcaiung: Overlookers Assistant Overlookers, ... Weavers .Machine and Repair Shop : Carpenters, Machinists, Blacksmiths, Stokers Engineers, Washing : Overlookers, Washers, Carding : Overlookers Grinders and Strippers, . . . Carders Combing : Overlookers, Assistant Overlookers, . . . Backwashers, Gill Box Bailers Comb Binders, Finishers, . . . . l'>rawing and Roving : Overlookers, Assistant Overlookers, . . . 2 Can Gill Box 2 Spindle Gill Box, .... 4 " Draw Box, . . . 8 " Weigh Box, . . 8 " First Finisher, . . 8 " Second Finisher, 30 " Reducer, .... 30 " Roving, Drawing and Roving (French System): Overlookers Assistant Overlookers, Gill Box Second Gill Box, . . Roving, .... Second Roving, . . . i|i3-5o 1 7-5° ] 6.00 I 6.00 15.00 13-50 4.S0 4.20 4.50 4. So 6.90 4.20 15-00 9.00 7.00 13-50 13.20 12.00 9.00 15.00 16.50 9.00 6.60 '16.50 9.00 6.00 7-50 5-70 15.00 9.00 6.30 6.30 6.60 6.30 6.30 6.30 6.30 6.00 13-50 7-50 6.30 $7-78 3-S9 2-43 1-94 2.06 1-94 1-94 8.26 4.36 3-40 6.80 7.29 7.29 4-37 7.29 8.75 4.62 9.72 4-37 3-04 9.00 5-58 2.92 2.67 2.67 3-40 2.92 8.75 4-37 2.79 2-79 2.67 2.67 2.55 2.55- 2-43 2.43 9S-5 Si. I 64.6 105-9 105.8 69.7 106.0 117. 1 S3-3 61.3 105-5 103.5 124.7 120.6 95-2 71.4 106.0 125.8 125.8 147.2 135-9 147. 1 147. 1 159-3 146.9 I7-98 5-13 73-5 92.8 146.9 209.3 133-0 116.5 132.0 250.5 244-3 8i.6 7.70 106.4 I 4-56 105.9 1 4-56 5-13 6.S4 6.84 4-56 8-55 7-98 3-71 11.40 5-70 3-71 2-99 3-42 3-14 163.2 94-8 97-1 53-7 163.2 93-0 75-4 97-4 75-4 69.2 102.2 107.6 85.6 135-7 57-9 61.7 90.7 "9-3 87.9 I4.56 2.00 1-15 5-42 5-70 3-42 3-15 4-S7 4.87 4-57 4.87 5-70 3-42 5-70 4-3° 3-14 5-70 3-42 2-57 77.6 57-9 121. 1 5-75 3-42 2.28 2.20 163.2 227.7 265.2 103.0 163.2 163.2 122.2 177.2 171.0 146.4 96.9 208.0 136-9 119-3 189-5 104.4 no. 2 189-5 163.2 133-4 150.0 163.2 150.0 134.8 "9-3 176.3 176-3 186.4 176-3 TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. States to coiHpete on account of tire high Adequate duties on wool and woolens show a different result from free wool and inadequate duties on woolens. Here are the two results : 1891-92. Under McKinley Bii,l. American sheep increasing in number. American mills running at full and over time. Work seeking workers. English mills running at short time. 1894-95- Under Gorm.\n Bili.. American sheep decreasing in number. American mills closed or running part time. Workers seeking work. English mills running full or over time. It has been shown in a previous chapter, by the evidence of British woolen manufacturers, that our high wages make it impossible for us to compete with England. Mr. Henry Mitchel, member of the Bradford Chamber of Commerce, testified in a passage already quoted (p. 256), that ' ' labor is much higher in the United States . . . they are never likely to be serious competitors with us." This fact is well understood by the British manufacturers. Mr. Mitchel also showed that the slight reduction in import duties of 15 per cent, in 18S3, was the cause of the increased imports from England to the United States from 1883 to 1890. This slight reduction increased imports from $35,000,000 in 1885 to over $54,000,000 in 1890. When duties were raised by the McKinley bill the imports dropped, in two years, down to $35,000,000 again. A reduction of duties of 15 per cent in 1883 gave increased employ- ment to foreign labor, while an advance in duties in 1890, placed over $21,000,000 a year in the pockets of American la-borers and manu- facturers. Again the Gorman-Wilson bill has reduced the duties below the rate of 1883 and foreign mills are busy and American mills are idle, but this is a source of satisfaction to Mr. Cleveland and his a-ssociates. This is the identical result which they intended to bring about. It is idle to discuss the effect of high tariffs or low tariffs on American indus- tries, when there is no dispute between free traders and protectionists upon this point. Mr. Cleveland, Mr. Wilson and all the leaders of the free trade party know as well as the British manufacturers that employers in the United States cannot pay over loo per cent higher wages to labor and compete with foreign producers. They know that it cannot be done even with free wool. That if American manufacturers buy their wool in Australia or in the London market so far as the raw material is concerned they are simply placed on an equal footing with Britisli manufacturers, and that there is still the difference of over 100 per cent in wages standing in favor of the foreigner. This talk of free wool, of our capturing foreign markets has been a sham from the beginning. The purpose of the whole movement has been to ruin the American industry, sheep and all, and to turn the American markets over to aliens. This is pre- cisely what is being accomplished and is what was expected by every one, TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTBIES. excepting those who ha\-e allowed themselves to be deceived by the mis- representations of free traders. American homes are the best carpeted in the world. The first Ameri- can carpet was made in Philadelphia. In 1810 about 10,000 j'ards of car- peting were made in the United States. In i860, 13,285,921 yards were made, valued at $7,857,630, while in 1890 the product had reached over 80,000,000 yards, valued at $50,000,000. The progress from 1850 to i860 amounted to very little, all the growth of this great industry having taken place under the protective tariffs since that time. Our carpet exports in 1893 amounted to less than $75,000 in value, showing again the value of a home market that practically consumes our entire output. A duty of 7J2 per cent was put on carpets in 1790. This was gradually increased till 1824 when a specific rate was levied and continued till 1846, when an ad valorem dut}- was again imposed. In 186 1 a change was made again to specific rates by difierent grades and qualities. The tariff did not recognize carpet wool as such till 1 867. At present we produce only about 7 per cent of our consumption of this wool, which is about 80,000,000 pounds annually. That we could with adequate protection produce the whole of this is clearly shown elsewhere. In twent)'-five years the prices of all grades of carpets ha\'e been reduced over one-half, and the quality and durability have been con- stantly improved. And yet our carpet industry paying over $1 2 ,000,000 an- nualh- in wages and producing fabrics at prices within the reach of all was b\- the Gorman- Wilson tariff marked as one of the industries to be crippled. Tapestries and velvet grades cannot be made in this country- under a low tariff at any rate of wages however low. Ingrains cannot be profitably made without a reduction of wages to the level of English wages, which are less than half the rates paid in this country. The reader may be interested in the following paragraphs taken from the report of G. W. Roosevelt, United States Consul at Brussels, 1889: I may add that carpets were never manufactured at Brussels, but in former years beautiful tapestry used for wall decoration was made here. This industry, however, no longer exists, the disappearance of which is attributed to the English, who adopted the designs and imitated them in carpets which they introduced to the trade as "Brussels tapestry carpets;" hence the origin of the name Brussels carpets. The so-called Brussels carpets, manufactured in England, are placed upon this market at a much lower rate than the same articles can be produced in Belgium ; consequently England supplies this market, and Belgian dealers exporting carpets furnish foreign markets with English goods. The American Brussels carpets which once sold at $1.50 and $2 per yard retail can now be had for 75 cents per yard and can be found in almost every. home in the land. ■ Once our own industry is destroyed and England gains possession of our market the price will again exceed one dollar. It will not be lower. Free trade in carpets means less wages or no wages and a higher price for the article itself. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. The attack under the Gorman-Wilson bill was made upon our woolen industry because imports could be increased bj- reducing duties. England is now making a large share of our woolens for us, and we are sending our gold to pay for them. She has given up the idea of gaining our iron market, for the present, at least, but it was not difficult to destroy our woolen industry and gain our market in woolen goods. The subject of clothing has given the free trader much apparent con- cern. He has pictured the poor laboring man as being taxed to death for what he wears on his back. The fact is that the American workman can dress as cheaply and at the same time as well as the English laborer. In 1890 the condition of our men's clothing industry was as follows, com- pared with i860: Number of establishments, Hands employed Wages paid, Material used, Value of product, .... 4,014 18,65s 365 114,800 I 243,857 ' 112 $19,856,426 1111,389,672 ! 462 44.149.752 I 179.425,661 I 306 $80,830,555 1378,022,815. 354 As usual under protection labor gains the most. Nearly, if not quite, $350,000,000 in wages annually is represented in the output of this industry in its various processes. But it must be remembered that the above figures do not represent the whole of our clothing industry. In everj^ city and town there are custom tailors who give employment to thousands of men and women. While on the subject of clothing it will be pertinent to touch upon the question of shoddy. What is shoddy ? It is primarily the flue or thread shed from cloth while weaving, practically refuse matter, sometimes mixed with the basest of elements and made up into cloth, if we may dig- nify it by that name. It is purely a free trade fabric. This is no idle assertion, but is proven by the following table of imports: Imports of Shoddy. s.r„^^- Value. Duty per pound. 1890 4,980,327 1,185,591 262,992 333.376 143,002 14,066,054 12,052,078 429,870-1 87,825 , 106,596 47,522 J 1,980,464 10 cents— old duty. IS9I 30 cents— McKinley bill. 1894, 1895 15 cents— Gornian-Wilson bill. TEXTILE AXD OTIIEK IXDVSTltlES. The Republican duty was almost prohibitive, and in those times we had but little use for it. If the material were sold as shoddy there might be some excuse for the use of a limited amount, but it is sent here as woolens, and many buy it when they might be wearing for the same price honest goods made by American workmen. The whole woolen industry question could be no better explained than in the following extract from the London Financial News of October 8, 1S95: The great prosperity of the wool trades has, fortunately, more than offset the retrogression in cotton, though that reflection brings small consolation to Lanca- shire. The total gain for the nine months under yarns and textiles is |i6,4S8,,;75, and as the value of woolen tissues taken by the United States has been about ^4,- 750,000 and of worsted tissues nearly $15, 000, 000 greater than in 1894, no further search for the origin of the improvement in the trade returns need be made. The lowering of the American tariff has been our salvation, and it cannot be said that we have shown much reciprocity ; for, instead of taking the increased value of our shipments across the Atlantic in kind, we seem to have bought less American pro- duce. It is needless to go beyond our own board of trade returns to find an expla- nation of a good deal of the monetary trouble in the United States. Practically every penny that was subscribed here toward the recent American loan has been got back through the extension in the exports of woolens and worsteds ; but the United States has not confined her increased purchases to those arti- cles. Last month she bought less raw wool than in September, 1894, but had to pay more for it. She took more cotton pieces, more iron, more alkali and more of sun- dry articles which need not be specified. In some instances the rapid growth of the preceding months resulted in a slight check in September, but in all these cases the figures of the nine months show a big advance on 1S94. On the other hand, we have paid a good deal less for American wheat, flour, bacon, hams, cheese, tallow and cotton, to mention only tho.se articles in which the contraction is most apparent. This is the result of a partial triumph of free trade. It fulfills the prediction of protection i.sts and is not disappointing to free traders. In 1850 the total product of our silk mills was valued at less than $2,000,000. In i860 it had increased to $6,607,741, and in 1890 it had reached the value of $87,298,454. Under the additional stimulus of the McKinley bill it probably exceeded $100,000,000 in 1892. In 1890 the capital invested- was over $50,000,000 and $20,000,000 were paid in wages. Three million dozens of silk handkerchiefs alone were made. Before 1840 there was practically no silk industry here. It had gained but little by i860. But in 1 86 1 a duty of 60 per cent on silk manufactures was imposed and the growth of tlie industry has been rapid till 1893. We not only consume all we make but import nearly half as much more. Americans not only have carpeted floors while foreigners walk on boards, we not only have papered walls and lace curtains, our men and boys not only wear better clothes, but our wives and daughters wear more and better silks than any other women on earth. We now make the best silks worn. In thirty-five years we TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. Effect of tariff have overtaken and passed in the quality of silk fabrics nations with cen- turies the start of us. But that is not all. Silks of American make can now be purchased for about one-third the price of twenty-five years ago, and we have compelled the foreigner time and time again to reduce his prices to get into our market. The free trader tells us that protection enhances prices. The American silk manufacturer is one of mauj- who tell the free trader that protection not only reduces the price of the Ameri- can product, but the price of the foreign product as well. But there is this difference with the fall of prices, American labor remains the same or increases, while the European, to gain our market, must reduce his workman's wages. A glance at our foreign competitors in the silk industry will be interesting. There is England, where wages are one-third those in the United States. There are France and Germany, where wages are still lower. There is Italy where wages are one-fifth. There is Japan where wages are one-tenth, and there are India and China, where wages are one-twentieth. These are our rival silk workers, with generations of experience and with machinery equal to ours. The Japanese have 4000 .silk looms of the most improved pattern. And with these must we com- pete. England, however, has ceased to be a strong competitor, for the French and German manufactures have flooded her markets and almost crushed out her silk industry. With free trade in the United States we should experience the same results. As has been shown before, the benefits of a protective tariff do not stop with the establishment and maintenance of an industry itself. In all tex- tile industries intricate and delicate machinery' plays a most important part. In the decade from 1880 to 1890 our silk output increased from $40,000,000 to nearly $90,000,000. This created a demand for improved machinery. How this was met is shown by Robert P. Porter in Census Bulletin No. 384, as follows: The number of spindles employed in silk manufacture has increased from 508,- 137 in 1880 to 1,254,798 in i8go, an increase of 746,661, or 146.9 per cent. Even more noteworthy than this great increase in the number of spindles is the rapid disappearance of the old-time cumbersome hand looms, which are being superseded by the power loom, the inventive genius of the age having produced marvelous improvements in both mechanism, speed and artistic effects. At the census of 18S0, 3152 hand looms were employed as against 1747 in 1890, a decrease of 1406, or 44.59 per cent. In 1890, 20,822 power looms were employed as against 880, an increase of 15,501, or 291.32 per cent. The total number of all 5321 looms employed in 1890 was : or 166.33 P^"^ cent. ,569, against S474 m 18S0, : of 14.095. The menace of free trade in 1893 was reflected in our silk industry in common with all others. Not more than half the machinery was running in 1894 and that upon short time. The Wilson bill made a severe cut, but the duties were largely advanced iu the Senate bill which passed. A slight TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. reduction, however, is sometimes sufBcient to cripple or destroy an indus- try, and it remains to be seen whether our silk industry can survive and thrive under present duties. In all but two articles the duty is ad valorem. This is serious indeed. There are no goods so difficult to value as silks. Undervalua- tion and fraud have and will exist in the importations of silk under ad valorem duties to a greater degree than in any other similar importations. In one branch of the silk industry the effect of protective and free trade legislation can be seen more clearly perhaps than in any other busi- ness. The McKinley bill imposed a duty on velvets, plushes or other pile fabrics containing, exclusive of selvedges, less than 75 per cent in weight of silk, $1.50 per pound and 15 per cent; containing 75 per cent or more in weight of silk, $3.50 per pound and 15 per cent. Let us follow the effect in a single instance. In 1890 there was an establishment inSaltaire, England, employing 4500 hands, a part of whom were making these vel- vet and plush goods wholly for the American trade. The McKinley bill went into operation October 6, 1890. What was the result? The English mill shut down; not only that, but Sir Titus Salt, finding he could no longer manufacture velvets and plushes in England for Americans, removed his mill, his machinery and his workmen to America ; and, b)- June I, 1 89 1, the works in Bridgeport, Conn., were running night and day to fill American orders. Instead of importing the goods we imported the industry. And we increased our home market to the extent of the ad- ditional purchasing power of those men. No American laborer was thrown out of employment. On the contrar}' this very new industry gave employ- ment to many American workmen at good wages. Those men who came from England consumed while there say ten cents' worth of American products against ninety cents when they became American workmen. Their wages in England were $6 to $7 per week, here they were $13 to $14 per week. But this is not all. The prices of these very goods were reduced in a single year nearly 40 per cent. This is not an , isolated instance.. Other industries were imported here by the McKinley bill, in every case increasing our home market for other goods, giving employ- ment to American workmen, reducing the price of the article manufac- tured and keeping both goods and the price paid for them in this country. Can any fair-minded man say that such a result is not advantage- ous to all concerned from the individual to the nation itself? And yet, with this very knowledge, the " reformers " of 1894 reduced the duty on the first grade of velvets and plushes mentioned above over 20 per cent and on the second grade from $3.50 per pound and 15 per cent to $1.50 per pound, a reduction of over 60 per cent. Here is what Mr. Richard Pearson, one of the superintendents of the Bridgeport factory, said: I used to be a free trader at home. I believed in it; but when I found that Germany was sending velvets into England, and practically shutting us out of the business right at our own hearth-stone, I got tired of free trade. Of course, TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. German}' and France have made velvets for centuries, and both countries are well equipped ; but to have them sell velvets in London more cheaply than we could make them at Saltaire, disgusted me with free trade. I am confident that we shall be able to make velvets here that will meet with a ready sale. The'McKinley bill will permit us to do so. Why, if it were not for that bill, this plant would be still in Saltaire. There would have been no inducement for us to come here, but it has brought us here, and we have come to stay. Of course, if the McKinley liill should be repealed, we might go back. The buildings are still there and our machinery could easily be shipped. It is hardly probable that they will go back to free trade England, but free trade would send them to France or Germany. The best fibre and best and handsomest linen come from Silesia, a province of Russia, where thej' save both seed and fibre. The largest linen mill in the world is at Jaradova, Russia, where they employ 7000 hands in one mill and make very fine linen. The climate and soil of these countries are identical with those of the Northwestern part of the United States. Within a radius of 400 miles of Minneapolis there was raised in 1890 over 5,000,000 acres of flax, all of which could have been worked into fibre and been worth in cash to farmers over $9,000,000. besides the seed. But to encourage and develop the indtistry of preparing fibre from the straw of flax, we must protect not only the fibre itself, but give still greater protection than is now enjoyed to the manufacture of linen and kindred industries. To show the necessity for this, the following table of comparative wages in this country and European countries is given: Average Rate of Weekly Wages Paid in the Flax Spinning Trade- Europe AND America. Sorters, Roughers, . . . . Machine workers, Spinners, . . . Reelcrs Rovini^, Carders Spreaders, . . . Drawing Doffers, |I2.00 5-00 6.00 S.oo 500 3-50 I4.S6 4. 86 1.46 1. 82 1-34 1.58 2.19 1.70 1-95 1-34 $3.85 1-35 2.02 3-37 2.02 2.20 2.02 1.85 1.70 1.65 1-55 1-50 I-I5 As with .flax so it is with hemp, jute and ramie. India now .supplies the United States and all the world with jute. It is cultivated, steeped, cleaned, transported, sorted and baled by labor costing ten cents a da\-. The average price of baled jute in Calcutta is two and one-half cents a TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. pound. The soil and climate of the South are as well adapted to jute cul- ture aa those of India, but a day's farm labor in the South costs from fifty to seventy-five cents. We certainly can grow jute in the United States, for we have already done so to a limited extent. We need only protection against the low-priced labor of India to enable us to produce all that we consume. Hemp of the very best quality, better, in fact, than that pro- duced anywhere else in the world, has been grown in America. Ramie has been successfully grown in the Southern States and in Southern Cali- fornia. There is no reason why the United States should not become the greatest fibre producing country on the globe. It would not only add millions of dollars to the income of our farmers, many of whom are raising products at little or no profit, but it would stimulate the manufactures of these same products, giving employment to labor at high wages and still further increasing the purchasing income of millions of laborers, thereby creating a home market for other products of the farm and factor}' far in excess of that which is now enjoj-ed. It \vould seem as if the high wages here would increase the cost of linen manufactures. The contrary has been the case. In linen threads, in shirts, in collars and cuffs, and, in fact, in every manufacture of linen th.e price has fallen from one-quarter to one-half in the last thirty years. Flax and hemp were put on the free list by the Gorman-Wilson bill. Jute is on the free list. If our farmers were educated to the importance of fibre production, and the industry were once established by the adoption of an adequate tariff, the cost would be reduced, and we would soon supply not only our own needs but export to other countries. Nowhere can the beneficent effects of a protective tariff be seen so clearly as in connection with the iron and steel industry-. Mr. B. F. French, in his " History of the Iron Trade of the United States," says: It is an established fact that in many departments of English industry, those ■who are interested will carry them on at a loss for years, to aid in retaining mar- kets from which they are in danger of being excluded by commercial restrictions or industrial competition ; and scarcely a branch of industry has sprung up in the United States which has not, at first, had to encounter a severe struggle in conse- quence of the foreign article being reduced in price below that with which it had been expected to compete. In spite of the handicap mentioned by Mr. French, the iron and steel in- dustry of the United States has made remarkable progress, particularly since i860. In every branch, as soon as an adequate duty was levied, the manu- facture began, and increased greatly while imports and prices decreased by an almost constant ratio. There is little to record prior to i860. Eveiy early attempt to manufacture iron in any form was generally crushed out by England in the manner described by Mr. French. In 1850 the total number of hands employed in the manufacture of pig iron, iron casting 44 TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. and wrought iron was 60,285 and the total value of the product $60,486,- 153. In 1S90 the value of product was, $478,687,519. While specific duties were imposed on twenty-nine articles previous to 1846, in that year duties were changed to a uniform 30 per cent ad valorem rate, which was reduced to 24 per cent in 1857. The immediate effect of the tariffs of 1 842 and 1 846 can be seen from the following, taken from a volume printed in 1850: New Iron Works and Failures in Pennsylvania from 1842 to 1S50 Inclusive. YEAR. New works. Failures. Year. New works. Failures. 1S43 1844 1S45 • ■ ■ 1846 7 21 40 53 3 4 1847 1848, 1849 1850, 25 17 10 7 24 37 41 22 It should be remembered that the tariff of July 30, 1846, did not go into effect till December i of that year. The experience of Pennsylvania was that of the whole country. On December 29, 1849, the firm of Cooper & Hewitt wrote a letter to the New York Journal of Commerce which was commended to the attention of Congress then in session. An extract from that letter reads as follows: There are one or two positions in the country which combine such extraordinary natural advantages with everj' superior quality as to make them almost independ- ent of legislation ; but as to the great fact that the great majority of establishments, judiciously located, and managed with proper skill and economy, have been com- pelled to suspend work, throughout the land, for want of remunerative work, there can not be a shadow of doubt. ... A few merchant mills are kept in motion, from the absolute necessity of having a certain amount of iron of superior quality for fine work ; but of fifteen rail mills only two are in operation, doing partial work, and that only because their inland position secured them against foreign competition for the limited orders of neigh- boring railroads— and when these are executed not a single rail mill will be at work Nothing, however, was done and like the other industries of the country the iron trade had to depend on the ameliorating influences of gold discoveries and a foreign war. But the.se were at best artificial and temporan,', and i860 found the iron industry, as it did every other industry in the country, struggling for an existence. What the result has been since can best be gathered from table No. 26. TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. Table No. 26. Tabic Sho7ving Gro'wth of Iron and Steel Industry in the United tales, rS6o to iSpo. Compiled from United Stales Census and Report of the American Iron and Steel Association. i860. 1870. S08 1880. .8,0. Number of establishments, . i,So7 1,005 645 Number of hands employed, . 48,975 77,555 140,978 152,535 Wages paid 117,765.260 140,514,981 155,476,785 184,665,506 $37,486,056 8135,526,132 $191,271,150 $205,777,843 Value of product 172,175,332 $207,208,696 $296,557,685 $430,954,348 Production of iron ore, tons, . 908,300 3,031,891 7,120,362 14,518,041 Production of all kinds of coal. tons, 14,333,922 29,342,580 63,822,830 140,882,729 Production of pig iron, tons, . 821,223 1,665,179 3,835,191 9,202,703 37,5a:. 30,357 1,074,262 864,353 3,688,871 Production of steel rails, tons. 1,871,425 During this protective period the progress has been extraordinary. In every branch, as soon as adequately protective duties were imposed, mills were built, fires were lit and men employed at the highest wages ever known and with the results shown in the table. The inception and growth of the steel rail industn,- have already been shown. To single out another particular branch, wire nails were till 1883 under a duty of about one cent per pound. In 1883 a duty of four cents per pound was imposed. The table below will show the result: Output of Wire Nails in the United States from the Commencement of Their Manufacture in 1875 to 1894. 1875, 1876, 1877, 1S78, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1SS2, 1883, Number of ^P^J" 100 pounds. P5;„,,; 9-50 9.00 7-95 S.35 S.32 S.35 7-44 18S7, 1890, 1891, 1894. Number of PfJ^ 100 pounds, "c";," 200,000 300,000 500,000 1,000,000 2,200,000 3,500,000 4,114,385 4,719,524 5,095,945 5,681,801 The price in 1892 in large lots was 1.55 cents per pound, and since 1886 the price has been less than the duty. It would take volumes to give a detailed statement of all branches of the iron and steel industry. Suffice it to say that in a quarter of a century TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. e have overtaken and passed Great Britain. Here the free trader inter- rupts with the assertion that ' ' iron masters ' ' and ' ' robber barons ' ' of Pennsylvania and other States have made wonderful progress and enor- mous profits under protection while the poor workmen have been robbed of their share of the booty. Let us see how the poor workman has been robbed. First, what share does he contribute, or rather what share does he reap of the total cost of his production ? The labor cost in iron and steel production will be found in the chapter devoted to that subject. An idea of the wages received here and abroad can be gained from the following tables of wages paid in the iron and steel, railroad and mining industries in the United States and Europe, which were prepared and pre- sented to the Ways and Means Committee by \V. R. Sterling, Finst Vice- President of the Illinois Steel Company ; ' Comparative Wages Paid in Connellsville Coal Region, Pennsylvania, AND in the Coal Mines of Lanarkshire, Scotland, Scotch Rates Being REDUCED TO American Currency ; Years 1SS7-SS. Connellsville; Lanarkshire. Miners, per day, $1.951012.19 Ji.oSto|i.26 Drivers, per day, . . 1. 90 2.20 .60 Blacksmiths 2.50 .96 CoMPAR.\TivE Wages Paid in United States and Lanarkshire Coal Mines. (.1-foot ' Dainille, III., 1893 (6-foot vein' Miners' (paid by the ton) average earnings, per day I2.2S S2.12 ] fi.og Engineers, per day, |2. 00 to 2.50 1:2.50 to 3.00 ' .91 Trackmen, timbermen, roadmen, etc., per day, I 1.80 2.25' 2.00 2.50 |i. 03 to 1.09 Drivers, per day, .• ......' 1.50 2.00 .48 .91 Railroad Labor. Chicago. Locomotive engineers — Passenger, per month, ... $145 Freight, per month, . . . 125 Switchmen, per month, .... 70, Section foremen, per month, . jf45.oo to 55 Section hands, per day, ... i.io i Blacksmiths, per hour, .... Boilermakers, per day 2 Helpers, per day I Apprentices, per day, .... i Painters, per day 2 ' Tariff Hearing, pp. 31 J ai .00 I36.00 to 151.00 00 32.00 48.00 00 22.06 28.34 00 22.00 26.00 25 .69 • 75 27!.< ■ lO'/i •15, 75 .Si 35 •ss 00 .20 •25 I-I3 I-3I d3'3. TEXTILE AXD OTHER INDUSTRIES. Mr. J. S. Jeans, Secretary of the British Iron and Steel Institute, in his "Railway Problem," confirms the above figures, for he says that in Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and France the earnings of the different grades of railroad labor vary from about $14 to $38 per month, a great majority being less than $20. Blast Furnace Labor. Top fillers, . . Bottom fillers, Cinder loaders, Blast engineer. General labor, berland i Newcastle seaport I (England). (England). J5r.l3 I- 13 0.85 I1.71 1.19 fi.09 0.97 1.27 fo.81 to 0.97 j I0.57 to 0.69 Converting Mill. Chicago. Ladlemen, per day, $6.88 Pitmen, per day, 7-56 Runners, per day, 4-4° Iron cupolas, per day, 8.25 Iron stockers, per day, 4- 00 Locomotive engineer, per day, 300 Common labor, per hour, 15 Rail Mill. Chicago Heaters, per day J6.65 Helpers, per day, 4-48 Levermen, per day, . . 5-58 Cold straighteners, per day, ■ 5- 10 Helpers, per day, 3-40 Gagger per day 1-75 Drillers, per day 4-38 Table engineer, per day, 3-25 Sheffield. |2-43 1.94 1.46 2.91 1.46 1.94 Sheffield. I2.91 1.94 1.94 1.94 1. 21 1.46 2.43 The actual necessary expenses of the European are not so verj' much less than those of the American. Rent and clothing cost a little more in this country because the American is able and desires to live in better houses and rooms and wear better clothes than the European. When the year is over the American iron worker, though he has lived better, dressed better and had better food, still has from $20 to $100 more than the European. Perhaps this will account for the fact stated in the report of the Commissioner of Labor that out of 2490 families reported for the United States 540 own the houses in which they live, or about i in TARIFF QUESTION IK THE UNITED STATES. every 5 ; while of the 770 European families reported only 31 own the houses in which they live, or about i in 25. There are of course countless branches of the iron and kindred industries, to a few of which a brief reference only can be made in pass- ing. Take agricultural implements, for instance ; the value of product, number of employees and wages paid vvere as follows : YEAR. Value of Product. No. of Employees. ' Wages Paid. i860 517,597.960 81,271,651 7,100 42,544 1890, . It will be noticed that while the value of product increased nearly five- fold the amount of wages paid increased nine-fold. Making a similar comparison with machinery the result is as follows : Value of Product. I 52,010,376 41.225 I 16,182,546 412,701,872 247,754 ! 148.389,063 Here is a mo.st wonderful instance of the direct and indirect influence of protection. Not only has the result been possible because of the pro- tection afforded to machinery, but the impetus given to the textile manu- factures and many other industries has created a demand for machinery- such as to increase the product eight-fold and the wages paid nine-fold in thirty years. The increase in a few other metals and kindred industries is shown as follows : Articles. Hardware, '..,., Bolts, nuts, washers 1 Saws, Scales Springs, etc., ... Wire, ...'... 1S60 1S60 $10,903,106 26,726,463 2,175.535 1S90 ! 12,373,031 i860 1,237,063 1S90 5.572.992 1S60 ; 1,292,560 iSgef I 2,322,744 1S60 I 2,117,377 1S90 , 4.331. 571 1.S60 2,018,133 1S90 22,012,804 Number of 1 Employees. 10,721 19,671 1.504 7.341 759 2,943 728 1,500 1,009 10,186, 426, 3.472, 2S1, 1.859^ 280. S37; 408, 1.174 279, 4,183, TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. The list might be continued for pages, but all would show the same result — a large increase of product, and in ever}' instance a still larger increase in amount of wages paid. It would be a most instructive and interesting task to give a brief review of each of our several hundred industries, as has been done in the case of textiles and metals, but too many pages would be required, and the reader's attention can be directed onlj' to a few of the more important. Before leaving the metals, a glance will be taken at our brass industry'. In 1833, according to Macgregor, it amounted to $370,764. By i860 the product had reached $5,423,074, employing 2509 workmen, with wages amounting to $962,688. In 1890 the value of the product was $58,891,938, and $12,993,894 in wages were paid to 45,141 workmen. As early as 1770 it was seen that we could become efficient workers in the ceramic arts. Our country was rich in all the elements required, but England forbade any substantial development, and for lack of adequate protection it was not really established till 1870. Since then the result has been most satisfactory. The growth in thirty years can be seen from the following: YEAR. Value of Product. Number of Employees. V^i' $ 2,463,681 22,057,090 2,908 20, 296 $ 934,918 5,618,401 i8qo 90. It was not till 1890 that this industry received the protection needed, and had the McKinley bill continued in force we should to-day be making the best earthenware and every grade of pottery that could be made. Even in 1890 there were few, if any, articles that we could not make of equal quality to that made abroad, and coincident with this result has been the same fall of price that has occurred in all American productions as soon as protection has established their manufacture safe from foreign competition. And yet, in this country, the cost of making is fully 125 per cent more, most of which is represented by wages. The $22,000,000 worth of product represents not only the direct labor cost of manufacture, but wages paid in mining, transportation, fuel and preparation of material. Speaking of the enhanced value given to the material by the application of labor, Mr. William Burgess, of Trenton, N. J., testified before the Ways and Means Committee as follows: The material in the ground is worth $25 to I50 a ton. It is worth from fS to |io a ton more when it is ready for the potter. When it is made into a plate it brings the value up to |8o per ton. When it goes through the hands of the decorator, it is TARIFF QUESTION IX THE UNITED STATES. I increased 332 per cent. In the finest grade of goods, when manufactured it is worth considerably more than its weight in gold. This shows that the labor which enters into the manufacture of goods adds vastlj' to its price. Table Showing the Difference Paid for the Same Labor on Pottery in England and in America.' Engineer or engine driver, per week, Laborers, per week Watchman, per week, Clay mixers, per week, Plateniakers, for 12 plates, 7-inch, _. . . . Saucermakers, for 12 saucers, made by women in Eng- land and men in America Cups, per dozen of 12 complete, including making, turning, and handling, made by women and girls in England and men in America .• • • HoUowware pressers, per dozen of 12 cover dishes, S-inch Giggermen, covered chambers, complete, per dozen, . Kiln hands, per day, Dipper hands, per day, Bovs in dipping rooni will start at, per day, .Vii'.utra.i^v lioy will make, Wiiiiicn in biMuit wareroom, Wunicn in ;.;lust wareroom, Boas in glost wareroom start at, Glost warehousemen, per day, Printers, average price paid, per day Fillers in on decorators, girls, per day, Fillers in on decorators, women, per day, Gihkrs or gold workers, women, per day . Te.iuisters, per day, I'oremen, per day, . Managers, per day Average increase of .American labor over English, f6.oo 3.60 5-04 4.84 .02| .Olf ■03* .72 ■36 1. 12 |ii.oo 7-50 9.00 10.00 •03i • loi •6S 2.00 2.50 ■33i .661 ■75 • 75 •33J 2.00 2.50 i.66f 1.50 2.50 5.00 78f io6i- 190IJ 76^ So| 4551 3i6f 4551 100 I3ij-f 275 364 108I 74!f 2I2j Price of Principal Materials Entering Into the Cost of Manufacturing Earthenware in England and America. Ground flint, per ton Cornwall stone in England and feldspar in America per ton, . . Ball clay, per ton China clay, per ton, Coal, per ton, Sagger clay, Average increase of American materials over English, $7.00 6.72 2.40 6.52 1.30 .84 I8.50 10.40 9-05 15.00 2.90 305 21? 54i* 277tS i30i's°s- 1 23 A 2632^ 145 Tariff Heariug, 1S93, p. 91. TEXTILE AND OTHER INDTTSTRIES. It is hardly necessary to add that the standard of living enjoyed by American workers in this industry is far superior to that of the English laborer. Most complete comparisons have been made possible by the fact that the industry in both countries is confined for the most part to one locality. In this connection it will be recalled how the present administration withheld the report of William Burgess, United States Consul at Tunstall. A reading of this report would go far toward converting any wavering free trader to protection. It was as fair a consular report as was ever sent to Washington, but it told the truth about the condition of pottery laborers in the Staffordshire district of England, and in Trenton, N. J., and the contrast was too favorable to the American worker to be published. It has since been published by the protection press and forms a most instruc- tive addition to the literature of the tariff question. The history of our glassware industry is much the same as that of potter}'. It never had adequate protection till 1890 when we at once began the making of the finest qualities of wares to be found in the world, and at as reasonable prices as the articles imported. In 1831 the condition of the industry', as reported by the committee of the New York Conven- tion, was as follows : Flint glass, f 1,300,000 Crown window glass, 150,000 Cylinder window glass, 851,000 Glass bottles, etc 200,000 Total production, f 1,501, 000 Employing iSoo men with wages amounting to |6oo,ooo But from 1831 to result in i860 and 1890 i860 our industries had a hard is herewith shown: Struggle. The Year. Value of Products. No. of Hands Employed. Wages Paid. 1890 $ 8,755,155 41,051.004 9,016 45.987 $ 2,903.832 22,1X8.522 Most of the glass imported comes from Belgium and other parts of the Continent of Europe. Wages in Pittsburg and other Ameri- can cities average among glass workers $18 per week, while in Belgium for the same work only $5 is paid, and in Bohemia and other places still less. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES- The wages paid in the United States, compared with Belgium average per month as follows :' Wages Paid in WiND0\^f Glass Industry. United States— Belgium— 26 days' work. 30 days' work. Blowers for single and double thick, 'Si35 '$55 Gatherers, single and double, 80 30 Flatteners, .single and double 155 25 Cutters, single and double, 100 25 Packers, single and double 40 18 Batchmakers, single and double 45 ^^ Team drivers, single and double 29 15 Blacksmith, single and double, 60 20 Clay treaders, single and double, 32 15 Laborers, single and double,' 32 ^5 Roller carriers 36 *6 It was not till 1868 that plate glass was manufactured in the United States and it was almost twenty years before we had established the industry on a profitable basis. Had it not been for protection we would still be paying from $2 to $2.50 per square foot instead of the present price of forty -five cents to sixty cents according to the size. There are now twelve plants in this countr>' with a capacity of 1,785,000 square feet per month, which have given annually employment to 6000 people with $3,500,000 in wages, and the price now is about one-fourth of what it was before protection established the industry in this coun- try. But both output and wages have been reduced since the pas- .sage of the Gorman-Wilson bill, and all connected with the industry have suffered. An important element in the productiou of glassware is soda ash. Till 1884 none was made in this country, and yet we were using 175,000 tons a year and paying $48 per ton for it. In 1883 a duty of $5 per ton was levied. In 1890 thirty- two establishments were engaged in manu- facturing sodas and the output amounted to 333.124,375 pounds valued at $5,432,400, and the price was only half that paid to foreigners in 1868. Nor is that all, hundreds of thousands of tons of coal and limestone and coke and salt have been used, and American labor and wages have reaped the benefit. And so it has been with other chemicals. In 183 1 the total value of all chemical products was but $1 ,000,000. In i860 it was only $5,000,000, yet in 1890 it amounted to $59,352,548, and if all allied products were to be included the grand total would be $177,811,833. I Tariff Hearing, 1S93, p. 186. ' Average per mouth, 180 boxes. » Product, 220 boxes. * Girls employed. TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. Oil the subject of comparative wages in the glass industr3-, Mr. E. Ford, President of the Pittsburg Plate Glass Company, of Pittsburg, Pa., gave the following statement : ' Comparative Statement Showing Rate of Wages Paid Per Month in Belgian, English and American Plate Glass Works for Similar Service. Potmakers Clay temperers, ^ Furnace brickmakers, Mixers Founders or melters,' Gas-producer men, Head teamers Teamers,* . . Casters,* . . Kiln heaters, Kiln dressers, Foreman grinders, Grinders- First layers, Second layers. Third layers. Fourth layers, Mixers, Finishe Sand wheelers. Mud wheelers, Smoothers, rubbers. Examiners, Emery washers, Foreman polishers, Polishers — Finishers, Layers Mixers, . Rouge burners Cutters, . . - Packers Master mechanics, Machinists, Blacksmiths, Carpenters, Bricklayers, Laborers, . Says Pitkin in his statistics ( 1834) : " The business of making shoes, boots, saddlery, harness and trunks is carried on in almost every village and town throughout the United States." The value of the boot and shoe product was then estimated at $16,- 000,000. The total value of leather was about $6,000,000. And in 1840 feet per day ; ■ing, 1893, p. 235- 3 English employ female I English, 48 pots; American Com par o/gkis7 TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. the value of all manufactures from leather was $33,134,403. In i860 the leather product was valued at $75,698,747 and all maiuifactures at about $100,000,000. In 1890 the leather product exceeded $175,000,000, and total manufactures from leather were valued at $350,000,000, of which $270,000,000 was m boots and shoes. A comparison of forest products, lumber, saw mills, etc., is difficult to make because of the different methods emploj-ed in census enumeration. Previous to i860 no reliable statistics were obtained though it is probable that there were as many or even more lumber and saw mills fiftj- years ago than now. By i860 the product amounted to $100,000,000, while in 1890 it amounted to $500,000,000. The wages in 1S60 were $21,000,000 and in 1890 $231,000,000. The product of grist mills in i860 was valued at $248,580,365 and in 1890 at $513,971,474 ; the wages in i860 being $8,721,391 and in 1890 $27,035,742. In 1840 the value of carriages made was $10,897,887, in 1S60 $26,- 858,905, and in 1890 $114,551,907. The making of cars for steam and street railways amounted to but little in i860, the value being $4,302,613, while in 1890 it had grown to $205,000,000. Of furniture $7,555,405 worth w^as made in 1840, $25,632,293 worth in i860 and $135,500,00.0 in 1S90. Cutlery is an American industry due almost entirely to protection. In 1869 it amounted to but a little over $1,000,000, while in 1890 it had increased to $ 1 1 ,000,000 and over. A few years ago Sheffield was marked on all the best cutlery used in this country. To-day no 'better or cheaper cutlery is made in the world than in the United States. A great impetus was given to the manufacture, particularly of the best grades, by the Mc- Kinley bill. In i860 the value of watches and clocks made amounted to only about $2,500,000. In 1890 the value was nearly $30,000,000. The value of jewelry increased from $10,000,000 in i860 to $35,- 000,000 in 1890. The value of tobacco manufacture has been as follows: 18 10, $1,260,378; 1840, $5,819,568 ; i860, $30,000,000; 1890, $211,000,000. The value of umbrellas and canes has grown from $3,000,000 in i860 to $14,000,000 in 1890. And so on through the list of our manufactures. In almost every instance it is found that our principal industries were .started or received a great impetus during the operation of the protective tariffs of 1824 and 1828. After 1833 they declined or were ruined altogether. They gained abreath of life from 1842 to 1846 and then declined, or at least stood still till i860. The above is true when taken per capita. We were increasing in population and the demand was greater everji' year consequently our TEXTILE AKD OTHER IXDCSTRIES. industries made some progress, but as has been shown elsewhere no larger per cent of our population was emploj-ed in i860 than in 1850. This is easily understood when a glance is taken at the manufactured goods im- ported from 1846 to i860. But it is since the war, under twenty-five years of protection, that the great progress has been made. There are several great industries of the United States that are some- times called non-protected industries, such as certain lumber interests, carpentering, blacksmithing, mason work, plumbing, etc. The growth of these occupations has been mar^^elous and whether classed as pro- tected or non-protected it can all be traced to the beneficence of a pro- tective tariff. If the American people had not for a generation enjoyed the spendable incomes made possible by American wages, they could not have built the millions of houses and barns, the churches and school "houses, the theatres and halls, and all the varied buildings that fill our cities and towns. The building of edifices makes the demand for timber, for brick and stone, and gives employment to the carpenter, the mason, the bricklayer, the plumber, the painter and hosts of others. The Ameri- can carpenter may not come in direct competition with the foreign car- penter, but without the prosperity brought about by protection his work would not be required. The man who wants his horse shod must go to the American blacksmith, but without protection he might not have the lior.se to be shod. And so when the wily free trader tells us that the workman in " non-protected " industries gets higher wages than the laborer in pro- tected indu.stries, we have but to reply that many of those employed in the former would have no work or wages at all but for protection. The following will show at a glance what protection had done for some "non-protected" workers: Blacksmithing, 1S60 1890, Carpentering, i860 " 1890, Plumbing, etc., i860 1890, ..... Painting and paper hanging, 1S60, 1890, 111,641,243 54,304,638 12,646,392 281,195,162 2,113,701 80,905,925 915,339 74,067,998 140,021 1,345 42,513 913 56,281 «4, 827,303 26,796,927 3,868.672 94,524.197 This list might be continued; such trades as milliner>', dres.smaking, all kinds of repairing, etc., could be included, but for want of space only one more will be given. Few will deny that prosperity is conducive to a high degree of intelligence and with widespread and general intelligence comes a demand for books, papers and periodical literature. In 1S40 there were in the United States, daily papers, 138; weekly, 1141; semi- TAIilFF QUESTION IX THE UNITED STATES. and tri-weekly , 1 25 ; periodicals, 227 ; employing about 1 1 ,523 men and with an annual value of about $5,000,000. In i860 the printing and publishing business amounted to only $31,063,898, while in 1894 the result was as fol- lows: Dailies, 1868; weeklies, 14,710; semi- and tri-weeklies, 253; monthlies, 2214; semi- and bi-monthlies, 462; quarterlies and miscellaneous period- icals, 156, and the total value of the printing and publishing business in 1890 was $275,452,515, employing 165,227 people with $105,083,075 in wages. For this industry and other purposes the value of paper used was as follows: 1840, $5,641,495; i860, $21,216,802; 1890, $74,067,998. Could the amounts of all industries be carried to 1892 a still more wonderful growth could be seen, for great as was the progress during the years from i860 to 1890, it was still greater in 1891 and 1892. Not only did established industries advance with wonderful rapidity, but numer- ous new industries were established, giving employment to thousands at higher wages than ever before. Reference has already been made to tin plate, to plu,shes and velvets, and laces, to which could be added many others, such as brass bedsteads, pearl buttons, twine making, sugar beets, curtains, certain knit and worsted and silk goods, finer grades of cutlery, pottery and glassware, fine cotton spinning chenilles, and many others. In fact, there was hardly an industry that did not attain a higher degree of perfection under the McKinley bill. Take pearl buttons for example. In 1889 there were less than a dozen factories in this country altogether employing about 200 persons part of the year, with wages averaging ten dollars per week. In 1892 there were eighty factories employing over 4000 persons, at wages averaging over eighteen dollars per week, and working full time. Over two million dollars' capital was at once invested and the production amounted to $7,000,000 in value in a single year. That was the benefit given to capital and labor. The following figures taken from the books of a manufacturer will show what benefit the consumer derived: Prior to lIcKiuIey Bill. Since McKinley Bill. Per gross. Per gross. Sixty line buttons, |20.oo . I10.50 Fifty-five line 15.00 8.50 Fifty line 12.00 7.00 Forty-five line, 8.00 6.00 Forty line, 6.00 5.00 Thirty-si.x line 4.50 3.75 Thirty line, 2.75 3.75 Twenty-eiglit line, 2.50 2.50 Twenty-four line, 1.40 1.75 The second and third qualities of buttons are about in the same proportion. The large buttons which are in great demand for girls' and women's cloaks, have fallen 60 per cent. The reason for this is that the cost of shells plays a prominent part in the manufacture of large buttons, being two-thirds of the entire cost of production, but in the case of small buttons the entire cost of manufacture is eight-tenths of the cost of TEXTILE AND OTHEE INDUSTRIES. ihe production. The large increase of wages makes the small buttons a little higher, but this difficulty will soon be overcome, as the manufacturers are now selling direct to retailers without the intervention of middle-men. The pearl button . industrj^ is but one of many. It would probably be impossible to cite a single trade or industry that has been injured by protection. On the contrary, there is not an indust]^' in this country that either does not owe its establishment and existence to a protective tariff, or has not been built up and maintained through its direct or indirect influence. Till 1 880 our industries have never had a decade of uninterrupted progress. At first we had war and a glut of cheap foreign importations. The tariffs of 1824 and 182S had hardly begun to have their influence before the nul- lifiers forced the act of 1833. We have seen that as soon as the reductions under this act began to make themselves felt, the commercial crises of 1837 and 1S39 took place, and a period of financial depression ensued. Then came the tariSs of 1846 and 1857. The war of the rebellion followed, and from 1870 to 1880 came the financial panic of 1873, and the depression caused by a return to a gold basis. From 1880 to 1890, however, was a decade of general growth, and a glance at the table on page 628 will show what protection did for our industries during those ten years. If the .statistics could be carried to the end of 1892 the restilt would be even more astonishing. But for reasons shown in the following pages our industrial growth reached its highest point at that time and such advance cannot again be chronicled till we return to a complete .system of thor- oughly adequate protective duties. In concluding the brief review of the growth of industries from i860 to 1890, the attention of the reader is called to Table No. 27, on the following pages compiled from the Census Reports of the United States, for information as to other industries, as well as to those previously men- tioned. It shows the number of establishments, hands employed, wages paid, cost of material and value of product, together with the percentage of increase in wages paid and the percentage of increase in value of product. It is a most important fact that in nearly every case the amount paid in wages has increased more than the value of product. Under the progressive development of our industries the prices of all manufactured articles have been redticed to the consumer, as capital has increased, machinerj' and artisans have become more eiBcient, and our manufacturers are able to avail themselves of the advantages of large production, good markets and quick sales. The competition among our own producers has secured prices based on fair profits to the employer and good wages to the employed. That this is in great part due to the policy of protection is proven by many facts. This proposition is not answered by saying that prices have declined throughout the entire world, because protection has been the TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. Table Table Shozi'ing Growth of Manufactures Compiled from Census Industries. its, ' Billiard tables, etc., Bookbinding and blank books. Boots and shoes, Boxes, paper and wood, . . . . Brass, etc Brooms, brushes, etc 1 Carpentering, I Carpets, Carriages, etc I Cars, etc., j Chemicals, I Cigars, Clocks, watches and materials, \ Clothing, men's, Clothing, women's, factory pro- duct, Coffins, etc., Coke Confectionery, Cooperage Cordage and twine Cotton goods, Cutlery and edge tools Engraving materials, etc Fertilizers, Flour and meal, Furniture, Class [ Gloves and mittens, I Gunpowder, I Hardware Hats and caps, Hosiery, ! Iron and steel Jewelry Leather, Luniiier, sawed and planed, . . Marble and stonework, . . . . Millinery goods Musical instruments Paints j Paper, Pnnting and publishing, . . Saddlery and harness, . . . . 1,982 5 87 25 269 12,486 505 207 366 1,323 216 3,961 7S 84 1,4/8 iSS 215 21 541 2,707 190 S03 217 195 .47 13.S6S 3,594 . 112 126 58 443 655 197 2,269 463 5,234 20,165 l,So6 35 223 45 555 1,666 3.621 910 35 403 57 S05 23,695 1,515 596 1,235 16,917 1,013 9,240 8S2 563 10,956 4,625 18,658 1,224 1,562 21S 2,921 2,652 150 905 474 5,973 294 324 37 452 705 796 1,708 859 1,926 24,681 3.373 6,277 704 382 567 16,566 7,931 14,810 119 437 302 4,777 125,026 3,554 2,589 3,589 9,066 6,683 27,854 3,702 1,529 7,997 1,865 114,800 2,340 13,750 3,47s 114,955 4,207 741 308 27,682 27,106 9,016 1,429 747 10,721 11,764 9,103 68,997 5,947 26,600 75.605 15,379 1,034 4,46 1 563 10,911 20,159 12,285 42,544 2,267 3,732 1.157 13,815 193,539 39,413 23.041 10,984 140,021 31,213 87,317 144.514 16,952 98,156 23,339 243,857 42,008 ■ 9,658 9,159 27,211 24,652 12,798 221,585 9,487 5,642 lo, 15S 63,481 92,504 45,987 8,669 1,730 22,850 27,193 61,209 212,229 16.799 48,101 373,085 35.9S9 35,So3 19.428 8737 29.568 165,227 30.326 TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. in the United States, from i860 to i8go. of the United States. Paid. % Cost of Material Used. Value of Product. 1 II 362 1890. i860. 1890. i860. 1890. ll |2r,8ii,76i 329 15,636,169 $31,603,265 117,597,960 $81,271,651 1 1,110,482 2,655 75.010 2.750,782 160,900 6,538,959 3,964 2 1,269,135 954 62,205 1,398,483 255,137 3,633,592 1,324 3 870,480 519 343.868 1,295,942 739.900 2,823,278 282 4 6.903,951 55S 1,554.082 6,007,417 3,729,080 17,067,780 358 5 91.086,224 194 42,728,174 158,452,755 91,889,298 298,847,245 224 6 15,481,408 1,337 1,799,448 25,705.764 3,957,744 51,410,458 1,199 7 12,993,894 3,104,392 26,597.645 5,483,074 48,890,938 792 8 4,317,026 386 1,872,710 6,900,553 3,542,077 14,156,383 9 94,524,197 2.343 5,164,975 137,847,002 12,646,392 281,195,162 2,124 iO 12,438,631 704 4,419,561 29.582,138 7,860,351 49,996.469 536 11 46,737,904 367 9,210,296 59,177,984 27,265,845 134.908,455 395 12 81,243,373 5,512 3,084,544 114,089,087 6,298,963 205,813,297 3,167 13 9.691,843 1,814 2,707,152 33,694.927 4,705,741 59.352.548 1,161 14 44,767,980 1,669 3,511,312 50,298,960 9,068,778 129,693,275 1,330 15 13,549,830 1,660 1,199,856 10,016,535 2,773,350 30,390,228 . 16 111,389,672 461 44,149,752 179,425,661 80,830,555 378,022,815 36S 17 18,812,787 1,477 3,323.335 34,277.219 7,181,039 68,164,019 849 18 5.554.409 1,720 323,823 9,203,932 1,052,123 20,013,694 1,802 19 4,1,86,264 6,722 73.552 11,509,737 189,844 16,498,345 8,590 11,633.448 1,590 2,990,186 31,116,629 5,361, ic» 55,997,101 945 21 11,635.366 172 4.105,203 20,636,911 11,343,221 38,617,956 240 22 4,536.871 370 5.665.320 24,051,666 7,843,339 33,312,550 325 23 69,489,272 209 52.666,701 154,912,979 107,337,783 267,981,724 150 24 4.918.152 215 1,703,663 3.465,124 4,610,217 11,110,614 141 25 3.404,361 910 162,521 1,396,912 844,840 7,294,143 763 26 4,671,831 4,806 590,816 25,113,874 891,344 39,180,844 4,296 27 27,035,742 210 208,497,309 434.152,290 248,580,365 513,971,474 107 28 48,792,752 448 8,181,250 55.125,830 25,632,293 135,627,332 429 29 22,118.522 662 2,914,303 12,140,985 8,775,155 41,951,004 378 30 3,109,008 Sii 537,589 5,021,144 1,176,795 10,103,821 758 31 1,002,694 244 1,812,290 3.279.004 3,223.090 6,752,343 109 32 11,458,781 233 4,402,958 11,811,291 10,903, 106 30,844,658 183 33 14,111.747 270 8,252,380 16,160,802 16,937,782 37,311,599 120 34 18,263,272 999 3,202,317 35,861,585 7,280,606 67,241,013 824 35 li6.42S,6si 394 51,076,922 374.999,681 98,330,584 562,338,069 472 36 10,857,967 317 5.102,500 16,593,660 10,415,811 36.215,511 248 37 25 450.003 206 50,727,930 125,935,468 77,180,497 177.714,520 130 38 136.754.513 522 51,358,400 386,482,452 104,928,342 587,349,127 460 39 25.363.521 347 5.345.526 28,868,904 16,244,044 62,595,762 fS 14.397.568 7,010 739,965 27,345,118 1,483,154 55,030, 149 3,610 41 13.306,383 460 2,144,298 14,435,563 6,548,432 36,868,169 463 42 5.605,626 2,521 1,567,238 24,930,532 2,574,955 40,438,171 1,470 43 13,746.584 11,602,266 42,223,314 21,216,802 74,309,388 250 44 105,083,075 1,285 12,844,288 68,858,915 31,063,898 275,452,515 787 45 16,030,845 '286 6,606,415 24,674,225 14,169,037 52,970,801 m 46 TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. Table Ta6/e Showing Groivth of Mamtf act tires Compiled from Census 48 Salt Saws, 49 Sewing machines, 50 Silk 5 1 Soap and candles, 52 Steam heaters and heating ap- paratus, 53 Sugar, refining, . . - . 54 Tin, copper, and sheet iron ware, 55 Tobacco, chewing, smoking, suuflF, etc., 56 Trunks, carpet bags and valises, 57 Umbrellas and parasols, . . . 58 Uph.-lstery, 59 Wire, 60 Wire work, etc. Wooden ware, etc., Woolen goods, . . Worsted goods, 65 Total classified industries, . 66 Total unclassified industries. Grand total industries. 626 151 66 199 25 67 245 1,260 3 7 94,918 45,515 687 395 435 152 24 569 1,043 1,311 143 8 209, 226 146,189 140,433 i 355,415 2,213 759 2,287 5,320 3,247 11,220 18,859 2,092 1,951 1,427 7S9 540 2,064 41,360 2,378 293 915,163 396,083 ,311,246 4,455 2,943 9,121 50,913 9,305 1371,954 281,392 1,090,956 1,035,308 1,066,390 38,442 1 4,056,480 37,771 6,785 6,863 3,479 7,804 7,917 11,626 79,351 43,593 1,082 433,980 425,452 279,540 146,904 648,816 9,808,254 543.6S4 103,416 3,127,892 $248,435,590 1,584,730 130,443,376 4,712,622 1378,878,966 TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. No. 27 — (Continued). in the United States, from i860 to i8go. of the United States. Paid. Cost of Material Used. Value of Product. II 11 ^"5 1% 11 :8go. t i860. 1890. i860. 1890. $1,782,491 379 11,054,780 11,826,770 12,289,504 15.484,618 140 47 1,859,694 561 583,123 2,346,401 1,237.063 5,572.992 351 48 5,170.555 374 647,963 3,502,173 4,247,820 12,823,147 202 ; 49 19,680,318 1,800 3,906,290 51,004,425 6,589,171 87,298,454 1,225 ; 50 4.951,648 364 12,562,179 28,687,412 18,464,574 43,600,285 136 1 51 7,594,,'^95 9,953 189,876 10,628,314 516,650 23,147.434 4.3S0 1 52 2,815,275 107 34,103,767 107,758,811 42,143,234 123,118,259 192 1 53 21,036,375 419 7,699,047 31,227,522 16,718,388 66,653,746 299 54 10,024,017 181 13,024,988 42,005,357 21,820,535 82,053,348 276 ! 55 3,513,749 407 1,380.444 4,703.982 2,836,969 IO,,S2I,62I 281 56 3,204,797 638 2,015,623 7,562,921 2,948,302 13.771.927 367 , 57 1,454,062 237 1,705,634 3,013,253 2,920,188 5.733,039 96 , 5S 4,183,802 1,396 1,133,805 15,038,540 2,018,133 22,012,804 991 ■ 59 3.983,209 2,611 284,160 8,325.435 595.52S 15.552.857 2,511 60 5,506,257 749 885,046 5,496.697 2,234,996 14,680,724 557 ! 61 28,478,931 190 36,586,887 82,270,335 62,005,217 133.577,977 115 1 62 15,880,183 2,821 2,442,775 50,706,769 3,701.378 79.194.652 653,096 532 238,227 2,005,682 549,460 2,976,730 442 64 ;$i, 479, 720, 660 496 1759.589,384 13.357,541,445 $1,325,961,853 15,905,343,563 345 65 803,495,869 516 272,015,708 1,804,502,631 559,899,823 3,467,093,720 519 12,283,216,529 503 11,031,605,092 15,162,044,076 $1,885,861,676 $9,372,437,283 397 67 TARIFF QUESTION IS THE UNITED STATES. policj- of all great manufacturing nations, with the exception of Great Britain. The development of manufacturing on the Continent of Europe through protective tariffs, and in the United States since i860, has broken the monopoly of prices and markets which the British manufacturers held. In every instance, either on the Continent of Europe or in the United States, where an industry has been established under the influence of protection, the British manufacturers have reduced prices to meet the new conditions and retain a share of the market. No one can belie\e that if the English manufacturers alone could supply the world with a particular article the people would not be compelled to pay such prices as the producers saw fit to demand. The following table of the retail prices of fifty-six articles of common use was published by the American Economist ' in October, 1891, after a most careful and thorough investigation of the books of various concerns doing business iu the year& stated: ARTICLES. ■857. October, 1889. October, 1890. September, 1891. Axe I1.49 ■ J0.95 4-23 .11 '4: 327 ■oy'A •77^ .2434- • 25?^ ■S'A .27X •5634: .39^ .72 .lOfi .48X .14 .4S>^ 56.9S i4-37>^ 22.563^ So. 92 ■ H'A 4-09'A .11 3-07 ■ :^J .46X .04^ .06^ .65 K •24 .52X .14H 52.60 ■0A/2 ■Si -:& 1393^ 2I.24>^ ■30 |o.S8 Blankets, pair 4.76 ■H'A .34.^4: % I.28'| .42 ■99'4 3.00 .22| 2.43 >^ .85 .21 •83 121. 15 3- 70 •09 >^ 2.7834: .06 .66>4 .\^% Cotton hosiery, .10% •41X .04>^ .o6j^ •58K Kile ° .20!i .46X ■i\y* ■54 ;4 Ciiu'haui vard . . .d&% ■37'A ■ ii'A ■42/2 Mowing machine ^' -oiH Oil cloth, yard . . .84 1. 20 '4^ .22 V • IlM 20.12>^ •31 Overalls ■ .7o>^ Pearl buttons, dozen •13^ .05.V Plow 12.90 Rake, horse 19.4034 .26!^ » The De fender, No. 5 TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. Reaper and binder, . . . Rubber boots, .... Salt, barrel, vShoes, Sheeting, yard, Shovel, Spade, Starch, pound, Straw hat, good, .... Straw hat, common, . . Sugar, pound, granulated. Sugar, pound, brown, . . Sugar bowl Scythe. Tin dipper, ....... Tin milk pail Tin milk pan, Ticking, yard Wagon, ' Washboard Washtub Wheelbarrow Wooden pails Woolen clothing October, October, I142.36 I JS129.S5 3. 1034- 3.00 75 1-55 $115.96 2-73,¥ 1.38 •063/ .80-4: .84' 1. 10 .23X ■04'A •32X .68^ ■39^ ■^S'A 75.00 .22 ji .65 ,i-4o .20}^ 14.25 Below is given comparative wholesale prices of various articles in the years named, compiled from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, the American Almanac and other equally reliable sources: Leather, pound, Standard drilling, 5-ard, Shirting, yard, Muslin, yard, Sixty-four and sixty-four prints, yard Anthracite coal, ton, Bituminous coal, ton, Illuminating oil, gallon, Rules, two feet, Hand saws, dozen Flat files, dozen, Auger bits, dozen, One-horse steel plow (wood beam) Two-horse steel plow (wood beam One-horse iron plow (wood beam), Two-horse iron plow (wood beam), Two-horse side hill or reversible plow Potato-digger, Old-fashioned tooth harrow One-horse cultivator, Common garden iron rake (lo-tooth steel), dozen, Corn-sheller (one hole), 1S57 1S57 1857 1854 1857 1855 1857 1870 1854 1854 1857- 1857 1873 1873 1873 1873 1873 1873 1873 I 1873 ! 1873 i 1873 $29.00 .09 • IS .15 .06 4-49 4.29 ■31 2.60 16.00 2.50 2.29 6.50 20.00 5.00 13 00 18.00 1500 7.00 12.00 S90 J16.C •°3 3-9° 2.60 .07 •47 12.15 1.27 .09 2.75 12.00 2.00 750 6.50 350 3-75 6.00 TARIFF QUESTION IiV THE UNITED STATES. The following table shows the decline in prices of hardware from 1880 to 1890: Barb wire, per lb. , . . Fence staples, per lb., Iron nails, per keg. Steel nails, per keg, Tin cup, .... Zinc, per lb., ... Wash boiler, . . . Stove pipe joint, . Horseshoes, per keg. Tool steel, per lb- , Plow steel, per lb,, Cook stove, . . . Mattock and handle, Wrench Blossburg coal, per Jo. 10 .10 6.00 2.25 •25 S.oo Bull ring, .... Putty, per lb., . . WindoV glass reduced 25 per cent. Shot, per lb., . . . Iron, per lb Four-tined fork, Seat-spring, pair, . Lantern, Common clevis, . . Milk cans, perdoz., Buggy springs, per lb. So .40 .10 .12'/, o,S 7,S I 75 I I so 20 2 25 20 I I0.04 ■05 2.S0 •05 1-75 .20 4-50 iron, per lb., Cartridges, per box, . Wire cloth, per ft., . Cast washers, per lb., Post-augers, . . vSlop-pail Plain wire, per lb., . Pipe-collars Door-knobs Cast butts with screws, Chain, per lb., . . . File, Tin, per sheet, . Door-latches, . . . Basket, Roof saddle, ... Door-ke}', . . Covered pail Wheelbarrow, . . . Oil-can, . . . . . Plane Pie-plates, per doz., . Blortise lock, . . . Cistern pump, . . . Universal wringer, . Pocket and table cut- lerv reduced one- half. fo.I2>^ 35 j5o.o6 ■ 65 -05 The whole list of consumable commodities might be taken up and a similar result shown. In 1872 we were paying $2 a yard for body Brussels carpets, which in 1890 were sold for 93 cents. The price of tapestry carpets has been reduced from $1.46 in 1872 to 65 cents in 1890. And ingrain carpets from $1.20 a yard to 45 cents in the same years. In 1864 a crate of assorted earthenware which sold for $210.75 was reduced to $57. 85 '" 1882 and $46.30 in 1890. A crate of white earthenware which sold for $95.30 in 1852 could be bought for less than $40 in 1890. The price of laces and embroideries has been reduced 33 per cent. Silks and velvets from 25 to 33 per cent, and a general reduction in every article constituting a stock of dry goods in any store in the United States from 23 to 33 per cent from 1880 to 1890. It is difficult to make comparisons in the price of clothing because of so many changes in style and variety but since 1880 there has been a general reduction in all grades of ready- made clothing of from 30 to 50 per cent. There has been a decline in the price of boots and shoes during the same time of over 30 per cent. A similar result is found in watches, clocks and jewelry, while a most marked reduc- tion has taken place in all articles of household furniture. The following decline in the price of dry goods from 1880 to 1890 has taken place: TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. Unbleached muslin, per yard, , Calico, per yard, Gingham, per yard, .... Worsted dress goods, per yard, iSSo. Price. ^e COS . j!o.o6 .07 05 .I2>< 10 ■15 12/ •35 25 •65 50 1. 00 75 The decline iu prices in the United States has occurred under the highest and most vigorous protection the people ever enjoyed. Protection then does not prevent competition among our producers from adjusting prices to an equitable basis fixed and regulated by the cost of production in our own factories. The larger our production becomes the more our industries are diversified, the more they become extended to the States — North, South, East and West, the more difficult it becomes for combinations and trusts to fix prices and create monopolies. The fore- going facts show that trusts and combinations have not stood in the way of a reduction of prices in these commodities, and that the polic}' of protection has not prevented our consumers from deriving the utmost benefit from that cheapening of commodities arising from inventions and improvements. The following table shows the decline in the prices of farm products and of articles that farmers buy : Articles That Farmers Buv. Articles That the Farmers Sell. 1873- 1891. 1S73. 1S91. Refined sugar, pound, . $ 0.116 $ o^o57 Cotton, pound, . . . . I0.1S8 $0.18 Cut nails, pound, . . . .046 0.1S6 Corn, bushel .61 . ^57 Ear iron, ton, S6.00 42.00 Wheat, bushel, . . . i^3i ■93 Steel rails, ton, .... 120.50 29.92 Bacon and ham, pound, .76 Rio coffee, pound, . . .iS .16 Lard, pound .132 .069 Tea, pound ■95 •25 Pork, pound, .078 • 059 Sheeting, yard, .... •1331 .0683 Beef, pound .077 .056 Drilling, yard, .... .1413 .0641 Butter, pound, . . . .211 • 145 Shii-ting, yard, .... .1941 .1064 Cheese, pound, . . . •131 .09 Standard prints, yard, . •"37 .06 Tobacco, pound, . . .107 .087 Print cloth, }'ard, . . . .0669 .0295 Quinine, ounce, . . . 2.65 ■30 Goblets, dozen • 85 •25 Window glass, 10x14 . 3^40 1.70 Under shirts, each, . . 1. 41 .62 Ginghams, yard, . . . •13 .06 Carpets, 2-ply ingrain yard 1. 14 •50 Black pepper, pound. •19 .09 Molasses, gallon, . . . .69 •32 Freight rate, per ton per mile 2.00 •92 Average reduction in 10 farm products, 21. i per cent. Average reduction in 19 other products, 55.4 per cent. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. The writer has made the following table showing what quantities of commodities certain amounts of agricultural products would buy in 1873 and in 1891. Table No. 28. Table Shoiving Relative Values of Principal Farm Products and Articles of Consumption in iSjs ^'^d iSgi: 1000 pounds cotton would buy . ........ 1000 pounds beef would buy 1000 pounds pork would buy woo pounds bacou andhams would buy 1000 pounds butter would buy 1000 pounds tobacco would buy 100 bushels corn would buy 100 bu.shels wheat would buy ■ . . Gallons of Oil. ' Pounds of Sugar. Pounds of Nails Total above, .... 3,742 1,428 2,071 1,243 1,328 1,176 9,617 i 7,527 -754 3,832 9S2 1,282 1,035 1,157 2,543 1,526 1,007 1,319 1,554 3,553 1,886 1,273 2,509 11,635 17,208 36,148 5,322 3,010 3,172 7,795 4,677 3,086 Yards of Sheet- ,412 1,464 490 849 504 S63 602 I, I II ,359 i 2,123 Yards of Drill- Yards of Shirt- 1000 pounds cotton would buy . . 1,330 I 1,560 1000 pounds beef would buy' 462 873 1000 pounds pork would buy 1 475 1 920 1000 pounds bacon andj hams would buy . . . .' 568 1,185 1000 pounds butter would] buy I 1,281 2,262 TOGO pounds tobacco would! buy 680 TOO bushels coru would buy 458 100 bushels wheat would buy ' 964 Total, . : 6,218 10,506 4,454 6,305 1873. 1891. .873. 600 1,666 P5 2,810 914 716 1,266 1,091 1,616 2,416 2,461 858 579 1,450 956 '•isli 1,225 1,550 1.840 7,830 11,220 12,192 3,389 1,898 2,000 2,576 It is certain that this result could not have been reached through free trade. The main purpose of the policy of free trade is to develop manufacturing in certain localities or countries, thus creating monopolies TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. and rendering the rest of the world dependent on them. The great purpose of Richard Cobden and the free traders of England in their attempts to secure the establishment of universal free trade, was to prevent competing manufactories from rising in the United States and Continental Europe, thus leaving to themselves a monopoly of manufac- turing. Again, a monopoly once acquired, such as the British manufac- turers possessed in 1846 could more easily be maintained under free trade. In fact, it was only by the removal of tariff barriers in other countries that it would become possible for British manufacturers to destroy, through ruinous competition, the rising industries of other countries, and then step in and control their markets. That this has been the policy pursued by British manufacturers since the battle of Waterloo is fully established. It is a mistaken notion that competition is waged for the benefit of consumers. Mr. David Syme, a very able Englishman, who was thoroughly conversant with their methods, became an ardent protec- tionist when he removed to Australia. He said: It is quite a mistake to suppose that competitiort invariably tends to reduce prices. It is only when sellers compete that prices are lowered, for when buyers compete they are invariably raised. The object of the producer in engaging in any branch of industry being profit, he will naturally take all the means at his com- mand to increase that profit to the utmost. But a man will be able to make a larger profit if he has the whole market to himself than if he shared it with another, and, as a rule, the greater the amount of competition in a given market, the smaller will be the amount of profit to be divided among the competitors. It will thus become the object of every competitor to reduce the number of his rivals. The tendency of competition will, therefore, be in the direction of a monopoly. A monopoly is said to exist when one man, or several acting together, holds entire possession of any commodity or controls any market. Competition exists when possession is disputed. If competitors, however, act exclusively with a view to their own inter- ests, as we are told they must, it will be their main object to reduce competition to a minimum, or, in other words, to create a monopoly. Thus the principle from which the deductionist started, namely, the sufficiency of self-interest, instead of tending to competition, leads back ultimately to restriction in its worst possible form. The profits of producers are largest when consumption is in excess of produc- tion, and the prospects of sharing in these induces competition. When production overtakes consumption, profits are reduced, and no more competitors enter the field. When production is in excess of consumption, and competition goes on as before, profits may cease altogether, and then begins the struggle for existence among competitors. Each competitor will now endeavor to obtain the customers of the others, by fair means or foul, and the inevitable result will be that strength and cunning, as in the animal world, will prevail, while the weak and honest trader will go to the wall. In order to render competition successful, in other words, to establish a monopoly, one of two things, or both are requisite on the part of a competitor. The first is the command of a large capital ; the the absence of all moral principle.' TARIFF QCFSTIOX IX THE VXITED STATES. The historj' of nations shows that it has been whollj- through the policy of protection that manufacturing has been extended in the United States and Continental countries against British competition, thus bring- ing into the field producers who are offering their wares for sale in com- petition with each other at fair prices. Mr. Cobden well understood the effect of such wide extension of production. He knew that it would result in destroj-ing that monopoly which British manufacturers then held and were then seeking to perpetuate. Speaking of the unfair methods resorted to by British manufacturers in order to destroj- rival industries in other countries, Mr. Sjme sajs : The manner in -which English capital is used to maintain England's manu- facturing supremacy is well understood abroad. In any quarter of the glo1)e where a competitor shows himself who is likely to interfere with her monopoly, immedi- ately the capital of her manufacturers is massed in that particular quarter, and goods are exported in large quantities, and sold at such prices, that outside com- petition is effectually crushed out ' Protection has not onlj- stood as a shield guarding our industries from destruction through such means, but it has prevented British manufac- turers from monopolizing our markets and compelling us to pay exorbitant prices for her wares. Instead of building up monopolies, protection has been the most powerful agenc}- resorted to for preventing their existence. We need not go back of the results of the McKinlej- bill to find proof of this proposition, although everj' industn,' which we have establi.shed furnishes an example of this fact. It has already been pointed out that as .soon as tin plate factories were established under the protection accorded by the McKinley bill, the Wel-sh tin plate manufacturers reduced their wages, in order to make goods cheaper for our market. Attention is again called to a statement already quoted from the speech of Mr. Taylor, a Wel.sh manufacturer, in re.spon.se to a toast at a banquet given by the manufacturers in England. He said: "There was no doubt that Engli.sh manufacturers would have to reduce the cost of production if they were to maintain their hold of the American trade, and he knew of no other source from which relief could be got than the rate of wages. ' ' '' It will be remembered that Mr. Gladstone also recognized this effect of protective legislation in foreign countries. "But still it has necessarily had the effect of dimini.shing profits and wages in this country."' The practice of this policy by British manufacturers has prevented an increase in wages in the United States. By reducing wages and pro- fits in England they have still been able to invade our markets with their cheap wares. With full knowledge of these facts free trade economists taunt us with the statement that an increase in wages does not immediately follow > Industrial Science, p. 68. * Aute, p. 321. ' Ante, p. 322. TEXTILE AXD OTHER IXDCSTEIES increased duties. They say that if the protectionists' theorj- is true that increased duties enable the American manufactiu-er to pay higher wages, he ought to raise the wages of his employees as soon as he has induced Congress to increase the tariff. While this would be possible if the dutj- were placed high enough to exclude the foreign rival, it is made impos- sible by the competition which is continued through reduced wages and profits in Great Britain. It is a noteworthy fact that while the process of cheapening the price of commodities has been going on, the wages of our artisans have steadily increased, thus enabling them to derive a double advantage from the policy of protection: (i) an increased income; (2) an enlarged purchasing power of the day's earnings. These benefits are independent of the more steady and increased emplo\-meut which has been afforded through our constantly increased production, and the expansion of our industries. Tiu-ning to the census of 1S60, it is found that in the last year of the low tariff period the umnber of employees in the manufacturing establishments of the United States was 1,311,246, with wages amounting to $378,878,966, or S28S each. In 1890 the number of laborers in the maniifacturing establishments of our comitrj- was 4,712,622, earning $2,283,216,529 in wages, or $484 each, an increase of 68 per cent. This it will be conceded is a ven.- low estimate of the increased earnings from 1S60 to 1890. There is no doubt that wages in textiles and in manj- other branches of industry- have doubled under protection, since 1S60. In examining weekly wages in the United States since 1830 it is found that ver>- slight if any increase occurred during the low tariff period from 1835 to 1840. while it is known that a vers- material advance took place from 1824 to 1832, and from 1842 to 1S46, under the stimulus which was given to industries by the protective legislation of those years. From 1S46 to i860 wages in those industries which were affected by competing imports from Great Britain practically stood still, although tlae causes which contributed to an improvement in certain branches of employment, such as railroad building, brought about a small increase in employments so affected. An investigation was made by Mr. Aldrich and the Senate Commit- tee on Finance, published in March. 1S92, known as the report on "Wholesale Prices, Wages and Transportation," into the changes which occurred in wages in certain industries from 1840 to 189 1. It would be unfair to make comparisons beUveen 1840 and i860, because 1840 was a year of depression following the calamities which had befallen the countr>- in 1837: while in 1S60 the crops had been large and some causes contrib- uted to a slight improvement during this year as compared with previous years of the low tariff period. Colonel Carroll D. Wright, of the Bureau of Statistics, who participated in this investigation, in an article published TARIFF QUESTION IX THE EXITED STATES. ill the "Forum," of October, 1893, mentions some of the changes which occurred, as disclosed b}- the report referred to. The following table shows daily wages in several occupations in 1840, i860 and 1891: Occupations (New York City) Compositors, Carpenters (Connecticut), Carpenters (New York), Painters (New York), Wheelwrights, Cotton weavers (women, in Massachu- setts), Frame spinners (women), Wool spinners (both jack and mule), . Puddlers (Duncannon, Pa.), Drillers (New Jersey), Blasters (New Jersey) Unskilled laborers (mining, Cornwall, Pa.), I0.62.5 J0.5 1.50 2.C 1.25 to 1.60 1.25 to I.' 1.50 2.C 1.50 2.C 1-25 I.. .62 .62 Below 1. 00 I.C 2.30 2.C •75 I.C ■75 I.C •50 |2.CX3 3-00 3.00103.25 350 3- 50 2.50 1.05 Above 1.05 1-35 to 1.75 Teachers' Wages, Per Annum. Principal (Boys' High Schools, Baltimore, Md.), . Principals (Primary schools, boys and girls, Balti- more, Md.), 1^,500.00 |2,40O.C 300.00 696 c Wages of Teachers Per Month in Remote Districts of Barnstable County, Massachusetts. Men, Worn ^40.73 19.12 f68.i8 34.88 Colonel Wright states in his article that "the years 1840 and 1891 represent the opposite extreme limits of general conditions. Prices were low ill 1840; labor was low." The returns from twenty-two industries and from nearly one hundred distinct establishments showed an increase in wages from 1840 to i860 of 17.5 per cent, while the average increase of wages in the same number of establishments from i860 to 1891 was 68.6 per cent. It is fair to assume from what Colonel Wright says, and from the fact that 1S40 was a year of extremely low wages and depression, that had 1846 been taken as the basis of comparison with i860, it would have been found that no increase had taken place during the low tariff period TEXTILE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES. following 1846 and closing with i860. It appears from the figures given bj' Colonel Wright that there was actual decline in the wages of cotton weavers and frame spinners between 1840 and i860. These industries, it will be noted, were directly affected by the increased imports of competing commodities after the adoption of the Walker tariff of 1846. The improvement which is shown in the building trades between 1840 and i860 cannot be attributed to any general advance which might be afFected by the tariff, but to general conditions resulting from other causes. It has been shown that these industries enjoy a degree of natural protec- tion and that they are not directly affected by the depressing influences of competing imports. But we are supplied with definite information upon the changes which have occurred in the wages of those employed in textile industries, by the excessive competition to which they were sub- jected during the low tariff period between 1846 and i860, and the higher wages which were made possible under protection .since i860. The Hon. Henry W. Blair, of New Hampshire, in a speech delivered in the House of Representatives January 16-25, 1894, presented a letter from John P. Bresiel, of Laconia, N. H., dated January 2, 1894, showing the wages made in the Granite Hosiery Mills of Laconia, N. H., from 1846 to i860 and from i860 to 1892, giving the names of the operatives and the number of days worked and wages earned by each operative, taken from the books of the company as follows : In June, 1892, in our mills the total pay roll was J669S. 79. The total number of hours worked (not including bookkeeper and clerk) was 4265. The average wages per day was f 1.57, not including the salaries of bookkeeper and clerk. Briefly stated, these pay rolls show the following wage rates for the different periods : 184S, Walker tariff, 50.7 cents per day of 14 hours, 3.62 cents per hour. 1853, Walker tariiT, 57.4 cents per day of 14 hours, 4.1 cents per hour. i86t, Morrill tariff, about 50 cents per day of 11 hours, 4 6-11 cents per hour. 1892, McKinlej- tariff, $1.57 per day of 10 hours, 15.7 cents per hour. For 1893 the wage rate showed a slight increase over 1892, until the panic stopped business. Since October our mills have been idle, and nearly all the mills in this city. Such as have attempted to run have reduced wages from to per cent to 25 per cent, and no mill has employed half its working force at the reduced rates of pay. Upon the question of increased wages between i860 and 1880, we have the statement of Mr. Edward Atkinson, a free trade economist, from an article in the "Forum" of July, 1888, as follows: By analyzing the rates of wages as well as their purchasing power, it is proved that since i860, subject to temporary reduction in the purchasing power of wages during the period of war and paper money, the constant tendency of wages or earn- ings has been to rise both in rate and in purchasing power. By selecting the rates of wages given in Vol. XX of the Census of the United States, compiled by Mr. Joseph D. Weeks, and assorting these rates by classes, the data being taken from over 100 establishments, I find that there is an increasing disparity among those who constitute the working classes in the strictest sense. Given a standard of the average consumption of food, fuel and materials for clothing, rent being omitted TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. because it varies so much in different parts of the country, it is apparent to any one who will devote sufficient time to a thorough investigation of the whole sub- ject, that since 1865 the wages of foremen, overseers, boss-blacksmiths, specially skilled cabinet-makers, and the like, have advanced 108 percent; average mechanics, ngineers, carpenters, machinists, and the like, 90 per cent; factory operatives and all persons engaged in the ordinary arts of making stoves, boots, hats, cars, wagons and the like, 78 per cent; and common laborers only 66 per cent. The facts presented under this head are so universallj- concurred in that it is not necessary to multiply authorities to show that under the low tariff from 1846 to i860, when British manufacturers were monopolizing- our markets, we passed through a period of high prices for all manufac- tured goods, which we were compelled to purchase, low prices for farm produce and low wages in all branches of industry; while since i860 the price of manufactured goods has steadily declined, and wages have advanced more than ever before during an equal period. And when protection was assailed by the Democratic party, upon the election of President Cleveland, in 1892, the American artisans and laborers were receiving the highest wages, both in money and in purchasing power, that have ever been paid to wage-earners since the beginning of time. In conclusion it may be stated that the policy of protection in the United States has brought about the following results: First. When a duty is imposed upon a competing commodity suffi- cient to afford adequate protection to American capital and labor, capi- talists invest money in the building of factories for its production. Second. Labor is employed at higher wages than are paid in any other country. Third. Domestic competition destroys foreign monopoly and brings down the price to a point which affords a fair profit to our capitalists and good wages to our labor. These three things have occurred in every instance where protective duties have been imposed since the first tariff laws were adopted in 1789. In all cases where duties have been reduced to a point which would not compensate for the difference in the cost of production between the United States and foreign countries, based on the American rate of wages, our manufacturers have been compelled to reduce wages to meet the new con- ditions, and in many instances have been driven out of business and their factories closed. When competing imports have been encouraged "by low duties, the progress of our industries has been arrested, and our laborers deprived of employment, while it has resulted in an improved condition, increased employment, and benefits to foreign producers. Our experi- ence has shown that only through the maintenance of adequate protection can the benefits stated be enjoyed and the disastrous results be avoided. In preceding chapters, in connection with the treatment of various industries, tables showing the rate of wages paid in the United States, compared with those paid in Great Britain and other countries, have been TEXTILE AXD OTHER INDUSTRIES. Table No. 29. Ta6/e Shocving the Average Weekly Wages Paid in the General Trades in Europe with those Paid in Similar Trades in the United States, 1890. Compiled from Report of the Royal Commission of Great Britain, and Consular Report of the Department of State of the United States. Occupations. Bricklayers, .... Bricklayers' tenders, Masons Masons' tenders, Plasterers, . . . Plasterers' tenders, vSlaters, Plumbers Carpenters, .... Painters, Bakers, Blacksmiths, . . . Blacksmiths' strikers Bookbinders, . . . Brickmakers, . . . Butchers Brass founders, . . Cabinet-makers, . . Confectioners, . . . Cigar-makers, . . . Coopers Cutlers, Drivers, draymen and teamsters, . . Drivers, cab and car- riage, ... Drivers, street railway Engravers, , . , . Hatters Horseshoers, . . Laborers, porters, etc. Lithographers, Millwrights, Printers, . . . Saddle and Harness makers, . . Sailmakers, . . Shoemakers, Stevedores, . . Tinsmiths, . . Machinists, . . Upholsterers, . I22.00 10.75 21.00 10.25 22.50 12.50 17-50 19.25 1525 12.00 9- 50 14.00 9-75 15-25 13-70 15-50 9-75 I2.O0 14 00 15-50 11.50 13-50 11.00 15.00 II. 86 $7.80 4.96 7-74 4-50 7-74 5-06 7-33 7.80 7.5s 7-43 6.50 *7-37 *5.3o 6.92 6.27 6.07 7.29 7.20 4.20 5-04 »S.38 6.00 ^6.32 4.08 7.68 6.97 *7-i7 *6.63 8.16 6.00 *8.44 *6.56 8.50 6.72 J4.21 $s.74 2.92 3-13 4-43 I 2.91 4.20 4.26 4.11 4.S2 4.00 2.94 4.20 3-98 4-38 4-^5 3-43 3-63 3-97 3-90 6.34 3-23 5-65 6.10 6.20 I4-56 ! I3.55 3-22 5-81 4.72 1^5.32j 6.54 6.14 4-85 4.69 5-58 5.16 i-96 1 5-57 3.21 3-44 5-12 4-36 3-61 3- 5-59 I 7-07 4- 18 i 6.74 , . \ 6.64 3-69 t 5-70 2:85 ' '^ - I4-80 15-21 2.99 5-27 3-50 5-03 3-40 4-35 5.18 4-74 S4-32 2.45 6.72 2.88 4.61 2.55 4.20 4.32 3-30 2.92 3-72 2.72 3-42 2. So 2.91 4.20 5-76 3-36 3-80 3-66 3-91 360 . . . j 3-60 3-84 I 2.95 6.35 4-66 3-84 I 5-10 4-65 I 3-75 3.61 I 2.88 5.51 I 4.8S 6.30 I 5-93 3-»» 5-20 I 4-43 I 4.68 4-92 5-59 , 5-84' 3-30 4.7S 4.93 5-76 2.96 TARIFF QVESriON IK THE FNn'FD STATES. given. For a comparison of wages paid in general trades in the United States, Great Britain and Continental countries attention is called to Table No. 29 on page 719. The wages given for Great Britain were com- piled by the writer from the Report of the Royal Commission on Labor, as di.sclosed by its investigation in 1891 and 1892. The wages for Conti- nental countries were taken from the United States Con.sular Investigation, made in 1884. Those for the United States are the average wages paid in New York and Chicago in 1884, as reported by the United States Consular Investigation. It should be noted that no allowance is made for the advance which has taken place in the wages paid in Continental countries since 1S84. Table No. 30 exhibits wages paid in various occupations in Great Britain in 1 891 and 1892, compiled from the Report of the Royal Commission on Labor. T.\BLE No. 30. Tadle Showmg the Average Weekly Wages Paid in Great Britain to the Following Trades and Occupations, as Stated Below. Compiled from Report of the Royal Commission on Labor of Great Britaiti. OCCUPATIONS- Coachniakers, . Compositors, job work, . . . morning papers, ' ' evening ' ' " weekly " Ga.s stokers ' ' inremen, Chemical workers Copper " .... Sail " Glass bottle makers, .... Seed crushers, Sawyers Ship assistants, Mat makers, Wages paid by cities: Policemen, Pavement and sewers, . . Water works, Wages paid by goverjunent: Dockyards, Royal engineers, Ordnance store department, Iron workers: Iron molders (Scotland!, . (Aberdeen), . Blast furnacemen (Cleveland), Blast furnacemen (Cumber- land and Lancashire), . . . Iron founders (United King- dom), Nut and bolt workers, • ■ - Blast furnacemen (Ayershire) Chair makers 7- 50 7-58 7.66 7.80 6.92 5-74 4-25 6.46 4.96 5 12 7.92 7.92 7.68 7.68 7.28 6.20 Hand nail makers Lock and key smiths, . . . . Spike nail makers, Pocket knife cutlers, Cutlers, full time average: Bone, half and scale cutlers, ") Scissors grinders, ■ | File grinders, I Silversmiths, | Silver buffers, Edge tool grinders, J Street car employes: Carmen, Cartmen Cab drivers Horsemen, Railway service: Conductors, Checkers Clerks, Engine drivers, Foremen, Firemen Guards Porters, Plate layers Passenger porters Receivers Shunters Signalmen Waymen, Yardmen 14-42 4-32 3.16 4.S0 5-40 5-04 4.20 5-76 5-28 6.24 6.00 8.64 8,28 6.24 5.16 6.36 4.08 4-. -^2 3-60 6.24 4-80 5-22 4.08 5.76 CHAPTER VI. Triumph of Democracy and Free Trade. The recent revival of the tariff question as a political issue, the endorsement of the principles of free trade by the Democratic party, the defeat of Benjamin Harrison in 1892, the repeal of the McKinley bill, and the passage of the Gorman-Wilson bill, as the first steps toward making the system of free imports the permanent policy of our nation, are events of the gravest character. To examine fully the causes which led to this industrial revolution, and the interests thereby affected, would require more space than can be devoted to the subject in this chapter. The most that can be said in favor of the leaders of the Democratic party is, that they have plunged their followers and tfae country into the calamities which have followed their work, through ignorance of economic principles, and that without appreciating the consequence of their acts many of them took a leap in the dark to secure a temporary- party advan- tage. Yet when we view the record of the Democratic party upon public questions during the past fifty years, little else could have been ex- pected. It had been thirty years since the nation abandoned a low tariff and returned to protection. Only the older citizens had lived in 1857 and witnessed the disaster of the low tariff at that time. Since i860 millions of immigrants have come to our shores. A new generation of voters now controls parties and the destiny of the nation. To the present generation, at least, the tariff question was new, intricate and difficult to solve. The free trade agitators shrewdly concealed their ultimate purpose, presented false issues and wrote more to mislead, deceive and arouse the prejudices of the people against protection and those who employ labor, than to throw light on the merits of the controvers}^ and to direct attention to a consideration of the real question involved. It is openly charged by pro- tectionists that the movement to overthrow protection was started by rep- resentatives of the manufacturers of Great Britain. The loss of foreign markets, the intense rivalry to which British manufacturers were sub- jected at home and abroad, and the necessity of finding new markets for their wares, have been shown in preceding chapters. The increase of protective duties by all the leading commercial nations, and the consequent ri.se of rival industries presented a condition which menaced their very existence. This situation prompted another effort to overthrow protec- tion in the United States, and open a market more desirable and profit- able than those of all the rest of the world combined. In 1866 the Cobden 46 (721J Remd tariff legislation. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE LNITEI) STATES. Club had been organized for the purpose of extending free trade principles in other countries, and in 1880 the United States was selected as the definite field of its operations. On July 12, 1880, the London Times in giving an account of a meet- of this club said: How free trade will come some day to the United States must be left to the Cobden Club and to its twelve Cabinet Ministers in their unofficial capacity to decide. . . It is to the New World tliat the club is chiefly looking as the most likely sphere for its vigorous foreign policy. It has done what it can for Europe and is now turning its eyes westward and bracing itself for the struggle which is to come. So it II go on until reason has destroyed protection in the great stronghold (United States) which it has intrenched itself. . . . We intend to break down the protecting system in the United States and to substitute the British system. That done, our victory is complete and final. In 1879, Mr. Thomas Bayley Potter, the secretary of the club, and also a member of parliament, visited the United States for the purpose of looking over the field and effecting an organization in this country. He visited the vario«s cities and industrial centres of the country and established agencies in New York and Chicago. Mr. Poultney Bigelow was made the agent in New York and Mr. Alfred Bishop Mason the agent of the club in Chicago. The New York Free Trade Club had already been organized. On July 26, 1888, the New York Evening Post stated that this club was " on a sound financial basis with working capital assured to it for some years to come," and that it had "decided to enter the coming political campaign actively, directing its energies largely to the Congressional districts. ' ' It further stated that ' ' a strong effort will be made to compel candidates for Congress everywhere to declare themselves on one side or the other " of the tarifi" question. Mr. James M. Swank tells us' that: " Mr. Potter insolently said to Mr. Dudley [Hon. Thomas H. Dudley, former United States Consul to Liverpool], during his visit to this country in 1879, that 'Englishmen don't object to your having a tariff for revenue only.' " That is, a tariif which is so low that it will not obstruct the sale of British goods in American markets. Upon Mr. Potter's return from the United States, at a dinner given by the Cobden Club, July 10, 1880, he said: "The Cobden Club is now about to enter a contest with a foe worthy of its .steel. Their eyes are now turned westward ; they are going to encounter their friends in the United States, and I believe they will ultimately be victori- ous. ' ' The foothold which this organization had soon gained in the United States is shown by its annual report of 1877, which includes the names of 130 prominent citizens of our country among its members. In this list is found the names of the mo.st influential members of the Democratic party, professors in leading colleges, and those persistent agitators for ' Footprints of the British I,ion, p. 7. TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE TRADE. "tariff reform," who have filled the columns of our newspapers and magazines with their free trade arguments. With this working force a constant and unremitting agitation of the question could be kept up. With two great branch organizations, such as were located in New York and Chicago, the country could be flooded, as it was, with free trade literature emanating from the central office in England, without arousing too much suspicion that the movement was being directed and public sentiment being moulded by the brains of the Cobden Club. While the allies in the United States would apparently be playing the political game, the checkers on the board were actually being moved by the British lion. From the date of the meeting of the Cobden Club in 1880, for years the United States was flooded with its pamphlets and books, many of which reiterated the exploded theories of Cobdenism, while others were directed especially against the protective policy of the United States, and in the attempt to discredit it made most scandalous misrepresentations of facts and industrial conditions. So far as economic thought is concerned, there has been nothing added to the question by their disciples in America. In fact, not since i860 has there been any improve- ment on the fallacies and false prophecies which were put out by the Man- chester school. The plan of campaign pursued by the Cobden Club in the United States in the distribution of literature and interference in Congres- sional elections was at first bold and undisguised. The following single instance will illustrate their mode of operating: The Chicago Manufacturer of October 18, 1881, gives an account of a visit of one Professor Sheldon, of London, to one of the leading agricultural journals of that city, and of his urging its editor to publish in full the ' ' Address to American Farmers ' ' written by Mongredien. To the honor of the editor, the request was refu.sed. The Manufacturer further says: " Another agent ancl correspon- dent of the Cobden Club, duly delegated, one Professor Bigelow, of New York, was in the city a day or two recently, consulting with local free traders. He was going to Indiana, well supplied with British pamphlets, with which he proposed to influence votes against candidates for Congress who were not pledged to propose or vote for the abolition of import duties, if elected. ' ' The attempt to meet these facts with ridicule and to treat them as a campaign cry raised by protectionists will not do. It is an insolent and unwarranted interference in the afiairs of the American people by a com- mercial enemy. Its purpose is to destroy our cities and villages, to bank- rupt our business men and manufacturers, to deprive our artisans of employment and reduce them to degradation and want, that British manufacturers may thrive. If one of our merchant vessels is seized on the high seas by a British subject, indemnity is demanded. If Great Britain attempts to take a foot of land from Venezuela, it is a violation of the iSlonroe doctrine, and the whole nation is fired with patriotism and sunmioned to arms. But the industrial policy, which is protecting The plan TARIFF (fVESTIOS IX 'llIE UNITED STATES. and keeping watch over the homes and firesides of our people can be o\-erthrowii by the fraud, deception and conspiracy of foreigners with impunity. Whole cities and industrial centres can be as effectually destroyed by this means as if bombarded with shot and shell. The Cobden Club found a willing ally in the Democratic party. At this time its leaders were hunting about for a new issue. Tb.eir part\' had been routed in every presidential election since 1856, and every principle which they had endorsed since 1833 had been repudiated and condemned by the American people. The tariff question had been little discus.sed since 1 860. The questions brought into prominence by the Civil War had absorbed public interest, while the necessities of the government for the payment of pensions, interest on the public debt, together with the efforts to rapidly reduce it, made a large revenue neces- sary. Hence the tariff question was taken out of party politics for a time. Hitherto even those who believed in free trade or lower duties had acqui- esced in the policy made necessary by the revenue requirements. By 1882 the .situation had materially changed. Free traders could now attack the tariff policy without being accused of assailing the credit of the nation. The Southern people, from education and tradition, were opposed to protective duties. The Democrats of the Western States, devoted to agri- culture, could easily be made to believe that it was better to buy their manufactured goods in Europe, where they could be obtained the cheapest. New York and the seaboard cities were filled with importers and those representing foreign houses and interested in foreign tr^de. All of these elements could be relied upon to unite at once under the banner of free trade. Again, the appeal which the free traders made to the consumers was very alluring. But above all this the study of economics had been neglected b\- the people. The specious and deceptive arguments of a few designing and crafty men, shaping and directing the cam- paign and moulding public sentiment, would create an impre.ssion against the policy of protection among patriotic and conscientious cittzens, who have the highest regard for the welfare of their own countr3^ Through factional jealousies and dissensions in the Republican party, Grover Cleveland was elected President of the United States in 1SS4. defeating James G. Blaine, the candidate of the Republican party. Mr. Cleveland called to his aid as his chief counselors members of the Cobden Club. Among his cabinet officers were Thomas F. Bayard, William Endicott, L. Q. C. Lamar, all members of this organization. Mr. Manning, who was made Secretary- of the Treasury, was known to hold less radical views on the question, but in a short time he resigned from the cabinet. When Congress convened in December, 1887, the administration opened its warfare on the policy of protection in the TRIU3IPH OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE TRADE. President's message to Congress, which stated the grounds of attack as follows: Our scheme of taxation, by means of which this needless surplus is taken from the people and put into the public treasury, consists of a tariff or duty levied upon importations from abroad, and internal revenue taxes levied upon the consumption of tobacco and spirituous and malt liquors. It must be conceded that none of these things subjected to internal revenue taxation are, strictly speaking, necessaries; there appears to be no just complaint of this taxation by the consumers of these articles, and there seems to be nothing so well able to bear the burden without hardship to any portion of the people. But our present tariff laws, the vicious, inequitable and illogical source of unne- cessary taxation, ought to be at ouce revised and amended. These lazus, as their primary and plain effect, raise the price to consumers of all articles impoiicd and subject to duty, by precisely the sum paid for such duties. Thus the amount of the duty measures the tax paid by those who purchase for use these imported articles. Many of these things, however, are raised or manufactured in our own country, and the duties now levied upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these home manufactures, because they render it possible for those of our own people who are manufacturers, to make these taxed articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for the imported goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens that while comparatively a few use the imported articles, millions of our people, who never use and never saw any of the foreign products, purchase and use things of the same kind made in this country, and pay therefore nearly or quite the same enhanced price zi'hich the duty adds to the imported articles. Those who buy imports pay the duty charjrcd thereon into the public treasury, but the great majority of our citizens, who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at least approximately equal to this duty to the home manufacturer. The first objection relates to the surpkis in the Treasury. Mr. Cleveland and every free trader in the United States knew that the tariff could be revised in such a way as to afford ample protection to every industry and at the same time reduce the revenues which were being derived from customs duties. The surplus could be gotten rid of without in the slightest degree assailing a protective tariff. The cry which was raised by Mr. Cleveland against the surplus in the Treasury was repeated throughout the Democratic press and urged for years, as one of their objec- tions against the policy of protection. It was under the cover of this sham assault that manj^ free traders were able to carry on a guerilla warfare until the McKinley bill reduced revenues and relieved the govern- ment of its surplus to the extent of $41,000,000, while giving increased protection to the industries of the country. The second paragraph quoted from Mr. Cleveland's message, however, contains the real objec- ' tion relied on. This announced the cardinal principle of Cobdenism. It embodies the contention that, although it would result in the destruction of native industries, consumers should not be compelled, through a tariff policy, to contribute to the high wages paid to American labor, which increased the cost of production over goods made by the low paid labor of Europe. This is not the only expression we have from Mr. Cleveland in favor I TAL'IFF QUESTIOX IX THE UNITED STATES. British 77«w o/the effects of reduction ofdutics of "cheapness." In his speech at Cokimbus, Ohio, November 13, 1S90, he said : ' ' We are not ashamed to confess ourseh-es in full sj-mpathy with the demand for cheaper coats, and we are not disturbed b}- the hint that this seems necessarilj- to involve a cheaper man or woman under the coat." Mr. Cleveland's message was at once recognized b}' British free traders as a response to the efforts of the Cobden Club in the United States, and the inauguration of a policy which would open our markets to the admission of their goods. The fundamental principles involved showed that Mr. Cleveland had been a close student of their literature. The Glasgow Herald, in commenting on this message, said: " Take- for example his argument against the wool tariff, that the farming class lose vastly more by the increased prices of clothes than the}- gain from the enhanced price of wool. This reads like an extract from an old speech of Mr. Bright's." The I^ondon Saturday Review said of the message: ' ' In America the President's policy means free trade. The President and the Democratic leaders have finally decided that they have nothing to gain by keeping measure any longer with the protectionists. They have, from whatever motive, resolved to adopt a free trade policy." The Scotchman, in speaking of the effect which Mr. Cleveland's pro- posal would have on British exports, said: It may be admitted that large reductions in the duties on imported manufactured goods would produce great distress in many parts of the country [meaning the United States] . . . The free importation of iron, coal ailci wool tcviild be a great boon to British producers. . . . If it were accompanied with reductions in the tariff upon cotton, woolen and other manufactures, the artisans of this country would derive a inarked benefit from it. The lyOndon Post said: " We shall be much mistaken if the effect of this state communication will not be to strengthen considerably the en-. of free traders in all parts of the world. It -will be regarded as a step the right direction by all believers in the soundness of free trade principles. ' The London Times said: "If President Cleveland's tariff reforms are carried, English goods and iron and steel largely will go to the States in greatly increased proportions. ' ' The London Echo, for January 23, 18SS, in speaking of the defeat of Mr. Randall's faction (in the Democratic caucus) said: " l^iis is good news for England for it means an increased zcool, iron and steel trade. Similar extracts might be quoted from many other British papers to prove that Mr. Cleveland's utterances were those of a free trader, and that if the principles enunciated were carried out it would result in a benefit to British manufacturers and an injury to those in the United States. One more quotation .should be given to show the effect which English- men believed a reduction of duties by the United States would have on TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE TRADE. British trade. In a tract issued by the Cobdeii Club for circulation among the workingmen of Great Britain to combat the rising sentiment in favor of protection, Mr. George W. Medley, one of the secretaries of the club, said that the result in England which would follow the adoption of uni- versal free trade would be: ' 1. A sudden and vast demand for labor at home. 2. A sudden and great increase in wages. 3. A rapid increase in tlie number of our factories, workshops, mills, furnaces, etc. 4. A rampant speculation in everything connected with trade and manufactures. 5. A general rise in prices distressful to those with fixed incomes. 6. A rush of population from home and abroad to our manufacturing centres. 7. A stimulus given to marriage and population. S. A demoralization of our laboring classes. 9. Strikes for an increase of wages, etc. The pamphlet containing these predictions was put out in 188 1. Believing that such results would follow the opening of foreign markets to the free admission of British goods, it is not surprising that the members of the Cobden Club should endeavor to procure the adoption of universal free trade; while, on the other hand, it is most astonishing that Mr. Cleveland or any other American citizen should aid in forwarding such a policy. The. message of President Cleveland summoned to action every free trader in the country. After this bold attack on the policy of protection by the chief executive, the Democratic press of the country began its assault with renewed vigor, and Democratic Congressmen became more outspoken in their expressions in favor of free trade. The following state- ments of leading members of the Democratic party will serve to show the radical position which their party was taking on the question. Hon. C. R. Breckinridge, of Arkansas, in the House of Representatives, May 17, 1888, said: " Of course, any reduction of excessive rates of tariff taxation is in the direction of free trade. I do not seek to conceal my own belief in the wisdom of the greatest possible freedom of trade from all hindrances and restrictions. ' ' Hon. John H. O'Neill, of Indiana, in the House of Representatives, May 14, 188S, said: "As a free trader — and I claim to be one — I protest against making the tariff so high as to destroy competition from abroad." Hon. R. P. Bland, of Missouri, in the House of Representatives, July 19, 1888. said: " I am not here for the purpose of voting for a tariff on lead, or a tariff on ilax, or a tariff on anything, but I am here to get the tariff off everything I can. I am in a combine for the purpose of reducing taxes, and I will vote for a bill with free lead or free anything else in it to accomplish that purpose. ' ' ' Fair-Trade Journal, Vol. II.. page 35. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. Hon. S. S. Cox, in the House of Representatives, May i8, iSSS, said: There was no warrant in England, there is no warrant here either by natural laws, or state laws or constitutional requirements, to restrict such freedom of exchange for the personal or class interests of anyone, any more than there is a warrant for a state religion or the abridgment of speech, press and suffrage. Freedom not only to work as we please, but to dispose of the product of our work as we please; freedom to spend our money where we can get the most for it, and freedom to make that without the ignominy of enslaving statutes. Hon. Silas Hare, of Texas, in the House of Representatives, May 12, 1888, said: "I beHeve that a tariff for protection is the foundation and principal cause of all the complaints and unrest that has either threatened or actually disturbed the public peace and quiet for years. If we did not require money to defray the expenses of government, I would be an absolute and uncompromising free trader. Hon. Peter T. Glass, of Iowa, in the House of Representatives, April 26, 1888, said: " I am in favor of putting all the raw materials of manu- facture on the free list, including salt, coal, iron ore, copper, timber and lumber, together with every article now on the free list." Hon. Edward Lane, of Illinois, in the House of Representatives, May 12, 1 888, said; Protection has its origin in the selfishness of our natures and not in the general good. We have free speech, free press, free soil, free thought, free religion, and our trade should be as free as possible. Freedom is a natural right. Free trade is the natural right of commerce. Protection is forever a cheat and a delusion. Protection is not right. It should be an inherent right in every American citizen to sell his labor and wares where he can get the best price and to buy where he can buy the cheapest. The protective system is nn-American, and is a perversion of the laws of nature, of God and man. The foregoing quotations are extracts from speeches delivered in defence of the Mills bill. The following expressions of leading Democrats are cited as further evidence upon the question : Hon. Roger Q. Mills; IfGrover Cleveland is re-elected President of the United States— as he will be; if another Democratic House of Representatives is cho.sen, and if we can get our Republican friends out of the other end of the Capitol and get Democrats in place of them, then we will pass a tariff bill that puts raw material on the free list, and then we will put our own intelligence and skillful and productive labor of this country upon a plane of equality with the laborers of all other countries. I desire free trade, and I will not help to perfect any law that stands in the way of free trade. Speaker Carlisle: "All trade should be as free as pos.sible." Secretary Fairchild; "Add to the free list as many articles as possible. Reduce duties upon every dutiable article to the lowest possible point. TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE TRADE. Senator Vest: "We are eiiteriug upon a most fearful Presidential contest, the most important since that of i860. Mr. Cleveland, b_v his message, for which I sincerely honor him, has challenged the protected industries of the country to a fight of extermination." Hon. Henry Watterson: ' ' The Democratic party isa free trade pai-tj-, or it is nothing. The Democratic party will make a free trade fight in 1884. If it loses, it will make another in 188S. The conflict between free trade and protection is irrepressible and must be fought to the bitter end. " Hon. Isidor Raynor: But, Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the Democracy here to stand true to their colors. / appeal to them to stand up to the traditions of our party. A tariff for anything else than revenue is outside the traditions and principles of our party, and at war with its pledges and history. // is foreign to our platform. We have given to the people the assurances of our intentions to do this. Let us prove our faith by our works. Let us engrave upon the imperishable tablets of the law the truth of the doctrine we have pro- claimed. A man eannot, at this time, upon this floor, be a Democrat and be in favor of the continuance of present systems. Henry George: ' ' Mr. Cleveland has burned his ships; he stands before the country as the champion of free trade against protection. If he is re-elected, protection will have received its death blow." Memphis Appeal, Democrat: "But coming back to the fact of free trade, it is undeniable that this is the ultimate policy of the Democratic party, and the Mills bill is onlj' a step toward its consummation, and for that day, we pray, ' God send it soon.' " Hon. M. D. Harter: "I would abolish every custom house in the land. I would vote for the establishment of an institution to spread the cancer or a field in which to propagate cholera, or a school in which to teach vice and crime, rather than vote for a protective tariff of any kind. ' ' Senator Coke, of Texas, said: " If there is any one thing in this world the average Texan would go any number of miles out of his way to kick, kill and destroy, it is a protective tariff." Statements of this character from leading Democrats, from the men who control the legislation and direct the policy of the Democratic part_\-, are too numerous to repeat. The literatftre of the Reform Club, or Free Trade Deague of New York City, has been filled with definite argu- ments and expressions in favor of the British system of economics. It would be unnecessary to quote so many of these expressions were it not for the fact that under the name of ' ' Tariff Reform, ' ' an effort has been made and is still being made, to convince the people that the Democratic party is not a free trade organization and thqt its ultimate end is not the destruc- tion of every vestige of protection and the establishment of a system of free competition. The radical expression of Mr. Cleveland in his message of 1887 and of the free trade leaders resulted in defeat in 1888. Benjamin Harrison TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. Republican power. InduUrial advance under pro- was elected President, the Republican party was returned to power, and entered upon a revision of the tariff in harmony- with the principles of protection. A history of the legislation having been given in a preceding chapter it is unnecessary to repeat it here. The revenues had been reduced in such a, way that the Democratic party could no longer com- plain of a constantly accumulating surplus. The countrj^ had become so prosperous and industrial activity so universal, that it seemed to Republicans that no valid reason could be urged why the Democratic party should be again returned to power. The satisfactory results follow- ing the legislation of 1 890 and the conditions existing while the campaign of 1892 was going on, were stated by President Harrison in his message to Congress in December, 1892, after the Republican party had been defeated, as follows : The new industrial plants established since October 6, 1S90, and up to October 22, 1892, as partially reported in the American Economist number 345, and the extension of existing plants, loS; the new capital invested amounts to $40,449,050, and the number of additional employees to 37,285. The Textile World for July, 1S92, states that during the first six months of the present calendar year 135 new factories were built, of which 40 are cotton mills, 48 knitting m.ills, 26 woolen mills, 15 silk mills, 4 plush mills, and 2 linen mills. Of the 40 cotton mills 21 have been built in the Southern States. Mr. A. B. Shepperson, of the New York Cotton Exchange, estimates the number of working spindles in the United States, on September i, 1892, at 15,200,000, an increase of 660,000 over the year 1S91. The consumption of cotton by American mills in 1891 was 2,396,000 bales, and in 1892, 2,584,000 bales, an increase of i8S,ooo bales. From the year 1869 to 1S92 inclusive, there has been an increase in the consumption of cotton in Europe of 92 per cent, while during the same period the increased consumption in the United States has been about 150 per cent. The report of Ira Ayer, special agent of the Treasury Department, shows that at the date of September 30, 1892, there were 32 companies manufacturing tin and terne plate in the United States, and 14 companies building new works for such manufacture. The estimated investment in buildings and plants at the close of the fiscal year, June 30, 1S93, if existing conditions were to be continued, was #5,000,000, and the estimated rate of production 200,000,000 pounds per annum. The actual production for the quarter ending September 30, 1892, was 10,952,725 pounds. The report of Labor Commissioner Peck, of New York, shows that during the year 1S91, in about 6000 manufacturing establishments in that State embraced within the special inquiry made by him, and representing 67 different industries, there was a net increase over the year 1890 of" $31,315,130.68 in the value of the product, and of $6,377,925.09 in the amount of wages paid. The report of the conmiissioner of labor for the State of Massachusetts shows that 3745 industries in that State paid $129,- 416,24s in wages during the year 1891, against $126,030,303 in 1890, an increase of Jf3,335.945. and that there was an increase of $9,932,490 in the amount of capital and of 7346 in the number of persons employed in the same period. During the last six months of the year 1891 and the first six months of 1892. the total production of pig iron was 9,710,819 tons, as against 9,202,703 tons in the year 1890, which was the largest annual production ever attained. For the same twelve months of 1891-92 the production of Kessemer ingots was 3.878.5S1 tons, an increase of 189,710 gross tons over the previously unprecedented yearly production of 3,688,871 TRIUMril OF DE3I0CRACY AND FREE TRADE. gross tons in 1890. The production of Bessemer steel rails for the first six months of 1892 was 772,436 gross tons, as against 702,080 gross tons during the last six months of the year iSgr. The total value of our foreign trade (exports and imports of merchandise) during the last fiscal year was Ji, 857,680,610 an increase of 1128,283,604 over the previous fiscal year. The average annual value of our imports and exports of merchandise for the ten fiscal years prior to 1891 was f 1,457,322,019. It will be observed that our foreign trade for 1892 exceeded this aunual average value by 1400,358,591, an increase of 27.47 per cent. The significance and value of this increase are shown by the fact that the excess in the trade of 1892 over 1S91 was whollj' in the value of exports, for there was a decrease in the value of imports of $17,513,754. The value of our exports during the fiscal year 1892 reached the highest figure in the history of the government, amounting to f 1,030,278, 148, exceeding by $145,- 797,338 the exports of 1891 and exceeding the value of the imports by $202,875,686. A comparison of the value of our exports for 1892 with the annual average for the ten years prior to 1891 shows an excess of $265,142,651 or of 34.65 percent. The value of our imports of merchandise for 1892, which was $829,402,462, also exceeded the annual average value of the ten years prior to 1891 by $135,215,940. During the fiscal j-ear 1892 the value of imports free of duty amounted to $457,999,658, the largest aggregate in the historj' of our commerce. The value of imports of merchandise entered free of duty in 1892 was 55.35 per cent, of the total value of imports, as compared with 43.35 per cent in 1891 and 33.66 per cent in 1890. Another indication of the general prosperity of the country is found in the fact that the number of depositors iu savings banks increased from 693,870 in i860 to 4,258,893 in 1S90, an increase of 513 per cent, and the amount of deposits from I [49,277, 504 in 1S60 to $1,524,844,506 in 1S90, an increase of 921 percent. In 1891 the amount of deposits in savings banks was $1,623,079,749. It is estimated that 90 per cent of these deposits represent the savings of wage-earners. The bank clearances for nine months ending September 30, 1S91, amounted to $41,049,390,808. For the same months in 1892 they amounted to $45,189,601,947, an excess forthe nine months of $4,140,211,139. There never has been a time in oui history when work was so abundant or when wages were so high, whether measured by the currency in which they are paid or by their own power to supply the necessaries and comforts of life. It is true that the market prices of cotton and wheat have been low. It is one of the unfavorable incidents of agriculture that the farmer cannot produce upon orders. He must sow and reap in ignorance of the aggregate production of the year, and is peculiarly subject to the depreciation which follows over-production. But, while the fact I have stated is true as to the crops mentioned, the general average of prices has been so much as to give to agriculture a fair participation in the general prosperity. It was in the midst of this marvelous prosperitj' in 1892 that the Republicans renominated Benjamin Harrison, and adopted a platform endorsing the recent legislation and the policj' of protection. Mr. Cleveland was again brought forward by the free trade element of his party as its candidate for President. It was apparent some time before the convention assembled that his nomination was assured. When the convention met in the city of Chicago, the adoption of a plank on the tariff question became next in importance to the nomination of the candi- date. This was so fully recognized by Mr. Cleveland and his associates that Senator Gorman, Senator Gray and other trusted managers had plat/or ofiS92. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. decided in advance to re-adopt the platform upon which Mr. Cleveland was elected in 1S84, which was so indefinite upon the question that the manufacturers, laborers and business men of the Eastern and Middle States could be appealed to for support with more assurance of success. In 1 888 the famous free trade message quoted from above was recognized as the platform upon which he was running, and resulted in his defeat. Hence, Mr. Cleveland and his friends had decided to adopt more politic expres- sions. When the convention assembled, the committee on resolutions presented a platform in accordance with the plan stated; but the conven- tion was filled with delegates from the West and South who had become so strongly imbued with radical free trade sentiments that, in spite of the advice of the more astute friends of Mr. Cleveland, the following plank was presented to the convention, and adopted b}^ an overwhelming majority: Section 3. We denounce Republican protection as a fraud — a robber\- of the great majority of the American people for the benefit of the few. We declare it to be a fundamental principle of the Democratic party that the Federal Government has no constitutional power to impose and collect tariff duties, except for the purpose of revenue only, and we demand that the collection of such taxes shall be limited to the necessities of the government when honestly and economically administered. This was the most radical declaration in favor of free trade that had been made by the Democratic party since the Convention of 1856. It expressly declared that when a duty on an imported article is made high enough to afford protection to home labor, and thereljy restricts importa- tions and revenues, it becomes unconstitutional, thus reviving the principles of Calhounism, and challenging the opinions of the framers of the Constitution upon this que.stion. They further declared that the McKinley bill was "the culminating atrocity of class legislation," and promised its repeal if placed in control of the government. This expression was .so radical that it alarmed Mr. Cleveland and his associates. We are informed b\- Senator Gorman, in his speech in the United States Senate, July 28, 1894, that the situation was carefully con- sidered, and it was decided that the campaign should be conducted upon more conservative lines. Democratic producers from various parts of the countrj', and especially public men whose advice would be relied upon by their constituents, sought Mr. Cleveland for advice on the policy which the party would pursue in the event of success. A conference was held and a more politic course decided upon. Mr. Gorman says: After a great deal of talk, after the most careful consideration, the candidate of our party told them, as he told the public through his letter, that the Democratic party was not to destroy industries; that it should place a fair duty upon dutiable articles — a revenue duty; that the bill which had met approval was the Mills bill, and on the line of the Mills bill the Democratic party would act. TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE TRADE. With the fear of defeat staring him in the face, Mr. Cleveland adopted the policy of Polk in 1844, and modified his expressions, although he had not changed his views. He attempted to make a platform upon which he was to run, which would be more likely to catch votes and insure his election. In his speech, made at Madison Square Garden, New York City, July 20, 1892, he said: "Ours is not a destructive part}-. We are not at enmity with the rights of an 5' of our citizens. All are our countrj-- men. We are not recklessly heedless of any American interests, nor ivill ive aba7ido7i our regard for them.'' Again, in his letter of acceptance, dated Gray Gables, September 26, 1892, he said: Tariff reform is still our purpose. We wage no exterminating ivar against any American interests. We believe a readjustment can be accomplished in accordance with the principles we profess witlioiit disaster or demolitioii . We contemplate a fair and careful distribution of necessary tariff burdens rattier tlian tfie precipitation of free trade. We will rely upon the intelligence of our fellow-countrj-men to reject the charge that a party comprising a majorit}- of our people is planning the destniction or injury of American interests. Hence, the Democratic party went before the people with two plat- forms; in the South and West it was well understood that the Chicago platform represented the real sentiment of the partj% and that it embodied the principle which would guide its action when once placed in control of the government; while through the Ea,stern and Middle States it was claimed that Mr. Cleveland had modified his views upon more careful reflection, since his bold free trade .statements in 1887, and the labor, capital and interests of the country' would be safe from invasion and attack in his hands. Through this system of double dealing and the prejudices which were arou.sed by the misrepresentations and falsehoods again,st the McKinlej^ bill, Mr. Cleveland was elected, and with him a large majority in the House of Representatives, and sufficient Senators to control Congress. Nevef in the history of American politics was such a .shameful campaign as this one waged by the Democratic party. Our workmen were almost too busy to read or to listen to arguments presented by editors and speakers, but the free trade leaders were desperate, another year or two of workings of the tariff" bill vi^ould have blasted every hope of free trade in America for years to come and so vindicated the wisdom of protec- tion that it would have been placed beyond attack. The plan of campaign adopted by the Democratic party was to assail and misrepresent the McKinley bill. They argued, first, that the ^prosperity we were enjoying and in fact, the industrial prosperity which had been so continuous and universal for the past thirt}- j-ears, arose from the superior natural advantages of our soil and climate, the energy and genius of our people, and that it was in spite of, rather than because of, protective legislation. Our employers of labor were denounced of free TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. Effect , Ihcfim ofta.iff reduction on business as " robber barons," "monopolists," "capitalists," and ever\- effort was made to prejudice and misguide the masses of the people. The arguments of European anarchists were imported and hurled at our thrifty and enter- prising men of means. They claimed that the rich were growing richer and the poor poorer, and that it was all due to the policy of protection. Again, the cry of high prices was raised. Tin peddlers were sent through Congressional districts, from house to house, demanding higher prices for their wares, telling the people that the increase in price was due to the McKinley bill. Every failure on the part of labor organizations to obtain an advance in wages was heralded from one end of the country to the other, and wages were claimed to have been reduced in consequence of the recent tariff legislation, notwithstanding the fact that a Senate committee had made an investigation of the question of wages and prices which was participated in by free trade statisticians, and that its report, concurred in by leading Democratic Senators, among whom was John G. Carlisle, showed that prices had declined and wages had advanced after the passage of the Republican measure. Our producers were told that if the Democratic pai-ty was trusted with power the tariff would be so reformed that they could greatly extend their foreign trade and capture the markets of the world, notwithstanding the fact that after the Republican legislation our foreign trade had been larger than ever before in the history of the country, and through reciprocity treaties a definite and practical means had been provided for opening the markets of South America to our wares under the most favorable conditions possible. In the West and South- it was argued that cheap clothing and manufactured goods were to be received from Europe in exchange for farm products, while in the manufacturing districts of the East, it was urged that by putting wool on the free list so that our maiui- facturers could buy this raw material in South America and Australia, they would be able to enter the markets of the world, greatly extend the foreign trade and increase the employment of labor. In one part of pur country it was claimed that we were to sell manufactured goods in foreign countries, while in another part exactly the opposite was maintained. It would require too much space to attempt to point out the frauds perpe- trated on the American people. The Democratic party became desperate and stopped at nothing to carry the election. The manufacturers of the country, however, were not deceived by the methods resorted to, they well knew what was sure to follow. Manufacturers and business men are keen and sensitive, and x^Xxnw they realized that a free trade measure of some kind would become a Jaw in a year or two at the farthest, that the spendable income of millions of laborers and consumers would be reduced or cut off altogether, that the cheap products of foreign mills would come to our shores, and that they would be plunged into a life-and-death struggle of competition with TEIV3IPH OF DE3I0CRACY AND FREE TRADE. the manufacturers of Europe, the}' were compelled in self-defence, in response to and in keeping with the laws of trade and commerce, to curtail their productions and prepare for the leveling process which was to be forced upon them. To go on paj-ing the former wage rate and piling up a large stock of goods at the former cost of production, ultimatelj' to be offered for sale in competition with the cheap goods made by the poorly paid labor of foreign rivals, would bring certain ruin and bankruptcy. Merchants also well understood the situation, and po.stponed their purchases to buy more cheaply of importers. It would be unwise for them to be caught with large stocks of goods, made in American factories by American labor, when the day of lower prices should arrive, under ruinous free trade competition. The result of the election was a surprise to business men. During the prosperous years following the passage of the McKinley bill, they had made large purchases and done an extensive business without once thinking that the calamity which followed the election of Mr. Cleveland was so near at hand. Hence, a readjustment of business to the leveling process of free trade practically commenced on No^-ember 9, 1892, when the result of the election became known. All the magnificent results of the legislation of 1890 were to be destroyed. The reciprocity treaties were to be revoked. The sugar bounty would give way to a tax levied on every family. Our tin plate industry would be crippled if not destroyed. The sheep on our farms would be slaughtered. The mills of Lowell would be closed that the factories of Bradford might run full time. The duties on all competing manufactured articles were to be reduced to a point which would bring hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of goods from the factories of Europe to displace goods which had hitherto been made by our own labor. The only effective weapon of defence which our manufacturers had for resisting this invasion, would be found in a reduction of wages and profits. The statements of protec- tionists that this must necessarily occur, although it had been disputed, was now openly conceded by many leading free traders, as is shown by the following quotation. On the seventeenth day of November, 1892, just nine days after the election of Mr. Cleveland, the New York Commercial Bulletin, a leading free trade journal, after showing that the new conditions which must result frsm the introduction of Mr. Cleveland's tarifi" policy, would for a time bring about falling markets, limited business, cautious buying, reduced stocks, and a shrinkage in values, said : The chief pressure of these transient disarrangements will be found to finally settle upon raw materials and labor. If the manufacturer has to accept a lower price for his product, he must either close his works or get compensation in a reduction of the costs of production, and that economy must be his first resort for self-protection. The producer of raw materials can have no choice but to accept his share of conces- sion, at once if he must, later if he may. Labor may be expected to yield its quota of concession, grudgingly and tardily and possibly not without more or less disturbing tariff TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. The alleged evils of proteclion. resort to lock-outs and strikes. Those vj)w have taught workingmen that a reduction if tariff does 7wt mean a relative reduction of wages have adulterated a great reform with a very paradoxical doctrine ; but we doubt whether the)- have succeeded to auv great extent in misleading their pupils. It certainly does not require anything beyond the measure of intelligence with which the American workman is commonly credited to comprehend the accepted rule that, in the first place, if products are to be sold for less, the working producer must get less pay ; and that, in the next place, if workmen concede in wages they will get full compensation in the cheapening of the products they have to buy, so that the net result to the earner is the same under low wages as under higher. But while we have no doubt that the mass of workmen are in a measure prepared for this equal change in wages and in prices when the new tariff comes into operation, yet it is a question whether they will readily accept any reduction of pay until the new tariff goes into effect. This may prove to be one of the most embarrassing features we shall have to encounter in approaching the new commercial policy. The triumph of the Democratic party under these circumstances was at once accepted bj^ Mr. Cleveland and the tariff reformers as a verdict in favor of free trade. The principles laid down in the Madison Square Garden speech and the letter of acceptance, were now ignored and the Chicago platform emerged from the campaign as expressing Democratic principles and the wishes of the majority of the American people. Mr. Cleveland in his inaugural address on the fourth of March, said: The verdict of our voters which condemned the injustice of maintaining protection for protection's sake, enjoins upon the people's servants the duty of exposing and destroying the brood of kindred evils which are the unwholeson;e progeny oi paternal- ism. The lessons of paternalism ought to be unlearned and the better lesson taught, that while the people should patriotically and cheerfull)- support their government, its functions do not include the support of the people. The acceptance of this principle leads to the refusal of bounties and subsidies, which burden the labor and thrift of a portion of our citizens to aid ill-advised or languishing indu.stries in which they have no concern. While there should be no surrender of principle our task must be undertaken wisely and without viudictiveness. Our mission is not punishment but the rectification of wrongs. The meaning of the phra.se used by President Cleveland cannot be mis- understood. The ' ' brood of kindred evils which are the unwholesome progeny of paternalism," relates definitely to protected industries. This was but a reiteration of the epithets long applied by free traders and is but another name for protection. The expression that " its [the go\-ernment's] functions do not include the support of the people" merely re-asserts the principle held to by the French economists and forms an essential element of free trade, that the functions of governments are simply to pre serve order, enforce contracts and leave the people under the law of ' ' the survival of the fittest " to fight out the "struggle for existence," the weak to succumb to the strong. It involves, the subjection of our labor and TRIUilPH OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE TRADE. it [ capital to the unrestricted competition of foreign rivals, to be supplanted and destroyed, or reduced to the level of the poorly paid wage-earners of Europe. It means that manufactured articles shall be made where they can be made the cheapest, regardless of the welfare of our own citizens. To place any other construction upon this declaration would be a reflection upon Mr. Cleveland's intelligence, more especially so since he has now spent years of study and reflection upon the question. The language used, although couched in technical and skillful free trade terms, could deceive no one familiar with free trade literature. These expressions which fore- shadowed the future policy of the party, tended .still further to alarm the business men of the country and increase the calamities which had already made their appearance. It was a notice to the industrial interests of the country to prepare themselves for the executioner's axe which was ready to fall on their necks. With this threatened assault upon the industries of the country, by men not only desperately bent on executing their purpose, but having the means by which to carry it out, it is idle to attribute the business crisis which immediately followed to causes other than the tariff policy of the Democratic party. Those familiar with the effect which low duties had had on our industries in years past could not mistake the inevitable results which were to follow. By the first of July, 1893, the panic had set in with all its intensity, grew more severe during tlie next winter and has continued until the present time (January i, 1896). Capital became frightened, investments not only ceased, but money was fast withdrawn from productive industries. Millions of dollars of our domestic securities held in foreign countries were returned and thrown on our market, the gold resen-e in the Treasury was constantly reduced, and the sale of bonds was begun for its maintenance. We were again on the verge of the disasters of 1857. During the winter of 1893-4 in New York City the Herald established a free clothing lund, and the World a free bread fund. In more respects than one did 1893 s"*^^ 1894 resemble the last free trade period preceding. This time we had no gold discovery or foreign war or foreign famine to help us out, and the storm of free trade disaster burst in all its fury. The following is from a statement of R. G. Dun & Co., at the close of the year : Starting with the largest trade ever known, mills crowded with work and all business .stimulated by high hopes, the year of 1893 has proved, in sudden shrinkage of trade, in commercial disasters and depression of industries, the worst for fifty years. Whether the final re.sults of the panic of 1S37 were relatively more severe, the scanty records of that time do not cleariy show. The year closes with the prices of many products the lowest ever known, with millions of workers seeking in vain for work, and with charity laboring to keep back suffering and starvation in all our cities. Thepam nf,S9S-, TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. How like 1857 was 1893 can be seen from the following extracts from the messages of President Buchanan and President Cleveland: From President Buchanan's Annual Message to Congress, 1S57. With unsurpassed plenty in all the productions and all the elements of natural wealth our manufacturers have suspended ; our public works are re- tarded ; our private enterprises of differ- ent kinds are abandoned; and thousands of useful laborers are thrown out of em- ployment and reduced to want. We have possessed all the elements of material wealth in rich abundance, and yet, not- withstanding all these advantages, our country, in its monetary interest, is in a deplorable condition. From President Cleveland's Annual Messag'e to Congress, 1S93. With plenteous crops, with abundant promise of remunerative production and manufacture, with unusual invitation to safe investment, and with satisfactory assurance to business enterprise suddenly finaucial fear and distrust have sprang up on every side. Numerous moneyed in- stitutions have suspended .... Surviving corporations and individuals are content to keep in hand the money they are usually anxious to loan .... And loss and failure have involved every branch of business. As President Buchanan feared, a loan was required and a second as well. President Cleveland, too, found it necessar>' to issue bonds. Not only Mr. Cleveland but the Democratic press and members of Congress proclaimed the verdict of the people as a condemnation of the policj^ of protection and as a demand for free trade legislation. There was, however, a large element of the Democratic part}- that would not have given its support to Mr. Cleveland had his canvass been made in the Eastern and Middle States on the Chicago platform, instead of on his declaration "we will not destroy any industry." In speaking of this. Senator Gorman said, in the speech quoted from: " As I have once before said in the Senate, but for that declaration I do not believe Mr. Cleveland could have carried the country and been elected President of the United States." Notwithstanding this fact the people found the free trade element of the Democratic party in power. Those Democratic members of Con- gress who, in appealing to their constituents for support, had claimed that they did not entertain free trade views, and that the industries of the country would be safe in the hands of their party, found them- selves unable to control the Democratic caucus, and were forced either to abide by its decision or to place tliemselves in antagonism to the adminis- tration, with the loss of patronage to their friends and the disfavor which such action would incur. In the formation of the Cabinet, the organ- ization of the House of Representatives and the appointment of the Way.^ and Means Committee, the free trade element of the party was placed in control. John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, a member of the Cobden Clitb, was made Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Crisp, of Georgia, was elected Speaker and appointed the following Ways and Means Conunittee, of TRIVMPH OF DEMOCRACY AXD FREE TRADE. which Mr. Wilson, of West Virginia, an ardent free trader, was made chairman. The members of the committee were, Democrats: Wilson, West \'irgiuia ; McMillin, Tennessee; Turner, Georgia ; Montgomery, Kentucky; Whiting, Michigan: Cockran, New York; Stevens, Massa- chusetts ; Brj-an, Nebraska : Breckinridge, Kentucky ; Bynum, In- diana; Tarsney, Missouri. Republicans: Reed, Maine; Burrows, Michi- gan; Payne, New York: Dalzell, Pennsylvania; Hopkins, Illinois; Gear, Iowa. The Democratic members of this committee entered upon the work of framing a tariff bill with a reckless disregard for the industrial interests of the countn,-. Petitions and memorials from laboring men. manu- facturers and business men were ignored, while importers and repre- sentatives of foreign manufacttu-ers were consulted in framing tariff schedules affecting the interests of American labor and capital. The policy of the legislators of France, Gennanj- and Great Britain, in fact of all industrial countries, has been to seek advice from experienced manu- facturers upon such questions, but the free trade Congressmen of the United States have adopted a policj- quite the reverse. A bill, prac- tically framed in the secret meetings of the Democratic members, was presented to Congress by the chairman, Mr. Wilson, and after a short debate was passed. All but seventeen Democratic members recorded their votes in its favor. The measure, which became known as the Wilson bill, placed iron ore, bituminous coal, wool, cotton ties, binding twine, nearly all farm products and many other articles on the free list, and made most radical and sweeping reductions in import duties on the whole line of competing commodities. The bounty on sugar was repealed, as was the reciprocity- paragraph of the McKinley bill. This was a more radical free trade measure than either the act of 1846 or that of 1857. In those acts protec- tion was extended to the coal and iron miners, and a dut^- was placed on wool. Considering the fact that to-day there is a greater difference between the wages paid in the United States and competing foreign countries than existed prior to i860: that since Continental Europe has developed a vast manufacturing system, competition has become sharper, and a larger surplus of products made in those countries is read}' to be placed on our markets; the measure embodied more radical firee trade principles than any other act passed by the Democratic part}' since 1833. Our industrial system had become so vast that this bill, if it had become a law, would have been most destructive in its results. It should be borne in mind that its main purpose was to increase the imports of competing manufactures from Europe. It* was expected and intended by its advocates, that many of our industries would be supplanted. Those which would be unable to live when protection was withdrawn were branded as "pauper industries." The Hon. John TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. D'^mocratic DeWitt Warner, a leading free trade member of the Hotise, in its support Januarj' lo, 1894, said; speech iu If, however, in some cases it shall turn out to be as those who are engaged in them [our industries] fear, if whenever the support of taxation upon others is with- drawn from them the}' find that they can not make a living here, then all that work- ingmen of my district have to say is this : " If you are gomg away, go and God speed to you; for the quicker you go the better we will be off; if you are going to die here, die, and we will plant flowers over your grave; for your room is worth more than your company." This was greeted with loud applause on the Democratic side of the House. Whether Mr. Warner had a correct understanding of the senti- ments of the workiugmen of his district, is immaterial, the important fact is that the measure dealt a death-blow to many of our industries and the Democratic members were expressing their desire to put flowers on their graves. It may not be out of place, however, to state that in the election which followed the passage of this bill the workingmen were quite as anxious to put flowers on the grave of the Democratic party, and marked Mr. Wilson and many of his followers, as they had marked our indu.stries, for destruction. When this measure reached the Senate, it met the oppo- sition of four Democratic Senators. Senator Hill, of New York, opposed it on the ground that it contained a provision levying a tax on incomes; Senator Brice, of Ohio, Smith, of New Jersey, and Gorman, of Maryland, because it was in violation of Mr. Cleveland's promise and the a.ssur- ance which had been given by the managers of the 'Campaign that no American industry would be destroyed. The opposition of these Sena- tors called down upon their heads the most violent denunciations of the Democratic press of the country. They were denounced as traitors to their party, and most scandalously vilified for attempting to stay the hand of free trade. The Democratic party had forty-four Senators. The votes of forty- three were necessary to the passage of any tariff bill. The vote of Senator Hill could not be relied upon for the passage of any measure which imposed an income tax. Hence, a compromise was agreed upon which placed a moderate duty on coal, iron ore, and by over 600 amendments the duties were increased on competing imports; upon some, quite materially, and others, very slightly. The bill finally passed the Senate after a long debate in which the Republican Senators made the most able and gallant fight in defence of American industries that has ever been made in the halls of Congress since the government was organized. The lack of rules in the Senate and the long delay on the part of the. Democratic Senators to reach a compromise, gave to the Republicans an opportunity in debate to dis- cuss every phase of the bill, such as was not accorded to the Republican members in the House, who were so far in a minority that they were TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE TRADE. unable to obstruct and hold the bill until its iniquitous features could be fully exposed. This measure, which became kuovvn as the Gorman-Wilson bill, passed the Senate and was returned to the House for concurrence in the amendments. After some delay and the expression of the most violent indignation by the free traders at the course of the few Senators who had given their ultimatum in the amendments, it was reluctantly accepted and passed the House. The Gorman- Wilson bill was a measure forced on the Democratic part>' by three Senators representing States whose interests could not be ignored with safetj' to themselves and their party. The Wilson bill, as framed and passed by the House, was the administration measure and represented the sentiments of a large majority of the Democratic party on the question. It discloses the character of the legislation which Mr. Cleveland and his associates would have forced upon the people, had the will and sentiment of their party prevailed. In considering the future attitude of the Democratic party upon this question, the Wilson bill must be taken as representing its policy and principles; while in considering the effect of low duties and an approach toward free trade upon the indus- tries of the country, the reduction of duties under the Gorman- Wilson bill must be taken as a standard. On July 2, 1S94, when the bill was suspended in the Senate and its fate uncertain, Mr. Cleveland wrote a letter to Chairman Wilson, in which he said: There is no excuse for mistaking or misapprehending the feeling and temper of the rank and file of the Democracy. They are downcast under the assertioii that their party fails in ability to manage the government, and the\- are apprehensive that efforts to bring about tariff reform may fail; but they are much more downcast and apprehensive in their fear that Democratic principles may be surrendered. Every true Democrat and every sincere tariff reformer knows that this bill, in its present form and as it will be submitted to the conference, falls far short of the con- summation for which we have long labored, for which we have suffered defeat without discouragement; which, in its anticipation, gave us a rallying cry in our day of triumph, and which, in its promise of accomplishment, is so interwoven with Democratic pledges and Democratic success, that our abandonment of the cause or principles upon which it rests means party perfidy and party dishonor. On August 27, 1894, in a letter written to Hon. T. C. Catchings, of Mississippi, he said: But there are provisions in this tariff bill which are not in the line with honest tariff reform, and it contains inconsistencies and crudities which ought not to appear in tariff laws or laws of any kind. Besides, there were, as you and I well know, inci- dents accompanying the passage of the bill through Congress which made every sincere tariff reformer unhappy, while influences surrounded it in its later stages, and inter- fered with its final construction, which ought not to be recognized or tolerated in Democratic tariff reform counsels. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. And yet, notwithstanding all its vicissitudes and all the bad treatment it received at the hands of pretended friends, it presents a vast improvement to existing condi- tions. It will certainly lighten many tariff burdens that now rest heavily upon the people. It is not only a barrier against the return of mad protection, but it furnishes a vantage ground from which must be waged further aggressive operations against protected monopoly and governmental favoritism. I take my place with the rank and file of the Democratic party who believe iu tariff reform, and who know what it is; who refuse to accept the results embodied in this bill at the close of the war; who are not blinded to the fact that the livery of Democratic tariff reform has been stolen and worn in the service of Republican protection, and who have marked the places where the deadly blight of treason has blasted the counsels of the brave in their hour of might. Mr. Wilson said ( Congre.ssioiial Record, August 14, 1894): "So far as I am concerned, and I believe so far as the people with whom I am associated in this great work here are concerned, we do not intend to give up this fight." Senator Mills said (Congres.sional Record of August 16, 1894): We are going backward instead of forward. We do not at all accept this as a final settlement of the question of tariff reform. We have carried the outposts that defended the citadel of the enemy, and we intend to push the contest until we carry the gates of the city and sweep the streets of the enemy and take everything from him — remove all bamers and permit free trade all over the world. The Hon. Henry Watterson, in the Louisville Courier Journal, said: The Democratic party is irrevocably pledged to the obliteration of protectionism in all its forms from our revenue system, and we may be sure that it will not have ceased its consideration of the tariff nor close this interesting chapter in our domestic economy until the last obstruction to free commerce with the nations of the world has been removed. The conflict between free trade and protection is an irrepressible conflict. Space will not permit a presentation of all the provisions of the bill. Did we not have the Wilson bill with which to contrast the Senate bill the country would still be astonished at the length to which the Democratic party had gone in its mad career of destruction. The advantage secured to our foreign trade through the reciprocity treaties has been destroyed by repealing the provision which permits the govern- ment to enter into reciprocal arrangements for the admission of our produce into foreign countries upon favorable terms. From this it would seem that, while it is in harmony with tariflF reform to give foreign pro- ducers advantages in our markets, it is a violation of its principles to .secure advantages to our producers in their markets. The weapon by which we forced Germany and France to withdraw their restriction against our pork has been laid aside. Wool was placed on the free list, while the duties on woolen goods were reduced to an ad valorem rate of less than 50 per cent, and the duties TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE TRADE. on the whole schedule of competing commodities were reduced so low that a reduction in wages was made necessar>- in order to hold our home market, and even then we were being supplied with millions of dollars' worth of manufactured goods which had formerly been made in our own factories. Although it is diiEcult to compare schedules by percentages on account of fluctuation in prices, the following reductions in duties were reported by the government to have been made: Transferred from dutiable to free list, 92 Articles Reduced over 75 per cent • 7 " Reduced from 50 to 75 per cent, ii 2 " Reduced from 25 to 50 per cent, 368 " Reduced 25 per cent or less, 250 " Increased, 53 " Among those articles upon which duties were increased were sugar, shelled peanuts, seal oil, castile soap, molasses, dates, pineapples, olives, grapes, Zante t;urrants, orange and lemon peel, cocoanuts, desiccated cocoa- nut, mineral waters, cork bark, acetic acid, collodion, alabaster, gimps, galloons, etc., bronze powder, bark for dj-eing or tanning, and umbrella and parasol ribs. This measure has now been in force a year and a half, and its results have become so well known that we are better able to judge of the conipetenc}' of the Democratic party to manage the affairs of the nation and to measure more accurately the effect of the policy of low duties on the business interests of our country. That the bill has not accomplished wliat was claimed for it by the Democratic party is now apparent. The predictions of the free traders are well illustrated by the following extract from the speech of Senator Roger O. Mills, made in the United States Senate in favor of the Gorman-Wilson bill, April 28, 1894: Mr. President, when we prevent things from coming to this country we prevent an equal amount of things from going away from this country. There can be no trade except by the exchange of two or more things. You cannot conceive of a trade that does not require at least two persons to make it, and you cannot conceive of a trade that does not require at least two things to be exchanged. When we see that Great Britain is taking 52 per cent of her wheat from the fields of the United States and we are imposing a duty upon her woolen and cotton, and iron and steel, and glass, and other goods, it is easy to be seen that we are keeping away many millions of her products that would come here and exchange for our wheat, and thus keeping at home an equal amount of our wheat. . . . If we open the market and remove the obstruction in the way of importation and permit importation to come unchallenged to the country, what would be the first effect of it? Increased exportation, preceded by increased demand for cotton, wheat, and provisions. What would follow from that? Increased prices of agricultural products? Mr. President, the very same products which we export now, and which bring us ^799,000,000, would then bring us $150,000,000 more. We find that, when importations fall off prices fall from 18 to 20 per cent, and when importations flow in the prices of agricultural products rise 18 or 20 per cent or more. The same quantity TAllIFF QUESTION IN TIIi: UNITED STATES. of products we now send abroad and sell for 1799,000,000 we would sell for more than 1900,000,000. Then all these millions of bushels of waste wheat, waste corn, waste oats, and other farm products would find a profitable market for their sale. Our importations would increase largely. With open markets I do not doubt but that they would increase $300,000,000. It was said in another place that if this bill were passed it would increase our imports $250,000,000, and that would result in great injury to our manufacturers and throw out of employment thousands of operatives and reduce the wages of hundreds of thousands more. I hope the bill will pass, and that it will increase our imports $300,000,000. If we shall have fairly good crops this year and the pending bill shall become a law, importations will largelj' increase; and if the crop of the year equals that of 1S91, the increase of importations will go to $300,000,000, and if it does exports will increase to the same extent. This speech will remind the reader of the prophecies and fallacies which Richard Cobden and the members of the Anti-Corn Law Leagtie used to the farmers of England, to induce them to abandon protec- tion in 1846. The first paragraph quoted from Mr. Mills, that "you cannot conceive of a trade that does not require at least two persons to make it, and you cannot conceive of a trade that does not require at least two things to be exchanged," is very true, yet one of the things exchanged may be gold; but this was not the idea which Mr. Mills intended to convey, as is shown by what follows. He intended to convince the Senate that the increased imports of consumable commodities would necessarily be paid for by exports of commodities made in our factories and raised on our farms. The experience of all nations shows that this has not occurred under free trade or low duties in an}' country that has tried the experiment. England buys $600, 000, ©00 more than she sells. In every low tariff period of the United States we have purchased of foreign countries more than we have sold to them, and we have settled the balance against us by shipments of gold. This is precisel}' what has occurred and is occurring now since the bill which Mr. Mills advocated has become a law. There is one prediction, however, which Mr. Mills made, which is coming true; our imports of foreign-made goods are constantly increasing, and they will have increased by $300,000,000, the sum named by Mr. Mills, if the bill remains on the statute book a few years longer. But it is absolutely certain that foreigners will not come to our market and purchase either agricultural produce or manufactures, until we offer them for sale at as low a price as they can be purchased in any other country. Until this can be done they will take our gold and with it buy where they can buy the cheapest. The following are some of the results of this measure, which are quite different from those predicted by Mr. Mills. While our purchases in foreign countries have increased, they are buying less of us. In 1892 our foreign trade was the largest ever known in the history of the country. It has now greatly declined, as is shown by the following statistics: TRIUMPH OF DE3I0CBACY AND FREE TRADE. Summary Showing the Imports and Export's of the United States for the Years i8g>2, i8g4 and i8g§, Ending fime jo. Compiled from Bureau Statistics Treasury Department. Merchandise. Total, Imports— Free of duty, Dutiable, . Total. , $1,030,278,148 1892.140,572 :oin and Bullii Exports, . . Excess of exports. In Ore- Exports, Coin and Bullii Excess of imports, In Ore- Exports, Imports, Excess of imports, 1827,402,462 ] $654,994,622 $188,329,; 202,875,1 $824,964,197 $363,233,795 363,736,170 Calendar Years. The large increase of dutiable imports has occurred in the face of the fact that wool has been imported free of duty during this period. Some of the above imports can be specified as follows, the figures being for the first ten months of each year: 1S94. 1S95. 113,981,398 149.899,717 19,896,801 29(7 1 7,006 20,982,366 27,555,042 4,604,204 6,412,670 9.477.944 11,377,619 16,899,995 21,071,156 4,567,109 8,010,272 $90,409,817 $154,043,482 Wool, pounds, 83,223,270 211,057,038 Woolen goods, . . . Cotton goods, . . . Silk goods, Glass and glassware, Chemicals (dutiable). Iron and Steel, . . . Knit goods Twports of zvoolen TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. As the largest increase among the manufactures has been in woolen goods, the following table of imports of specific articles is given that the reader may see just what kind of woolen manufactures we are deprived of The imports for the last four years are given: Imports of Woolen Goods — Ten Months, Ending October 31. AKTICBS. -B.. 1894. .893. 18,2. Carpets . . $ 1,356,307 1,296,219 21,807,899 19,528,051 1,988,340 370,264 1,632,852 1,919,785 $ 614,421 673,088 4,775,874 6,566,170 503,669 236,388 542,235 $ 1,266,327 948,374 10,683,294 12,834,060 1,183,362 53'5,639 901,710 $ 1,303,718 1,200,057 11,803,471 15,250,431 1,273,161 273,280 566,933 1,003,886 Cloths, Dress Goods Knit Goods Shawls, All other . 549,899,717 113,981,398 ^28,580,986 132,674,937 The following table, showing our exports of wool and woolens com- pared with the increased imports, exposes the utter unsoundness of free trade contentions. This result proves one of two things, either that the advocates of free trade in dealing with this question wholly misjudged the effect of low duties and free wool, or that the free raw material argu- ment has been from the beginning a deception: Exports of American Wooi, and Woolens for the Calendar Year 1S95. Wool, raw, 5,706,708 pouuds 1689,874 Woolens: Carpets, 312,987 yards, 176,061 Flannels and blankets 33.454 Wearing apparel, 354,290 All other 219,080 Total manufacture, Total exports, 1S95 |i, 472,759 Total imports, 1S95, 94,024,500 1782,885 Net adverse trade balance. 592.551,741 Our wool clip in 1890 was 309,000,000 pounds; in 1893 it had increased to 364,000,000 pounds; but with free wool it had fallen in 1S95 to 264,000,000 pounds, a decrease of 100,000,000 pounds and a destruction of 5,000,000 sheep. The total value of our sheep in 1892 was $1 16,000,000, and $66,000,000 in 1895, a loss of $50,000,000. In 1890 we imported 105,431,285 pounds of wool; in 1895 the imports had increased to 248,- 989,217 pounds. The benefit British manufacturers and exporters have derived from the reduced duties on woolen goods and from free wool, will appear from the following table taken from the American Economist, February 7, 1S96: TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE TRADE. A Year's Experiment with Free Raw Material— Imports of Wooi, and rmports < Woolen Goods. Wools, hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, and other like animals, and manu- factures of. Unmanufactured, pounds: Class I, clothing, free, . . Class I, clothing, dutiable. Class 2, combing, free, Class 2, combing, dutiable Class 3, carpet, free, . . . Class 3, carpet, dutiable, . Total imports of wool, free, . . Total imports of wool, dutiable. Rags, noils and wastes, free, pounds, . Rags, noils and wastes, dutiable, pounds, Wools, hair of the camel, goat, etc., continued. Manufactures of: Wool, carbonized, dutiable, pounds, Carpets and carpeting, dutiable, square yards, Clothing, ready made, and other wear- ing apparel, except shawls and knit goods, dutiable Cloths, dutiable, pounds, Dress goods, women's and children's, dutiable, pounds, Knit fabrics, dutiable, Shawls, dutiable, . Yarns, dutiable, pounds, All other, dutiable, 19,602,007;! 3 12,931,532 2 4.747.735 S98,S.S5 46,791,611 4 30,764,990 2 ,287,589 126,435,569 $19,657,912 028,330 924,657! 18,757,042 4,092,656 241.493 • • 149,620 103,796,606 10,019.591 630,823 .\ ..... . 61,141,413113,262,412,248,989,217133,770,159 44.595, 407j • • ■ Total imports of woolens. 333.623 489,467 43.843 784,481 18,174.321 1,949.819 2,543.7871 809,659 250,265 64,960 S73.558' 1,428,684 7,214,810 38,183,519 450,796 744,740| I 1,401,370 io4,793| 40,070,1431 25,281,668 549,522; 30,143,137 22,549,485 612,484 2,305,849 83.391' ' 426,047 280,919; 3,651,550^ 1,783,26s 649.042, ! 2,318,483 $60,319,301 .372; This accounts for the prostrate condition of our woolen mills. Not only is our market being flooded with woolen goods of the kind stated above, but under the reduced duties on shodd}- imposed bj- the Gorman- Wilson bill, another serious difficultj' is met with, as shown b}^ the following: Total imports of shoddy under four years of McKinley bill, . . . 1,352,421 Under last year of McKinley bill, 143,002 Under first year of Gorman-Wilson tariff, 17,666,563 This will prove verj' interesting reading to those who have heard Democratic speakers in recent campaigns lament the use of shoddy. The TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. fFect of this will be seen when it is found that one pound of shoddj- takes the place of three pounds of wool ; so that this increased importation alone has displaced 50,000,000 pounds of American wool. This added to the imports of wool itself, will make nearly 200,000,000 pounds of American wool displaced in one year. Our farmers, manufacturers and laborers have lost in both ways by this legislation. They lost $227,000,000 by decline in exports in the first sixteen months, and over $100,000,000 in increased imports of goods that should have been made at home. Comparing our foreign trade during the calendar year ending Dec. 31, 895, with that during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1892, we find that our exports have fallen off $208,000,000. This diminution has occurred n our dealings with Europe, from which competing imports have increased by over $100,000,000. Exports of American Products. To ■S92. 1895. Europe, $841,087,922 1627,975,133 North America, 101,463,351 108,604,088 South America 32.573,9=2 33,526,538 Asia, 19,581,056 17,248,920 Oceanica 15.274,896 13,106,351 Africa 5,035,162 6,377,763 All other countries, 7i5,_7o2 7oo,34o $1,015,732,011 1807,539.133 Comparing our foreign trade in agricultural prodtice during the first year of the Gorman-Wilson bill with the first year following the McKinley bill, we find that imports have increased over $55,000,000, while exports have declined over $69,000,000, as shown by the following tables: Agricultural Imports. Last Year of McKinley Law. Animals $966,559 Breadstuffs 2,297,027 Eggs 161,328 FLix, 1,101,347 Feathers .... 910,981 Fruits 4,659,364 Hav, 846,739 Hemp 266,352 Hides 10,480,562 Hops 582,875 Provisions 1,824,709 Rice 2,566,089 Seeds, 2,361,813 Tobacco, 13-005,715 Vegetables 3.083,400 Wool 6,299,934 Totals, $51,414,844 First Year of orraan-W'ilson L: $2,121,524 2,895,297 341,284 2,545,610 3,077,915 5,335.499 1,658,331 632,468 24,623,269 601,188 2,037,535 3.497. >66 7,146,504 14.3S9.381 3.858,7-0 32,589,791 $107,343,522 TRIUMPH OF DE3I0CEACY AND FREE TRADE. Exports. Hay ■ I 924,916 $ Soo.ocxj Hops 3.752,2'3 1,849,898 Vegetables, 2,072,974 i, 775,551 Oilcake and meal, 9,442,045 8,070,032 Seeds, 8,03s, 558 2,972,242 Corn, 31,207,331 19,032,404 Wheat 67,793,499 52,339.232 Flour, 78,062,212 59,226,244 Provisions, 169, .831,131 155,493,282 Totals, |37i,i24,.S79 1301.558,885 The greatest hardship inflicted on the people by this legislation is found in the reduced wages and lack of employment to which our wage- earners have been subjected. During the summer of 1895 the American Protective Tariff League made an investigation to determine the average number of hands employed in different industries, during the first half of the years 1890, 1892, 1894 and 1895, together with the percentage of wages paid, the rate of 1890 being taken as a full standard. Almost 500 reports were received from eighty-five different industries. The returns upon the comparative number of hands employed showed the following result, as stated by the American Economist: These returns show that the same industries employed 9530 more hands in 1892 than in 1S90, an increase of I2 per cent. In 1894 they employed 24,081 hands less than in 1892, a decrease of 26 per cent ; in the early part of 1S95 they employed 11,756 more hands than in 1894, but 12,325 less hands than in 1892, and 2795 less even than in 1890. For 1895 the employment of labor shows an increase of 17 per cent as com- pared with 1S94, a decrease of 13 per cent as compared with 1892, and a decrease of 3 per cent as compared with 1890. As to the reduction of wages the American Economist also said: These facts show that the average of wages paid in 1892 was 5 per cent higher than in 1S90 ; in 1893 it was 16 per cent less than in i8go, and 21 per cent less than in 1892 ; while for the 1895 period the average rate of wages paid was 14 per cent less than in i8go, 17 per cent less than in 1892, and only 2 per cent greater than in 1894. While those reported "advances" in wages have been diligently announced in the cases of the few industries that have been enabled to make them, nothing has been heard of the far more numerous other instances wherein the wage-earners have not been so fortunate. Comparing the effect of this measure upon the wage-earners of the country with the effect of the McKinley bill, as shown by an investigation made by the Protective Tariff League, the American Economist said: These results can be briefly tabulated as follows : McKiNi,EY Census of 1S92. Extra hands employed, 37.285 New capital invested, |4o,ooo,ooo TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. vDusTRiAL Census, October, 1S93. Since November, 1S92 Decrease in labor 60V2 per cent Decrease in wages, 69 per cent Decrease in business 47.2 per cent Number of hands out of work, 101,763 Total loss in weekly wages, $1,202,851.36 Average decrease in rate of wages, $2.35 per week Industrial Census, October, 1S94. Since 1S90 Census. Decrease in labor 30 per cent Decrease in wages 45 per cent Decrease in product value 44 per cent Decrease in cost of material, 44 per cent Wages and Labor Census, September, 1S95. Comparison ■ 1S90, — 3 per cent. —14 1S92, — 13 per cent. ^17 1S94 +17 per cent. + 2 From this last investigation it is apparent that the industrial condition of the United States has retrograded more than half a decade. Si,'j years have elapsed since the taking of the census of 1889, and we find that 3 per cent less labor is employed now than then, also that labor earned this year at the rate of 14 per cent less wages than in 1889. The results, as applied to the whole country, appear in the following exhibit: CF.N.SUS OF 1890. Investigation of 1895, Wages earned 12,283,216,529— 14 per cent, 11,963,566,215 Hands employed, 4,712,622 — 3 per cent, 4,571,243 The result of a Democratic administration and a free trade fanatic Con- gress is that labor was earning $300,000,000 less this year than in 1SS9. We have to thank the more conservative Democratic Congressmen that the result was not worse. The reduction in wages and loss to the laborers of the couiitr}- have not been confined to those directl}' employed in manuiactories, but have extended to all branches of employment. Yet the specific reductions in wages have not occasioned so much loss as the lack of employment which has prevailed in the building trade, transportation and every other branch of business. TBIUMPH OF DE3I0CRACY AND FREE TRADE. The persistency of the panic is shown by the report from Bradstreet giving the failures during the years of 1894 and 1895 as follows: Section. Number of Failures. Liabilities. 1894. 1895. 1,686 3,082 3,2iS i,iSo 33S ■894. .895. Eastern, 3!oi8 2,885 1.247 2,202 1,182 403 118,790,018 51,493,787 30,138,654 2ii285',698 10,608,257 2,077,805 $19,914,153 51,239.432 32.727.634 19,216,225 24,811,939 9,211,208 1.721,854 Middle, . Northwestern, Southern, Territories, United States 12,721 13.013 $149,595,434 1158,842,445 Trade Failures. Under Cleveland, 1894, 12,721 Under Harrison, 1892, 10,034 Cleveland's extra " Industry of the Sheriff," 2,687 This is the largest number of failures reported since the record was commenced in 1879, excepting those which occurred in 1893. The returns made by Bradstreet, showing the bank clearings in eighty-three cities, during ten months of 1892 compared with ten months of 1895, show a falling off of over $7,000,000,000. The figures are as follows: Bank Clearings, Ten Months to October 31. Section. 1S92. 1895. New England, f4, 790,036, 183 JS4, 518,691, 568 Middle 33,965,804,047 28,181,467,985 Western, 1,886,617,431 1,713,486,517 Northwestern, . 5,472,972,197 4,771,271,425 Southwestern, 1,665,789,528 1,712,239,391 Southern 1.552,748,083 1,402,658,651 Far Western, 1,097.654,857 819,829,133 Total United States, $50,401, 622, 326 143,119,644,670 The Gorman-Wilson bill, although designed as a revenue measure, has failed to provide the government with sufficient funds to pay its run- ning expenses. The receipts of the government have constantly diminished TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. September, October, . November, December, January, . February, March, . . April, . . May, . . . June, . . July,. . . August, . September, October, . November, December, until the deficiency has reached about $74,000,000. The details are as follows: January, Totals I429.323.353 Receipts. 122,621,228 19,139,240 19,411,403 21,866,136 27,804,399 22,888,057 25,470,575 24,247,836 25,272,078 25,615,474 29,069,697 28,952,696 27,549,678 27,901,748 25,986,503 26,288,937 29,237,670 $30,323,018 32,713,039 28,477,188 27,135,460 34,523,447 25,696,035 25,716,957 32,990,676 28,558,213 21,683,029 38,548,063 32,588,184 24,320,481 34,503,425 27,199,283 25,814,317 32.696,830 17,701,789 13,573,800 9,065,785 •5,269,324 6,719,047 2,807,978 246,382 8,742,839 3,286,136 *3,932,415 9,478,366 3,635.488 *3,229,i96 6,601,677 1,212,780 *474,62o 3,459,159 t Net deficit. While this has occurred, the administration has continually borrowed money and increased the national debt. From March i, 1869, until March i, 1893, the Republican party reduced the national debt as follows: March I, 1869, $280,430,492 March 1, 1873, 403,948,484 March 1, 1877 65,204,017 March I, 1881 73,646,781 March 1, 1SS5, 480,161,982 March 1, 1889 341,448,449 March i, 1S93 236,527,666 Total reduction, 11,881,367,873 While Republican administrations were debt reducing administrations, the reverse has been the case since Mr. Cleveland was inaugurated. By March i, 1895, the national debt had been increased by $105,328,774, and on December i, 1895, $57,273,470 were added, making a total increa.se of $162,602,245, to which has since been added $100,000,000. This amount is exclusive of the increased interest account which must necessarily follow. While the Republican party during this time paid off an average of $5,701,114 each month, the Democratic partj- since it came into power, has increased the national debt by $7,502,921 a month. THE TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE TRADE. In March, 1893, when the Repubhcan party turned the government over to Mr. Cleveland it left a considerable surplus in the treasury and a gold reserve of $100,000,000 unimpaired. In the .short space of three years the surplus has been wiped out, the gold reserve has been invaded, and obligations, including the deficiency and principal and interest of the increased national debt, of over $522,000,000 have been incurred. But this is only a small part of the injury inflicted by the brief free trade period which the Democratic party has given to the people. However great our loss may be in foreign commerce, and our national finances, it is insignificant when compared with the disasters which have befallen our home trade, and the want and suffering it has brought to the firesides of our wage-earners. The closing of mills, the enforced idleness of labor, the bankruptcy and ruin of business men, have made the loss to the whole country incalculable. Our manu- factures in 1890 amounted to $9,370,000,000. It is safe to say that had the Republican measure of 1890 remained in force, b}' Januarj', 1S96, they would have reached over $12,000,000,000. While at the close of 1892 they amounted to at least $10,000,000,000, it has been estimated by careful and reliable authorities that in 1895 the products of our factories did not exceed $5,000,000,000, a falling off of nearly one-half. As nearly 90 per cent of this represents the earnings of labor, it will be seen how seriously the masses of our people have been affected by less than two years of low tariff. What the result would have been had the Wilson bill as it left the House become a law, it is difficult to estimate. That the ruin would have been more widespread and complete, cannot now be seriously questioned. But as it is, no further demonstratfon is necessary at least with this generation, to expose and condemn the fallacies of free trade. Every free trade prediction and promise which has been made to the American people during the past ten years, is unfulfilled. Instead of our farmers getting better prices for their farm produce, and .shipping their wheat, corn, pork, etc., in larger quantities to Europe in exchange for clothing and wares, our gold has been exported in payment for imports of these commodities, while our farmers have been left with a diminished home market, seeking in vain for a ready sale of their produce. With free wool and low duties, our woolen industry- is prostrate, and our mills are idle, while those of England are busy flooding our markets with fabrics which formerl}' were made b\- our own labor. With imports of competing commodities increasing, our exports are declining. Instead of capturing the markets of the world, the world is taking possession of our market. Notwith.standing that wages have been reduced to adjust our manu- facturing to the conditions impo.sed by reduced duties on imports, yet our mills are running on short time and many of them are closed. The country has been constantly filled with idle workmen, the incomes of our Wf^Z TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STA'i people have been diminished and the depression in trade has been so per- sistent that thousands of business men have struggled along on the border- line of failure, while others, unable to withstand the loss of trade, have been forced into bankruptcj'. Soon after the passage of the Gorman-Wilson bill, it was predicted that times would revive and the Democratic press of the country- put forth its greatest endeavors to inspire the people with confidence and bring about a revival in biisiness. Each recurring month our business men have looked forward to that long hoped-for event, but in vain. The fall trade did not respond, again the spring trade and the summer trade were no better, until two years have rolled by and the situation remains the same. This con- dition of business has occurred in the midst of abundant harvests, with all our natural resources, rich soil and favorable climate unimpaired, and in spite of the genius, energy, industry and perseverance of our people. It has been' finally demonstrated that it does make a difference after all, which party is in power and what commercial policy the nation pur- sues. Had it not been for the fact that the elections of 1894 and 1895 were carried overwhelmingly by the Republican party from Maine to California, and that the prospect existed of a restoration of the policy of protection, bankruptcy would have become uni^•ersal. It has been a common contention of free traders during the recent agitation of this question, that they desired to secure to our manufacturers free raw materials," that they might thereby manufacture cheaper and com- pete with foreign producers in the markets of the world. That this claim is a sham is perfectly apparent. The agents- of the Cobden Club were not sent to the United States to aid in enabling our manu- facturers to divide the markets of the world with British producers. The endorsement which the free traders of the United States have received from the British press, and the courtesies and compliments bestowed upon Chairman Wilson at a banquet tendered to him in England shortly after the adjournment of Congress, for the distinguished services which he had rendered the cause, certainly ought to be proof that our foreign rivals have no fear that Mr. Cleveland and his associates will confer upon the manu- facturers of the United States any advantages which will conflict with British interests. It has been the policy of the protectionists to place on the free list every article of raw material the like of which cannot be produced at home. They also regard our mining and agricultural interests as productive industries and entitled to the same consideration under the policy of pro- tection, as any other. Our manufacturers have been given free raw silk, rubber, hides, chemicals and dye stuffs, which are not produced here: and by the act of 1883 any citizen who desired to manufacture for export trade, could import all raw materials for that purpose at a duty of 10 per cent, which was reduced by the McKinley bill to i per cent. Under TRIUMPH UF DEJIOCHACr AXJ) FREE TRADE. these conditions we have a right to say that no valid basis exists for the free raw material claim so persistently urged by Mr. Cleveland. But what are raw materials? When the free trader speaks of free raw materials he is using a deceptive term unless he qualifies it as he always fails to do. Iron ore and coal at the mill are not raw materials. Wool is not raw material, cotton is not raw material. They are the embodiment of human labor. For the sake of a convenient expression, however, we use the term " raw material," meaning the material which forms the basis of an industry. The term is relative. Henry C. Carey in his manual of Social Science said : All the products of the earth are in turn finished commodity and raw material. Coal and ore are the finished commodity of the miner, but the raw material of pig iron. The latter is the finished commodity of the smelter, yet only the raw material of the puddler, and of him who rolls the bar. The bar is again the raw material of sheet iron, and that, in turn, becomes the raw material of the nail and the spike. Some writers use the term as applying to such crude materials as have gone through no process of manufacture whatever, but it would be difficult to draw the line. It matters not what we call raw material so long as we bear in mind the labor that has been expended on it. The daily paper that costs but one cent may be raw material for the mill that converts it into other grades for further use, yet millions of dollars and years of labor have been spent in its preparation. Knowing full well that the American people would not adopt free trade at one stroke the cunning free trader proposes to start with fi-ee " raw material," leading up to a gradual extermination of all industries. This he freely admits.' The value of our total products of manufactures in 1 890 as given by the census was about $9,000,000,000, the value of material used $5,000,000,000. The "raw material" then was worth more before the last process of manufacture than it gained in becoming the last finished product. Supposing for the moment then, that the free trader were willing to stop with free so-called raw materials, more than one-half of our industries would close, more than one-half of our work- men would be thrown out of employment, more than one-half of our wages would be lost. By reducing the wages of the less than one-half of employees that remained, we might sell a few things in Europe, Asia and Africa. We could not sell to England or Germany or France or Russia or Italy or Spain, or to any of the countries which raanu facture for themselves. We could not sell in other markets unless we reduced wages to less than those paid by countries now selling in these markets. The real fact is we would simply become a bankrupt nation at the mercy of any power which thought it worth the while to absorb us. The whole thing is an absurdity, a bubble of the utmo.st transparency. Every blow at any manufacture whether it be coal that gives emplo3mient TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. to the miner or the rail that keeps the puddler at work, whether it be wool that adds to the farmer's income or the cloth that gives work to the tailor, is a direct blow to labor and the laborer. While the census value of so-called raw material is but a little more than half the value of the finished product it will hardl}^ be disputed that at least three persons are engaged in producing the so-called raw material to one engaged in pro- ducing the last finished product. Even if it were a benefit to import this so-called raw material free of duty per se it is contrarj- to sound economic doctrine, it is contrary to common sense, to throw three men out of employment to benefit one even were the one to be benefited. With the markets of the world hardly worth the taking into account in comparison with our own which consumes not only all we can produce in times of prosperity, but millions of dollars' worth of foreign productions as well, and with three-fourths of this market made powerless to purchase, how long would the one-quarter of our people engaged in the last manufacture have employment? It is a physical, natural and economical impossibility for our twenty millions of workmen all to be engaged in making the last finished product. Suppose our 10,000,000 farmers could leave their farms and make plows, who would use the plows? Suppose a million miners could leave the mines and make picks and shovels, who would use the picks and shovels ? The whole framework here falls to the ground. But to take another phase of the free traders' argument. We are told that the raw materials (here the word is used in the strict sense as meaning coal and ore and wool and cotton) are dearer than if we imported them free. They may be or they may not be. Suppose they are, what does it matter? Take a locomotive worth $20,000. How much was the raw material, strictly speaking, worth ? $200 perhaps. The $20,000 is all labor and ability. How much is a pound of flaxseed worth ? A few cents. It is put into the ground, the harvested thread is made into cambrics, laces and embroideries, some of which are worth $100,000 a ton. Take a telescope worth thousands of dollars or a printing press worth the same amount, or an ocean steamship worth $2,000,000 : how much did the raw material cost? Comparatively little. They are simply monuments of labor and genius, and the highest genius and best paid labor on earth is found in our country and a protective tariff has created, fostered and maintained them. Protection is not partial legislation, it is complete. We do not. protect our heads and let the rest of our bodies go bare. There would soon be no body for the head to rest on. Every member from head to foot must have equal care and so mu.st every member of our industrial body. All are interdependent. The interests of the miner .should be of equal concern with those of the skilled artisan. The farm hand is as important to our indu.stral life as the mill hand. The question then of free ' ' raw material is a question of labor and wages, a question solely of industrial life or death. THIU.VPff OF DE?[OCRArY AND FREE TBADE. If, however, there were in any instance any advantage in importing materials that enter into the making of a finished product, if by so doing any manufacturer could sell that product in a foreign market in competi- tion with foreign manufacturers, then he may do so to his heart's content, for he can even now import that material free of duty save one per cent of its cost. But we have free raw materials without importing them. Have we gained the markets of the world with the last finished product ? Cotton is free. Hides are free. Silk is free. Rubber is free. How does the balance of trade stand in the manufactured articles ? The following table will show: Importation of Exportation of Kaw Materials, Manufactured Manufactured DfTY Free. Goods. 1S90. Goods, 1S90. Cotton 132,012,359 fii, 113,431 Hides, 12,563,183 12,275,470 Paper stock, . . 2,898,448 1,239,420 Silk, 41,085,990 65,011 Total 189,459-980 124,693,332 It will be seen that we import more than three times as much as we export of the manufactured products from these free ' ' raw materials." Our exports of cotton goods, boots, shoes and leather in i860 amounted to $12,391,630, or 37^2 cents per capita. In 1880 thej' amounted to $16,653,080, or 33 cents per capita. In 1890, to $21,331,495, or 34 cents per capita. Wherein are we capturing the markets of the world with ' ' free raw material ?' ' The whole theorj' is a free trade delusion, an economic fallacy, a practical failure; there is not a particle of benefit to be derived, there is nothing but loss of labor, loss of wages, loss of manhood, loss of life. The contention is a deception and humbug, because the ultimate purpose is to withdraw protection from the finished product as well and subject it to ruinous competition under free trade. The desire is no stronger for free wool than it is for free woolen goods. The chief contention of the free traders of to-day in the United States is that so-called free raw material will give us increased foreign markets. We have had free wool for a year, with the result that we are not only losing foreign markets, but losing our own as well. It will be instructive in this connection to see just what value foreign markets would have for us if we could gain them to the exclusion of every competitor. The total imports of all other countries besides our own in 1888, as gathered from the latest or most reliable statistics available, amounted to $7,569,000,000. This sum repre- sents the total markets of the world — Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America, Australia, and all the islands of the sea. The factuted TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. following figures will show the value of our own market to our producers 1890: American manufactures, |9.054>435.337 American farm products, at least 7,000,000,000 Foreign goods, • 789.310,409 Total 116,843,745,746 We exported of all products 845,293,828 American market, |i5.99S.45i.9i8 Foreign markets, ■ 7,569,000,000 American over all available foreign markets, . 18,429,451,918 It will be seen that the American market is worth more than twice much to us as all foreign markets combined, even if we could possess them exclusivelj'. It would be the height of folly, then, to sacrifice our home market to gain the foreign. But can we gain any more of the foreign market than we now possess? Surely we have gained nothing so far under a year of free trade. On the contrary, we have lost to the extent of over $200,000,000. We can look for no increased sales of manufac- tures to Great Britain, " the workshop of the world," where the cost of production is but little more than half of ours, and as for increased .sales of agricultural products a .study of Table No. 31, on pages 760-1, will show the growing competition our farmers are now having from all parts of the world. Although the table has been confined to English imports of agricultural products a similar exhibit could be made for France and Ger- many. It will be seen to what extent our exports of wheat and corn to Eng- land have fallen off, while her purchases from Russia and the Argentine Republic have increased. The following table will show the competition of wheat in recent years : English Imports 01 Wheat— Qu ENTITIES. From 1892. Bushels. ^.l&. Bu's&. Russia 8,144,240 1,131,692 63,255.251 6,470,045 3,764,779 18,782,377 675,893 60,223,982 14,645.095 4,833.897 31,412,560 P ' 1,334,746 United States, . 46,028,723 24,774.683 7,237,846 France grew more of her own wheat stipply in 1S94 than in 1892, buying 25,000,000 bushels le.ss from the United States and more from Russia and the Argentine Republic. Germany bought 12,000,000 bushels less from the United States in 1894 than in 1S92 but bought considerably more from Roumania, Ru.ssia, and the Argentine Republic, her purchases from the latter country increas- ing by about the same quantity as her purchases' from the United States TRIUMPH OF DEJIOCRACY AXD FREE TRADE. decreased. France and Germany too are competing successfully with England in manufactures as are other countries. This has been proven conclusively in preceding pages. We cannot then hope to sell to coun- tries whose own productions are increasing, whose wages are less, and hours of labor longer. Go where we will under present conditions there is no market to gain on the face of the globe. Other nations are not only producing for them- selves, but are also looking for foreign markets, and particularly for a portion of the greatest market on earth, the American market. This market has been created and built up under protection and can be re- tained only by a continuance of protection. Already in a single j-ear of par- tial free trade we have lost over $100,000,000 of it, which has been gained bj' foreign producers. If we had gained foreign markets to the extent of our loss it would not have been so great a sacrifice, but we lost $200,000,- 000 worth of foreign markets while losing $100,000,000 of our own. In the words of Lord Salisbury in a speech made in Hastings, Eng- land, in May, 1892 : We live in an age of a war of tariffs. Every nation is trying how it can, by agree- ment with its neighbor, get the greatest possible protection for its own industries, and at the same time the greatest possible access to the markets of its neighbors. The weapon with which they all fight is admission to their own markets— that is to say, A. says to B, " If you will make your duties such that I can sell in your mar- kets. I will make mj^ duties such that you can sell in my market." But we begin by saying we will levy no duties on anybody, and we declare that it would be contrary and disloyal to the glorious and sacred doctrine of free trade to lev3- an}- duty on anybody for the sake of what we can get by it. It may be noble, but it is not business. On those terms you will get nothing, and I am sorrj- tp have to tell you that you are practically getting nothing. And yet this is precisely what our free traders would do. They would take our onl)- weapon and put us at a disadvantage with all the world. A disadvantage that cannot be overcome except in one way : b}' reducing our wages to the level of our competitors. Even that would not gain for us the foreign markets so much sought after. It would only enable us to hold our own. It is a most serious matter to contemplate, and it concerns the wage-earner and farmer far more than the manufac- turer. The question of a home market is of paramount importance to the American agriculturist. He can find no increased market abroad. The world has been searched in vain. He must therefore depend on the home market, and to be of value that market must be maintained by American wages. But President Cleveland and other free traders have raised a doubt of the worth of our home market by asserting that we have already shown a capacity for producing far more than there is a home demand for. It is not difficult to ascertain the truth about the matter. We have but to go back to the year 1892, the year of greatest production the TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. Tab/e Showing Imports of Agricultural P}-oducts Compiled fioyn " Armual Statement-of United States. Number Wheat, of oxen, bulls, cows and -of sheep and lambs, . . . . Pork, fresh and salted, lbs , .ificial lard, lbs , ved, lbs., aiid condiments, lbs. mdensed and preser\'ed, lbs., unrefined, lbs., refined, lbs glucose, solid and liquid, r uioH sses lbs. ine, .w and s. 11.-,, lbs., m.'ravv lbs. V. 11>S i. lbs 4.843 46,028,723 3.534.419 124,315 19,142,134 32.760 1,441.657 17,306,802 3.359. 55< per cent, on that knife in regard to the labor item alone. George C. Hatch, of Bridgeport, Conn., said: "I have figured the total cost of labor in Germany and here, and as near as I can figure it. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. it stands, Germany fifty -eight cents, as against $1.66 here on a single dozen knives."' ' . W. O. Whitcomb, of Derby, Conn., who withdrew from a concern in England and started a similar business here, in speaking of the cost of metallic bedsteads, said: "The wages we are paying our men will average $2.00, $3.00 and $4.00 per day. They work on piece work, and the same men (on the other side) would get from $4.50, $5.00 and $6.00 a week. They do not do any more work here than on the other side. ' ' ' As to the costs of cotton yarns, Arnold P. Sanford, of Fall River, Mass., said: As an illustration of the higher cost of labor we have in our midst in Fall River a new industry, which has recently been located there for the manufacture of spool cotton. I refer to the Kerr Thread Company. In an interview with their superin- tendent who has worked for over twent^'-five 5'ears in English cotton spinning mills, and also their secretary, who has had a large experience, they informed me that the labor in the American mills costs them fully 60 per cent more than the same labor would cost the same mill in England. Their superintendent further informed me that the efficiency of the English laborer as compared to the American, in his opinion, was superior. And he said, emphatically, that the employees in his American mills could not do any more labor than the employees of his mills that he had run in England. In fact, the English employees if anything, excelled them in efficiency and superiority of work, so that so far as regards our industry the laborers in our American mills cannot perform any more work than those in similar mills in England.' As to hosiery and underwear Owen Csborn said: "The cost of making hose in Germany as compared to this country, is as one mark to $1.00, and the efficiency of labor is the same in both countries." ' "The' cost of dressing a ton of flax," says John Wilson, of Newark, N. J., "is $66.66 here, while the cost in Great Britain is $36.66, which is the highest wages paid abroad." ^ With reference to woolen goods, Charles H. Clark, -of Philadelphia, Pa., said: A man engaged in the knitting industry in Philadelphia who has just returned from Chemnitz, one of the greatest industrial towns on the Continent, told me the other day that a person who gets f 2.50 and jt3 00 a day in a knitting mill in Philadel- phia gets $2. 50 and $3.00 a week in Chemnitz, and that a little girl that gets seventy-five cents a day gets seventy-five cents a week in Chemnitz, and that there they work eleven hours a da)% whereas we work ten hours. I should think that the productive results of labor would be a little more perhaps in Chemnitz as they work eleven hours where we work ten hours, and -sometimes work on Sundays. Our mills in Philadelphia have a great many Europeans in them, and those Europeans, I think, with the same machinery will do about the same amount of work as the Americans, and they earn just the same wages. 5 !Id., p. 471 I Id., p. ' Id., p. 753. TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE TRADE. " If you will take the gross of buttons made in Bohemia," said A. C. Raymond, of Detroit, Mich., " and sell it in America, for say, the actual cost of seventy-nine kr. per gross, you could sell it in America for about thirtj'-two cents and take the thirty- two cents of the United States money, exchange it for Austrian money, and you will get more than seventy-nine kr. of Austrian money, so 5'ou will see that the Austrian or Bohemian manufacturer can sell his buttons iu America for less than half what the buttons cost to make here, and still he will make a profit,'' ' Leopold Moritz, of Philadelphia, Pa., said: "Bone btittons were imported in 1889 for less than we paid in wages to make them. The labor paid for a great gross was ninety cents. Similar foreign buttons cost about eighty-five cents to land here." ^ Philip Hagan, of Youngstown, O., in speaking of bar and wrought iron, .said: I wish to tell you the difference between the puddlers in England, when I worked there, and the prices now. I went to work for ten hours a day for twenty cents. When I advanced to the position of boiler in a furnace I received ^s. per day. It was Ss. and 6d. in 1869. I received there for puddling |i.20 or 55. for 3000 weight; and here I receive fe.So for 2750 weight. That is the present price. W^ges iu Belgium are about seventy-five cents a day. We start on Monday morning and stop the furnace on Saturday night to clean it ; but in Belgium they never stop as long as the furnace holds out.' The foregoing are taken from the evidence of experienced manufac- turers, given before recent hearings of the Ways and Means Committee of Congress. By the adoption of free trade we should be thrown into competition with the 38,000,000 of the United Kingdom and nearly 300,000,000 of Europe, whose artisans, after centuries of training, have been born and bred to every productive handicraft and attained a high degree of skill, taste and ingenuity in every department of manufacturing, and who are using the very best machinery, the most perfect devices and all of the modern appliances. It is a well-known fact that during the past thirty years European manufacturers have thrown aside their old machiner}', refitted and equipped their plants with the most perfect machinery in the world and that they have no lack of capital at their command. With production carried on under these conditions, with efficient and skilled artisans obtainable at one-half the labor cost of those in the United States, it is utter nonsense for free trade politicians and theoretical writers to attempt to impose upon the American people by claiming that under these circumstances goods can be made cheaper in America than abroad. An examination of the evidence of British manufacturers given before the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade and Industry, quoted in preceding chapters, shows that the chief complaint in England against the Continent is because of the longer hours and lower wages which prevail there. It is fully demonstrated that the ' ' superior 1 Tariff Hearing, 1893, p. 1096. - Id., p. 1:19. •> Id., p. 341. /mpossi- bility of successful compEtt- TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. efficienc}-' ' of British artisans has not saved Great Britain from an iinnida- tion of Continental goods. If the Continent is able to supplant and destroy industries in Great Britain as it is certainly doing, with lower wages and longer hours, how then would it be possible for the United States to withstand the combined Continental and British competition when the wages paid to its artisans are still higher than those paid in the United Kingdom ? The percentage of labor cost of commodities in the United States is often compared with the percentage of labor cost of similar commodities in the old world, for the purpose of making it appear that notwithstand- ing the fact that our'wage rate per week is much higher, still the labor cost is no greater than in Europe and England. To illustrate this fallacy let us assume that it costs $1. GO to produce a particular article in the United States, and that the labor cost in the last finishing process is 50 per cent, or fifty cents, and that the same article can be produced in England for one-half the sum, or fifty cents, the labor co.st there of the last finished process being also 50 per cent of the total cost, which would be twenty- five cents. Hence it follows that the percentage may be the same in both countries and the labor cost still be twice as great in the United States as in England. The fallacy of this oft-repeated error consists in a failure to estimate the percentage of labor cost in the two countries upon a common basis of production. In speaking of the attempt to make such comparisons based upon the percentage of labor cost in the final process of manufacturing the Hon. Carroll D. Wright said: " There can be no comparison made as between the labor cost of articles in one coun- try and the labor cost in another, and the attempt should not be made. ' ' The fact brought out concerning relative labor cost might be illustrated by authorities bearing on the whole field of our productive industries. It is true of cotton goods, woolen goods, productions of iron and steel, as' well as every other. Indisputable evidence shows that the high wage rate en- joyed by American over foreign labor extends to all competing industries. The next question, however, which arises, is the relative proportion or share of our products which goes to labor and capital respectively. Senator Roger Q. Mills, in his speech on the Wilson bill, said: W)iile on the subject, I want some one to explain to me, if this tax is for the laborer's beneBt and not for the manufacturer's, how is it that the laborer never gets the benefit of any of it ? How is it that the bounty voted by Congress never gets further than the mouth of the manufacturer? How is it that the tariff puts a tax of I13.44 on every ton of steel rails, and yet the laborer gets less than jt3. For every ton of pig iron Congress votes to the laborer f6 72, but he never gets more than f 1.50. For every Sioo worth of cutlery the tariff is jpSo, but he only gets I44. As agaiu.st such bold and misleading assertions we have abundant proof to show that about 90 per cent of the cost of ever>- commodity goes to reward the labor which produced it. TRIOIPH OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE TRADE. Upon this proposition we have the advantage of an ofEeial investiga- tion recently conducted by the Hon. Carroll D. Wright, with the assistance of able statisticians, reported in the sixth and seventh annual reports of the Department of Labor, covering 1 18 separate industries and showing the rela- tive labor cost in a great many commodities. The following figures compiled from the sixth annual report of the Commission of L,abor, shows that in the production of one ton of pig-iron over 90 per cent of the cost is labor: Average Cost of One Ton (2000 Pounds) Bituminous Co.m, in Ninety-nine est.\blishments in the united states. Total Cost. Total Labor Cost. Labor direct |o.933 |o.933 Officials and clerks (labor), 042 .042 Timber (90 per cent labor), 026 .0234 Other supplies and repairs {90 per cent labor), . .050 .45 Taxes 007 $1,058 fi.0434 To which should be added interest, insurance, depreciation of value of plant, and roj^alties paid to owners of the soil, 06 $i.iiS Total labor cost 93.3 per cent. Average Cost of One Ton of Coke (2000 Pounds) in Thirty Establish- ments IN THE United States. Total Cost. Total Labor Cost. Coal for coking (93-3 per cent labor), |i-2i9 fi.i37 Labor direct, 357 -357 Officials and clerks (labor), 028 .028 Supplies and repairs (90 per cent labor), . . . .058 .0522 Taxes oo5 fi.667 |i-5742 To which must be added interest, insurance and depreciation of value of plant, 007 I1.674 Total labor cost, 94 per cent. Average Cost of One Ton (2240 Pounds) of Iron Ore in Seventy-two Establishments in the United States. Total Cost. Total Labor Cost. Labor direct I1.039 |i-039 Officials and clerks (labor), 049 .049 Supplies and repairs (90 per cent labor) 359 .3231 Taxes - 035 $1,482 $1.4111 To which must be added interest, insiu-ance, de- preciation of value of plant and royalty paid to owners of land, 17 $1,652 Labor cost S5.4 per cent. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES Average Cost of One Ton (2240 Pounds) of Limestone in Six Establish- ments IN THE United States. Total Cost. Total Labor Cost. Labor direct, $0,307 I0.307 Officials and clerks (labor) 022 .022 Supplies and repairs (90 per cent labor), . . . .041 .037 Taxes, 007 jto.3-7 fo.366 To which must be added for royalty to owners of soil, 053 I0.430 Total labor cost 85 per cent. Cost of Conversion of 3990 Pounds of Coke, 5810 Pounds Iron Ore and 452S Pounds of Limestone Into 2240 (One Ton) Pounds of Pig Iron. Total Cost. Total Labor Cost. Labor direct |i.595 |i-595 Officials and clerks (labor), 175 .175 Supplies and repairs and taxes, 90 per cent labor, .530 .477 Total labor cost, 97.6 per cent. Cost of Ton (2240 Pounds) of Pig Iron Material. $2,300 lASED ON Foregoing Cost of Total Cost, 5810 pounds of iron ore (85.4 per cent labor), . I4.2S 4528 pounds of limestone (85 per cent labor), .887' 3990 pounds of coke (94 per cent labor), . . . . 2.97 Transportation of above (90 per cent labor), . . 1.697 Conversion of above into 2240 pounds of pig iron (97.6 per cent labor), 2.30 Total Labor $3-66 •754 2.792 1-567 2.247 • 134 Total labor cost 90.8 per cent. In the same way it could be shown that over 90 per cent of the cost of a ton of steel rails or bar iron, or any product of iron and steel, is labor. We also have the opinion of the Hon. Abram S. Hewitt, based on his experience as a miner and manufacturer of iron. In 1848 he said: The value of every manufacture is made up entirely of the wages paid to prodm r it. Coal and iron in the mines cost nothing. They are the free gifts of God. P.ut they are excavated by the pick and shovel of the workman ; by him they an- wheeled, carted, boarded to market ; by the workmen they are carried to mill ; by tho workman the funiace is heated and charged ; by him the iron is puddled, rolled, put up for the market, carried thither and sold. It is labor, labor, labor that constitiUis every addition to the value of the article, and it is the man who bestows that labor who should enjoy the fruits thereof. TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE TRADE. This, of course, was a general statement, but Mr. Hewitt has since stated that the labor cost of all iron products is over 90 per cent. John Roach, the great ship builder, stated that careful estimates and experience show that the value of iron, beginning to estimate it at the mine, is composed of wages to the extent of 95 per cent on the average. Of cotton goods Edward Atkinson said: If the subject is analyzed, first, as a whole, and, second, in each department, it will appear that at the present time the proportion of profit which can be set aside from the sale of coarse cotton goods sufficient to cover profits in all the various depart- ments of the work, is less than 10 per cent of the wholesale market value of the pro- duct, aiid go per cent is the absolute share of the laborers ivho do the work both in respect to materials used and to the finished product} In the seventh annual report of the Commissioner of Labor - we find the cost of production of window glass in thirty-seven establishments, the figures for the first being as follows, the second column of figures being the writer's: Total cost of Total labor production. cost. Materials (90 per cent labor) $12,486 lit.237 Direct labor 101.439 ioi-439 Officials and clerks (labor), 5-300 5-300 Supplies and repairs (90 per cent labor), . . . 2.098 1.88S Fuel (90 per cent labor) 12.541 11.287 Taxes 1.095 $i34-959 1131-151 Per cent labor cost 97. The same principle, if extended to transportation, would measurably hold good. The largest item of cost in constructing and operating rail- roads is that which goes into the pockets of the men who do the work. The labor cost of every commodity, which begins with the first human -effort expended upon the raw material, is repeated over and over again, and follows the commodity through all the processes of production and distribution until it reaches the consumer. This is also true of the farm products, and everj- article of necessity and luxury. This being true, the importance of augmenting the $16,000,000,000 of products of our mines, factories and farms, becomes apparent. As Abram S. Hewitt said, "it is labor, labor, labor." What share goes to capital ? While it is true that enormous fortunes have been made by the Goulds, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers and others in railroad speculation, in mining gold, silver, iron and coal, in controlling oil fields, and in a great variety of enterprises connected with the marvelous development of our country which has taken place during the last third of a century ; yet the profits of those engaged in industries directly affected by a protective tariff have only been fair and reasonable. ' Distribution of Products, p. 122. '^Vo\. I., p. 228. 49 Labor the chiefele- "coft'o/pro- TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. In fact out of seventy multi-millionaires named by a free trade writer, only four can be said to have amassed their wealth in protected industries. Official investigations which have been made of the profits of manu- facturers in the State of Massachusetts and other New England States, disf)rove the charges which have been industriously circulated by the allies of the Cobden Club against our manufacturers. The following is from the Home Market Bulletin of Boston for August, 1891 : One of the most important documents ever issued by the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor is Part IV of the report for iSSo, which came out July 21, 1S9T. It deals with "Net profits in manufacturing industries," and though it is bulky — (630 pages) — the deductions are coucisely stated by Hon. Horace G. Wadlin, chief of the bureau, in the introduction. We will summarize the most important. He obtained reports from 23,431 establishments, covering 64 different industries and representing 75.45 per cent of the capital and 70 per cent of the products of Massachusetts factories. Only 10,013 reported as to net profits, and of this number 9251 made a profit. A Massachusetts manufacturer, on the average, out of every Jioo invested puts nearh- J24 into land, buildings and fixtures; 1123 into machinery, implements and tools; has about ^35 in cash for working capital, and borrows |i8 more to supplement his cash capital. He has ^47 out of every ^100 invested in his plant, and with S53 in cash or borrowed money he carries on his business. The net profit was arrived at by the following deductions, determined upon after careful consideration: Interest on cash and credit capital, 5 per cent; depreciation in the value of machiner\-, implements and tools, 10 per cent; allowance for selling expenses, losses and bad debts, 5 per cent. R.\TES OF Profit. After these deductions were made, 58 out of 64 industries exhibited a net profit. The excess of selling price aljove cost of production amounts, on the average, to fi2.95 in each $100 worth of manufactured product. If from this $12. 95 excess are deducted the following: I2.15 for interest, Si. 90 for depreciation of machiner}-. imple- ments and tools, and I5 for selling expenses and to make up the losses from bad debts, there will then remain a net profit of I3.90, which is equivalent to 4. S3 per cent on the amount of capital invested, or an annual return of ^4.83 upon each ;tioo of invested capital. The results on the percentage basis, says Mr. Wadlin, for net profit, show that in few industries, if au)% can the profits be called exorbitant, all things considered: for we find the largest percentages of net profit in the small industries, while large indus- tries involve small profits and sometimes large losses. As to the general result for all industries, no one, he thinks, will maintain that the percentage of net profit is The facts contained in the official report referred to have been con- firmed by Edward Atkinson, General Draper and other statisticians who are competent to speak on the subject. There is free competition in the investment of capital. The profits on capital in all countries are largely fixed by international competition. The surplus of a nation flows into those countries where the highest rate TEIU-VPII OF DEilOCEACY AND FREE TRADE. of interest and profits can be obtained. Citizens of the United States desirous of borrowing large sums of money go to England or the Conti- nent of Europe, where they can obtain it at the lowest rate. Capital has become so abundant that the competition between lenders and the struggle on the part of borrowers tend to adjust interest and profits to a common level. Means of communication have become so perfected and the securit}' afforded capital through permanently established govern- ments and wise laws has become so absolute, that capital seeks investment in all countries with more freedom and greater safety than ever before. So long as this condition exists, it is sheer nonsense to talk about "robber barons" or "monopolists" in any department of productive industrj^ that is open to the investment of capital by the citizens of the United States. Men will not stand idly by and see their neighbors amassing fortunes in any industry which is equally open to them, so long as money can be borrowed in any part of the world, at reasonable rates of interest. If our cotton manufactories were making profits above this normal level, capital would at once be invested in the construction of cotton mills, competition increased and profits reduced. This is true of every branch of manufacturing in the United States. Cases can be cited in which manufacturers have made fortunes which are greatly in excess of this rate ; but when the facts are ascertained, these will be found to be exceptions arising from the holding of patents for new inven- tions or those in which an industry promoted by able and sagacious men, has suddenly developed before the profits made are generally known. Our industries have now nearly all passed through the speculative stage and have become adjusted to conditions which do not admit of excessive profits. Capital is becoming so abundant, and the number of bright, active business men so great, that neither trusts nor combinations can effectually resist the competition of capital w'hich flows into every productive industry as soon as it is discovered that large profits are being made. The operation of this law of competition in capital is found in the steady decline in prices which has taken place. That by reason of the high wage rate which prevails in the United States, it costs more to produce commodities here than it does to make similar articles by the lower paid labor of Europe, there is not the slightest question. Nor can we doubt that our tariff policy maintains this high wage rate, and in this way increases the cost of production over what it would be if the wages of our laborers were reduced under free trade. If this constitutes a tax on consumers, then the tariff is a tax. But the free trader says that the dut\- is added to the home msf of production, and hence each consumer is compelled to pay an amount equal to the fiome cosf price, based upon our wage rate with the duty added Although the contention is not so definitely stated, yet the free trader TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. tends to be so understood. It is a well known fact that competition among our own producers keeps the price of commodities down to the cost of production, based upon our wage rate and fair profits to manufac- turers, entirely regardless of the rate of duty which may exist. This is proven by the steady decline in prices which has taken place since i860. It is also shown by comparing the retail price of many commodities with the tariff. The following table was prepared by Hon. John Ford, while he was editor of the American Economist, from actual purchases made by him in the retail stores of New York City, in 1892. It was published in the American Economist of that year. While this list might be greatly extended, it sufficiently disproves the free trade assumption : Articles. Duty. Price. Wire nails, fo.02 per lb. fo.oiy'j.'j per lb. Hand-saw files 75 per doz. .48 per doz. Salt, ... oSsPerbbl. .2Sperbbl. Bunting 22 per yd. .20 per yd. Lead pencils, 60 per gross .45 per gross Chewing tobacco, 2 oz.pkg., . . .06 per pkg. .05 per pkg. Playing cards, . . .50 per pack .19 per pack Tissue paper 65 .58 Calico, 05 per yfl- -iU (2 5 per yd. Cotton and woolen cballies, . . .og'i per yd. .07 per yd. Shirting prints, 05 per yd. .05 per yd. Six-pound wool blankets, . . . 1.3S each 1.32 each Carpets 64 sq. yd. .50 sq. yd. Cheviots 65 sq. yd. .42 sq. yd. Ladies' wool dress goods, . . . .20/^^5 yd. ^i6,%% yd. Smyrna rugs, 2. So each 2.49 each Calico aprons, 05 per 3d. .04"< per j-d. Workingmen's shirts, 05 each .05 each Flannel shirt, 80 each .69 each Boys' pants, 43 each -2/ each Cotton handkerchief, 05 per yd. .04 per yd. Moquette rug 1.05 each i.oo each Blanket 95 each .90 each Cloak (cheap), 5.13 each 3.9S each Comfortable, cotton wool, . . 1.31 each i.oo each Workingmen's trousers, ... .92 each .89 each Boys' suit 1.24 each 1.20 each Girls' dress, cotton and wool, . 1.79 each 1.80 each Working girls' dress, .... 4.13 each 3. 98 each While this principle holds good with articles produced in our own country, the prices of which are influenced by home competition, it is not true of those commodities which we are necessarily compelled to buy abroad. A duty on coffee, tea or sugar is added to the price which the consumer is compelled to pay. The protectionist.s, however, admit .such commodities free of duty. It is .sometimes .suggested that if calico co.sts five cents a yard in the United States, and only three cents a yard in TEIV^IPR OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE TRADE. England, a dut}- of five cents a yard is two cents higher than there is any necessity for. While this may be true, if the excess is not added to the cost price in the United States, it harms no one. But this is not the point of contention. Protectionists do not favor the maintenance of duties higher than the conditions of competition require. The successive revisions of tariffs made by protectionists since i860 have reduced duties and adjusted them to new conditions. But the controversy does not arise over such duties. While the protectionists are only attempting to main- tain duties high enough to afford adequate protection to labor and capital, the "tariff reformers" are seeking to reduce the duties below that point, in order that the consumers of the United States may be able to buy manu- factures in those countries where the}' can be made and purchased the cheapest, regardless of the effect which such purchases will have upon our domestic industries. In concluding this brief review of the triumph of free trade it is unnecessar}- to attempt -to point out the many lessons which it teaches. Under the plea of helping the farmer, under the claim that consumers would be benefited; under the pretence that our foreign trade would be extended, the manufacturing industries were stricken down. The calamities which have befallen the people should ever stand as a warning against a repetition of the mistake which the American people made in taking advice from visionary and sham reformers. It has been demon- strated that the farmer cannot destroy the manufacturer without inflicting an injury upon himself. The laborer cannot ruin the business of his employer without losing his job. It proves that injury cannot befall any one great branch of production without bringing disaster to every other line of industry within the borders of our country. The industrial life of the nation is like a great temple resting on pillars, no one of which can be torn out without bringing the whole structure down on the heads of all. It is the dependence of one industry upon another which binds them all together and makes protection necessary for all, as Roscoe Conk- ling said in his great speech in New York, September 17, 1880: "From the wheat fields of ^Minnesota through the pastures of Texas there is not an acre whose fertility does not benefit New York, nor could she profit bj' the misfortune or poverty of a hamlet in all our borders." CHAPTER VII. Economic Discussion. Nations pay little regard to the rules and maxims calculated in their ver}- nature to run counter to the necessities of society. — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 25. Perhaps the best argument I can make for protection is to state what it is and the principles on which it is founded. Man derives his greatest power from his association with other men, his union with his fellows. Whoever considers the human being as a creature alone, 'hy himself, isolated and separated, and tries to comprehend mankind by mathematically adding these atoms together, has utterly failed to comprehend the human race and its tremen- dous mission. Sixty millions even of such creatures without association are only so many beasts that perish. But sixty millions of men welded together by national brotherhood, each supporting, sustaining, and buttressing the other, are the sure con- querors of all those mighty powers of nature which alone constitute the wealth of this world. The great blunder of the Herr profes.sor of political economy is that he treats human beings as if every man were so many foot-pounds, such and such a frac- tion of a horse-power. All the soul of man he leaves out. Think for a moment of the foundation principles involved in this question, which I now ask. Where does wealth come from ? It conies from the power of man to let loose and yet guide those elemental forces the energy of which is infinite. It comes from the power of man to force the earth to give her increase, to hold in the bellying sail the passing breeze, to harness the tumliling waterfall, to dem up the great rivers, to put bits in the teeth of the lightning. Foot-pounds and fractions of a horse-power will never do this. It takes brains and the union of foot-pounds and fractions of a horse-power working harmoniously together. To gra.sp the full powers of nature, to reap the richest wealth of the world, we must utilize the full power of man, not merely tnuscles and brains, but those intan- gible qualities which we call energy, vigor, ambition, confidence and courage. Have you never remarked the wonderflil difference between a sleepy country village, lying lazily alongside an unused waterfall, where more than half the energy of the people was lost for lack of the kind of work they wanted to do ; where, whenever three men met together in'theroad, the rest looked out of the vrindows, idly wondering what the riot was about, and that same village after the banks were lined with workshops and the air was noisy with the whir of the spindles, and every man was so eager to work, that there never seemed hours enough in the day to tear from the powers of nature their imprisoned richness? If you have, you have also seen the contrast between men left to themselves, so many foot-pounds and fractions of a horse-power, and men incited by hope, spurred on by ambition, and lighted on their way by the confidence of success. For a nation to get out of itself or out of the earth all the wealth there is in both it is not necessary for the nation to buy cheap or sell dear. That concerns individuals alone. What concerns the nation is how to utilize all the work there is in man, both of muscle and brain, of body and of soul, in the great enterprise of setting in motion the ever-gratuitous forces of nature. How .shall you get out of the people of a nation (774) ECONOMIC DISCUSSION. their tull powers ? Right here is precisely the dividing line. The let-alone school say leave individual man to his own devices. The protectionist school say let us stimulate combined and aggregated man, to united endeavor. — Speech of Hon. Thomas B. Reed, in the House of Representatives, May ig, iS&S. The Mercantile System. The economic policy pursued by nations prior to the nineteenth cen- tury was known as the Mercantile System. From the history of nations given in the preceding chapters of this work, it has been shown that it embraced a mixture of ordinances and decrees for the accomplishment of two purposes: (i) the development of domestic industries; (2) the raising of revenues for the support of the governments. To accomplish these ends, subsidies, bounties, premiums, duties on imports and exports were resorted to, as well as special privileges (or monopolies), which were granted to individuals, both to induce them to engage in and carry on industries, and as a means of raising revenues. It is from these licenses granted to favored individuals, which excluded all others from partici- pating in a particular trade or industry, that the claim originated that protection builds up monopolies. While it is true that monopolies were increased and fostered under the Mercantile System the x;harge is unfounded when applied to protection as now advocated and practiced. The legal definition of monopoly, as given by the Standard Dictionary, is as follows: An exclusive license from the government for buying, selling, making or using anything; called also artificial monopoly. From this sense are excepted patent and copyright laws, for the encouragement of art and letters, and restrictions for the bene- fits of the community on the sale of liquor. Hence it follows, that in earlier years when the exclusive privilege was given to the East India Company to engage in the trade with India ; when the sole right was conferred upon an individual to carry on the business of smelting iron by the use of pit coal ; when the French Gov- ernment, to induce a Hollander to establish the woolen industry in France, gave him the exclusive rights to carry on the business and con- trol the market in certain districts, monopolies were created. That this policy, which was first introdticed for the purpose of encouraging trade and industry, was afterwards grossly abused by being used as a means of enriching the king, has been pointed out. It should be noted thai as capital increased and the commercial classes became more numerous and the necessity of resorting to such extreme measures as an inducement to the establishment of industries and commerce, passed away, the mercan- tilists abandoned the granting of monopolies, the extinction of which has not been due to the influence of free trade writers, but to changed condi- tions. Understanding what constitutes a monopoly, we must admit that the policy of protection, which gives no exclusive privilege to particular TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. False bast, of modern free trade individuals and excludes no citizen from availing himself of its advan- tages, should not be classed as favoring or promoting monopolies. The use which the advocates of free trade are making of this expression, is not justified, but is simply the misapplication of the term for the purpose of arousing prejudice. In treating of the Mercantilists it is common among free track- writers to attempt to convey the idea that their main purpose was to encourage exports and discourage imports for the sole purpose of creating a favorable balance of trade, and thereby to keep bullion and specie in the country, under the mistaken notion that the precious metals alone constitute wealth. The most important end sought to be secured by the Mercantilists during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was, to encourage the development of domestic manufactories; for this purpose imports were restricted to prevent ruinous competition from foreign rivals. Exports were often prohibited to aid in the development of home industries. For instance, Great Britain prohibited the export of wool in order to force its consumption in domestic vi'oolen factories, while at the same time, imports of woolen goods were prohibited and the people were compelled, by parliamentary enactments and royal decrees, to wear domestic fabrics. While it was necessary to resort to severer measures to promote the industries of a country in those times than are required now, as a means of advancing the material prosperity of nations the polic}- was successful. The criticism which modern free traders make on the Mercantilists for prohibiting the export of bullion is found to be" unjustifiable when the conditions under which trade was then carried on, are understood. It has been pointed out that prior to the Middle Ages the Roman Empire, in carrying on trade with Asia, had little which the Asiatic people desired, to give in exchange for the luxuries and fabrics of the East ; hence, the .settlement of balances each year resulted in a constant drain of the precious metals from the Roman Empire, to the extent, as Mr. Merivale infornis us, of $800,000 a year. During the Middle Ages the same conditions existed between Western Europe and Asia. When the trade was opened by way of the Cape of Good Hope with India, the imports of tea, spices, and luxuries of the East greatly exceeded the exports thereto from Western Europe, and it was not until the cotton manufactories became extensive and the people of England and Western Europe began making fine furniture and other articles for which there was a demand among the wealthy classes of the Ea.st, that an exchange of products could be made .sufficient to prevent a constant drain of the precious metals from the West by the East. The Asiatic peoples have ever been noted for their desire for the precious metahs and for the practice of hoarding gold and silver. ECONOJnC DISCUSSIOX. Up to the discovery of the new world the annual supplj' of the precious metals was very limited. According to Humboldt, the annual average of the supplies of gold and silver from America from 1492 to 1S05 was as follows: Dollars a year at an average. From 1492 to 1500 270,000 " 1500 to 1545, 3.258>ooo " 1545 to 1600 11,945,000 " 1600 to 1700, 17,375,000 " 1700 to 1750, 24,435,000 " 1750 to 1S05 3.S,335,ooo He also estimated that the annual production of the world at the beginning of this century was, $43,500,000 from America, and about $5,000,000 from the mines of Hungary, Saxony, etc., and those of Northern Asia. The proportion of gold to silver in America was i to 46, and in Europe and Asia i to 40. The supply of the precious metals which had hitherto been limited, although augmented by the mines of Mexico and South America, was greatly increased upon the discovery of gold in California in 1849, and in Australia in 1851. The constant absorp- tion of the precious metals by Asia up to the early part of the nineteenth century, continually tended to embarrass the commercial nations of Cen- tral and Western Europe. Humboldt estimated that of the production of the American mines at the beginning of this century, amounting, as is shown, to $43,500,000, no less than $25,500,000 went to Asia. Another writer has said : But some years ago this immense drain began to diminish, and in 1832 and 1833 it actually set in in an opposite direction. Then for a time it fluctuated, sometimes inclin- ing to the one side and sometimes to the other. With the exception, however, of the bullion received in payment of the ^2 1,000,000 due to us by China under the treaty of 1S42, there was not for some years any very decided movement of bullion from Europe to the East, or from the East to Europe, though, on the whole, the imports into the latter appear to have exceeded the exports ; at least this was certainly *" case during the five years from 1S44-45 to 184S-49, both inclusive. But more receii or since 1850, the drain of bullion for the East set in with renewed force ; and for seven years down to the crisis of 1S66, the average was only ^10,000,000.' In speaking of India and China he says: "Taking India and China together, the imports from them into this country have greatly exceeded the exports, leaving a heavy balance to be discharged by shipments of bullion." Hence, it is apparent that the condition of trade between Asia and Western Europe made it necessary to impose restrictions on the export of the precious metals, and thereby force an exchange of goods. As, however, the trade of Great Britain increased with the United States and South America, the balance existing in favor of Great Britain was settled ■ Hugh J. Reid, editor of .McCulloch's Dictionary, edition of 1871, p. 1129. of prevent- nf the precious met ah. TARIFF QUESTION IX THE UNITED STATES. with a supply of the precious metals, with which to meet the demands of the East. Again, as England had become the distributer of tea, coffee and Asiatic commodities among the nations of the world, her merchants were able to exchange the commodities themselves, for the precious metals of the United States and other countries, with which to pay for the Eastern wares and to buy more. Understanding these conditions, the criticism of the free traders upon the means resorted to by Great Britain and other European nations, to prevent the precious metals from being- drawn off, is shown to be fallacious and unwarranted. The centre of trade and commerce has, through centuries, been .shifted from Eastern to Western nations. As long as Western Europe depended on Asia for its commodities, the bullion was taken from it. As long as England depended on the Flemish and Dutch for their wares, she suffered from a drain of her precious metals. So it has been with South America, the United States and the countries of the western hemisphere. As long as they have purchased more of British, Continental and Asiatic commodities than they were able to sell commodities to pay for, the balance of trade- has been against them and it has been settled by shipments of the precious metals. Instead of prohibiting the export of bullion as did the Mercan- tilists, the protectionists seek to avoid such results by building up domestic industries, encouraging trade at home, and thereby buying less of the foreigners, and maintaining a favorable balance of trade. The foregoing are the principal features of the Mercantile System which call for an explanation. Protection and Free Trade Defined. It was not until the early part of the nineteenth century, that eco- nomics were presented in the form of a science. ' ' The Wealth of Nations" was followed by the works of J. B. Say, Malthus, Ricardo, James Mill, McCulloch, John Stuart Mill, and others. In 1S48 John Stuart Mill collected those assumptions and alleged economic principles which had been announced by former writers, and embodied them in an economic code which embraced the principles contended for by the free trade .school. The Mercantilists had held extreme and radical views of the means by which industries could best be developed and promoted, as well as upon the system of taxation by which the public treasury should be sup- plied with funds. On the other hand, it should be noted that those advo- cating free trade carried their views to an opposite extreme. The Mercantilists and free traders represent the two extreme radical wings of economic parties, while the protectionists occupy the middle ground between the two, discarding tho.se practices of the Mercantili.sts which were found to be unnecessary and injurious, and preserving and EC0K03IIC DISCUSSION. perpetuating those principles which the experience of the past had demonstrated to be wise, just and beneficent. This brings us to a definition of protection and free trade. Protection. — Protection may be divided into two classses: (i) natural protection; (2) legal protection. It has been said that "he is best protected who needs no protection at all. ' ' Natural protection maj^ arise from a soil and climate favorable to the products of the earth, or from superior skill, or from the location or occupation in which one is engaged. The favorable soil and climate for the growth of cotton in the United States, rubber and coffee in Brazil, sugar and tobacco in Cuba, and tea, coffee and silk in Asia, are all exam- ples. At the time that Great Britain adopted free trade, the superior skill of her artisans, the abundant capital and machinery then employed in her vast manufacturing system, afforded an advantage over other coun- tries and secured the independence of her manufacturing industries. Occupations also .sometimes afford a .shield from competition and a degree of natural protection. For instance, masons, bricklayers, carpenters, compositors on newspapers, those engaged in transportation and tele- graphing, are as secure as the cotton producer, .so far as the occupation itself is concerned; while the operative in a woolen mill is subjected to the competition of a foreign product similar to the one he produces While bricklayers, carpenters, etc., are classified by free trade writers as being engaged in non-protected industries, they are in fact the best pro- tected laborers in the country; they enjoy a degree of natural protection, while at the same time they derive advantage from the legal protection extended to those who otherwise would be without any protection. Labor protection signifies a system of legislation for the special pro- tection of employees in factories, under which the employment of women and children and the length of a day's labor are restricted and regulated. It also seeks to guard the health and morals of operatives through sani- tary regulations. It is under this class of legislation that truck 1 n^ment is prohibited. This system of protection was vigorously opposed by Richard Cobden and John Bright, upon the ground that it was an inter- ference with the freedom of contract and therefore in violation of the cardinal principle of free trade. Protection secured by duties on imports has been defined by Senator George F. Hoar, as follows: ' Protection, as used in our political and economic discussions, is the imposing of such duties on the importation of foreign products as will prevent a domestic pro- ducer of the same article, from having his business destroyed by the competition of the foreign import, zvliile he establishes it ; or will enable him to maintain the production, without its being destroyed or rendered unprofitable by the competition of the foreign article ci/ler it is established, when he could not otherwise so establish 1 Taxation and Work, by Edward Atkinson, page Si. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. or maintain it ; or the enabling him to pay larger wages in such production tlian he could pay if he were subject to the foreign competition. The extent of the duty imposed on each article is determined b_v the special circumstances connected with its production. While a duty of 20 per cent on one article may afford adequate protection, 100 per cent may be required for another; but in all cases it must be sufiScient to accomplish the purpose stated. The duties are imposed to provide against a disadvantage arising from deficiency of .skill, capital, machinery, or from an increased cost of production by the payment of higher wages than are paid by rival producers of the same article in other countries. In some instances protective duties may be imposed upon articles of foreign growth, for the sole purpose of securing to domestic producers the full home market. . Of this class is the duty on agricultural products in the United States. The protectionists of the United States are .striving first to provide for the welfare of their own people. They believe it to be the first iduty of our government to promote the moral, intellectual and material welfare of the 70,000,000 of inhabitants within our borders. This of it-self is a great undertaking, and commands the greatest exer- tion, and involves the greatest moral responsibility and the highest con- ception of the attainments of humanity. They make war on no one : they are not trying to undermine and destroy the civilization and industries of other nations, by flooding their markets with wares made by degraded and half-paid labor. The protective barriers are erected as a means of defence to maintain industrial peace and tranquillity, to prevent attacks from vicious combinations and inequality and injustice. Our manufacturers cannot employ labor at wages 100 per cent higher than are paid to equally skilled and efficient labor in Europe, and produce articles as cheaply as similar articles are produced there. By compelling the European rival to pay to the government a duty equal to the difference in the cost of production upon placing his goods for sale in our market in competition with the home-made article, the advantage of cheap labor which he possesses is neutralized, and he is only able to enter the American .market upon equal terms and conditions with the American producer. If wages in Europe .should be raised to the level of those paid in the United States, so that the contest would be one purely of skill and enterprise, a different question would arise. The esisence of protection then is, that by such duties on imports, capitalists are induced to invest their money in the establishment of a greater variety of industries which give employment to a large number of people, at higher wages than otherwise would be paid, thereby pro- viding the masses of the people with greater incomes, and making it possible to sustain a larger population, procure a wider diversity of industries, a more perfect division of labor and the attainment of a 1 greater degree of industrial development and prosperity than otherwise ECONOMIC DISCUSSION. could be secured. The agriculturist exchanges his products for home manufactured goods, saving waste in transportation and securing to domestic trade the full advantage of the exchange. The result attained by this policy is the greatest triumph of political economy. By increas- ing the spendable income of the people, much wider fields of business are opened, a more equal distribution of wealth is assured, and the people, as a whole, in the end are enabled to accumulate more property and receive greater returns for their exertions than through the narrow and restricted development of resources permissible under free competition. Free Trade. The following definition is given by Professor W. G. Sumner: Free Trade: The term " Free Trade," although much discussed, is seldom rightly defined. It does not mean the abolition of custom houses, nor does it mean the sub- stitution of direct for indirect taxation, as a few American disciples of the school have supposed. /£ means such an adjustment of taxts on hiiports as will cause no diversion of capital from any channel into which it icoiild otherwise flow, into any channel opened or favored by the legislation which enacts the customs. A country- may collect its entire revenue by duties on imports and yet be an entirely free trade country, so long as it does not lay those duties in such a way as to lead anyoi. undertake any employment, or make any investment he ivould avoid in the absence of such duties; thus the custom duties levied by England, with a very few exceptions are not inconsistent with her profession of being a country which believes in free trade. They either are duties on articles not produced in England, or they are exactly equivalent to the excise duties levied on the same articles if made at home. They do not lead anyone to put his money into the home production of an article because they do not discriminate in favor of the home producer.^ The above definition, although from an eminent free trade authority, contains the assumption that an industry becomes established under pro- tection at the expense of other employments, by drawing capital and labor from fields in which, were it not for protection, it would find equally profitable employment. This assumption presents an argument in favor of, rather than a necessary part of a definition of free trade. The free trader, then, holds that foreign manufacturers .should be permitted, without restrictions and with perfect freedom, to ship all manufactured articles into the United States, and sell them in competition with Ameri- can manufactures, even though such competition would result in perma- nently supplanting the manufacturing industries of the United States, or in reducing the rate of wages and cost of production to the level of com petitors in foreign countries. This principle applies also to the imports <)f farm produce, as well as all raw materials, although it would have a like effect on sheep raising, mining and agriculture. It is contended that all articles should be manufactured and everything grown in those countries where the greatest facilities for cheap production exist, in order that TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. everything may be produced at the lowest possible cost regardless of the effect on wages and the social conditions of the masses. No favoritism should be shown to labor by legislation, securing to it the advantage of higher wages than those paid in other countries. This is based upon the idea that all nations belong to one family, and that each country should be permitted to remain in undisturbed possession of those advantages over others in such respects as raw materials, machinery, capital, skill and cheap labor. This policy regards labor as an economic tool, to be utilized in the production of cheap commodities in the same way as raw materials, a fertile soil and a favorable climate. Those countries which can produce wheat cheapest, will supply the market; those countries which can pro- vide manufactures at the lowest cost, will do the manufacturing for all others. It is by this .system that the varied resources of the world are to be developed, and material progress is to be promoted. It will be obser\'ed that this policy does not necessarily involve the removal of all duties on competing imports. So long as the dutj' is so low that it does not discriminate in favor of the home producer; so long as it does not (under existing conditions) secure to domestic labor and capital an advantage over foreign rivals; so long as it does not encourage the building of factories or the employment of labor, it is a free trade duty. A duty of 20 per cent may produce revenue; but if the foreign manufacturer of an article can pay this duty .and still sell the article in our market cheaper than we can make it at our present wage rate, it is a free trade duty. Revenue or Taxation. A country practicing free trade in applying its revenue policy, imposes duties in such a way as not to discourage imports or interfere with the free competition in products the like of which are produced at home. For instance, England, as has been stated, although practicing free trade, levies her import duties on tea, coffee, sugar, tropical fruits, tobacco, wines and liquors, and those articles which she does not produce, but which her people are compelled to buy abroad. The protectionists admit, free of duty, all articles that cannot be produced in the United States, consisting principally of tea, coffee, rubber, raw silk, tropical fruits, dye stuffs, etc. (excepting, however, certain luxuries, such as wiues, liquors, diamonds and other articles of voluntary consumption), and levy duties on those imported articles the like of which are produced at home, as cotton, woolens, and all other manufac- tured products which would come into ruinous competition with domestic produce; consequently, in a discussion of this question, we are compelled to use two other terms which have a technical meaning, to wit: "Free trade tariff," which signifies the mode of imposing duties on imports approved by free traders, in otherwords, a "tariff for revenue only;" ECOXOmC DISCUSSION. and "protective tariff, " or the system of duties on imports favored by pro- tectionists. Were it not for the necessity of raising revenues for the sup- port of the government, absohite free trade would be practiced instead of maintaining a "free trade tariff." Senator Ragan, of Texas, very clearly pointed out the precise difference between a "tariff for revenue only" and a "protective tariff" as follows: "As long as the increase of tax secures an increase of revenue, it is a revenue tariff, but when we reach the point in any commodity where the increase of the tax reduces the revenue by excluding imports we then have a tariff that is protective. ' ' Hence, a "tariff for revenue only" is a free trade tariff. It encourages importations and places no restrictions upon free compe- tition. As soon, however, as the duty becomes high enough to restrict importations and secures to the domestic producer an advantage over a foreign rival, it becomes protective. In imposing duties on imports for the purpose of raising revenue, the free trader selects non-competing articles, while the protectionist fixes the duty on competing articles in order that a discrimination may be made in favor of the home industry. But it should be borne in mind that neither the protectionist nor free trader favors the raising of more revenue than is required to defray the necessary and legitimate requirements of the government eco- nomically administered. The essential difference between the.se two methods of raising revenue is met with in times of peace when only ordinary expenses are incurred. In times of war, however, when extra- ordinary means of raising revenue must be resorted to by a nation, these lines are readily departed from by both parties. One of the chief objections raised by the free traders against the use of the system of imposing duties on imports to accomplish the double purpose of raising revenue and affording protection is, that such indirect taxation takes money out of one man' s pocket for the benefit of another ; that it is unjust to compel a citizen who lives on a stated income which is not liable to be diminished through the conditions of trade, to contribute in any way to the maintenance of the industrial system of the country. It should be borne in mind that the right of taxation is not based on direct benefits to the particular individual taxed, but upon the indirect benefits which accrue to him as a member of the state. It is under this principle that a citizen is taxed to maintain a public school system, departments of justice, and public improvements. A protective tariff is no more imposed for the sole benefit of those persons who own factories and the laborers who find employment in them, than the Erie Canal was constructed for the sole benefit of the boatmen who owned the canal boats, and the business men who shipped their produce to market by this waterway. The people of the United States contributed money for. the construc- tion of the Union Pacific and the Northern Pacific railroads, and parted TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. with the public domain to induce their construction, not for the purpose of the direct benefit and profit that might be derived from such enter- prises by the stockholders who became owners of such corporations, but because of the benefits to the great Northwest and its people, and in order to aid in the development of the resources of the country, Large sums of money are expended every year by the Agricultural Depart- ment of the United States, to aid in the high development of that vast and important department of production. Other departments also recei^•e similar aid. The government of the United States expends annuallj- about $10,000,000 for the improvement of the rivers and harbors of the country, to promote our coasting and lake traffic. Not one dollar of this money is appropriated for the sole purpose of benefiting the particular individuals who find employment in these departments, but for the general benefits which accrue to the whole country through the activity in trade and com- merce thereby induced. All phases of our industrial life receive the patronage, encouragement and support of the people, uniting them together in a common bond of intere.st, mutual .sympathy and patriotic zeal for the welfare and prosperity of the whole country. Incident.vl Protection. President Polk, in his message to Congress December 2, 1845, said: ' ' If Congress levy a duty for revenue of one per cent on a given article it will produce a given amount of money to the treasury and will incident- ally and necessarily afford protection of advantage to the amount of one per cent to home manufactures of a similar or like -article, over the importer. ' ' The claim of incidental protection arising under these circumstances forms one of the chief deceptions practiced by those who have little under- standing of the principles involved, or who are seeking to evade the real issue. It must be apparent to the reader that if it cost one hundred cents to manufacture a particular article in the United States, which could be made in England for fifty cents, and sold in our market for fifty-five cents, that a duty of one cent would cut no figure in the way of protecting the American producer. The American manufacturer would then be com- pelled to sell the article in competition with its foreign rival for fifty-six cents or less. In order to meet such a condition and continue in business, he must make a reduction of forty-four cents in the selling price which must come out of his own cost of production, 90 per cent of which is labor. Hence, it must be that unless the duty imposed is large enough to compensate for the difference in the cost of production it is not protec- tive, but simply a revenue or free trade tariff. The duties levied must afford adequate protection in order to result favorably to American labor. At whatever point the duties ma}- be fixed below what is necessarj- to ECONOMIC DISCUSSION. compensate for the difference in the cost of production, based on American wages, the result is to bring our labor down nearer to the level of foreign rivals. Tariff Reform. This is a title appropriated or misappropriated b^' the advocates of free trade in their recent attack on the industries of the United States. When the agitation in favor of free trade was renewed about 1880, the •"Free Trade Club," of New York City, changed its name to the "Reform Club." Instead of flooding the United States with literature bearing the stamp of the Cobden Club, as had hitherto occurred, and carrying on the warfare against protection in the name of free trade, they branded their publications "Tariff Reform," and styled themselves "Tariff Reformers. ' ' Although persistently urging the doctrines of free trade, by changing their name and denying their parentage, it became more easy to deceive and mislead the American people. To the credit of Southern Democrats it should be said, that such tactics have not been practiced by them; they have stood up like men, and when they meant free trade they have said it, and have been saying it all the time. The term itself involves a begging of the entire question, for if the principles advocated by the protectionists are more beneficial, wi.se and just than those contended for by free traders, then legislation on the lines of the protective policy becomes "Tariff Reform" legislation. The words "free trade" were known to be so objectionable to the x\merican people that this deceptive style of advertising was resorted to for the purpose of concealing the ultimate purpose of the movement, which was the establishment of the British system. The whole scheme was unmasked by Chairman Wilson himself, who, at a banquet given in his honor in England by British manufacturers shortly after the passage of the Gorman-Wilson Bill, said: "Our pro- tectionists have been building defences to keep you and other nations from competing with us in our home market. The tariff reformers are breaking down those defences. ' ' Method of Treatment. The first important contention which arose between the protectionists and the free traders is found in the mode of treatment and investigation. The plan adopted by those believing in the policy of protection, was the ' ' in- ductive or historical method" of inquiry. They treated the subject not only from a broader standpoint than the free traders, but with a greater degree of certainty of arriving at the truth. Every practical proposition was required by them to be established by facts. This involved full inquiry and careful investigation. It was held that "a sound and trained reason is possessed by one who has made a wide and careful survey of the facts 50 TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. The fundamental ideas of the historical Roscher, the German philosopher, as fol- which justify the reason.' method are laid down bj- lows : (i) The aim is to represent what nations have thought, willed and discovered in the economic field, what tliej' have striven after and attained, and why they have attained it. (2) A people is not merely a mass of individuals now living. It will not suffice to observe contemporary facts. (3) All the peoples of whom we can learn anything must be studied and compared from the economic point of view, especialh- the ancient peoples whose development lies before us in its totality. (4) We must not simply praise or blame economic institutions ; few of them have been salutary or detrimental to all peoples and at all stages of culture ; rather it is a principal task of science to show how and why out of what was once reasonable and beneficent, the unwise and inexpedient has often gradually arisen.' Thismethod was pursued by Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations," by Henry C. Carey, and his followers in America, by the German econo- mists and the more recent English and American writers. This is the practical method pursued by statesmen, lawyers, physicians, business men and scientists in reaching conclusions in all affairs brought within the domain of their work. One result of the teachings of this .school has been to turn the minds of students of economic questions not only to the history of what has been said upon this .subject, but also to a critical investigation of those trans- actions and occurrences from which all economic thought springs. We have passed from a period of speculation to one of scientific investigation of facts. On the other hand, those believing in the system of free trade have a plan known as the "deductive or metaphysical method," which has been briefly defined as "a theory based on assumption." Professor Ingram, in his "History of Political Economy," says: "Its deductions are based on unreal, or at least one-sided a.ssumptions, the essential of which is that of the existence of the so-called 'economic man,' a being who is influenced by two motives only; that of acquiring wealth and that of avoiding exertion." Relying on assumptions as the basis of their creed, they refuse to enter the domain of historical research in order to prove their soundness by the experience of nations. This mode of treatment has proven so unsatisfactory to statesmen, scholar.s and men of experience in ordinary affairs of life, that it has brought the metaphysical school into disfavor and it may now be said that the economic discussion which has followed, has resulted in the repudiation of this mode of investigation by nearly all economists, and even many advocates of free trade have been compelled practically to abandon it. 1 Stt Ingram's History of Political Economy, p. joi. ECONOMIC DISCUSSION. I Limitations of the Subject. At the outset we meet with a controversy over the scope of the inquiry. The subject of political economy is defined by an advocate of the doctrine of protection to native industrJ^ as follows : Henry C. Carey: "The science of the laws which govern man in his efforts to secure for himself the highest i^idividuality and the greatest power of association.'" It is apparent then, that the controversy arising between the advo- cates of protection and free trade, embraces not only the subject itself, which is to be considered, but the .scope and extent of questions relating to it. By protectionists man is regarded as "a unit of society, a worker in business and a citizen of the state." His moral, intel- lectual and material welfare is taken into account. The interests of individuals are looked upon as insignificant when they conflict with the public good. This .school is broad enough to comprehend those differ- ences which appear in the races of men, as well as in the destiu}- and capabilities of societies and nations. It also recognizes the geo- graphical divisions of the earth with tho.se natural resources which may by proper direction of human effort, be utilized for the benefit of mankind. Those advocating free trade attempt, in the first jalace, to limit the functions of governments to the power of preserving order and enforcing contracts. Man is treated of as a commodity for sale in the market, or as a machine of a certain horse power. Ba.stiat says: "To political economy is left only the cold domain of personal interest. ' '. McLeod defines it as "the science of exchange of values. " Free traders persistently attempt to limit inquiry and treatment solely to the subject of monej'-getting b)' individuals. It is from this method of dealing with the subject, arising from their conception of man as governed wholly by selfishness and animal instincts in the affairs of life, that the free trade school has been accused of advocating cold- blooded, unsympathetic rules for the government of trade and commerce. That this accusation was well founded appears in every line of their litera- ture, in every assumption made. They persistently refuse to consider man in his relation to other men as a member of .society, as well as an individual. The effort to limit the scope of the subject has brought down upon the school the condemnation of the broadest minded statesmen and philosophers of the world, and has confined its advocates to a sect of professors who, without jiractical experience in business, were unable to form a just estimate of human life, and to those manufacturers who, being able to manufacture cheaper than anybody else, would profit by a system which secured to them perfect freedom to carry on a warfare of destructive competition against TARIFF QVESriOX IX THE UXITEI) STATES all rival producers of other countries, and thus perpetuate a monopoly based on cheap labor, to the injur}- of others. Scientific Basis of Protection and Free Trade. The essential difference between the two systems of economics lies at the ver}' foundation of civilization, and forms the basis of the moral, intellectual and material development of man. It is asserted by the metaphysical school that the doctrine of free trade is a science founded on a "great truth' ' or "natural law" or "scientific principle" of universal application." This claim has been so persistently urged that it has made a profound impression on the world. While the professional advocates of free trade constantly refer to the "great truths" and "principles" upon which their theory is founded, yet it rarely occurs that they definitely point them out. When the student of economics understands that the doc- trine of free trade has its "scientific" basis in the principle of "natural selection" upon which the Darwinian theory of the origin and development of species is founded, he is then able to comprehend the subject from a scientific point of view. Freedom of trade between nations is but an application to trade, commerce and industries, of the law of "the sur- vival of the fittest" or "struggle for existence" which Charles Darwin contended has raged since the beginning of time, in the formation of the earth and among plants, animals and men. If is contended that in this ever raging and ceaseless warfare, in which many perish and few survive, nature orders every man to his place and preserves the "fittest" and the best, and that ultimately, through this constantly recurring "survival of the fittest," advancement and progress are more surely attained. Hence, the advocates of free trade are constantly reminding the world that it should "let nature take its course," that "freedom of action" is "the natural law." Under this principle, which is more politely known as "free competition," the industries of acountry which are able to "sur- vive" the warfare, are called "natural" industries; and the wage rate which prevails when the laborers of the world contest with each other and fight out the battle of place, however low it may be or however inadequate, is the "natural" wage rate. This is true of profits, and mode of living as well. Edward Clodd says:' When the weeding process has done its utmost, there remains a sharp struggle for life between the survivors. Man's normal state is therefore one of conflict; further back than we can trace, it impelled the defenceless bipeds from whom he sprang to unity, and the more so because of their relative inferiority in physique to many other animals. The range of that unity continued narrow long after he had gained lord- ship over the brute; outside the small combinations for securing the primal needs of life the struggle was ferocious, and, under one form or another, rages along the line 1 Story of Cvealion. pages 211-12. EcoxoJiic niscussiox. to this da\-. "There is no discharge in that war." It may change its tactics and its weapons; among advanced nations the military method may be more or less super- seded b}' the industrial— a man may be mercilessly starved instead of being mercilessly slain; but be it war of camp or markets, the ultimate appeal is to force of brain or muscle, and the hardiest or craftiest win. In some respects the struggle is waged more fiercely than in olden times, while it is unredeemed by any element of chivalry. It is through their adherence to this principle that the believers in the doctrine of free trade denj- to society the right to attempt by positive law, through its directing and controlling power, to set limits upon the free exercise of the animal instincts and the greed and selfishness of man in this struggle. They hold that this eternal warfare should be per- mitted to go unbridled and rage with all its destructive fury; the weak to become supplanted and wiped out and the cunning and crafty to "survive" under the assumption that this is nature's process of evolution and progress. When applied to international competition in trade and commerce, the weapons of attack and defence are capital, skill, ability, machinery, low wages and long hours. Ever>' mean."5 by which the cheapest production can be attained, that through a system of underselling, markets may be won and held, must be resorted to in order that one may stipplant the other. This is more especially so to-daj^ than at any other time in the history of the world, since so many competitors have entered the contest selling the same wares, and all provided with abtxndant capital and a high degree of skill, and the latest and best appliances and machinery, as well as with an army of trained and efiicient artisans. The party to the struggle which would make fabrics the cheapest would control and hold the markets. The party to the struggle whose labor, everything else being equal, would submit to and stay in the fight on the lowest wages, and the capitalists who would submit to the smallest profits, or in fact could endure it the longest without any profits, would triumph over the others. The masses of the United States would be brought down to the level of foreign competitors; every one in the struggle would be reduced to the circumstances of the strongest and best fitted for the contest; the struggle would still be carried on, with wages and profits reduced to a minimum and the sur- vivors would not necessarily be those who for the good of humanity ought to survive. "The survival of the fittest," says Drummond in his " Ascent of Man," " of course does not mean the survival of the strongest; it means the survival of the adapted — the survival of the most fitted to the circumstances which surround it. A fish survives in the water, when a leaking ironclad goes to the bottom, not because it is the stronger but because it is better adapted to the element in which it lives. ' ' Professor Huxley says that those survive who ' ' are best fitted to cope with circumstances. ' ' TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. While conceding that such a struggle has been raging it is denied by any able economists and scientists that the best types of plant and animal life are necessarily produced by it. It is contended that such warfare has perpetuated the existence of many inferior forms of life and prevented the development and growth of those most beneficial to man. If it should be conceded, however, that free trade is based on this "natural law," or that the "laws of nature" are given full force under free com- petition, it does not follow that it should be accepted as a basis of an economic policy, or that it affords to man the best means of promoting the material development and progress of the world or of separate nations; either does it follow that protection is unscientific and therefore to be rejected. This brings us to a consideration of the scientific basis of pro- tection. While the scientific world recognizes the principle of "natural .selection," that is selection brought about by purely physical laws, yet there is another principle known as "human selection," called by some artificial selection," accomplished through the intellectual forces of man which is no less natural because it is human. History teaches that the progress of the world has not been secured through the let-alone policy contended for by the advocates of free trade, but that all advancement in civilization and all improvements for the benefit of man, have been made in proportion as man himself has exercised dominion over the forces of nature. During the age of man the same animals and plants have been found to exist with no perceptible change under the law stated by Mr. Darwin. We have the wild horse, the wild goat, the wild boar and the buffalo. In plant life we find the crab-apple, the wild berries, the wild grapes and wild flowers. But when we come to consider the rapid improvements and development of plant and animals, we find that it has been due not to "natural selection," but to "human selection," which is defined by the Century Dictionary as follows: Artificial selection which means agency in modifying the principles and so chang- ing results of natural selections. . . . This has been going on, more or less sys- tematically, since man has domesticated animals or cultivated plants for his own benefit. Such selection may be unconscious or methodical. It ha's constantly tended to the latter, which is now systematically conducted on a large scale, and has resulted in nnmberless creations of utility or of beauty, or of both, which would not have existed had the animals and plants, thus improved, been left to themselves— that is, to the operation of natural selection. Examples of artificial selection are seen in the breeding of horses for speed, bottom or .strength, or for the combinatiou of these qualities; of cattle for beef or milk; of sheep for mutton or wool; ... in the cultivation of cereals, fruits and vegetables, to improve their respective qualities and increase their yield; and of flowers, to increase their beauty and fragrance. The most beautiful and fragrant flowers, the richest fruits, the mo.st valuable and useful animals, the best varieties of wheat and grain, and all improvements which we know in plants and animals, have come from ECONOMIC DISCUSSION. artificial selection. Withdraw the care, protection and influence of man from any one of these, and subject them to the influences of the law of "the survival of the fittest," and they would either perish or return to their original and wild state. It matters not whether we call the efforts of man so exerted, of a "natural" or "artificial" character. It is found that the evolution of man — his education, development and improvement — has arisen from the protecting, controlling and governing power of man himself. It has been through ordinances of man that societies have been formed, governments established, peace preserved, persons and property protected, and the brutal propensities of man softened or eradicated. Professor Huxley, in his article on "Struggle for Existence," said: Society like art is a part of nature, but it is convenient to distinguish those parts of nature in which man plays the part of immediate cause as something apart ; and, therefore, society, like art, is usefully to be considered as distinct from nature. It is more desirable aud even necessary, to make this di.stinction, since society differs from nature in having a definite moral object ; whence it comes about that the course shaped I)y the ethical man, the member of society or citizen — necessarily ruuscounter to that which the non-ethical man — the primitive savage, or man as a member of the animal kingdom— tends to adopt. The latter fights out the struggle for existence to the bitter end, like any other animal ; the former devotes his best energies to the object of setting limits to the struggle. The history of civilization— that is of society— is the record of the attempts which the human race has made to escape from this position (i. e., the struggle for existence in which those who were best fitted to cope with their circum.stances, but not the best in any other sense, survive). The first men who substituted the state of mutual peace for that of mutual war, whatever the motive which impelled them to take that step, created society. But in establishing peace, they obviously put a limit upon the struggle for existence. Between the members of that society, at any rate, it was not to be pursued a VoiUrance. And of all the successive shapes which society has taken, that most nearly approaches perfection in which war of individual against individual is most strictly limited.' Histor>- teaches us that the development of man from barbarism to civilization ; the growth of society from the family and tribe to organized governments; the control of man over man, from the exercise of brute force to an intelligent and patriotic obedience to positive law; the growth of language from rude w-ords to beautiful and harmonious speech ; the development of reading, writing and those means by which man expresses to others his ideas, sentiments, feelings and affections; the growth of religious sentiment and ideas from idolatry, to a belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures and devotion to the Christian religion, are all phases of that system of evolution which, through fluctuating periods, mark the moral and intellectual development of man. Whatever may be the great moving cause which has impelled man to attain the high eminence which he now occupies, it is quite certain that it has not been by yielding to the blind fate of nature and permitting ' Nineteenth Century, February iS, i8SS. Civiliza- Jes the TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. unconscious selection to shape his destiny and work out the problem of development; but it has been by conscious and intelligent selection, by refusing to let things take their own course. This is found to apply to every department of human life. The stigma which is attempted to be cast upon the policy of protection by defining it as an "artificial" means of developing industries, and as placing restrictions on "natural law," should be a reflection on the intelligence of any economist who resorts to such distinctions. Under the principle involved in this distinction the Id horse is the "natural" horse; he is as nature made him, but when tamed, domesticated and broken he passes to an "artificial" state. The savage man, in his barbarous condition, is the "natural" man, biit when educated, Christianized, socialized and developed by training, culture and refining influences, he becomes the "artificial" man. So our whole fabric of society and civilization is "artificial," yet still, it is not to be con- demned or rejected. This distinction has formed one of the chief humbugs of the Man- chester school in its efforts to claim for its creed the dignity of a "science" and to command the endorsement of scholars and teachers. The question whether or not protectionists are obstructing the free opera- tion of "natural laws," or preventing the occurrence of what would hap- pen if they kept their hands off, is entirely irrelevant. The sole measure of the wisdom or folly of protective legislation, must be found in its eft'ect on the social and material welfare of nations. Protectionists have not permitted the question to be determined by dogmatic assumptions, but the>' point to the experience of nations to demonstrate thew^isdom of their polic^-. History teaches that the material development and prosperity of nations, and the elevation of the masses, have been attained through those fiscal regulations which have placed limits and restrictions on the warfare of competition, through which one nation is able to supplant and destroy the industries of another. Since it has been made possible through economic conditions for one nation to maintain and build up a system of manufacturing by undermining and supplanting the industries of another, it is found that the wide extension and development of domestic- resources and industries throughout the world have resulted from those barriers which have shielded them from invasion and attack, fostered, encouraged and stimulated industrial life, and afforded opportunities for employment and the investment of capital which otherwise could not have existed. The Malthdsian Theory of Population. It should be noted in tracing the origin of the "scientific" basis of free trade, that it did not arise from a study of the Darwinian theory of "the survival of the fittest" by the British economists; but that Chark- ECONOMIC DISCUSSION. Darwin discovered the essential principle of his law of "natural selection" by reading the economic writings of Thomas Robert Malthus. He says : In October, 1S3S, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement " Malthus on Population," and being well pre- pared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on, from long continued observations of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstaiices favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavor- able ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work.' The writings of Dr. Malthus exerted a wider influence in formulating the theoretical principles of free trade, than those of any other English- man. In 1798 he published his first essay on Population, in which he announced the principle that population tends to increase faster than the means of subsistence. He said: This constant effort as constantly tends to subject the lower classes of society to distress, and prevents any permanent amelioration of their condition . . . The num- ber of laborers also being above the proportion of the work in the market, the price of labor nmst tend toward a decrease ; while the price of provisions would at the same time tend to rise. Thev [the laborers] must at all events be reduced to live upon the hardest fare and on the smallest quantity .'' Speaking of the ability of society to elevate the condition of the masses, he said : ' 'To remove the wants of the lower classes of society is indeed an arduous task. The truth is that the pressure of distress on this part of the commtmity is an evil so deeply seated that no human ingenuity can reach it. " ^ In his second essay published in 1803 he states the general checks that tend to keep down population. These he divides into two classes: (i) preventive checks, which include those restraints which man imposes upon himself to prevent the propagation of the species; (2) positive checks, which he enumerates as "all unwholesome occtipations, extreme poverty, bad nursing of children, great towns, excesses of all kinds, the whole train of common diseases, epidemics, wars, pestilence, plague and famine. ' ' ' Despite the kernel of truth that this theory contains, it has proved a fruitful source of error. While the growth of population, if unrestrained, may tend to press on the means of subsistence, the preventive check consequent upon the high standard of living has been so effective among civilized races and the increase of productive power has been so great that the pessimistic forebodings of Malthus and his followers have been proved by experience to be without foundation. As a statement of a tendency which if not counteracted by opposite tendencies may produce certain 1 Ufe of Darwin. Vol. I., p. 83. lud 27. 3id., p. 35. ' refuse to confine the subject within the narrow limits laid down by the Manchester school, but to accept the mode of treatment prescribed, holding that, it being impossible f to separate man from his social conditions and those causes which influ- 1 ence his action and contribute to his success or failure, correct conclusions could not be reached without considering him in his relation to others and as a member of society. The protectionists dealt with man as they found him in society and business, considering all of his hopes, aspirations, and all of the elements which necessarily contribute to his elevation and [ improvement. Instead of a science in which commodities and money ' transactions were alone to be dealt with, the protectionist school held to that time-honored policy which made man the chief factor, and the best means of improving and advancing his social, intellectual and material , welfare the prime object. The application of free trade assumptions to actual practice in England dirring the past third of a century furnishes ; convincing proof of the errors which mere visionary theorists conmiitted ■ when they formulated an economic policy for an imaginary man in an unreal world. Personal Liberty. A careful examination of the scientific phase of the theory of free trade, reveals the fact that the law of the "survival of the fittest" is very . far reaching and is the controlling principle underlying the doctrine. It was a belief in this principle which attracted them to the "personal liberty- ' ideas of the French economists. To limit the powers of govern- ment simply to the office of preserving order, punishing crime and enforcing contracts and leaving man to exercise the largest possible I TAIUFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES individualism, that he might fight out the bnttle of life with the least possible restrictions, in order that the strong might survive and the weak perish, was in harmonj' with their dogmas. In this connection arose their idea of "the freedom of contract," holding that a man should be left free to make whatever contracts he saw fit, to sell where he desired and to buy where he desired, and also to hire labor as cheaply as possible or upon whatever terms he could get it, and to run his own business in his own way; while, at the same time, this applied equally to labor, which should be left free, but without the right to resort to artificial means, such as labor unions and combinations, to obtain the market rate of wages. Under the principle contended for, the hours of labor should not be restricted, there should be no interference by society with the individual in running his business. The manufacturer should be permitted to run his factory all night if he desired, to hire none but women and chil- dren, to work them at long hours, and at whatever wages they could be obtained; he should also be permitted to provide his own place of employment, however dangerous, insanitary or unwholesome, leaving the question to be regulated by "natural law," personal interest and humane and philanthropic instincts. Under this same principle, the utmost freedom should be accorded to emigration and immigration. For a nation to place restriction upon the natural flow of population from one country to another, would be to resort to" artificial" means. Again, under this great "natural law" no industries were to be carried on unless they could survive the warfare of competition. . Those which could survive this struggle were regarded as existing under conditions imposed by nature, and therefore were called "natural" industries; while on the other hand, those which were brought into life and maintained by protec- tive tariffs or artificial means, were called "unnatural" or "artificial" industries. The same was true of the wage rate. It was held that the law of supply and demand for labor imposes a natural wage rate below which wages cannot fall and above which they cannot rise; and that it isunwi.se to attempt to interfere with the "natural law" which controls and fixes wages. Under this theory the miserable and degraded condition of the masses is justified by an appeal to the ordinances of nature. Under the opera- tion of this doctrine of the "survival of the fittest," out of a population of about 38,000,000 in Great Britain, there are less than a million and a half of taxpayers. "Ninety per cent of the people," says Frederick Harrison, "have not property enough to load on a cart;" while the shippers, bankers and importers have been growing rich in foreign trade, the agricultural interests have been destroyed, indu.stries have been sup- planted, and the army of unemployed and beggars has yearly increa.sed; and yet the hard and miserable life of nearly 30,000,000 of their people is claimed to be in harmony with "the laws of nature." It is most ECONOMIC Discvssioy. fortunate for the world that Great Britain, through its blind adherence to free trade, has afforded during the past thirty years an example of the practical operation of this barbarous policy. Yet, it is persistently urged that to attempt to remedy the evils resulting from such a policy, by fiscal regulations, is a restriction of individual liberty and an infringement on the natural rights of man. Under protection the individual exercises the utmcst freedom of action in all the pursuits of life. The government does not attempt to direct the individual nor to compel him to engage in any pursuit which he does not desire to undertake; neither does it in the least restrict him in the occupation which he may pursue. It simply, by shielding its own citizens from the injurious effects of unfair and unequal competition, improves their conditions and enlarges their opportunities for employment and the field of their enterprises. It is not protection to individuals, but protection to opportunities for individuals. It improves and makes more certain of prosperity the conditions under which the industrial life of a nation is carried on. It is like security of title and possession of property ; the certainty of peace and order in a community. "The distinction between paternalism and protection is," says Gunton, "that a paternal policy implies doing the maximum for the individual, while a protective policy implies providing the individual with the maximum opportunity to do for himself." The only restriction imposed by a protective policj- upon the indi- vidual consists in requiring the payment of a duty for the privilege of importing competing commodities from foreign countries. This right is exercised under the power of the government, conferred by the people through the Constitution, to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to provide for the general welfare of the country. There are no restric- tions upon exports; the markets of the world are as open and accessible, so far as legislation is concerned, to the citizens of the United States, as they are to those of any other country. David A. Wells says: The highest right of property is the right to exchange it for other property^ . . Both slavery and artificial restrictions or prohibitions of exchanges denj" the individual the right to use the product of his labor according to his own pleasure, or what may seem to him the best advantage. . . Free exchange between man and man, or .what is the same thing, free trade, is therefore action in accordance with the teachings of nature.' Although this proposition, which is a fair statement of free trade, is laid down as of general application, it applies only to international or foreign exchanges. The fallacies involved in the foregoing proposi- tions are found in an erroneous conception of civil liberty, nattn-al rights of individuals, the true functions of governments, and what constitutes 1 Article ou Free Trade, Johnson's Universal Eucj-clopedia. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. justice. In every proposition stated, the interests and rights of two parties must be considered, in order to arrive at a sound conclusion; ( i ) The individuals; (2) the public. The rights of every citizen of a free government must be considered in his relation to others. He is not only, in his participation in the affairs of the community, one of the governors, but he is also one of the governed. His condition as a member of society is one of dependence and obligation. Free traders in presenting the proposition stated, fall into error by considering only the individual and ignoring the public. What then is "liberty?" We are able to define "civil liberty" (Century Dictionary) as that: • Which implies the subjection of an individual member of the community to laws imposed by the community as a whole, but it does not imply the assent of each indi- vidual to those laws. An individual has civil liberty if he is a member of a comnnniitv which possesses such liberty and is in the enjoyment of such rights which the laws of the community guarantee him. This is the only kind of liberty a man in society can enjoy. L,ibertj' in the abstract or absolute freedom of action, cannot be exercised bj^ man either in .society or in nature. From the very nature of things re- strictions arising from physical or positive laws, place limits on his actions. Restrictions, then, are in accord with physical laws and are necessary under the laws of society and governments. Hence, it follows that, as an abstract principle, restrictions on the acts of indi- viduals in societ}' are not neces.sarilj' to be associated with human slavery. A citizen of a free government necessarily lives under a system of restrictions upon his actions, and yet, he enjo3-s civil liberty. He is a freeman; he is a sovereign ; he is a lawmaker; he is clothed with the highest and most exalted authority of citizenship, and enjoys the most enlarged private rights, yet the liberty he enjoys is liberty regulated li>' law. The independence he exercises is an independence in certain things and within a circle and botinds which cannot be overstepped. He is free to do only that which is permitted by law. Freedom to assail tlic property, employment and occupations of others with impunity, has never been contended for by any excepting anarchists and free traders. Liberty is, then, the right to do that which is permitted by the law of the land. Free moral action consists in doing that which is permissible by divine law. We are living in a reign of human and divine law. Our interests, rights and property rest upon these laws for their exi.stence and perpet- uity. Forms of government are instituted for the benefit of man as an individual, and for man as a member of .society ; consequently two interests at once arise; the interest of the individual himself, and the interest of all the people in common, known as the public welfare. When the interests of the individual come in conflict with the public, the public ECONOMIC DISCUSSION. welfare must prevail. The science of government and jurisprudence, as recognized b}' the greatest philosophers* statesmen and jurists of modern times, is based upon the maxim, "Sal us Populi Suprema Lex." ' " That regard be had for pubHc welfare, is the highest law." There is au implied assent on the part of every member of society that his own individual welfare shall, in cases of necessity, yield to that of the community; and that his property, liberty and life shall, under certain circumstances, be placed in jeopardy or even sacrificed for the public good.' This maxim is of such universal application, and is so necessary to the existence of republican institutions, that it has become the basis upon which the whole social fabric of modern civilization rests. It is under this and by this, that the private rights of individuals are meas- ured and determined. When we speak of the private rights of individ- uals, we mean rights which they po.ssess and enjoy in obedience to this higher law. Private rights, then, are simply relative rights to all those spoken of as absolute rights. A citizen may be required to surrender his life through the performance of military duty, in defence of his country. The right of personal liberty to move about and go where he wills, is restricted by compelling him to serve in the army, re.spond to subpcenas, perform jury duty and other services for the benefit of society. The right to possess, exchange and enjoy private property implies obedience to the same higher law. It does not help the matter to assert that the exchange of private property is necessary for man's existence. An exchange of property is not prohibited. A citizen is simply required to make exchanges in conformity with a public policy and in such a way as not to conflict with the best interests of society. It is the sheerest nonsense to contend that there is an inherent right existing in a citizen to do with his property as he sees fit, regardless of the public good. The possession and existence of property is made pos.sible by society. Man in a savage state, making his way under the "natural law," was compelled to defend his possessions by sheer brute force. When he becomes a member of society, not only his person, his liberty, but his property is protected and its possession and enjoyment are made secure. Man neither in a savage state nor in society is permitted to hold property excepting by the con-sent of his fellows. The right to property, then, is enjoyed only under conditions imposed by the power which protects and makes its existence and enjoyment possible. Its disposition at home is regulated by the government. This could not be less so, simply becau.se a citizen desired to exchange it in a foreign country for property the bringing of which into his own country might be detrimental to the interest of the whole people. 1 Bacon's Max., Reg. 12. 2Broom's Legal Maxims, Chap. l. fare the highest TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED .STATES. The verj- reverse of the proposition contended for bj' free traders is true. Instead of the right of fr* exchange being an "inherent right or necessary adjunct to the right of propert}-, ' ' it would be much more nearly correct to say that an inherent quality of all property is its liability to taxation. The "inherent right" exists in society to place such limitations on the exchange of property as the public good requires. Neither does the security of private property necessarily consist in the right of the freedom of exchange. It is the conditions and circum- stances under which men live, brought about by the operation of w-ise laws that make life and liberty more secure. It is also the conditions under which the business operations of the people are carried on, which bring the greatest security to industry and property. If the market in which a person sells his goods is handed over to strangers and he is deprived by unjust and unequal competition of for- eigners of the opportunity to sell ; if in order to meet and combat such competition, the producer is compelled to work for less than sufEcient wages to provide the'necessaries and comforts for himself and family; if by such competition, producers are driven out of business, their fortunes wrecked, and they become reduced to bankruptcy and are left to carry on an unequal and unjust struggle against the pauper and degraded labor of foreign countries, how can it be said that security of private propert\- exists, although the utmost freedom in exchange of commodities is per- mitted? Instead of freedom of exchange bringing security to private- property, it may result in its destruction. It is then,. through protective tariff legislation, by a restriction being placed on foreign exchanges, that the greatest security to private property is attained. The security of private property, then, must consist in those economic conditions under which capital and labor are most permanently, uninterruptedly ami profitably employed, and under which the largest industrial development of a country can be secured and the greatest wealth, progress and pros- perity attained. What right has a consumer living on a fixed income, or engaged in an occupation, or so situated that he would profit by the system of free trade, to demand that the government repeal its protective laws and sub- ject the labor and industries of the country to the ruinous competition of foreigners, until he first shows that it would be justified by public policy, and that the greatest good would come to the greatest number by the adoption of free trade? Unless this is established, he plays the part of a highwayman who seizes a team by the bits and demands the driver's pocket-book. The doctrine of the right of free exchange, or to buy where one can buy the cheapest, rests upon the same principle of individual liberty as the right to commit any other act affecting the propert>- and rights of others. This brings us to a justification of the proposition so long ECUN03IIC DISCUSSION. contended for bj' protectionists, that protection is not to be decided bj' dog- matic assumptions, but is a question of public policy- to be determined by each government in accordance with those economic conditions under which their material welfare can most surely be promoted. Cosmopolitanism. Another error which the Manchester school committed, is found in the assumption that the nations of the world are one family; that a nation in framing its economic policy should not only consider what is good for its own people, but that which is beneficial to other nations as well. Contending that a destructive warfare is constantly raging between nations in the efforts of the strong to supplant the weak, they advise nations to submit themselves to the inevitable and raise no defences to preserve their industries from destruction. It also involves the assump- tion that the highest destiny of man can most surely be reached through world, instead of national development. To say the least, this is a very kind and beautiful doctrine to be put forth by Englishmen, especially when they have vigorously attempted for centuries to cripple ana destroy the commerce and industries of all other countries, by every method possible. A very able refutation of this contention may be found in "Political Science and Constitutional Law," by John W. Burgess, as follows: The state cauiiot, however, be organized from the beginning as world-state. Mankind cannot j'et act through so extended and ponderous an organization and man)- must be the centuries, and probably cycles, before it can. Mankind must first be organized politically by portions before it can be organized as a whole. I have already pointed out the natural conditions and forces which direct the political apportionments of mankind. I have demonstrated that they work towards the establishment of the national state. The national state is the most perfect organization which has 3-et been attained in the civilization of the world for the interpretation of the human conscious- ness tf right. It furnishes the best vantage ground yet to be attained for the contem- plation of the purpose of the sojourn of mankind upon earth. The national state must be developed everywhere before the world-state can appear.' Speaking of the duty which the people of one government owe to those of another, he says: Every state has, of course, a duty to the world. It must contribute its just share to the civilization of the world. In order to discharge this duty it nmst open itself as fully as is consistent with the maintenance of its own existence and just interests to commerce of intercourse, ingress and egress; but it is under no obligation to the world to go beyond these limits. It cannot be demanded of a state that it sacrifice itself to some higher good. It cannot fulfil its mission in this way. It represents itself the highest good. It is the highest entity. The world has as yet no organization into ■which a state may merge its existence. The world is as yet only an idea. It can j no passports which a state is bound to accept. The duty of a state to a world is a duty of which the state itself is the highest interpreter. The highest duty of a state is to preserve its own existence, its own healthful growth and development. ^ ' Vol. I., pp. 8s-6. 2 Id. pp. 43-4. National "acHfia-d in the ill- TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. If then it is found that the end to be attained can more surely be reached through the policy of protection, it becomes the duty of every citizen to subscribe to this policy and aid in its maintenance. Little can be added to the above quotation, so ably has its author met and over- thrown this free trade assumption. The present means of advancing the welfare of man is by .societies acting through organized governments. "Self-preservation is the first law of nature, ' ' so the right of defence with nations to preserve and perpetuate their existence, is the highest law. It was under this theory that Adam Smith defended the navigation laws of England, as a means of stimulating and encouraging ship building, the training of seamen, and the mainten- ance of a powerfid navy to guard and protect the interests of the realm and the rights of citizens in all parts of the world. The advantage which a nation would acquire by being industrially independent in time of war, was one of the reasons piit forth in the early history of the United States, to justify the establishment of industries under protection. It is also maintained that the development of diversified industries which increase the wealth and promote the happiness of the people, also add to the opulence and independence of the nation. It certainly requires an indul- gence in very extravagant assumptions to establish the negative, that a nation should not discriminate in favor of its own citizens, in legis- lating to advance their commercial and industrial interests, as well as to protect their persons and property. Artifici.'Vl Industries. It is a common complaint of the advocates of free trade that the policy of protection forces into existence "artificial" and "unnatural" indus- tries. Understanding the law of "the .survival of the fittest," as being their conception of "natural law," we are better able to understand the meaning of this charge which is so frequently urged against the protec- tive policy. A "natural" industry is one which can exist only under free competition. An "artificial" industry is one which is established by, and owes its continuance to fiscal regulations which protect it from destruction. If our industries are "artificial" and exist only because of this support or protection which they receive, they would certainly dis- appear when subjected to the ' 'natural" forces of free competition. It is only in this .sense that our industries are "unnatural" or "artificial." That there are certain natural conditions which determine in advance the industries which shall be pursued by different. countries, there is no ques- tion, and so far as they exist, apart from the principle contended for by the Manchester economists, they are fully recognized by protectionists. Agriculture is carried on under conditions.of soil and climate favor- able to the growth of a great variety of fruits, vegetables and cereals. These conditions determine for a nation the produce of the soil to which ECOXOJ[ir DISCISSION. their energies must be confined. Those products like tea, coffee, sugar, spices and tropical fruits, which may be classed as luxuries, are confined to a few favored localities, while those necessary products of involuntary consumption upon which man relies for his subsistence, and from which the masses of the world must always derive their food supplies, are universally distributed and grow luxuriantly in almost every soil and climate between the frigid zones. The products of tropical regions grow in great abundance with little human effort. The excessive heat unfits those regions for great industrial enterprises requiring arduous and inces- sant toil. The working of mines, the prosecution of manufacturing enter- prises requiring great physical exertion, seek temperate regions where great results can be accomplished with least physical exhaustion. These natural causes determine in advance the industrial life of nations, and have an especial application to those products which depend for their profitable growth upon the elements over which man has no control. The question, however, which arises between protectionists and free traders, relates wholly to the rewards of industry. For instance, the State of Louisiana, so far as soil and climate are concerned, is as well adapted to the production of sugar, as Cuba or Brazil. The States of Kansas and Nebraska are as well fitted by nature for the production of sugar beets, as Germany and France. Cuba and Brazil can produce cane sugar cheaper than it can be produced in Louisiana only by paying less wages to the labor employed, while France and Germany can grow beets and convert them into sugar at less cost than similar raw sugar can be produced in Kansas and Nebraska, only by paying the agricultural laborer less wages than the farmers of Kansas and Nebraska. Rice can be pro- duced cheaper in China than in South Carolina, for the same reason. The imposition of protective tariffs by the United States upon the natural products of soil and climate is not to force or stimulate the growth of products in the United States unsuited to natural conditions, but solely to provide for a difference in wages arising from conditions of civiliza- tion. If considered from the standpoint of the design of the Creator of the universe, such protective legislation is fully justified upon the ground that it results in an improved condition of man, enabling labor in the United States to be better rewarded, better educated, better housed and clothed, and to reach a higher state of civilization. If such condition of humanity is the purpose of the Supreme Ruler of the universe, protective legislation is in harmony with divine law. The metals, iron, copper and lead, are found in abundance on every continent and in almost every country. Coal beds for fuel are as widely distributed. Fuel and raw material are universally accessible to the people of all countries. The United States has iron and coal distributed from the Atlantic to the Pacific. To prevent our Eastern sea-boards from being supplied with these materials from abroad, is not for the purpose TAEIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. of opening industries in the United States of an artificial character, hut for the sole purpose of making it possible for the American miners to receive higher wages than are paid to the miners of foreign countries, and to contribute to the general prosperitj' of this cou'ntrj'. This is the util- ization of natural products. Mining and manufacturing, in so far as they are pursuits in which the capital and labor of a country may be employed, depend wholly for their existence and conduct upon the direct efforts of man, uninfluenced by soil and climate, excepting as to those special localities of the tropics in which excessive physical exer- tion is practically prohibited by the intense heat. Through the entire temperate zone, in the United States, Europe and Asia, the region most densely populated, having the highest civilization and the greatest industrial activity, all branches of manufacturing are equally favored by nature, and in this respect, can as well be carried on in one place as in another. The free trader continues to harp upon obedience to the laws of nature in manufacturing pursuits, and j-et, no Englishman has favored the building of .silk factories where raw silk is produced or the removal of their woolen mills to Australia and the Argentine Republic, in the neighborhood of the great sheep ranches of the world. Neither have they suggested the removal of their cotton mills to cotton growing districts of the United States. English manufacturers have never paid the slightest attention to these "natural laws" that their economists have so much to say about, but have Tsa-sed their industrial supremacy upon superior machinery, .skillful and efficient labor and the low wages of their artisans. England by nature is no more fitted for th€ manufacture of cotton, linen, woolens, the metals or anything else, than the United States. Whatever advantages she possesses are wholly acquired. A superiority based on the degradation of humanity, a condition of com- mercial slavery to which a population is reduced and to which it is eternally chained, is a violation of the laws of God, and revolting to the better sense of civilized man. There is no country in the world more favored and set apart by the laws of nature, for an extensive diversity of indu-stries, than the United States. With a soil and climate for the pro- duction of cotton, flax, hemp, jute and all vegetable fibres; with agricul- tural regions adapted to the raising of sheep and growing of the finest wool; with coal and iron universally distributed from coast to coast; with the greate.st water powers in the world ; with every variety of agricultural products which grow in temperate and semi-tropical regions, it cannot be said that to utilize these rich possessions is a violation of natural law. Competition. Although blessed beyond measure with natural resources for indus- trial prosperity, the people of the United .States labor under one great dis- advantage. Through nearly a century of industrial evolution and ECONOMIC DISCUSSION. civilization they have acquired a mode of living and a wage rate which are more expensive than those of any other people on the face of the globe. It costs them more to live, because they live better. They cannot pay double the wages paid by foreign competitors and expose themselves to the warfare of international competition. In such a conflict they would be the weaker party, and under the law of "the survival of the fittest" their civilization would be destroyed and their industries .supplanted — • unless they adopted the weapons used by their competitors, namely, less expensive modes of living, lower wages and cheaper productions. This brings us to the gist of the whole controversy between protectionists and free traders. There is no dispute over what would happen in a conflict between such unequal combatants. The real question is, would it be wise, would the welfare of humanity be best promoted by yielding to the consequences and inevitable results which are unquestionably involved in such a struggle ? The advantages to a people of healthy competition are not involved in the question, as pointed out by Professor George Gunton : The chief fallacy underh-ing the doctrine of laissez /aire is a mistaken notion regarding the nature of competition. Because competition is rivalr}' between con- tending units, it is assumed that all rivalry is competition, and hence that free competition is simply an unrestrained struggle for existence. As we have alreadj- seen, unrestrained struggle may and often does mean repression and despotism instead of development and freedom. It is entirely true that competition is indispensable to development, but in order to have competition that develops, instead of a struggle that destroys, rivalry must take place under conditions which make the object sought reasonably possible to either contestant. There can be no advantageous competition where the prize is impossible to one and certain to the other. Such an unequal strug- gle, instead of developing the highest possibilities of both competitors, inspires neither contestant to do his best. To have effective competition, the contest must be of such a character as to compel the winner and inspire the loser to the maximum degree of effort. This can only occur when the contest takes place between approxi- mately equal competing units. Competition between unequals necessarily tends to crush rather than develop the weaker, although he possesses all the potential possi- bilities of superiority.' i This proposition is so ably presented by Professor Gunton' that the writer takes the liberty of incorporati'ng the following quotation, to enable the reader to be further enlightened by this distinguished econo- mist: Whenever a struggle for industrial supremacy takes place between producers in countries of differing degree of civilization, one of two things must necessarily occur ; either the higher must descend to the plane of the lower, or the lower must ascend to the plane of the higher. If the higher-paid producer descends to the plane of the lower, it will not be economic convpeXKWon, because in that case, the low-wage products will be sure to undersell the high-wage products, and thus enable the inferior to succeed against the superior. In such a struggle there is nothing to 1 Principles of Social Economics, p. 293. = Id., pp. 333-5. Coynpeti- Hon be- itneqitals. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. develop the best in the higher, but everything to repress it. The cheap-labor com- petitor does not succeed through his economic superiorit\-, but solely because of his social inferiority. Such a contest, therefore, is contrary to all conditions of economic competition. Instead of being a contest between approximately equal competing units, which tends to develop the best in both, it is an unequal struggle in which the inferior is sure to prevail against the superior. When competition takes place on the plane of the higher- wage level, the result is ver}- different. In such a contest, whoever succeeds is compelled to do so by employ- ing superior machinery, and that reduces the cost of wealth by saving instead of cheapening human labor. Every^ effort of the lower to succeed against the higher bv such means necessarily tends to develop better methods of production, cheapen wealth and promote social progress in the less advanced country, even if it fails to undersell competitors in a foreign market. On the other hand, in every such struggle the high-wage producer is compelled to make efforts to still further develop the wealth-cheapening methods in the most advanced countries. Therefore the contest on the higher plane is supremely economic, because it stimulates the best in both competitors, guarantees that only the superior shall succeed, and in so doing, helps rather than injures the inferior. As a means of preventing the injuries resulting front the competition stated in the first paragraph and preserving the healthful rivalry described in the second, Professor Gunton recommends a resort to and very clearly points out the necessity of protective legislation : In order, therefore, to apply the doctrine of opportunity laid down in the previous chapter, and to establish international trade upon a strictly economic basis, it is necessary for the higher-wage country to discriminate against the products of the lower- wage producer to the full extent that the lower wages affect the cost of produc- tion, as this determines the competitive status of the commodity. Thus we have a truly economic basis for a tariff policy that shall be protective -wKxyioMt heing pateriia/. A tariff policy based upon this principle would protect the superior against injury from the inferior, without afibrding the slightest monopolistic impediment to eco- nomic rivalry. Instead of restricting wholesome competition, this would simply pro- tect the competitive opportunity for the " fittest to survive," the test of fitness always being the ability to furnish low priced wealth without employing low-priced labor. Under such conditions the products of foreign countries could never undersell those of home industry-, except when the lower price of the foreign product is due to the use of superior lahor-saviJig and not to \ahor-clieapeniiig methods. W.A.GES. Understanding the principles involved in the foregoing propositions, the reader will readily discover how protection increases wages. The old theories contended for by the dogmatic free traders have quite univer- sally been discarded. The writers of the Manchester school whose opinions were influenced by the Malthusian theory of population, believed that in the struggle for existence wages nmst always be low and the con- dition of the masses most miserable. John Stuart Mill, in discussing the question, said: After the truths brought out by Mr. Malthus were understood, it was then seen that the capabilities of increase of the human species as of animal nature in general ECOXOMIC DISCUSSION. (being far greater than those of subsistence under any except unusual circumstances), must be, and are, controlled everywhere else by one of two limiting principles— starva- tion or prudence and continence. That under the operation of this conflict, the reward of ordinary unskilled labor is always and everywhere (saving temporary varia- tions, and rare conjunctions of circumstances), at the lowest point to which laborers will consent to be reduced, the point below which they will not choose to propagate their species. . . These considerations furnish a sufficient explanation of the state of extreme poverty in which the majority of mankind had almost everywhere been found without suffering any inherent necessity in the case.' Francis Wayland said: "When the wages of parents are bareh- sufficient to rear two children, but two will be reared; the rest will die in infancy." '^ Ricardo, one of the chief apostles of free trade, in stating his "Iron Law of Wages," said: If the shoes and clothing of the laborer could, by improvements in machinery, lie produced by one-fourth of the labor now necessary to their production, they would probably fall 75 per cent. ; but so far is it from being true that the laborer would thereby be enabled permanently to consume four coats or four pair of shoes, instead of one, that it is probable that his wages in no long time would be adjusted by the effects of competition and the stimulus to population to the new value of the neces- saries on which they were expended. If these improvements extended to all the objects of the laborer's consumption, we should find him probably, at the end of a very few years, in the possession of only a small, if any, addition to his enjoj'ments.' The theory advanced by free trade economists which was known as the "wage fund theory," held that wages were paid out of the capital of the country' seeking investment, out of which there was a predetermined amount known as the "wage fund," which alone would be distributed among the laborers; that of this capital a certain portion must in the outset be deduced for profits, rent, materials and expenses, and what was left constituted the "wage fund, " which would be distributed among the laborers in proportion to their number. If the fund was large and the laborers few, wages would be high, while if the laborers were numerous and the fund small wages would be low. It was purely a question of arithmetic. Assuming that population increases faster than the means of subsistence, the labor market would at all times be overcrowded, and people to save themselves from star\-ation, would be willing to work for what they could get; jobs would be put up at auction, to be struck off to the lowest bidder. While the free trade professors may have erred in the theorj' which they formulated, the recent experience of Great Britain when subjected to sharp, free competition of strong rivals, proves that they were accurate in estimating the ultimate effect on the wage earners of a country, under the "struggle for existence" imposed by free trade. The strongest and ' claims of Labor, iu Dissertations and Discussions, Vol. 2. pp. 264-5. " Elements of Political Economy, p. 298. 3Xhe Works of David Ricardo, London : John Murray, p 12. TARIFF QVESTION IX THE UNITED STATES. most powerful labor unions and combinations have failed in resisting reductions in wages and have been utterly powerless in securing advance- ments, while the army of the unemploj-ed has increased as productive indus- tries have decayed and been supplanted. The wage fund theory which had been accepted as one of the cardinal principles of the gospel of free trade by all of its adherents, was repudiated by John Stuart Mill in 1869, when its fallacies were exposed by Mr. Francis D. Longe, an English barrister, who pointed out that the amount of wages which an employer could afford to pay was limited by the amount of money for which he could sell the product. This theory has since been accepted by General Francis A. Walker and many others who contend that: It is the prospect of a profit iu production which determines the employer to hire laborers ; it is the anticipated value of the product which determines how much he can pay them. The product, then, and not capital furnishes at once the motive to empIo3-ment and the measure of wages. If this be so the whole wage fund theorj' falls, for it is built on the assumption that capital furnishes the measure of wages; that the wage fund is no larger because capital is no larger, and that the only way to the aggregate amount which can be paid in wages is to increase capital.' Applied to international competition the principle .stated by Longe, and recognized by General Walker, becomes an important factor in deter- mining the wage rate. The production of the. world has become so large that not only the British manufacturers, but those of the Continent have constantly on hand a surplus of competing commodities which are seek- ing for customers, and being crowded into the markets of the world. This has reduced the selling price to the lowest possible point and made large profits impossible. Through their open ports the English people have made their home market a part of the market of the w^orld to be contested for. The producers of the United Kingdom and Continental countries are struggling to undersell each other and to acquire and hold the markets. This means cheap goods, and every nation which relies on foreign markets for the sale of its wares, must submit to this condition. So long as the Germans, the Belgians, the French and the Swiss rely on foreign countries for the sale of their surplus products, it will be impos- sible for them to increase the wage rate of their artisans to a point which enhances the cost of production above their competitors. It is for this reason that, although Germany, France, Switzerland and Belgium pursue policies of protection, high wages are impossible. Should the United States enter the markets of the world as a competitor, it could only do so under the same conditions of trade. While Continental countries are thus unable to advance wages to as high a point as those paid in the United States, the chief advantage derived from protection has been found in the devel- opment of their domestic industries, and the preservation of their home 1 Wages, by Walker, p. 144. Ecoxomc njscussioN. markets, which have given increased employment to labor in the diversi- fied industries which by this means have been established and main- tained. Protection with them has increased the opportunties for employ- ment, through which the masses have been greatly improved; while the excessive competition in Great Britain, through open ports, has resulted in the destruction of domestic industries, diminished opportunities for employment, increased idleness and the misery and degradation of the masses. This brings us to the principle which fixes the rate of wages under protection in the United States. It is urged by many protectionists that the wage rate is determined by the mode of living, the habits, tastes and desires which the wage-earner is seeking to satisfy. It must, of course, be conceded that the degree of civilization which prevails indicates the desires which are .sought to be satisfied, and that the higher the order of civilization attained the greater becomes the demand for comfortable homes, good clothing, luxuries, comforts, hours of leisure, entertainments and pleas- ures of life. The higher the order of civilization enjoyed, the more expen- sive becomes the mode of living; it costs more to produce an educated man or woman, to build homes and furnish them decently, than it does to produce uneducated people and maintain them half fed, half clad and shelter them in hovels. A laboring man earning $2 a day will live better and possess for himself and familj' more of the comforts and luxuries of life than would be possible if he earned only $1 a day ; hence, the mode of living and high wages paid in the United States increase the cost of pro- duction and add to the selling price of every product of human effort. This additional cost must be paid by the consumers of the commodities pro- duced. It is a conceded fact that the wage-earners of the United States receive far higher wages than are paid in any other country on the face of the globe. If, then, the consumers of the United States pay more for their necessaries and comforts of life than they would under a low wage scale, they are simply contributing to the maintenance of that civilization, degree of intelligence, comfort and happiness which make the people of the United States conspicuous among the nations of the world. The question whether the people of the United States pay more for commodi- ties made by American labor, than they would be called upon to pay if the same articles were made by the poorly paid labor of Great Britain and Europe, is wholly immaterial. The real question at issue is, does it paj' them to do it? Is it a good investment? It is not so much a question of accumulation of wealth as it is one for the elevation of humanity. It is a well-known fact that poverty and degradation arising from low wages, breeds discontent, immorality and vice. Children raised in comfortable homes, educated and enlightened, make better men and women and better citizens. Hence, the whole economic problem, instead of being a ques- tion of cash payments, merely a matter of dollars and cents, involves the TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. moral, social and intellectual development and improvement of man- kind. Thestead3' increase in wages in the United States since i860, has not been brought about bj' a voluntary increase in wages by manufacturers as soon as tariff laws were enacted. When manufacturers go to Congress and ask that duties be imposed or increased, it is not necessary that they .should have in mind a corresponding increase in wages immediately extended as soon as the tariff laws are enacted. Tariff laws enable capitalists to open mines, build factories and establish industries which could not exist or be established were it not for the tariff barriers which shield them from foreign competition. The opening of mines, and the building up of industries, afford opportunities for employment. They create a demand for home labor. A protective tariff, then, becomes a protection to oppor- tunities. The more varied and greater opportunities become, the more employment is found. It is in employments thus created that wages are earned which go to build homes, fill them with furniture, clothe and feed families, and provide the means of satisfying wants, tastes and desires. If the mode of living, tastes and desires measure that which is necessary to satisfy them, the opportunities for employment afford the means. Give a people the opportunities for employment, and they will fix their own wage rate under their own conditions, of civilization. Destroy these opportunities, and whatever the desires of a people may be, to satisfy them is impossible. Hence we find the basis of the whole social fabric of all progress and pro.sperity, the means of satisfying wants, to be the prime economic factor. The importance, then, of stimu- lating and fostering the various branches of industry such as agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transportation, trade and commerce, becomes apparent. The wants of man are satisfied through the fruits of labor. As opportunities increase, earnings become greater, consumption is enlarged and increased production follows. The Hon. Thomas B. Reed, in discus.sing this question in the Hou.se of Representatives on the sixteenth of January, 1S94, in opposing the pas.sage of the Wil.son bill, said: Now, let me come for a moment to this question of wages. The gentleman says that it depends upon supply and demand. I say that is an utterly exploded doctrine. Wages depend upon the amount of the market, and also upon the nature of the workingman himself. I anticipate what the gentleman is going to say in response to the suggestions of other gentlemen on his side, that what they need is a more extensive market ; that what they need is to go forth to the rest of the universe and obtain a market ; and the method they propose is to obtain a market somewhere else by giving up the market that we have here. But we on our side believe in enlarging the' market in a different fashion. We do not mean to go to the ends of the earth and struggle with the cheaper labor of the whole world. What we mean to do is to elevate the market of this country by giving liigher wages to the laborers, aiid thireliy constituting a market as broad as our production. ... So that it is not the ECONOMIC DISCUSSION. arbitrary fixation of wages, but it is the growth in iutelHgence, the growth and wants of the laborer that forces a rise of wages. What is the direct means by which the laboring men reach this result ? Bj' labor unions, by combining, by making manufacturers understand that they umst give higher wages. How are the manu- facturers enabled to give higher wages ? By increasing their product, which increase can only take place by the larger market which comes of these larger wages. That is the secret of this matter. But there are limitations in this case just as there are to all human tendencies. The laboring man is struggling to supply his wants. He makes his demand on the manufacturer. The manufacturer is set to work to devise' new inventions, and by the assistance of these he is able to supply these wants. But there is a limitation to inventions ; there is a limitation to the capacit}' of tlie employer to enlarge his market. And those two things struggle together. In this country, with the laborer seeking to obtain higher wages and fewer hours of work and the demand of the public for lower prices, there is going on a tremendous stru;.;gle ; and that is all the struggle that the inventive power of this country can sustain. Now vou propose, by bringing us in contact with a lower civilization without protection, to make the success of that struggle an absolute impossibilit}'. You are crushing down the laboring man by your efforts ; and you are thereby intensifying this struggle between the employer and his employees, which is liable to be fought out as long as selfishness reigns in this world. But thank Heaven, the success, the good fortune, and the prosperity of the laboring man does not depend on these men who rend the heavens with their shouts of praise, but upon the laws of the Lord God Omnipotent. And among the laws of Omnipotence is the use of human brains by aid of law to provide the laborer with opportunities for work. International Competition and Foreign Trade. This brings us to a consideration of the advantages which the advo- cates of free trade contend would arise, from a practical application of international competition between the higher civilization of the United States and the lower civilization of Great Britain and Europe. This involves a discussion of the relative importance to a nation of home trade as against foreign trade. It is conceded by the free traders that under protection a vast industrial sj'stem becomes established and is main- tained; and that the home trade of a country is secured to its own people. Yet it is contended that the industrial prosperity of a nation may more surely be attained by abandoning the production of those commodities which can be made cheaper in other countries, and by confining the energies of the people to those of which superior advantages in produc- tion are possessed ; that even though we should lose a large number of our present industries by importing commodities which we are now making, that the increased importations would occasion a foreign demand for other domestic productions which would be •given in exchange for thos'i purchased ; and hence whatever loss we sustained through the disap- pearance of established industries and diminished direct trade, would be more than compensated for, in foreign trade; that one of the chief advan- tages arising from such change of policy would be found in the benefits consumers would derive from cheap commodities. This brings up for TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. consideration the conditions and circumstances under which we would be able to sell our wares in foreign countries and compensate ourselves for the loss sustained by surrendering domestic productions. Under the "natural law" of trade contended for, it is urged that both venders and purchasers would derive an advantage by "buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market." The idea that we could sell everything for a good price and buy everything ver>- cheap, is most fascinating. "To buy in the cheapest market," what does that mean? It means that the American people are to buy their glass, earthen and china ware, cottons, woolens, silks, linens, all tools, machinery, hard- ware and cutlery, iron, steel, and in fact every manufactured article, in Europe; that they shall entirely cease buying of the home producers, unless our manufacturers will sell these articles cheaper than they can be purchased from any other people on earth. It means also, that our con- sumers of food will buy farm products in Canada, the Argentine Repub- lic, or wherever they can be bought at the lowest price. It means that the purchasers of all countries shall also buy where thej' can buy the cheapest; hence the purchasers of the world will not come to the United States to buy either manufactured goods or farm products, unless they can buy them cheaper here than in any other country. Instead, then, of selling dear, we must also sell cheap or not at all, excepting, of course, as we produce a superior article or something that cannot be obtained else- where, which from the universality in the growth of farm products and the wide extension of manufactures, is unlikely to occur. We can only become sellers by selling for a lower price than anybody' else. That this involves a reduction in the cost of production below the rest of the world, necessarily follows. But under the law of "the survival of the fittest," those industries which cannot withstand the struggle must perish, and the capital, if there is any left after the wreck, must seek investment, and the laborers thrown out of work must find employment in some other industry ; but that other industry must always be one in which commodities can be produced cheaper than el.sewhere. To sell in the best market, then, necessarily means to undersell all competitors. In order to increase our sales in foreign markets, we must make our country a good country to buy in before foreign purchasers will seek our market, hence while this leveling process is going on, we should be buy- ing more than we could sell. The free trade economists, however, hold that while exports of domestic produce equal to imports of foreign produce would not immediately ari.se, ultimately and in the long run, exports must balance imports, and trade must be carried on by an exchange of commodities. It is important to under.stand the practical operation of this theory, the reasons why it must be .sound, in order that we may measure its effect upon our industrial .system when put to the test. Ecommic DISCUSSION. Under a sj-stem of free trade, our merchants would buy in the cheapest markets of the world, and no foreign nation would buy of us till our prices were reduced to at least the level of other countries. Assum- ing that our prices are higher than in any other countr3', instead of buy- ing at home our purchasers would buy abroad. This would certainly make a heavy balance of trade against us for a time. If our present con- suming power. could be maintained, it would not take long to exhaust our present supply of gold in the United States, which is now about $600,000,000. But having shut down our factories and abandoned our laborers that we might seek cheaper goods in foreign markets, the con- suming power of a large portion of our citizens would at once be reduced by cutting off their incomes, so that our foreign purchases after our accumulations were exhausted, would begin to decline and the outflow of coin would in a measure be checked. Free trade authorities admit that the outflow of metals would be the immediate effect, but Mr. Edward North Buxton, in the "A B Cof Free Trade," page 13 (published by the Cobden Club), says: "A very small withdrawal of gold from the currency of the country rai.ses the rate of interest, and this at once tempts back what has gone out. ' ' The effect upon the business of a country situated like the United States, of a stringenc\' in the money market, and an increase in the rate of interest, is well known to business men. It would result in the calling in of all short loans, tie up every dollar to procure higher rates of exchange and discount, and plunge the business interests of the country at once into bankruptcy. But it is contended that as the precious metals flow out from a country' to settle an adverse balance of trade, money becomes scarce, appreciates in value and prices fall. Through the decline in prices thus brought about, the tendency would be to make the United States a good market to buy in. This process of making money scarce and thereby making commodities cheap, it should be noted, is one of the causes which would aid in reducing the United States to the price level of other countries. But this compensatory goods for goods theory, or exchange of commodities, would not begin to operate till American labor was compelled to accept the lowest rate of wages paid by our com- peting rivals, and until American capital was also compelled to accept an equally low return for its investment. In order, then, to reach the millen- nium of free trade, both labor and capital in America, would be compelled to produce goods cheaper and take less return for their services than in competing countries, in order to turn the tide of commerce in our favor. Having obtained, by this means and through reductions in wages and otherwise, a point below the lowest level in other countries, our merchants would begin to sell abroad and when we reached a point where we sold more than we purchased, gold would come back. The returning current of gold would increase the volume of our money, and make it more plentiful, TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. this it is claimed would depreciate its purchasing power and raise prices again. Should the inflow of gold, on this vibration of the pendulum, raise prices above the level in competing countries, we would again begin to buy abroad. Hence, it follows, that only by reducing our prices below the level of other countries and making our markets the best markets to buy in, can it be said that if we buy abroad we shall be able to .sell in return. The increased importations occasioned by the reduction of duties made by the Gorman-Wilson bill, is affording a practical illustration of this proposi- tion. We have increased our purchases because goods can be bought cheaper of foreign than of home manufacturers, and gold is flowing out. Our exports, save in exceptional cases, have not increased, foreigners have not come to our market to purchase, because we have not yet reduced wages sufficient to enable us to sell cheaper than others. Hence, the increased purchases without a corresponding increase in exports show that we have not 3et reached a point where we sell as much as we buy. The result is the almost weekly shipments of gold to settle the balance of trade which has turned against us. This was admitted by John G. Carlisle, Mr. Cleveland's Secretary of the Treasury, in an inter\-iew on September 1 1, 1895, published in the New York World the following day. Speaking of the causes of the exports of gold, Mr. Carlisle said : Unless there should be another scare in regard to the gold reserve such as we had before, or a financial panic, neither of which things in my judgment is likely to occur, there will be no necessity for another bond issue in October to preserve the reser\'e. The present removal of gold from this country is not due to any lack of confidence abroad in our national finances. It is .simply the result of trade conditions. Our merchants are importing immense amounts of goods from Elirope, which indicates that they expect a big business this fall and winter, and our gold goes abroad to pay for these importations. The necessity of reducing wages in order to make cheaper goods, and thereby hold our own markets or increase our sales abroad, was recognized and pointed out by the Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin, a leading free trade journal of the United States, Monday, November 5, 1894, in an editorial headed "High Wages and Low Interest." The editorial begins by saying: "When wages are high the only legitimate reason is that business is prosperous, production active, and profits thereon satisfactory. If wages are high when these condi- tions do not exist, then they are wrongfully high and cannot long remain Speaking of the low rate of interest, the lack of demand for capital, it says: It means that enterprise is not yielding its usual return of profit, or that there are unusual risks attending business, or that there is a reduction in the national capacity for consumption, or that all these causes combined are at work It {■> a condition of affairs when the employers of capital do not care to accept the ECONOMIC DISCUSSION. use of it, although it can be had for virtually uothiug. The solution of the anomaly is that at the time being, it is worth nothing for use, that there is a large surplus of it for which there is no growth of industry or trade to provide employment. Proceeding to show the increase in the earnings of our laboring popu- lation during ten years (1880 to 1890), the high wages received and also the decline in the price of commodities which has taken place, this journal called upon the laboring men of the United States to adjust themselves to the new industrial conditions, by consenting to a reduction in wages, and said: Reviewing, in the light of the facts, the position of capital and labor respectively for the last half generation, it is thus evident that, relatively, labor has had much the best of it in the co-partnership of the tw.o interests. It is beyond question that at no previous period has labor been so prosperous as during the 3'ears under review. Within the same period the earnings of capital have been diminishing; and to-day industrial capitalists have to confront problems and a situation of unusual seriousness. What is to be done under these circumstances ? Is labor to still absorb the profits, and is capital to surrender its rewards? This is no question of sentiment on either the one side or the other. It must be determined by the natural laws controlling the market value of labor. The first phase of that solution is already here. Capital is standing aloof from production until it can make a profit out of it. That is its onl}- means of self-protection. Its contraction of work will express itself in the non- employment of labor; and idleness in the ranks of the unions will prove more potent as a means of readjusting wages than all the harangues of labor leaders and the com- pulsions of strikes. Every day of the present scale of wages means so much more loss to employers, and therefore so much more curtailment of production. It remains with the unions to determine to what lengths they will carrj' their insistence upon a scale of pay that is incompatible with the maintenance of industrial activity It is within their power to make the industrial situation much worse than it already is; but if they choose a policy of short-sighted exaction, they can only expect that the conse- quences will fall with tenfold greater effect upon themselves than on any other class. Bv a timely yielding, they may impart an immediate revival to trade; by persistence they will invite a reaction which can only put them at the utmost disadvantage in a later readjustment. An average reduction of 20 per cent in wages is demanded by the necessities of employers and equally by the true interest of labor. With that, we might expect a general revival of business; if it be not quickly conceded, we must wait until worse conditions compel the concession. This announces the very kernel of Cobdenism. By reducing wages and degrading labor our industries are to be defended and carried on. By this means alone are we to encourage the building of factories and the investment of capital. By robbing labor profits on capital are made pos- sible. This infamous doctrine is termed "Tariff Reform." We are now witnessing its results. Striking first at capital, by bringing into the field foreign competi- tors that destroyed profits and closed mills, it then called upon the wage- earner to yield to the inevitable and consent to a further reduction in wages; and this at a time when wages had already been reduced from 10 to 20 per cent, and labor still remained unemployed. TAIUFF QCESTION IK THE UNITED STATE!: Instead of giving new vigor and life to the industries bi the country, It acts as a blight on prosperity, and its leveling process brings bankruptcy to employers, and misery and want to the households of labor. The same results followed free trade in England. Mongredien in speaking of the depression of trade which has existed in Great Britain since 1874, although attributing it to a reaction in business following a period of prosperity, and thus ignoring the excessive competition which had set in from the Continent, as related ,by the British manufacturers, refers to the reduction in wages as the operation of a natural law. He says : When, after the lumatural inflation, demand subsided into its legitimate channels, wages gradually fell, and have continued to fall in sympathy with, but hardly in the same proportion as, the profits of capital and the prices of commodities. Against this decline the wage receivers have (as is natural and excusable) fought inch by inch. By concerted action, by strikes, by the partial adoption of co-operation, and by every weapon which trade unionism put in their hands, they opposed all the resistance in their power to the reduction of their wages. But the irresistible course of events proved too strong for them, and they had to jaeld.' On November 29, 1886, John Bright conceded the vital point in the controversy, by admitting that the only way under free trade b\- which destructive competition can be met and home factories preserved, is by a reduction of wages. He had been written to by a gentleman from Nottingham calling his attention to the fact that the lace industry was being ruined by competition; that machinery and factories were being removed from England, and asked for his opinion as to how the difficulty might be met. Replying in a letter of the above date, he said : I fear that I can write nothing that will be of service to you in the circumstances you describe. If your manufacturers are unable to compete with their rivals in other parts of the country, or in foreign countries, their business nnist be unprosperous, and may gradually decay. If the cause of these be in the high wages claimed and paid in your town, unless wages in other parts can be raised, it would seem to follow that your trade can only be preserved by a reduction of your wages, or by some other diminu- tion of the cost of manufacturing if such be possible . . If trades unions, for example, insist on wages which a trade cannot pay, the particular trade may, and indeed must, suffer— must become unprosperous, and may decay and be driven to some other district where labor is free from the interference and unwise restrictions of combinations of workmen. If any given trade is being removed from your town, if machinery is being taken down in Nottingham to be set up in some other town or district, it must be known to your workmen, and they surely will not be long in dis- covering their true interests in the question. 2 This was the cold comfort received from the great apostle of free trade, forty years after he had stood in parliament with Richard Cobden and advocated the mistaken notion that the superior efficiency of the British artisan would enable him to out.strip all rivals and maintain the advancing wage rate which he had enjoyed under protectiou. 1 Free Trade and English Commerce, pp. 69-70. = Fair-Trade Journal, Vol. ii., p. 92. ECONOJIIC DISCUSSION. The ruin which must befall our country while passing through the transformation from our vast industrial S3-stem to the conditions imposed by an application of free trade principles, is most appalling to contem- plate. In order to hold our home niarkpt, we must at once be reduced to the level of Europe as a producing country, and thus sacrifice billions of dollars in wages and submit to an incalculable shrinkage in values. But while this is taking place, our industries could not be kept intact. Our system of doing business on credit is .so universal, that shrinkage in values would ruin every manufacturing establishment and in turn wreck every bank, and in its destructive influence would reach every de- positor and everj' home in the land. We should be left with a bankrupt people attempting, withovit capital or credit, to resu.scitate and readjust our industries to a condition under which, if they were continued, they would j-ield meagre returns to labor and capital. This process has actually begun. The calamities of the last three years are but a shadow of what must inevitably follow if the warfare is continued and the designs of free traders are put fully into practice. The Gorman-Wilson bill directed its attack against the woolen industry by reducing duties to an average ad valorem rate of less than 50 per cent, which by a system of undervaluation that is made possible, reduces the protective duty still lower. The busy woolen mills of Eng- land and the idle woolen mills of the United States, with the increased imports of woolen goods, show that the death-dealing process is doing its work. It should be borne in mind that the great purpose of the free trade movement is the destruction of the manufactories of the United States, that foreign manufacturers may step in and monopolize our markets. The appeal is made to the agriculturist that he would profit by joining hands with the British manufacturers in the destruction of the manufac- tories of his own country. The result of this policy would not only destroy the great industrial centres of the United States, in which the American farmer finds the best market for his produce, but by driving more people into farming it would increa.se the number of agriculturists, and bring about such over-production in farm produce, that he would find little sale for his commodities in the glutted markets. But this, he should understand, is precisely what the free trader is seeking to accom- plish. The "cheapness" which he advocates is not confined to cheap manufactures, but to cheap bread and vegetables as well. The policy of "cheapness" is aimed at the farmer equally with all producers. Before the American farmer should consent to the destruction of his home mar- ket, he should consider the probabilities of his finding a foreign market for his farm produce. Foreigners will only buy his products when he offers to sell them cheaper than they can purchase in the Argentine Republic, in Russia, Armenia and other parts of the world. While the 52 ^'o^ TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. free trader is using the argument of cheap clothing with the farmer, he is talking about cheap agricultural produce to those living on fixed incomes and the masses in the manufacturing districts. "Cheapness" is the bait which the free trader puts on all his hooks. The United States being a debtor country, it is difficult to prevent the export of coin. Our people each year having a large sum of interest to remit to the citizens of foreign countries, from whom monej^ has been borrowed, are required also to pay a very large amoimt to foreign ship owners, for freight charges, while at the same time American tourists are purchasing bills of exchange on foreign banks, all of which must be settled for, and balanced either by the shipment of commodities or precious metals. The balance of trade in commodities must necessarily, from these causes, be in our favor to a very large amount in order to prevent a constant outflow of gold. This, however, is in part compensated for, by the sale of our securities in foreign countries, for which drafts on New York are returned instead of coin. When we add to this an adverse balance of trade in commodities, the difficulties are augmented and we mu.st suffer incalulable injury by the constant impairment of capital which, if kept at home, would find investment in domestic enterprises, and thus constantly diminish the necessity of borrowing in foreign countries, and ultimately make us financially independent of the world. A favorable balance of trade in commodities, continued for a long term of years suffi- cient to turn the flow of gold to our shores, would soon result in a return of our securities and we should ultimately become free from indebtedness to foreign nations. The interest account being kept at hoipe as well, would also add yearly to our capital 'and wealth. If in addition to this, we should build up a merchant marine and save to our own people the vast amount, exceeding $200,000,000 a year, which is now paid to foreign ship owners, our productive capital would still farther be increased. So it is apparent that the opulence and independence of our people are increased or diminished by the economic policy which we pursue. The adoption of free trade or low tariff must increase the difficulties of our industrial life and tend constantly to impoverish our country and degrade our labor. While on the other hand, under the time-honored policy of protection, we should continue in that career of industrial prosperity which, after thirty-two years, has placed us above all nations in Christen- dom in the accumulation of wealth and the material welfare of our people, and if restored would ultimately make us industrially, as well as politi- cally, independent of the rest of the world. HoMK Tkadk the B.vsis of iNnusTKi.M. Pro.spekity. Abraham Lincoln said: " Jl7u-ii an American paid ta-cnty dollars for sled rails lo an English maniifachirer , America had the steel and England had the twenty dollars. But when he paid twenty dollars for the steel to ECONOMIC DISCUSSION. an American manufacturer, America liad both /lie steel and the tieenty dollars." The free trade maxim "Take care of the consumer and let the producer take care of himself; don't tax the nation for the benefit of a producing class," will now be contrasted with the protectionist maxim ''whatsoever YOU do be sure to lake care to develop the producing forces of your own country.'" The eminent economist and jurist, Sir John Barnard Byles, said : ' '.4 nation, li'hethcr it consumes its own products or with them purchases from abroad, can have no more value than it produces. The supreme policy of every nation, therefore, is to develop the producing forces of its own coun- try. What are, they? The working men, the lafid, the mines, the machinery, the 7vater pozver," etc.^ The advocates of free trade, however, contend that foreign commodi- ties, ' ' are always paid for by domestic commodities, and therefore the pur- chase of foreign commodities encourages domestic industry as much as the purchase of domestic commodities." This proposition is presented for the purpose of showing that imports are always beneficial and not harmful to a nation ; that as they increase, exports of domestic commodi- ties must necessarily increase also ; as foreign trade grows, home trade must also grow. It is from this that they measure the industrial growth and prosperity of a nation by its foreign trade. Although it has been fully demonstrated that increased imports of commodities arising from reduced duties or free trade, would not immediately be followed by corresponding exports of domestic commodities, yet if it should be conceded for the sake of argument, that for every import of commodities there would be an export of domestic commodities which would greatly augment the foreign exchanges of the United States, it may still be shown that home trade or exchanges of domestic commodities between our own people is more profitable to the nation than foreign trade. This proposition was announced by Adam Smith. He said : ' The capital which is employed in purchasing in one part of the country in order to sell in another the produce of the industry of that country, generally replaces by such operation two distinct capitals that had both been employed in the agriculture or manufacture of that country, and thereby enables them to continue that employment. When both are the produce of domestic industry, it necessarily replaces, by every such operation, tzvo distinct capitals, which had both been employed in support- ing productive labor, and thereby enables them to continue that support. The cap- ital which sends Scotch manufactures to London, and brings back English manufac- tures and corn to Edinburgh, necessarily replaces, by every such operation, t-wo British capitals, which had both been employed in the agriculture or manufactures of Great Britain. The capital employed in purchasing foreign goods for home consumption, when this purchase is made with the produce of domestic industry, replaces, too, by every Sophisms of Free Trade, p. 221. « Wealth of Nations, Book 2, Chapter 5. TARIFF qUEnriON IN THE UNITED STATES. such operation, two distinct capitals, bid one of them only is employed in supporting domestic industry. The capital which sends British goods to Portugal, and brings back Portuguese goods to Great Britain, replaces by every such operation only one British capital. The other is a Portuguese one. Though the returns, therefore, of the foreign trade of consumption should be as quick as those of the home trade, the capital employed in it will give but one-half the encouragement to the industry or pro- ductive labor of the country. A capital, therefore, employed in the home trade, will sometimes make twelve operations, or be sent out and returned twelve times, before a capital employed in the foreign trade of consumption has made one. If the capitals are equal, therefore, the one will give four-and-twenty times more encouragement and support to the industry of the country than the other. The economic principle which forms the basis of the advantage de- rived from the pohcy of protection stated b}- Adam Smith, was elucidated and developed by Sir John Barnard Byles, in 1S49, in the following able and comprehensive discussion : ' ^replace capital?" It is an .-ing to be attentively consid- What does Adam Smith mean by the expression, expression not to be pas.=ed over in haste, but well des£ ered and analyzed. He means that the whole value of a commodity is spent in its production, aud yet reappears in the shape of the new product. That in its production there is an expend- iture not of the profit merely, but of the entire value, and that the whole of that expenditure not only maintains landlords, tenants, tradesmen and workpeople, but furnishes an eflfective demand and market for other productions. He means that the clear gain, the spendable revenue, the net income of the producing nation, is increased by the amount of the entire value of the domestic product and that the nation is so much the richer ; for while producing, it spends the entire gross value, and, neveilhe- less, after it has produced, it yet has the entire gross value left in another shape. He then goes on and says that if with British commodities you purchase British commodities you replace two British capitals ; but if with British commodities j-ou purchase foreign commodities you replace only one British capital. That is to say, you might have had the entire gross value of two industries to spend, and thereby also to create and sustain markets ; but you are content to have the value and the market of one industry only. These observations of Adam Smith, though demonstrably true, derive additional weight from the quarter from which they come. They are the admissions of the founder of the existing school of political economists, on a point of vital importance, so vital that it affects the entire theory of free trade. At the risk, therefore, of being charged with prolixity and repetition, I venture to invite the candid and serious attention of the reader to a further consideration of this problem. The entire price or gross value of every homemade article constitutes net gain, net revenue, net income to British subjects. Not a portion of the value, but the whole value, is resolvable into net gain, income or revenue maintaining British families, and creating or sustaining British markets. Purchase British articles with British articles and you create t2vo such aggregate values and two such markets for British industry. Change )-our policy— purchase foreign articles with British articles, and you now create only one value for your own benefit instead of creating tzco, and only one mar- ket for British industry instead o{ tivo. You lose by the change of policy the power I Sophis ; of Free Trade, Chapter 4. ECONOMIC DISCUSSION. of spending tlie entire value of one industry, which you might have had, as well as the other, and 3-ou lose a market for British industry to the full extent of the expenditure of that superseded industry. A small difference in price may cause the loss, but will not compensate the nation for that loss. For example, suppose England can produce an article for ^loo and can import it for ^99. By importing it instead of producing it she gains ^1 ; but though she pay for it with her own manufactures, she loses (not, indeed, by the exchange itself, but by the collapse of the suspended industry) ^100 of wealth which she might have had to spend by creating the value at home; that is to say, on the balance she loses ^99 which she might have had in addition by producing both commodities at home. Nor can it be said that what the producer loses the consumer gains. The pro- ducer loses .^100, the consumer gains £1. The nation, moreover, loses the markets which that superseded industry supported. It should be borne in mind that directly and indirectly 90 per cent of the value of every commodity produced, represents labor distributed among producers from the first human effort until the product is finished. In its distribution a commodity is packed, .shipped, handled and sold by labor which must be rewarded for its efforts at every step that is taken, until it is delivered to the consumer. And labor does not stop here. Effort is required to cook and prepare food for the table. To trace to the bottom the cost price of every commodit^^ to the consumer, we find that it constitutes net spendable income. To bring the proposition laid down by Adam Smith more clearly to the mind of the reader, let us assume that woolen goods to the value of $100,000,000 are made in the State of Massachusetts, which are exchanged for $100,000,000 of the farm products of the State of Minnesota. This gives to the people of the State of Minnesota and to the people of Massa- chusetts each $100,000,000 of spendable income, which is distributed among the people of these respective States, going to sustain their inhabi- tants and adding so much to their wealth. The co.st of producing the $100,000,000 of woolen goods in Massachusetts has been paid out and distributed among the people in their production; the same is true of the agricultural produce of the State of Minnesota. This production constitutes $200,000,000, of net spendable income for the people of the United States. Suppose now, that the people of Minnesota accept the advice of free traders, cease buying of Massachusetts and exchange their agricultural produce for woolen goods made in Bradford, England. That this would result in depriving the State of Massachusetts of $100,- 000,000 of spendable income, and add a like amount to the spendable income of the city of Bradford, there can be no question. Bradford would gain what Massachusetts had lost. Instead of the United States now having $200,000,000 of .spendable income, it has but the $100,000,000 produced in Minnesota and there has been added to the spendable income of England the preci.se amount that the United States has lost ($100,000,- 000). Suppose the people of Minnesota, by making this change, purchase TAEIFF QUESTION IX THE UNITED STATES. their woolen goods in Bradford at a lower price than thej- had formerly paid in Massachusetts, and thereby saved on the purchase $1,000,000. While the consumers of Minnesota have saved $1,000,000, the nation has lost $99,000,000. But in the fir.st place, the people of Minnesota had heretofore been selling their produce to the people of Massachusetts at better prices than the English people could aiTord to pay; they were selling to a home market, the best in the world, and saving transporta- tion to a much more distant one. Now, Bradford will not buy agricul- tural produce of Minnesota unless it can be purchased cheaper than that of other countries. Hence, Minnesota is now offering her farm produce for sale in a glutted market of constantly declining prices, in competition with the poorest paid farm labor in the world; besides, England will not continue to purchase the farm produce of Minnesota excepting at the price level of the world, which must always be the lowest price at which similar produce can be purchased elsewhere. But whatever the price may be, if this exchange continues, a foreign market has simply been found for the produce of Minnesota. What then must become of the woolen industry of Massachusetts, which has been .superseded? They can gain back the market of Minnesota which they have lost, only by reducing wages and cost of production to the level of Bradford. But this again, diminishes the spendable income of the nation, and is taken out of the earnings of labor. Unless this is done, what are the people of Massa- chusetts to do? In order, then, to compensate Ma.ssachusetts, the labor and capital must either be turned to the production of something besides woolen goods, or a foreign market must be found for their products. It could hardly be expected that they could find a market for their products in South America, because South America could buy cheaper in Brad- ford. But a market must be found for the produce of the labor and capital of Massachusetts if it remain employed, for whatever they make, either at home or in some foreign country. Hence, it follows, that when an industry already established is superseded by competing imports, that hfo new markets must be found. There must first be a market found for the farmers of Minnesota, and then there must be a market found for the woolen manufactures of Massachusetts. To say that the people of Massachusetts would find a foreign market for whatever they make, is to suppose that the foreign market is always just as large as desired, or to contend that a home market would be found, assumes that a home market is always unlimited. To assume that the capital and labor of the super- seded industry of Massachusetts would find employment in some other industry, involves a dangerous uncertainty. No free trader has yet attempted to name or point out any of the industries in which the capital and labor of a superseded industry would find investment and employ- ment. As Mr. Byles says: "Alas, this is the thing easier said than done. To find productive employment for the people is just the very thing which ECONOMIC DISCUSSIOX is SO supremely difficult as to be often pronounced impossible. It is the problem remaining for the true political economist to solve. Its solution will be an event not less brilliant and far more important to mankind than the discoverj- of the solar S}'stem." But the proposition of the free trader does not stop here. While it might be possible to increase our exports of agricultural produce by $100,000,000, yet this could not be done without glutting foreign mar- kets. The scheme also contemplates the destruction of our silk, cotton, iron and steel, and whole manufacturing system, which if accomplished would diminish the spendable income of the nation in proportion as the foreign trade of the country increased. The proposition announced by Adam Smith has stood the test of experience and has not in the least been weakened by the ingenious assaults of free trade theorists. This is the precise proposition pre.sented to the people of the United States to-da3^ Under protection we have developed our mines, manufac- tures and agriculture to .such an extent that 70,000,000 of people are practically suppl5-ing each others' wants through an exchange of native commodities. In 1890 "the products of our factories amounted to $9,000,- 000,006, and of our farms, gardens, forests and fisheries to over $7,000,- 000,000, constituting a total production of over $16,000,000,000, and yet this was not all. All of this vast sum con.stituted net.spendable income to the American people and formed the basis upon which was carried on our vast system of transportation, our wholesale and retail trade and all the various departments of industrial and commercial activity. This formed the basis of the business transactionsof the country, which have com- monlj' been estimated by high authorities at over $50,000,000,000 a year. The magnitude and importance of our home trade may be illustrated by comparing the United States with the rest of the world. Our 70,000,- 000, or about one-twentieth of the inhabitants of the globe (which are estimated at 1,500,000,000) according to a careful estimate made by Speaker Reed, are equal as con.sumers — as a market for our own and the world's production — compared with the rest of the world to 700,000,000. According to Mulhall's Dictionary of Statistics, we manufacture one- third of the world's product, that is, one-half as much as all the world outside of ourselves. We use all of our manufactures or their equivalent at home. We consume one-fourth of all the sugar produced in the world, one-third of all the coffee, one-third of the iron and steel, one-quarter of the cotton, one-third of the wool, nearly one-half of all the coal, and one-half of all the tin plate. We raise twice as much cotton, and ten times as much corn as the remainder of the world put together. We produce one-third of the world's production of gold and silver. We have one-third of the world's steam power. We grant twice as many patents annually as the rest of the world. One-third the wealth daily accumu- lated by the whole world is acquired by the United States. While the TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. debt of the rest of the world increased during the decade from iSSo to 1890 over $1,000,000,000, the debt of the United States during the same period was reduced by exactly that amount. Chauncey M. Depew, at a speech in Buffalo, November 9, 1895, said: The whole of the tonuage on the oceans of the world last year was about 140,000,- 000 tons, while the tonnage of the railways of the world, carried 100 miles, was about [,400,000,000 of tons. There are 4oo,coo miles of railways in the world, •f which iSo,ooo are in the United States. Of the 1,400,000,000 of tons, carried 100 miles last year on the railways of the world, 800,000,000 were carried on the railways of the United States. You take the 600,000,000 tons carried 100 miles from the railways of the world, outside of the United States, and then you add to it 140,000,000 carried on the ocean in the commerce of the world, upon the seas, and we still have in the 800,000,000 tons carried on the railways of the United States 60,000,000 of tons more than on all the railways of the world outside of the United .States and in all the ocean connnerce of the world put together. These are the marvelous results of an immense home trade built up under the fostering and stimulating influence of the policy of protection, but more and above all this, there are more farms and homes owned bj- the working men of the United States to-day than are owned l3y all the laborers of the rest of the world combined. But let us a.ssume again that instead of relying oh this home trade we change our polic\' and engage in foreign trade. Assuming that of the $16,000,000,000 of home production we transfer $5,000,000,000 to foreign trade and exchange it for $5,000,000,000 of competing commodities which we import from Europe. This would subtract $5,000,000,000 of spendable income from the people of the United States and add that much to the spendable income of Europe. Although our "foreign trade in exports and imports has therebj' reached $10,000,000,000 in the aggre- gate, j^et our domestic production or spendable income would be reduced to $ii,ooo,ooo,oon. But we should still have the same number of people endeavoring to live by productive industries, and struggling to underbid their neighbors for a share in the foreign trade. The calamities which would befall our people by such change of policy are beyond description. Whatever the efforts might be on the part of those stiperseded to find employment in other industries, it would bring about the very result described by Malthus. War, pestilence, di.sease and famine would relieve from starvation those unable to survive, until emigration or death had thiimed our over-populated country. This brings out more clearly the supreme importance and advantage to be derived from the development of native resources and indu.stries. It is through a diversity of industries and pursuits that increased opportuni- ties for employment are created and the spendable income of the uias.ses augmented. This prevents the constant increase in population from pressing on subsistence and affords a remedy which Malthus believed could be found only in a reduced number of inhabitants. ECONOMIC DISCUSSION. The opportunities for emploj-ment and business enterprises through a development of domestic resources and a vast home trade, secure a wider and more equal distribution of wealth than is possible under a one- sided trade with foreign countries. The ability of laborers, artisans, mechanics, clerks, salesmen, the professional and commercial classes, to buy and own homes and accumulate property, is increased as the home trade expands. The most unequal distribution of wealth among civilized nations is found in England under the policy of free trade, where the sub- merged class is growing in numbers, the middle and artisan classes are being leveled down to the submerged, while the wealth is year by year, centering in the hands of the few. On the other hand, the history of nations teaches that the most equal distribution of wealth is found in those countries which have developed domestic resources and industries through protective tariffs. This is confirmed not only by the recent experience of Continental countries, but especially by the marvelous industrial develop- ment which has taken place in the United States under protection during the past third of a century, where the toiling masses are receiving the highest wages ever known, are able to purchase more with a day's work and are enjoying a degree of comfort, happiness, luxury, and accumu- lating property to an extent unknown in former times or in any countrj' practicing free trade. ' ' The rich are not growing richer and the poor poorer ' ' where the polic}' of protection is pursued. Recent statistics in proof of this proposition have been made public by the Report on the Statistics of Labor of the State of Massachusetts for 1894 (page 296), based on the records of estates probated in that commonwealth from 1829 to 189 1. It says: The average holding in the large estates has only moderately increased during the sixty years, having risen from 8137, 71S to $167,347; while the average holding in the small estates has nearly doubled, rising from S2604 to I4992. The classification placed all estates under $50,000 among small estates and all over $50,000 among large estates. Not only are the average accumulations of the people of moderate estates increasing, but it is a well-known fact that a large percentage of the men who accumulate fortunes from $50,000 to $100,000, and even more, began life without a dollar; that one of the distinguishing features of our industrial conditions is found in the opportunities afforded to men of ambition, energy, industr}-, ability and genius to succeed in the various occupations and fields of enterprise. Moreover, the high wages and steady employment of mechanics and artisans, permit savings from surplus earn- ings which tend to increase the independence and comfort of the masses. In fact, the tendency in the United States under protection, has been to elevate and improve the material welfare of all. Such results achieved by a people engaged in the diversity of indtistries of a great manufacturing and commercial country furnish the strongest Distribu wealth. TARIFF QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES. vindication of the wisdom of that fiscal policy which stimulates and fosters the combined productive industries of a nation. Conclusion. The means by which the industrial development and the greatest material prosperity have been secured are as unmistakably revealed by the history of nations as any other fact in the evolution of mankind. Man has taken up his abode on ever>' continent, island, and in every clime. Wherever he goes he finds a storehouse of treasure awaiting the magic touch of his genius and industry. There is not a localit>' between the frigid zones that does not hold within itself those elements which, if properly developed, will produce inexhaustible riches, and in which the highest civilization may be attained. That spirit and enterprise which have ever animated the human race; that confidence in the bounties of nature and in his own capabilities, have impelled him to settle every country. In his development and progress he has not sought after the easy places; those where nature is most generous, those where he could satisfy his wants with the least exertion. He has not gathered about the bread tree, nor plucked ■ only the fruits of the tropics where he could live in idleness and ease. Prompted by some great cause, stimulated by some great motive, guided by some great force,- he has been obedient to the divine command, to multiply and replenish the earth and exercise dominion over every living creature and every force of nature. With high and lofty aims and indomitable will he has risen step by step from a condition of ignorance to a high state of civilization. At first, in his weak condition, unconscious of his powers, unaided by past experi- ence, and unable to penetrate the darkness of the future, he advanced slowly and with great difficulty. How changed to-day! With unlimited powers and opportunities the lamp of experience, which has guided his footsteps for centuries, so lights up the world about him, that the future is no longer hidden from his view. Life is no longer an inexplicable mystery. Man now is not sailing an unknown sea without chart or com- pass, but has discovered laws, forces, rules of individual conduct and principles for the government of society and nations which mark the shoals and breakers to be avoided. It is by a comprehension of the causes and means by which he has reached this high eminence that it becomes possible for man to move on in the same course, and to bring ever>' crea- ture, every country and every locality into that high state which will enable him to accomplish and fulfil his ordained destiny. Society has been slow in forming a just and proper appreciation of the importance of labor. In ancient times work was looked upon as menial, degrading and beneath the dignity of a noble citizen. Manual pursuits, in the eyes of the broad and enlightened manhood of the nineteenth century, are held in the highest esteem. The dignity of labor, the honor attached to honest toil and legitimate business enterprises, have elevated industrj- to a plane ECONOMIC DISCUSSION. of life which has destroyed caste, and raised these pursuits, whether pro- fessional or industrial, to the eminence to which they are entitled. The marvelous industrial growth, which is to-day attracting so much attention anc". fills so large a place in the social life of the world, has sprung into existence within the past four centuries, and has achieved its greatest triumphs within the nineteenth century. It had its birth in western Europe ; Ital}', Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland and England early became the seat of agriculttire, mining, manufactur- ing, trade and commerce. The .spirit of modern industry, which origin- ated with these people, has been imparted to everj- civilized nation, and to-day the Briti.sh colonies, the republics of North and South America, and also Russia, realize the benefits each nation may derive from a system of diversified industry and the development of domestic resources. Japan is taking on a new industrial life, and China is manifesting a similar awakening. If there is one spirit to-day above another which dominates the industrial Vitality of all these nations, it arises from the idea that the material welfare and independence of the people of every locality can most surely be promoted and maintained bj- affording the largest oppor- tunities for the masses to obtain employment in the development of all the resources of their own counti-y. The existence of rich agricultural regions, surrounding beautiful and thriving cities, where a readj' exchange of the fruits of labor can be carried on between the agriculturist and manufacturer, .securing employment in diversified industries, fitted to the varied aptitudes and capabilities of all, making it possible for a contented and prosperous people to enjoy comforts and luxuries of life, is one of the chief triumphs of protective economics. The industrial achievements of the world are the result of causes, the operation of principles and forces, which stand out prominently in the history of nations. The policies successfully pursued by prosperous commercial nations are well known. The economic policy, if it maj^ be called a policy, of nations which are least prosperous, and whose people are in the most miserable and degraded condition, is equally well known. There are certain facts which are so prominent in the history of mankind, that they have passed beyond the realm of discussion. Neither the con- version of the world to the Christian religion, the establishment of wise ordinances of civil government, nor the industrial growth of prosperous nations, has come about by leaving man to the blind fate of chance, or by his submission to the control of that course of events called, by free trade economists, "the laws of nature." It has not been by inaction, but by aggressive exertion, that everything worth being preserved has been secured. In every instance, from the earliest time to the present, it has been by a control and direction exercised bj^ man over man, proceed- ing from the combined wisdom and virtue of the people associated together in societies and governments, that ever>' blessing has been secured. MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICS. U-; O f^ l^ 0> rO CTiCC CS XJ ONVJ r^i CN i- rO "- •^'O c O O tT M rO lO^ M"0 ONCT^'-vO C^ONOCO O I^C r^"^" o'vO'vD I-' -^ '^ c*5 O' (N vxfvd O' fO TOO Q^\6 c CO "* CA lo^ «o 00 CH o CO rr r^vo o ffi i-^ lo m on ■« )_ ^ "-_ lO ^ OM^ r d^i-rco'vjO -^ ) \0 MD O O -^M 8' o" o" o'm^'md" cr^ -T c> (n fo rc^" q' 6 6 6 o 6 d 6 d lo ONQO ^0 OMO r i ::;:::::;::::::;:..:::::::;■. :^|?kjj 1 . .*ft c?'S O^ 'h . MCO n iO(N lOO '-' r-M I>.(N ►-■ •-■ woo - -^ror^CNVO in\D rO l-- rrj ro '-i .'tf- lO lO^ f^i "N vO OJ O ^T u O C lo r-^20 vor^'^ior^io— O CT^O o-- ct-n onco m o -^ r-* O »o »- lo-o^ ro — ^ o^ '-^ cT rO CR rO ON -^ ^ t^ uS i-T O' rC O' CT-MD NO t^ o" r^ rC\o" tC«^~ t^ rC o' '-'''-' fN i-- NC d^vc rj i-H lo O ^co r^ONc^>o r^w loo Onvjd (Tj-^roo lO'-' w mcj mn r-^cc ■^ on on ir: cn i~~ O t^ —' O On lO C^ f^NO ON O ,O^C/3 '^ inmrO'^CN t^f^ ITJCO ON lO 0N\0 (N h- v^ lO r^. '"'^ o^ cr> c5^^' <^ r^co' *^ i-Too'" c" fO — ' lo i-- i/^ i-'oT cT (n vo '-"cc' rCvo" rT >-' rC ro d" cf« -rf i- oc co ►i W M r^ -^ uo u-)\0 t^r-ONr^iOt^O^O O IN ir.\0 NO fD (N unCC OC aM:^NO iOv£) no no < ro t^CO ^ ON lO O t^ vo ON O NO OnnD fO On C^- N "^ ; o ON rj ^ v£; U-, «oy3 o^cc f;; ^1 f:^ '^ jsg^^^^-^ o o " r-.cr.N ^ ^ i^co o vo co mOM^ovo on >' ■ mvo t-^x Gn O ) so 00 00 00 00 CO « 3IISCELLANE0US STATISTICS. ■R So . f^ • • ^^ •^s- i&^i:e>oH 1 ■8 ■I- •fl^il^s • ^ .^. • ..5S, ■t^Br^^iMs ■ ;«* .VO . 5 '. " '. ;2 ^7i^SS%?^^ ■ •rf -fj- CT> IN (N 0^\0 0^ O '-' M- li^ ON r^ w o'co' o ^-^ t^ <^-t d^c7 o'^'co i^ in ro 4 ^ -^ ^oTvo" oi m" o' rC ff cc"" cTco'co' oo ONfOMco iNco o) -rj-o^ ^~.^^^--.a^lntn^-^ nOco '- cn (-00 O r-^-^i^O O ^ow e^ "-^ O fO q^ q_ t^X i-H O^O t^in-^O^^-oi 0^0 'T^ -' 0^ -^^ CN lO t-- '^ I>.CO CO -^ ■ O r^ rOCO rO ro r^ r^ CS I ) r^»o t^vo in CO CO t^ioj ) OM-^ O invO ^ oco VD -* fO --_ co m i^ ct in on o a%S o^co o oMn ^ r^OT c t^ ON^ w CO o ■ Tj-CO \0 r^ '- GO ro o ^ ^^o CO m o" ^03cc rn o'aJ" -v. ,£:§;; . , - - 3 »n n CO lOOD CO MD ro ■rt'^ -rf C\0 ^ "^^ *^ *■; O ^_ '"l, '^„ '^ "^ ■>: "^^ 0_ ~ t^vo" lOco" o -^ t-'^ in\c (N -^ •- stls^sHSsI r^ kI^s^I fl'HHS&^.^-^^^g^l.^ 1 fi^?.^oUr^%-.r^r^"^^BB ^gHSs^SSH€fasl^5 0^ " t^>0 ^O P. fi.00 C»O^IN"o2f?«CTl «2 22^^§5§^gS^S=8S*S- %^^%iBni^^r?^r^"^'^^ rg'Hsig^isfsit^ii- ■s kI5I§?&s^£^M^ El 8^1- ^Hl^ti-^^?'! SHs;! ^ ........o,.,...o s^^ ?!= 3;I-C ^^i % l^i s^l' t SatlR^?:-^^8'5&S? nr^un^^sr^iiB^^ iRi^fisESIsr^KHS ° S %S?;S%S55>2^cg 8| 5;S5o » ?3^ f;g;'§^3g>?,^5 5 w n 8R ■ • K 1^ -ig^^^s^Usts-^l: fO^ rO rO fO ^ r--00 r^ ^ lO O* C4 VD O^'.D^ -^^ O X ON O »0^ ^^^ '^ O^ ro m in M y:j (N PJ C7J I rC^piocoovor^wio O^ \o i-h' o" -" »-' vo ONx' f^ d" vD c5~ r^ t^ lo "-T cf> ^' x" x' '-''-""•-' cr- -^ -4 rO O* —'" '-' rCoo' "' O^ rf UO r^l 0:1 ^c^w ^fN <- (N rOON'^ -^X "sO •- X ^^^D X r--X O OM:--OX ^ »Of' r^X ^ ** ON Ti- ON ro tN^ t--. p-_ i^ '^^"^^^ "1 "1^, --^ in 01 X -1" CN r^ t-; c>i^^_ *^ "^ "^ "3^ "- *"- *^, '-'_ '^^ CN^ o^ 10 r^ '<^ loy^ ^D in -^ r^vo o_ q^x_ n v^ r/^ d -^ t^ ON O^^J ON UO lO^ ONX' O X I X. ex m c X I O ro o « c^vo' 10 (N tC -rt cf fC (s rC) « rO ON O rDX \OXTt'-i\C) (N iOV£) \0 t^CO ON t^W t^ r^vo t^vO t^X X O X X X •-' Tfr--r^in— loo ci o- Q loc loroON-- -i-^D x ►-■ mONinO r-^ON'-co f^\C '^ t^ t^ a\ Cr> ro 'TT^O Q* <^ ON '-■' On . ro ON ON M tN ON\o ONOx w (N r*r-.0 w f^-' t-^X On O '-' (N rT) "^ 10^ t^X ON O '-' f^ rT) "^ 10^ t^X ON ( ?IISrELLA NEO US STA TISTICS. OVOVO OOO^ sO Q" OQ f^^C vO -^ (N CO lO « C^CO O* fO cz}cz3cc o^cs*x) lo c^cc c^oo lo ti- w o^^_ cn_ io^_^ "^ "^r ^„ '^^ *^ "^ '? ^ ^ O f^ O tO^ cJ O ^ lO CO ro '-'^ -^ " CC - q^ q^ ^ C^ t-^ fO CN_ « (N_CO_ W^ GTs lO x" (^ lox lovo' wvxTvo" r^\£r lO'O ^ o'vo oc'^o -^f in ro c^ lo -^ fo oT m" cT ci of d" W ^ -Tx' (N X" O'^" in^" CNMO w vo W -^^ rO -f CO Tj-X cO O "rJ-^O " \0 (^r-^O"^ l-^rOMV£) r>.-^iO O" d^' r^X e^^^ fO \0 f^ •-'" i-' in rO cT cT ro "^vo" m" ^■^c^ fooio—'oio-:*- " cT \D ""^' lo -' "' -^ -^ in a^ i-^ o rox" o' -tec x" r^ ^x -^ >.'-' lo om-" r^ » r--x -n ov f i>.0 ci\0 in-^in"- n -^i^w t^ cox r- \d m tj- ^ o^ ^ ^ ) o O o O a^ ■ cT en -^ invD rCco' c^ CT\ o" I-*" rT I fo Tt in^o r^oo cr* ^x'oO X (X ^x'x X X CO CO CO MISCELLANEO US STA TISTICS. ^ 1 f Is1^i^k^s;Hs^IskS§ UUU^iUiUMt^ ^^ 1 1 Sell's %n^^M %^Bi^siiHHU^^^^ r^r?? t 1 i :::::;::::.: : kB^^^i^M^B ^ 1 iiB ^i §k^^BiBBMt i 1 1 MISCELLANEOUS STA TLSTK'S. »)" €tiH"3?i2§^S2 Pi H^slHsH^Hi <^<^^ ^t: °'2'2 ^p'^" !:"rtSr "i S^i^gJs^l^HIHS? a fsS^I'Ifl-ffls^ls O0- O' ^^ ^ t^ lOOO" -"oo S^ jj

CMOvX) ?; .8 VD f^i^ON C - 1-; pTvo o ; ) O a>X rOCO ON i- ONco ONr--^ o oo vo V iSc MISCELLANEO US STA TISTICS. b~ ?^.:T£-?;^'g^5 :^2 ^^^%^ &^ s^^ g^f.sSc2S ^t^P.iSRS;^ ^s ;; &iglS^tl5f|gg^i;^sr^§^i-H>°«sHf^S;|gSl^li H^5?p,i 8 Its^f Hrs5l Si;ai l^"Hg^» olftffHIl •* t^ ^ IOU3 co«rKi-Cd'« -a-" 1^ ro lovo rCt^CTi^a>^w '"^j^r; -^t^-ro'o t>« lo § 2 ^S S; S^=§v 3^=^ ^ 2 :?g 5 K S.S ^i? S;^ ?! rr 8 ^ •!?> £^ S> S ^ 5 5 2^^5 5 S u Hg^f S-?§=t§-SS^i^tS ^Ht-;^HI^8 IH€^^|-§I 11 2 £^K-feSR|^ ^S ilH'?^^^"^^^^ S-^I^H'^R^ S=K?$II s ^ 1 1 ■.:::; ■.:.::::::::::::::: ^g^ :: :8 ::::: : HS o ■:::::;:;::::::::;::::: :^ : : :^ : : : : : : «A in ^5= :iC%S5^ff^5R5^^J? 1 3 ^'H -i^lHH^Hs^s^^^&HI^Ex-HSUH ■.::::-^": ^IHsH^Hia^S^^E^H^^rs.^^! s *% :s;'?,58 53.^^?3^-Sgs:?>'5,^g^?^^c2S>^r:.^c;?^ f?^>S'R:"ig^s'^^oK^'4g^g'S;f2^ijsa«^vSf^5g>'5^ ?i 3;^^ H'Sg ^ R ;? t:^ 5S » eg ?.£-vS-2 SvS^'iS, ^^ f^ g Sv? a ■■■■:::: '.ii^-s^^^^it^^'^ -^^s^i^i^^^^s^''^'^' ::::::.: ;«* ""^" i ■^ ^S%S^'^^^^^S^)^^^???^^^'i ^^ S-J^f=Sv?K5'^£:-ft^S O! . • iRf Hi^sH?^?s;g2 "^H°^HH§tr^^i ss H&€ ■f^l^^^lslti^^"'°"=^"="^"'-'^l:-^^if^"-^-"^^^^^ ° •^ " "'^'^" g^^^-s^ s^s^RSS^ R^t5%5 s>RK^? ssg ?8^;?:?3;?ri^s n •} g ^g I^^'^TS'^Sc? s 1 „- K UuuuMMiiUMiMiMiiimim MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICS. ^^-^g^S^c^S ^K2<8 ^S5 Sfrff^^^ S^ ^ as R5S ^2 t^%^S^^^9> ^l|- = IIUstl:Sig^^S^8R2l;o^&ii^S'3;sl^a^2Kl^5S; H^iHtRll s°HI s.S>a§;H:-r.s^HI ^H^B?^3;f ^ Sy-" s # ^ ^=s" ^ j^ s ;^ a ^^' ?; 2=^' 2^=°' s^ s^ s^^-\^ ^ ? S> ?5 K^ SS ^ S=^ ^ S, 2 9 5^ ^?KK^5>S-5 SSsK^^'S KS^SvRS :?3.5^:??: t: %^^^5i^ :??S=s>S;?,g N. a^^^'?i j2^^ ^^^i^in ?gf ?§§^ii r^i n r^^^uv^'^^ui 11 '.'s^: ■ 3^8=^8 Ss :a : ■ ■ •RSaS?^! 1 8 S . • ^S'.S vo S>>S" ■ S ■ . . . '?8^.t'9^ R;g ^"^^^K^ ^ ;; - . .=SS:§2-* . . ■ • ■o-"'^^^. So^s^^KR.?! ::::::::::::: : r^i g ^- CO i/S 6 .D ^ 4 c^ ;;>-x- t- j^ " g=c§. ^ss'-aass-^s-g K- ■ S2^ 5 cioi-voo^- -^ - • . ^->|C ■^t^ " M 1 , 2SSvg?=^8g^^8^?^?>!?^8^^q^8 8 ^^ f ^?,^S5i52^^s^?'§SS^?2E^:;>^fift : : ■ ''k^ tl CR t^ "T ^ .^ir.-'i^-^jJ^ir^S^lt^Hia^K^lsssfssH^Hf??, ui t^UMMMPAiMMiitiUiiMMM iMISCELLANEOVS tiTA TI.-iTWS a; ?f^S.7?3>?^f.7 ^RSR^ ^!?^'^':J=&^Sf,7rr,;Tf-.SC3 £l3 ^_ - - - _,^^^-- - --, _.-^-.^2^^ Isl b'7. - . . JT-^% Isl V, £^r.iob n^' ri 3-7 :<^ !/,,,..£ G'■'a^^-Tr.>^-r,> c osJ^^'o^^ h 8J?^'S5S'?o;3f?s>^r..^.^g^?5-§^s>s^^^^2 4A??3;s;[?,8 kD^«to:rvO^--0"-jiocNio-Ct^iootNio-^i — ---1 -^coco lOf^iO-Tf^J-lOOtNOONiJvot^vOiO^vOvOJ y'.O-;!- Is i jooMot^ro^ n ^trJi^^^iS !CS "^ wPi^?; ^n "S ^c??!-! S" " « 5>^'fi^:tfJ^SSV,^<.- lo rC in * * ' £ B< ■w. . ^ff'R^^^S 2^%SE?SS P;'§5 J^S^^o $S^S'R:;,^%'S.S>8 1 ^&iSl4lE:l^HSHH^?77?7-7-f|^ tin^^B3M^%^:%^mv: ': : ' im 1 WM^CjCNNPIMM- « „r, — 1,. .r i- _ - ^ _ — ,^, n - ►, «, . S':::r^5^e^;^ ^ . : <5?^vg^5K iss-cS ::::::; ' tS ^^?iS2^-^ 1,.. -"^-R Mt- = §S8Hs^.-p: .s . . "'it ^'4^""- ■■'■■■ ** ■ S --5^^ §:£=n?8.%?£'S=5,S.:7>?^?>S^S^S.^ ?ftS«. 8 1 ^^g||^?^HfStil^^^^^^^^^^^P-^|^^ ^Ist^Hgi^sRH^I^ ::73S| « 1 g'S'o 5s"^:?S,:?o £ -'^ 2 ^-^T"' ^ ■--■ "" - ->---7o2^5 ^fOW""""" 5%g3^£=5S'E5R^;?.S S-8 R>g S ^S^^5^5^5^ft5?^R^ 8 « iMUm^n^?'^-^'''^^'--'^^m^ |^|^||%g.R7: 7. : -Iq^^ " " ?H^ 5° s^-£ i^'i- - - - - X .i ., r -_ ^ ;, .. . . ., L-S :r^ ^t 1 \ MMiumt^mMiiiiiMilMM MISCELLAXEOVS STA TISTICS. ill 1 Nr~.^;OQN'0^^^lN^-.o►--!)•>-c-l^0^lp■!^•W^OKHB"§Sill5SH 1 s-'^^g-^gK8>^J^^^S?!^^f?ag^C55;S?s-^!;??^ ?>?:?:% 1 i^ X- :/ :' " -- " ? ? ° r- " 4 ?S ^ 1 ^^ ^ a s ^ 1 g^ 1 g 1 S| ^ !!, c BSr.;f .M -- ^^ioS^^IH^Ssl^KS^^^^^ S ^ 4.r.r--...-:-,.--:^.,,,o^^^.^^^^^4^^^^^4 ' 1 g "^ t ■* -t^ ^ s ''^. i g :?« s-s ri&ss'Ks^sss^ s;s8 s-sf^i§ 2 3^^^ :?9gi 1 ■i §H^^^sl§,-§ § § 8 8 8 Sfio^e^SsHR" RS'sf. '? " ^"""^?--S "--^2^J8?SB5-?^^^^2:^^^^^^|^ < ^ ^ ■i S^?^=g^^^?8cg-RR8 ?^cgcg S Sii'S^ !?g>?8 ^8«=§>^ >• HC-f?5 r.?f.3." IHr^fHI s^sr^l.^lfH vj z i^^^^■^^r s^f kIEs ^Hg^ = ll^§H^s g 1 .t b-'g^? S?:?c?^S>^E:^ S'^^^%3^^tS^2^^Sg Scg S2 S;;;>'R^^ | i^ S ^i^^^iKmf^ni'^nr:^n^-^^^nUUi ^ t!?li!fi!MP^^.::,:;;:;,^^;-:^;,;;;l=t g "■""■""■ s^ s ^=s,o ^^%.§ 3;s ?i ^§-^?R5 ?i>s R^^^5 R^t-^:^,:;3;s?g^ :§ |S &l5^l^n^5ts;^8K?H?=n::n^^s|5^sS^f ^; s ^^^^^^B§%H^^UH''^ - -' i :.-.; as^HU ^" """ .''.«-..-. ^ i >• 1- g^g:-rKii°Hi°i°iii5^„^^.^i.^^.^iiH MISCELLAl^EOUS STA TISTJCS. r^ONW^ -^TtrOONt--'- -rf cn 01^ •^^* x r^ t-^ ro i>- d -4 ^ 10 ^ ON -^ ■- f-vO CO 10 •" 10^ i-K--rt(N-rr(^^OONO lO^O lOTO^- lOiOM ONIN -^rcmiO »-. -^rOO O CN lOO rOr^-^ON" CN i-^Qn O^X r'-ju^'- r^^'^uO-^Lr^O^r'-ONi-' in ^ in ^ -rr O^ l^ 6 d IN cn\0 i-T C^ -^VO rO ^ ^CC Cn" OsvO' On^O i-' ^* O^ I^.X' -' rC rO 10 ^ ON 30 t^NO* rT I ' rO ON^D iOOn^CNVO >-• ^ CN i-hvO -^f '^ On r^^ ONvO lo lO on - O CN r^^-O lOX t-^\D ^ I^ ■ cO^O^ M^O nX lOt^^ lOX CNXTf^ -- rOCN^OX^X CS ON- O rOO ONr"- j^^^^^r:: 8n^ K : 3" S 1^> o ; "4 -^ -^ 10 lovo vo r^*J3 yD rOO lOM O fOrO-^O l^X X X ONX lO »0 '-h coX r>.«COX SPiOQ -^ONONt^rDt^O "^ ON -^ ON in\D CN ON w lox ON o • • ^x O lOX ON -■ >-; w r^x r^ q t^x r^v£j on ro . f^.^o' r^NO r^x" ^' 10 ri O^ O x' cn w X ONX ONvO X r^iOONO - - t-i \0 ro fOX O -^X . a5cZ=§ ^S^?l5Sg^§8 S'^'SS 2S 8 35 ^^.g» S^f;S-2 :S^S;£-=£ SS i il iH^ii^HSis ?:-5:b§^p;kS.^e:-^" sHIsII"3 ss 1 |Eg^gfiii^p.f|||||S§fstf||f§ff|l§||||^ ^'g ^^5^5'&^15^^ S'KKS'cg^&SK^^S^'RS S.!§^2 ES!,"^5^§.£' ET ^IIHH^^^^I s^HHf lE^BsHgH.H^g^H^s;! g ifH5>i,.-HaHHH'^?8^Et§^^°Hi;ritffS;?.-?i^s X M rOX 10 O X »OX M fOX CN X M X CN CN O 0N»5 CN lOfOCN M UpH. t-. tJ-CO O lOOO ^O lO t^ ON-^-o lod TJ-ior^dco hI ro"-^ d d -^fo-^ lovo c)d ri Tj- d d "-• d^ ^" o^onX cmocn wx o o -^^w ^"^"-^"^^ "^^^ •-: ", ^ °. *^ "^ 9. ^ "? '^ "> °, "_ ". "t ^ ", ■4 ^ rf^ --a^CN^ -*^0 ONio ^x ON-- OnQ " Q- ^- ^x »ox nc w - ri ^^o lo r^ lo t^ ^vo o^ o> 1- t-. r-.x -^ t-.vo t^ r^^ x Ch o,<^.^^ ^ '^^ *^ ^^,^. ^^- "1 ^ ^ '^^. ^ ~ ^. " "^ cOrOrOfOTfTt-^-^ lO^' uS lO i-' ro (N x" t^CC^D pT lO lO O' lO rC rf On CN X O* — '4^ On JO J^nO )'-X fOi^r^CN O O tH ON o\x -^lo-^o lorotocoN t^\o onvo ^ ^ Q vg « ^ ^ "? ^^^ i2 S ^ ^-^T S^ i 00 X r^ 10*0 vo O "-• Tj-ONONu^t^w r^x on -^vo O X Onx rocN CN m <- ^qNO ^x rs. - O ^ r^ ri 10 ^ - ^ -^ ^ CN On r^ rCvo on onx (n h- go ^5 X o "^ ^^ o; t^^ '^ $t ST- 2} t! ^ 5;r ^ LO M V O CN TtN^ w CN r-.NO CN rD\o ON rox vor^-t^cNvox c^*^'^'-'^0^'-_'^0_^-^OiocrN »OX^ o" c-nvo" cn" tC -rf r^vO ':fdNfOrOO''iOiOO*'OCN'io*-'*"'- lOO lO fOX ^(^CN d^iOO f^-t^ 10^ o ^ r-x iovo !-: i-- o CN ON ONvo cNONONr-o ^^ -x lox 'g-x O v£_ ^-• On onvo o o^ p- M r-.\o t^^o o CN o 10 r-- -d- CN cox ^ r--ONTfi->.cN^ on t^x^NO_x_^ o_x_ 10 '^'^. '-L ^ ^ "^ ^ ^ r^CNCNCN^fOcorOrO'^vO'^'^iOO^t^lO lO^o'*^ cO lO iOnO no" in CN vfT r^ tC t^\o -^ •- X *^ j;^ J> r^X OnO •-' I MISCELLANEOUS STAllSTICS. r^cc 2 -^" I ^"^ lo cS CTM- rooJ --f r^ r^vj5 \6 loco co tA ri -4 fOCO CN O CO sO O^^ O — CN lO f 'iii ( ^ o^"^ ^^ -^ t^\r^^ -^ r^'^c/Sc/S Ostein r^ as \fi (:^ '^!:/S t^ d (T^ I ^ClfOO(N^^O^O^O^•^•i-lO^^Tt^ lOCO lO -^-O CO ■-' On ro a\ rp f loco ov r^^d -^ fo^ t^ Kdo o CO o ctmn ^ -^vo i-i w (m w n COCO \D ^ fO cr^ crv t^co q a\ r^ -^ m lo m loo o •-• "h t^N'^-<^(7v«'^(N o con —^o o lO-^O M CT>N 0^■^•^0^^ rOCO •- Ttr^^ r^^tr^x^O rO I-- iuo -i" t^ O CO CO cO« 0^ O^ '^_ "^ ^ "^ R. *^ "? 9. " "^ "?^-^^°°> "? " ^^- OMOt^CN ^ row-- lOO 4- r^ -^ - fO -^ o -^Q"aNuSu5rCM"rt-^ lovo" rC d" d> ro fo -^ o" t-^ rCco' r^ dc/S\D d i-" in -' cR i-^x --f -'co rO a^ CN CO 0\\D CO M OfOf^lOiO-' C^Tt; -^^ "N iOrrir^)-H ON ■- iorOt--ioO - iorOiOl--r^O O "O rO w CC O^ •^ fO ^ fO r^ ro ro c5^ O oi lo ^^ ^ ^^ ro O' r^ n" in in w' -^' d^ ^ -h' C* rC -rf --' -^^ •- « CO Tj- in o ^^ ON in ■- inrnq O^o ^^r^c^ln Q* y5 a> — d »n ^vo m5 in -T ) vO ^o (s Oi I---GO a^ tt r^^o o ON in i- w r^ -rf ON CJ>0 rorO'-' -GO o> q_ ■ S 2" §"? .^^ ^=? in P: ^ <-> rOt-^0M^'^r^*^0 •-' "rtCC QO OC CO r(- rO t^»0 C4 rOCO N rO 0^ « O "^ ■rf ch o ovfor^in'^D ONCTiONr^r--'^'' in rC n O^ on in cm' o" cn" rCvo •- i-T (n~ \o ts OM incTNrfO -^o Mvo inONC CO cO'-'vO O 00 r^^O O VO 01 I gv r^ I-* !>. d d> -^co oj r^ t-^\D ctmA S. ■ O in^ •rf a^ o\ -i Tfr-^O -^01 r^r^M O^CT\c tnocot^O qqt^ c^co cj o\ r^ - \£) ro in . ctn r^ d^^ t in in ro^D cO'.D -H O inoj o) o mcoo o coO (nco r^-^roO CO CN in'O CO CN CO ►- o ^ O -^SD cf\\c oj r^ ro ON in ^n^^c )TOJ CO Ov^ inv£J OJ fOGQ fO 01 cr\ ^"^^ q^ 10 1 ! d" '-"'' -^ tC in ^f 10 1 x^vT} O "-I CO CO r-. f coco i^^o ^ CO t>X CI ro O O O coco ON ON ^^VCC r^d" oi d" -'co' O MD >0 \0 rtX rg ro 01 CT>vO ONCO t^ 01 m « ON cO -^ t^CO ^ CO O O <0 -^CO b t "CO d ^ >nx d »n ■;£ t^x r^ inco uS t<. Q mo d -^ oj coco oi in\d d cd invD ro (> On ' '" <-■ Tfo r^i— -i-CTNt^ONinrooj -^co ^o rfo '-' \o onco o r^ in o) co r^ mvo m r^ 04 m o i -^ o ■^^^o -i-y:^ on^o on — — a^^o co r^ ■- 'o on -^ -rj- rovo in'-'0'^o*coo^r^ONr~-. § ) -Tf — o "^ Tt^ '-' inoNoi cocoo Oo»'^ invD ^" d" '-' on o "^ '-' ot in n' d~ lo •-'" rC "^ d" .N- oNONioo) -^o inON:--oi « CN t-^co ioof^-.>^r-,- ojr^w^ooi coco in on -^^o O S ^ '^^^ *"- ^^ " "?^ '"; "^ '^ "^ '^_ 9. 9. ■"_ "^ '"' ^ "^ ON ^\o CO in in -^f m t>.x ^o inx - i ro d d" CO in coco' rC in in^d" oT hToo rC cT d^co' d coco' c> oT -^co'co' -^ ^^f go \d" on -tF i-T ^ O CT^ t?CO ON01t^in(OrO'rrTj-'^cOrOrO-^co-*- ON !>. r;r» O t^ C< t^ rOVO rn a \Q MCO -rJ-O 1-^ ONVO M 00 w O I vo in cox I-" -H r^vo »ninoi Tfo»0 OnO'-o inT}-r-.r^OM t~>. IVO rO'^cor^'-' '-''dt^d fOoJ Mvd rOlnCj^'^f-d OJ rO( * "*" " — OvOvD ■- lO--" OnO^'O O ino< fs inoi ro 3 O "^ ON t^ <-< in t^^o o r^ininrot^o "^ !■>■ inco oi ONrodoN-^rCi-r ^z^ i-T d' cf^ oT t-^ — " co^" d^:/"" d Sl^ '^ ^^ t^ ^ 2 i^ ^^ ^ ^ ^t^OMnt^-r- " .- t^oj ro CO -_ in CTsxO -^O ^04 '^ONrO'-' o mo) -- t-^^--'-^o^^O o^ IT? ^ 1? tr £1 2. '"' *^^' ro d q' fO in '-r covo" fo in -^ 4 rCx" d^ f^ -^ WW w w ■^■^loinio lovo vo r-x t--. t^ m in"*o mvo in'O t>.co t^ a^X X ON 3XXXXXCO OnOnCnOnonOn :HIHCELLANEOVS STATISTIC: Table No. 36. Tadie Shozving the Value of Principal Articles and Classes of Merchandise Importea into the United States, for the Years iSpo, 1892, 1894 <^'>id 189J, Ending funejo. Compiled from Report of the Bureau of Statistics Treasury Department. [Abbreviation, ii. e. s.: not elsewhere specified.] Free of Duty. Animals, n. e. s Articles, the gro%vth, etc., of United States, returned, Art works, the production of American artists, . . . Chemicals, drugs and dyes, n. e. s Coffee '. Cork wood or cork bark, uninaiuifactured, Cotton, unmanufactured Farinaceous substances, n. e. ^. Fertilizer.s, , Furs and fur skins, undressed Hair, n. e. s Hats, bonnets and hoods, materials for, etc., n. e. s.. Hides and skins, other than fur skins, Household and personal eifects, etc India rubber and gutta percha, crude, Mattings for floors, etc Oils, n. e. s Ores, silver-bearing, Paper stock, crude Silk, unmanufactured, ^S'"r 'an d°nTo"aies n' e s Tea '....'. Textiles, grasses or fibrous vegetable substances, u e Tin, bars, blocks or pigs, grain or granulated, , . . . Wood, unmanufactured, n. e. s Wools, hair of the camel, goat, alpaca and other animals, and manufactures of : Unmanufactured — Clothing wools (Class i), . . Combing wools (Class 2) Carpet and other similar wools (Class 3i, . . Rags, noils and wastes Total unmanufactured All other free acticles, Total free of duty 78,267,4.-}2 1,213,876 1,392,728 1,108,726 1,213,989 6,867,670 2,165,213 7,748,572 5,261,44s 24.325.531 2,973.994 ■11.559. 142 12,317.493 697,680 6,898,909 4,242,085 31.528,331 3.221,041 126,801,607 1.368,244 3.217.521 257.739 1.431.285 9,649,578 3.352,429 1,685.562 1,897,190 26,658 133 2.921.893 19.833.090 893.139 1.637.473 3,329,244 9,606,065 5,448.263 25.059.325 2,740,087 ,472 i I 25,440,522 12,823,269 23,043,056 $379,795,536 $363,233,795 a See " Hats, etc., dutiable." b Included in " AU other dutiable articles." c Free of duty under reciprocity treaty with Hawaiia d Includes all brown sugar and molasses after April 1 e Includes flax and hemp only, after October 5, 1S90. / Dutiable after July 1, 1893. g See " Hats, etc.," free of dutj'. /; After October 6, 1S90, free of duty. .«' Dutiable. MISCELLANEOUS STA TISTICS. Table No. 36. — Continued. Articles. 1890. 1892. 1894. 1895. Dutiable. $3,270,277 1,796,372 2,878,7.7 5,629,849 404,423 1,285,219 2,172,952 14,787,688 2,114,284 3,087,760- $2,575,8.3 2,030,599 2.115,417 1,592.040 3,039.408 1,455,058 3.855,572 14,433,308 1,930,538 4,373,079 $.,3.0,379 .,484,184 l,S84,.82 929,23. 3,265,087 10,119,263 3, 704,. 13 $2,017,171 Art works, n. e. s. : Painting in oil or water colors, and 187,250 Books, and other.printed matter, n. e. s., Breadstuffs- Barley Another 1,580,827 '867,743 1.676.809 Chemicals, drugs, dyes and medicines, n.e.s., 13,241 S82 Coal, bituminous 3,848.365 Cotton, manufactures of: ■ ° Not bleached, dyed, colored, stained, painted or $129,588 3,373,653 336,655 7,149.030 11,447,670 904, '35 6,577,324 $140,001 4,505,666 1,261,848 5,833.652 11.248,289 664.952 4,669.433 $95,565 3,385,24. .,658.778 4,360,655 8,021,769 4,4« Bleached, dyed, colored, stained, painted or 5,428,243 Clothmg, ready made, and other wearing apparel, not 2,766 877 Knit goodf: stockings, liose, half hose, shirts, drawers, and all goods made, fashioned or shaped on knitting m.ichines or frames, or knit by hand, . ...,■■ Laces.edgings. embroideries, insertings.neck rufflings, ruchings, trimmings, tuckings, lace window curtains. 6,535.179 11,686.016 Thread mot on spools), yarns, warp or warp yarn, . . All other 658,702 5.995.792 $29,918,055 $28,323.84. $22,346,547 $33,196,625 Earthen, stone and china ware : China, porcelain, parian and bisque, earthen, stone and crockery ware- 1' ,217,326 4,808,206 1,004,769 $1,894,577 %^^;5°3 $1,258,881 $2,053,723 6;585;76. All other $7,030,301 $8,708,598 $6,879,437 Fancy articles- Perfumeries, cosmetics, and all other toilet prepara- 2,070,659 477,183 1,448,602 1,190,690 278.973 819.596 $^64,855 2,476,132 904,659 1,833,354 418,..2. $427,850 2,149,660 726 692 1,727,996 3^4.578 Beads (except amber) and bead ornaments i Fans except palm' leaf " b Feathers, ornamental, natural Feathers and flowers, artificial Pipes of all kinds and smokers' articles All other 4.5.206 1,74. .261 Total $7,626,378 $6,097,221 $5,346,776 $3.. 72.7.0 $3,710,382 $4,585,450 $4,643,746 ""$4^66^ Flax, hemp, jute, etc.— Unmanufactured,/, 19.844,087 2,645,972 1,576,763 1,178.334 Manufactures of— $1,300,795 6.433,771 86,259 1-521,043 19,079,411 $1,4.2,399 7,064,335 17,075,067 26.726 469.207 12,735.607 115^29 19,901 5.2,148 Burlaps (except for bagging for cotton), Cables, cordage and twine, Another 18.425.527 $28,421,279 $26,293,2.7 $19,230,021 $20,165,426 • $.3,878.80. j $11,294,328 $9,862,829 $11,772,040 BIISCELLANEOUS ST A TISTICS. Table No. 36 — Coiitinucd. — .390. 1S92. 1894- .». $5,388,603 $6,844,702 $4,979,079 $7,002,. 04 Glass and glassware- Bottles, vials, demijohns, carboys and jars, emptj- or $912,704 l,46.,736 74,546 1,529.401 S4,7<5 931.323 249,819 2.,c8.269 i,» 56, 162 887,626 119,201 3,485.103 $506,183 1,067,787 22,314 786,004 38,12. 449.086 75.106 2,272,2.5 Cvlinder,ciown and common window glass,unpolished. Cylinder and crown glass, polished- Uusilvered, 835,730 Silvered, Plate glass- 6s1;?^ 16:740 3,605,194 Total, $7,352,513 $8,758,964 $5,2.6,8.6 $6,541,679 Hats, bonnets and hoods, and materials for, n.e. s Hay, $3,398,657 1.143,445 ..053,616 g $715,151 883.70. S $761,940 484.415 e Iron and steel, and manufactures of- 613,170 573,335 1,496,397 511,487 20,928,150 2.390,813 793,454 .60,412 97,570 2,532,437 1,665.895 i!8i2!675 IS i;666,=i4 840,521 12,315,562 i,76.,776 552,624 '6°:^ 1,207,020 81,554 647,751 2,962,932 $388,720 585.988 45,967 421,997 42,325 i4;°ii 820,541 , 47,805 25,120 .22,710 1,419.512 1,494,164 $-170 6S2 Piciron, Scrap iron and steel, fit only to be remanufactured, . . Bar iron rolled or hammered i8l:y 502',346 11.237 Bars, raiivvav, of iron or steel, or in part of steel, . . . Hoops or ties for baling purposes, barrel hoops, and hoop or band iron or steel, flared, splayed or punched. Ingots, blooms, slabs, billets and bars of steel, and Sheet, plate and taggers iron or steel, I,. 14. 136 Wire and wire rope and strand iron or steel, Manufactures of, n. e. s — Anvils, 665,451 Chains isS Files, file blanks, rasps and floats 65.594 458.522 'h Another 1,637.231 $41,679,501 $■3,541,586 657,658 $28,420,747 $20,594,366 , Jewelry, manufactures of gold and silver, and precious «12.972,938 3,653,378 $5,342,809 6,606,865 $7,511,898 2,488,584 Leather, and manufactures of: Leather— $17,613 3,644:6^5 1,372,257 $24,101 1,199.954 3.497.879 2,090,673 2,484,740 1,622,335 $256,505 527.427 Calfskins,tanned, or tanned, dressed and japanned, Upper leather, dressed, and skins dressed and finished, n. e s 2,35..156 Total leather, . . $6,2=9,836 «5,501.336 704.908 $6,8.2,607 $4,508,330 $6,863,343 Manufactures of— Gloves, of kid or other leather, Another $5,830,380 657,334 $4,412,597 495.218 $6,463,872 491.823 $6,206,244 $6,487,714 $4,907,8.5 $6,955,695 Malt liquors, $1,427,608 1,297,637 $1,709,960 1,385.810 $1,510,767 1,288,996 $1,514,845 Marble and stone, and manufactures of, 1,239.166 M ISC ELL A NEO US ST A TISTIC8. Table No. 36 — Conlinued. Metal, metal compositio Musical instruments. . Paints and colors, . . . Paper, and manufacture Provisions, comprising i Rice lud dairy products, $4,234,082 1.703. 129 1.531.739 , 1,343.457 2,816,860 2,011,314 2,042,120 950.925 3.530.631 t.031,485 [,664,72. 1,372.052 (.342.304 [,796,096 !,663,350 713.901 779.793 $4,486,395 619,466 1.699.516 2,628,351 I.797,S47 2.017,505 $4,228,046 918,253 [,178,207 2.863,533 Clothing, ready mac Dress and piece goo Laces and embroide Ribbons All other Total. . 1 other wearing apparel. (.391.257 [,644,769 !,892,830 ^1,496,699 9.695.863 2,320,224 1,063,116 ■0.235.871 $24,811,773 1,813.697 9.774.920 3.946,270 Spirits, distilled . Sugar and confectionery, Tin, bars, blocks, pigs, grain or granulated, Tobacco — Leaf, ■. . Manufactures of, .- Wood. Wools, aud manufactures of. mel, goat, alpaca and other like nimals, and manufactures of Unmanufactured - Clothing wools (Class I ), Combing wools (Class 2) Carpet and other similar wools (Class 3) Total unmanufactured, Manufactures of— Wool, carbonized, Carpets and carpeting Clothing, ready made, and other wearing appa: except shawls and knit goods. Cloths Dress goods, women's and children's, Knit fabrics Rags, mungo, flocks, noils, shoddy and wastes. Shawls $2,214,200 89,734.684 4.455.374 8.859.956 12,999,831 $3,894,760 1.905.970 9.463.353 $1,871,110 c 664,072 1.476.132 [,883,227 $9,523,773 1,368,654 8,795,681 $1,285,657 1.477.452 12,765,044 16,474,601 1,162,853 87.825 353.305 $1,499,604 2,279.047 2.640,770 "'.?54;?i6 2,149,660 3.895.067 6,739.478 $1,748,359 399,875 3,959.204 858,827 6,756,321 8,580,962 1,005,899 47.522 157.352 357.414 !,o6o,449 :,889,628 1.971.536 '.183.537 U2i6,359 , 999.492 16,298,169 14. 399.^44 All other dutiable. . . Total dutiable. 2,076,182 9,402,804 $14,481,681 368,736,170 ^^ ilIISCELLAKEOrS STA TTSTICS. Table No. 37. Tad/c Showing the Value of Principal Articles and Classes of Mercliandisc Exported front tlie United States, for tJie Yea)-s i8go, iSg2, i8g^ and iSp^, Eliding fune jo. Compiled from Report of the Bureau of Statistics Treasury Department. MISCELLANEOUS ST A TISTICS. TabIvE No. 37 — Contiyiued. Articles. 1890. 1892. 1S94. 1895. Glass and glass ware- Window glass Another $ 8,910 873,767 932!o64 $ 19,3" 902,761 $ 11,140 935.241 $882,677 1,110,571 1,090,307 1,429.735 $942,302 $922,072 $946,381 1,223,895 2,420,502 1,416,067 3,972,494 3.844,232 1,461,842 1,534,277 $904,071 699,029 2,310,323 1,872.597 1,505,142 1,912.771 Hav Hides and skins, other than furs Hops Inciia rubber and gutta perclia, manufactures of, Instruments and apparatus for scientific purposes, .... Iron and steel, and manufactures of— 277io66 6,411 143.221 $ 300,832 620 ^??:i8l 8;g:??^ 311,250 160,510 39,032 15.949 317,336 31.023 i,i6ii1 318,749 2,793.780 :,2^:^l 305,47s 570,915 '&. 3,194.825 $ 289,915 &^^ 103,228 789,146 2,309,688 10,229,293 273,191 .60,239 16,641 8,048 409,220 S,oo7 259,531 1,900,444 .325.417 3,133,992 . «.38o "'ii 230,041 $ 370,243 7,302 133,783 94.454 491,928 6^^;??i 2.5o|$ 10,438.069 330,118 180,607 112,115 39.597 272,514 26,987 l,9l8;^8 315,290 2,347,354 1,028:336 313.346 710,219 236,433 4,988,483 Castings, not elsewhere specified Cutlery, 11,493.093 283,646 210,192 52.Q-,6 Locks, hinges, and other builders' hardware. . . Nails and spikes- Wire, wrought, horseshoe, and all other, including Plates and sheets— Of iron Of steel i6;?^36 159,627 43,096 Railroad bars or'rails- Of steel 292,918 2,260,139 9,010 '^^s^^''^''''-: . . . . ISi^niii parts of engines," ;:;.::.:..: 248,199 stoves and ranges, and parts ot. ■;;;;•;;;;;; 5,706,668 $25,542,208 $662,759 184,317 $28,800,930 529,220,264 $30,000,989 $1,026,188 166,07s *85i,o84 638,636 777,354 198,047 529,083 $716,844 215,727 '2261^79 6,420,134 279,028 662,974 36i!770 $3,880,475 249,239 5,783,555 605,094 914,974 251.269 400,175 ''iU%l '■llliU ''"Btt?'andst"es 1,010,228 196,018 767,60s Au'otvfer^" saddles Total $12,438,847 1.2,084,781 $14,283,429 J1S6I4 407 1i1;^?^ $657,934 707,536 $ 548,979 1,0.54.814 885:179 141,182 $772,582 254,490 piS;^rtes; :::::::;::::::::::::::: llf^ $r,io5,i34 $1,164,656 $972,590 MISCELLANEOUS ST A TISTICS. Table No. 37 — Contimtcd. Articles. 1890. 1892. ■894. 1895- Naval stores, rosin, tar, turpentine, pitch, and spirits of $7,444,446 7,999,926 1,686,643 44!65S',SS4 5,672,441 578,103 $7,989,933 9.713.204 978,688 5,101,840 39.704,152 5.334.955 709,857 740,223 37!o83!89l $7,419,773 4.310,128 578,44s 5, ■61.710 4 ■,498,372 °"Vninra, . . Mineral- Refined or manufactured Vegetable . . Paper, and manufactures of— $99,501 125.041 1,002,144 99i870 1,221,021 $108,400 $109,203 All othf r, !^ ^ :...... .::::::: 1,963,284 Total $1,226,686 $1,382,251 $■.906,634 < $2,408,709 $3,965,263 $3,820,656 $3,569,614 Provisions, comprising meat and dairy products- $123,182,650 .3.081,856 ^'^0^8^! "'l-X:^ tZ'lht Total $136,264,506 $140,362,159 $145,270,643 $126,527,361 $20,728 2,6^7:811 54,449 1,109,017 1,633,110 3,029,413 6,2"52,282 ■ 152,150 1,063,207 2,401,117 ■.935.984 $19,884 52.071 '%% 2,209,411 $4,687 'i'i-^r. Soap, Spirits, distilled, 1,092,126 2,99.,686 Tobacco, and manufactures of : Unmanufactured- Leaf 2,947.525 ^"1^:8^^ 2,967.409 5',263 1,094,340 2,704,393 $25,622,776 176,192 Manufactures of— 2',73o:266 $25,355,601 $24,739,425 $23,849,996 Ve..etables $1,357,095 27o',930 28,274.529 33,543 $■,898,145 2.57,885 439.030 25.790,57- 30,664 $■,744,462 99,042 27,7";'69 90,676 $1,543,458 27."5,907 484,463 Wool, and manufactures of— Wool raw . $6,702 40,957 317.910 71,910 $9,378 268;985 64 93^ $250,006 38,756 317,295 J68,523 Flannels and blankets 49:822 Wearine aonarel 316,154 Allothe';i??nufacturesof, ............. \ '. Total manufactures, $437,479 $367,737 $774,580 $670,226 $■3,397,213 $■4,735,754 $20,547,320 $845,293,828 ■ 2,534,856 $857,828,684 52,148,420 $^,o^5.732.oi^ ■4.546 137 $869,204,937 22,935,635 $793,392,599 31,571,593 fl ,030,278,148 §3,005,886 $892,140,572 ■ 27,429,326 Total value of exports of gold and silver, .■3,35S.500 INDEX. Abraham, William, miuority report of Brit- ish Labor Commission, 1S94, 3S3. Adams, John, on wisdom of protection, 574. Adams, John Quincy, in campaign of 1828, 687. Ad valorem duties, disadvantage of, 410; encouragement to under - valuations and fraud, 687. Agricultural machinery, manufacture in German)', 431; increased use of, in United States, 659; manufacture of, in United States i860 and 1890, 704, Agriculture, a chief branch of production, i, 2; in palmy days of Rome, 15; protected under Queen Elizabeth, 65; prosperous con- dition of in England in the eighteenth cen- tury, 91; growth in England, 103; inferior- ity' to manufacturing as an industry, 211; evil effect of repealing the Corn Laws pre- dicted by the peers, 278; decline in England under free trade, 278-88; flourishing under protection, 279; statistics of products grown in England and imported, 2S0-82; decrease in the number of persons engaged in agri- culture under free trade, 282; its ruin de- stroys the foundation of other industries, 2S8; destruction of the yeomanry class by free trade, 289; neglect a serious economic blunder, 289; capacity of England sufficient for the home demand, 290; made unprofit- able in Ireland, 373; statistics of products imported by Great Britain, 3S6; injured in Germany by free trade, 424; fostered by the protective policy, 426; statistics in Ger- many, 427,429; the chief concern of the Phy- siocrats, 499; improvement under protection in France, 510; statistics in France, 525; sta- tistics in Italy, 540; condition in the United States in 1S35 to 1S43, and in 1847, 597; in 1840, 1850 and 1S60, 610; benefited by the McKinley act, 652; growth from iSsoto 1890, 657-71; increase of labor-saving implements in the United States, 659; need of protection, 662; nearness of market important, 664; West- ern farm mortgages, 665-70; decline in prices of products, 711; increase in purchasing pow- er, 712; imports and exports of United States under Gorman-Wilson tariff, 748; little mar- ket for United States to gain in foreign coun- tries, 75S; imports of England in 1S94, 760. Alison, Archibald, on the progress of Eng- land under protection, 124; on England's prosperity after Napoleonic wars, 131; statis- tics of debt and revenue of England, 150. AlThusen, Charles, on recijirocity, 240; on decline of English chemical industry, 275. American Economist, on wages under the Gorman- Wilson tariff, 749. American System, rise and rapid growth, 577; vigorously advocated, 583. Ames, Fisher, on protection in the Constitu- tion of the United States, 569. Andrew, Samuel, evidence on foreign com- petition with English cotton industry, 237; on necessity of reducing wages, 237; on agree- ments of British Cotton Manufacturers, 238. Anglo-Saxon invasion of England, institu- tions and form of government, 36. Anti-Corn Law League, on the opportune time for free trade in England, 157; rise and activity, 159; petitions parliament, 161; ac- tivit}- in the election of 1841, 162; opposes Peel's revision of the Corn Xaws, 163; decep- tive arguments to farmers, 171,172,173; meets obstacles in good harvests, 173; triumphs by the aid of bad harvests, 174; suspected of im- proper use of money, 175; magnitude of its funds, 176; real purpose of its agitation, 199. Antwerp, commercial centre of the West, 26. Apprentices, statute of, 60. Arabs, ancient commerce, 9. Artificial Industries, free trade fallacy of, exposed, 802-04. Artificial Selection, law of, basis of the doctrine of protection, 790, 791; progress of mankind due to, 792. Asia, statistics of trade with, 551. Atkinson, Edward, on wages in the United States in 1892, 652; on farm mortgages in the United States, 668-70; on the rise of wages in the United States from i860 to 1890, 717; on labor cost in cotton goods, 769. Austin, Michel, minority report of British Labor Commission, 1894, 3S3. Australasia, statistics of trade with, 552. Austria-Hungary, growth of foreign trade 1 854- 1 890, 312; economic policy, 533; tariff of 1882, 533; manufactures and agricultural products, 534; statistics of exports, 535; statistics of wages in 1S90, 719. Babylonians, ancient commerce, 9. Bacon, Lord, introduced protection in land, 330. Bagehot, Walter, on "economic man. Balance of trade, in favor of England 1697 to 1793, 94; 1793 to 1859, 119; adverse for Eugland 1864 to 1893, 317; adverse for the United States after the War of 18 12, 577; favorable under the tariff of 1824, 586; adverse before 1S42, 594; adverse from 1857 to iS6r, 607; adverse from 1848 to 1857, 613; in favor of the United States in 1892, 648; United States with foreign countries 1892, 1894, and 1S95, 745; from 1791 to 1895, 828; importance of having favorable, 818. Bank clearings in the United States in 1892 and 1S95, 751. Barlow, Frederick Pratt, e\'idence on German competition with England in paper- making, 276-78. Eug- 795- Beet sugar industry, growth in Germany, 432; in Russia, 477; in France, 52S; in Au- stria, 534; in United States, 632, 643. Belgium, growtli of foreign trade 1S54 to 1S90, 312; adopts protection, 138, 544; pros- perity, 545; statistics of foreign trade, 546; statistics of wages in 1890, 719. See also Flemmings. Belk, Charles, evidence on the closing of foreign markets to English cutlery, 270. Bell, Sir Lowthian, evidence on competi- tion with the English foreign trade in iron, 265; on prices of pig iron in England, 265; gives statistics of the iron output of the world, 266. Bentinck, Lord George, on effects of free trade, 182. Benton, Thomas H., on the distress under the tariff of 1816, 577. BIGELOW, Erastus, statistics of woolen manu- factures in England, 109; of the linen indus- try, III; of silk manufactures, 112; of the metal industries, 114; of miscellaneous in- dustries, 117; of England's foreign trade, 119; of English import duties in 1840, 149; of the iron industry, 219. BiRCHENiii'Cn, IlKNRY, evidence on foreign conipelitioii with Kuglish silk industry, 229. BiRMiNciiAM Daily Times, on "what free trade means, " in 1849, 224. Bismarck, Prince, ability as a statesman, 416; formation of his economic policy, 419; on the idea of a Christian State, 420; on paternalism, 421; on the effects of protection and free trade, 421; on the benefit of wealthy individuals to a people, 422; speech in favor of return to protection in German}', 424. Black Death of 134S, 55. Blackwell, Kenyon, statistics of the iron industry, 219. Blaine, James G., and reciprocity, 646. Blanqui, Jerome Adolphe, on Colbert's eco- nomic policy, 4S8. Board of Trade, English, report on manu- factures in the colonies, 83. Bonds, offer of i860 in the United States not taken, 607; issue of, by Cleveland's adminis- tration, 738. Booth, William, on the administration of the English Poor Law in 1890, 378; on the num- ber of paupers in England, 382. Bounties, granted by England, 85; paid in France, 509; on shipping in Italy, 543; on production of sugar in United States, 642. Bradley, Thomas W., evidence on the labor cost of cutlery, 763. Brassey, Thomas, magnitude of his railroad building, 219; on competition as affecting wages, 349. BresiEL, J. P.,wages of hosiery operatives,7i7. Brewer, Consul, on the manufacture of agri- cultural machinery in Germany, 431. Bright, John, career as an apostle of free trade, 160; opposes regulation of women's and children's labor, 203; on meeting com- petition by reduction of wages, S16. British Trade Journal, on the prosperity of France, 488. Brougham, Lord, on English efforts to glut the American market, 135; on the great exports from England in 1815, 136. Buchanan, James, on the panic of 1857, 73S. Burgess, John W., on the relation of individ- ual States to the " world-state," Soi. Burgess, William, on the labor cost of pottery, 695; consular report of, 697. Butt, Isaac, on the ruin of the farmers by free trade, 187. Byles, Sir John Barnard, on the destruction of Irish industries by England. 373; on developing home production, 819; on "re- placed capital," 820. Cabinet makers, rates of wages, 336. Caird, Sir James, evidence on the reduction of income from agriculture under free trade, 283-85; on the reduction of crops, 285. Calhoun, John C, a protectionist in 1824, 585; a free trader in 1S32, 589. Canada, successive tariffs, 553;; prosperity under protection, 553; statistics of produc- tion and foreign trade, 555. Capital, British, at close of eighteenth cen- tury, 93, 97; growth of, from 1819 to 1845, 124; importance as a commercial vifeapon, 207; of England enhanced by gold mining in Australia and California, 216, 217; unre- liable statistics concerning British, in 1S86, 325, 326, 328, 381. Car-building, product. United States, 700. Carey, Henry C, on adoption of protection , England, 46; on protection, France, 488; on benefits of promoting home industry, 59S; author of Republican tariff plank of iS6o, 616; on raw materials as. a relative ternj, 755; definition of political economy, 787. Carey, JIathew, secretary of Friends of Na- tional Industrj', 578; his Political Econo- mist, 580; eulogized by Henry Clay, 582. Carlisle, John G., on free trade, 728; on exports of gold, 814. Carpet manufacture, growth in the United States, 683. Carriage manufacture. United States, 700. Carrying trade. See Navigation Laws. Carthaginians, commerce, 11. Carver, Frederic, evidence on the decline of the British lace industry, 263. CaTchings, T. C, Cleveland's letter to, 741. Charlis, G., Jr., evidence on competition with England in paper making, 278. Charter of the Nations, passage from, on the struggle of home industries for existence, 1S9. Cheapness, campaign of, 201; of men, 202; of production, secured by reducing wages, 242. Chemical industry, decline in England under free trade, 274-76; growth in Russia. 476; increase of product in United States, 69S. Child-labor, demanded for cheapnes.s, 202; regulated by parliament, 203. Choate, Rufus, on the Constitutionality of protection in the United States, 568. 8-1'J Cities, free, industrial growth, 23. Clark, Charles H., evidence on the labor cost of knit goods, 764. Clark, Robert, evidence on the decline of the English silk industry, 231. Clay, Henry, on the tariff bill of 1820, 579; speech on the tariff of 1824, 581; on a tariff discriminating for protection, 594. ClELand, , on the lace curtain manufac- ture in Scotland and the United States, 676. Cleveland, GrovER, elected by deceit, 597; a convert to Cobdenism, 626; on the existence of tin plate works in the United States, 645; message of 1887 on the tariff, 725; on the Democratic tariff policy, 733; on the alleged evils of protection, 736; on panic of 1893, 738; letters to Wilson and Catchings, 74I. Clodd, Edward, on the struggle for exist- ence, 788. Clothing, of English artisans, cheap and poor, 346. Clothing industry, condition in the United States in i860 and 1890, 684. ■Coal mining, statistics of wages in Scotland and the United States, 692; statistics of labor cost, 767. Cobden, Richard, on the prosperity of Eng- land under protection, 124; on the commer- cial greatness of England, 130; career as an apostle of free trade, 160; in parliament, 163; on natural protection, 172; on the benefits of free trade in corn, 172; ridicules the defenders of the Corn Laws, 173; on the real views of parliament that repealed the Corn Laws, 175; gives real motive for repeal, 178, 179; his personal interests, 180; on reduction of rents, 188; on power of cheapness, 201; opposes regulation of women's and children's labor, 203; campaign on Continent of Europe, 414; secures a commercial treaty between Prussia and Austria, 533; efforts for free trade on Continent of Europe, 558. Cobden Club, distributes literature in the United States, 151; fallacious arguments, 374; propaganda. United States, 721-24. Colbert, Jean Baptiste, economic policy, 491. Coleman, John, evidence on the decline of agriculture under free trade, 2S6. Colonial Policy of Great Britain, 82, 85. Colonies and Possessions of Great Britain, acquisition of, 80, 81; suppression of manu- factures in, 82-85, 373. 569. Colton, Calvin, on the incomes of British nobility and gentry, 217; on the panic of 1837, 592; on the scarcity of money under free trade, 659. Commerce, general divisions, 3; of the na- tions of antiquity, S. See also Trade. Companies, trading, of England, 69-71. Competition, England's power to destroy rivals under free, in 1846, 141-44; the de- structive kind, 206; as a stimulus to pro- gress, 208; effect on prices, 713; between unequal parties, 804-06; international, and foreign trade, 759, 811. 54 Confederate Constitution, article of, pro- hibiting protective duties, 616 Conkling, Roscoe, on interdependence of industries, 773. CoNSU.MER, fallacy of legislating for benefit of, 322-24; equitable and legal rights of, 800. Continental System of Napoleon, 505. Cooper, Peter, on the commercial distress in the United States in 1S57, 607. Cooper, Thomas, tariff views, 581. Cooper and Hewitt, on foreign competition with American iron mills, 690. Copper-working. See Metal working. Corn Laws, passed in reign of Edw-ard IV., 48; denounced by Dr. Bowring, 159; revision of 1842, 162; repealed, 177; real motive for repeal, 178, 179, defended by Lord Derby, 1S3-85; pas.sage of repeal bill, 187; effect of repeal, 187; protest of the peers against re- peal, 278; effect of the repeal on Ireland, 373. See also Anti-Corn Law League. CosmopoliT.vnism, should not be favored over national interests, 801. Cotters, rights and obligations, 38. Cotton Industry, growth of, in England from 1820 to i860, 105-107; magnitude in Eug'.and in 1S56, 220; statistics of European countries, 221; the "battle of the fabrics," 233; in Asia, 235; decline in England under free trade, 235-51; statistics for England, 244-50; rates of wages, 334; wages in English mills in 1892 and 1852, 351-53; wages in the United States, 363; need of protection, 419; growth in Russia, 461-63; advance under protection in France, 511; cotton as king, 592; condi- tion in 1S42 and 1847, 597, 601; statistics in the United vStates from 1847 to i860, 610; growth in the United States, 672-75; wages in American and in English mills, 673; statistics from 1830 to 1S90 in England and America, 674; dependent upon protection in the United States, 675; labor cost of yarns in England and the United States, 764. Cox, S. S., on free trade, 728. Crawford, J. M., on the foreign trade of Russia, 457. Cromwell. Oliver, peremptory demands of the Dutch, 75. Cronmeyer, W. C, on the labor required to supply United States w-ith tin plate, 645. Crusades, effect on Western civilization, 39. Cuba, economic conditions, 140. Cunningham, W., work on industrial history of England, 35; on mode of life of early English nobilit}-, 40; on effects of protection in reign of Edward III., 47; on the effects of protection up to the reign of Queen Mary, 49; on protection under Elizabeth, 64. Cutlery industry, effect of tariffs of Ger- many, France and llnited States over British, 270; product in the United State.s, 700 ; labor cost of equal quantities in the United States and Germany, 763. Dall.as, Alexander, on the value of the home market, 575. Danish invasion of England, 36, 37. Darwin, Charles Robert, on the origin of the theory of natural selection, 793. Dawson, \Vm. H., on customs barriers between the German States, 410; on steps toward pro- tection in Germany, 41S; on protection in Germany after 1S79, 426- Debt, of Kngland, 97, 130; from 1814 to 1S43, 150; of Italy, 543; of France, 524; of United States, 1843-1850, 600; increase of, 1857- 1S61, 607; at close of Civil War, 617; from 1857 to 1861, and 1865 to 1869, 618; decrease from 1S65 to 1890, 631; in iSSo and 1890, 637; increase under Cleveland, 752. Deductive method of economic discussion, 7S6. De Foe, Daniel, on the condition of labor in England in 1724, 90. De Gama, Visco, discoverer of route to India, 28. Democratic Party, Northern Statesmen of protectionists in 1828, 585; Southern wing of, espouse the cause of free trade in 1S32, 587-91; wedded to free trade in 1833, 593; deceptive campaign of, in 1844, 594-96; favors free trade in 1846, 599; platform of 1848, 603; dominated by the South, 605, 606; declares for free trade in 1856, 605; enacts the tariff law of 1S57, 605; Southern wing rebel and adopt free trade in their constitu- tion, 616; attempts at free trade legislation in 1884 and 1888, 626, 627, 630; elects Cleve- land President in 1884, 626; defeated in 1S88, 729; triumph of Democracy and free trade in 1892, Chapter vi on, 721 to 773; deception of, in campaign of 1892, 732-35. Denmark, growth of foreign trade, 1854 to 1890, 512; industrial condition, 548. Denslow, Van Buren, on tariff of 1833, 591. Depew, Chauncey M., on the freight ton- nage in the United States, 824. Depression of Trade, in England, 1819, causes of, 131-33; in 1846, 174; persistent, caused by free trade in England, 1874 to 1890, 224-300; in Germany, 418; in United States, from 1815 to 1824, '577; from 183510 1S42, 592; from 1854 to 1S60, 604-07; in 1873, 622; from 1893 to 1896, 737-53- Derby, Lord, benefits of Com Laws, 1S3-85. Disrael I , Benjamin, his denunciation.of Peel, 181; prophesies disaster under free trade, 1S5. Distribution of wealth, S25. Dixon, James Willis, evidence on decline of English metal and glass industries, 267. Dodge, J. R., on needed diversityin American agriculture, 664. Drummond, Henry, on the survival of the fittest, 789. Druse. S. B. L., evidence on the decrease in purchasing power among the farming popu- lation under free trade, 287. Dun, R. G. & Co., on the panic of 1893, 737. DuNCKLEY, Henry, on prosperity of silk in- dustry in England under protection, 112; on progress of England under protection, 125. DUNDAS, Consul, report on the decrease of British trade in Germany, 437. Dutch, commercial rise and progress, 26; de- fenders of civil and religious liberty, 27; begin direct trade with the East, 28; estab- lishment of Dutch East India Company, 2S: drive out Portuguese and English from the East, -8; Dutch West India Company foruied, 29; period of commercial supremacy, 29; monopoly of carrying trade, 71; rivalry with English, 74; war with England, 75-77; com- merce after war with England, 77. Duties, by whom paid, 320, 322; rates under the Zollverein, 411; rates fixed by the treaty of 1786 between England and France, 502. Earthen and China ware, statistics of ex- ports from the United Kingdom, 39S. East India Company, English, formed, 69; growth, 70; dominion extended, 79. East Indian trade, passes from the Portu- guese to the Dutch, 28. Economic man imaginary, 794. Education, technical, in Germany, 450. Edward III., puts restrictions upon foreign merchants, 45; the Father of English Com- merce, 46. Egyptians, ancient commerce, 9. Elizabeth, of England, commercial impor- tance of her reign, 59. Ellkrson, Thomas, statistics of the English cotton industrv. 245. Emerson, Ralph Waldo, picture of rural England about 1S50, 288. Emigration, of English silk operatives to America, 231; of skilled workmen from England, 271. England, delay in establishing manufactures, 35; successive invasions, 36; political rights revolutionized, 36; laud tenure after the Norman Conquest, 37; origin of the trading class, 39; mode of life of the early nobles, 40; condition of common people improved, 41; early policy of free trade, 42; English industrv in thc'fourteenth century, 42; com- mercial' weakness in the thirteenth and four- teenth centuries, 43; revolt of English mer- chants against the aliens, 44; exporting of wool and importing of cloth prohibited. 46, 49: first attempts at protective legislation, 46-49; rise and fall of trade guilds, 50-54; deplorable condition of the masses before inauguration of protective policy. 55-5'^; protective policv inaugurated under Eliza-, beth, 59-66; iiiiniigration of Huguenots, 67; need of foreign trade, 67; beginnings of foreign trade, 69; Raleigh's report on its foreign trade, 71; origin of commercial supremacy, 74; demands reparation of the Dutch, 75; claims right of the flag, 76; war with the Dutch, 75-77; commerce after the war, 77; navigation acts, 77, 82; wars with the French, 78; gains from the Napoleonic wars, 79; li.st of colonies with date and mode of acquisition, 80; commercial .supremacy the constant object of her foreign policy, 81; jealousv of colonial manufactures, 83; severe laws' against, 84; promotes home in- dustries, 85; restricts rival industries in Ireland, S5; grants bounties and monopolies, 86; industrial advance in the eighteenth cen- tury, 87, 89; benefits from inventions of machinery, 87; prohibits the export of machinery, 88; interna! improvements, 89; iron and potter^' industries, 89; growth of population, 90; 'prosperity of manufactures and agriculture in the eighteenth century, 90-92;'incomes and wealth, 93; table of ex- ports and imports, from 1697-1793, 94-96; commercial strength shown in the Napo- leonic wars, 96; loans to other nations, 97; prosperity due to protection, 97; progress of industries in the nineteenth century, 99; table showing growth of population in the nineteenth century, 100; statistics of occupa- tions, loi ; well adapted to agriculture, ro3; statistics of the import of wheat, 104; progress of the cotton manufacture from 1820 to i86o, 105; table of imports of raw cotton and exports of manufactures, io5; growth of the woolen manufacture, 108; table of imports of wool and exports of woolen manufac- tures, 109; growth of the linen manufacture, 1 10; table of imports of flax and exports of lineu goods, iii; growth of the silk manu- facture" III; table of icuports of raw silk aiid exports of silk goods, H2; growth of the metal industries, 113; table of exports of metal goods, 114; growth of miscellaneoas industries, 116; table of exports of miscel- laneous manufactures, 117; table showing total foreign trade from 1793 to 1S59, 119; fluctuations in prices of products, 121; im- provement in foreign trade not due to free trade, 123; testimony to her progress under protection, 123-25; effects of the introduc- tion of machinery and other causes on her industry, 127-29; benefits from the Napo- leonic wars. 130; commerce the aim of foreign policy, 130; business crisis of 1815- 19, 131; causes, 132; origin of the free trade movement, 133; competition with American manufactures, 134, 135; invasion of Conti- nental markets in 1815, 135; protection in other countries restricts English trade, 136; 137; loss of foreign markets, 138; object in praising foreign commerce, 139; London mer- chants and manufacturers petition parlia- ment for free trade legislation, and reasons as- signed, 139; advantagesof foreign trade to, 139, 143; facilities for manufacturing, 142; neces- sity for foreign trade, 142; protection claimed to "be no longer necessary, 143; reaijy for free industrial competition, 144; menaced by protection in other countries, 145; efforts to put down the protective policy, 146; regards free trade as a matter of diplomacy, 147; tariff's revised, 148; condition of the tariff in 1S40, 149; supremacy in cotton manufacture, 150; statistics of debt and revenue, 150; alleged crudities in tariff, 151; duties col- lected for revenue, 153; resources of raw materials, 155; supremacy in manufacturing industries, 155; duties of no effect on manu- factures, 156; repeal of protective duties urged by manufacturers, 156; the free trade program', 156; interest of agriculture in pro- tection, 157; the time ripe for free trade, 15S; threatened loss of foreign markets for manufactures, 158; rise of the Anti-Corn Law League, 159; election of 1841, 162; Corn Laws revised, 162; income tax imposed, 163; tariff revised in 1842, 163-65; analysis of revenue from duties in 1S42, 165; statis- tics of revenue from duties in 1849, ^65; low tariff an obstacle to free trade, 167; intelligence and liberality of the land-own- ers, 168; deceptive arguments used to convert tenant farmers to free trade, 169-74; Corn Laws repealed, 177; duties repealed in 1S45 and 1846, 177; free traders did not wish manufactures imported, 179; speeches against free trade, 1S1-190; superiority in manufactures, 186, 216; free trade in- troduced by degrees, 190; statistics of revenue from customs duties, 191; final steps in free trade, 193; table showing the customs tariff in 1S94, 193-95; statis- tics of revenue in 1894, 195; oppressive system of taxation, 197; means adopted for further extensions of markets, 200; the campaign of cheapness, 201; policy of buying cheap and selling dear, 205; mode of destroying rivils un.lfr free trade, 206; favorable conditi.'i. fr. ni , ivy to 1S74, 214; increased supji'/ "' .'!■. ii'' 1 > ■■•; metals, 217; large resources ; report of the committee on the financial condition of the country, 422; advancement under the protective tariff of 1S79, 425; agri- • culture fostered, 426; importance of her agriculture, 427, 429; duffes on agricultural products, 427; imports of bread stuffs, 428; production and exports of farm products, 430; manufacture of agricultural machinery, 431 ; rise of the beet-sugar industry, 432, 447, 450; industrial growth under protection, 434-42; prosperity of labor under protertii^i 442-46; foreign trade under protecti. Ill 11^ 50; table of wages paid in 1882 ami !>" 446; table of exports and imports in 1 i:i, 448; technical education, 450; eiiurLs to secure foreign trade, 451; growth of capital, 452; increase of manufactures, 452; statistics of wages in 1890, 719. GiBBiNS, on the shipping of 1"' " ' '■'; on the prosperity of the I'l 1 the classes of English pt : n- Norman Conquest, 38; on 1-j'. ni the reign of Edward III., 42; on agricultuie in F;ngland during the eighteenth century, 91. GiFFKN, Robert, statistics of incomes, 327; unreliability of his w^age statistics, 340-344; or in purchasing power of earning, 344, and in increase of rent, 345 ; evidence before La- bor Commission on Wages, 362; statistics of wages in English woolen mills, 254. Gladstone William E., on protection to agriculture, 164; on protective character of tariff act of 1S42, 164; ou what articles should be protected, 178, 190; completes work of Cobdeii and Peel, 190; on importance of cap- ital, 207; on who pays duty, ,:;22, Glass industry. Uible dF tjiassware exported from riiitiil Kin-'I.iiu, 3M.S; -lowth of the indiisUN- 111 Ku^>ia, 475 , cniidition in United States in iSyo, 697-yy; labor cost of equal quantities United States and Belgium, 763-69. GODERICH, Lord, on the real object of free trade in England, igS. Gold, discovery in California and Australia, 216; gold and silver export from England prohtbited, 48; England's increased supply (1850 to 1866) from Australia and California, 216-217; table showing exports from the United States, 613; drain from one country to another, 776, 777, 814; yearly production from 1492 to 1S05, 777; table of exports from and imports into the United States, S31-33. Gold-working. St'e Metal Industries. Goods for Goods Theory, 210, 316; S12-13. Gorman, Arthur P., on the Democratic tariff policy in 1892, 732. Gorman-Wilson Bill, 731-53. GORST, John E. , on the condition of agricul- tural laborers in the United Kingdom, 383. Gowing, Richard, on circumstances that opposed or favored the Anti-Corn Law League, 174. Granby, Marquis of, an able defender of protection, 1S2. Greeks, ancient commerce, 10. GbEELEV, Horace, on hard times in the Uni- ted States in 1855, 604. Greene, J. R., on the political transformation caused by the Danish wars in England, 36. Gregg, W. R., urges the repeal of the Corn Laws, 172. GribblE, GEORGE,evidenceon foreign compe- tition with England in textiles, 292. Grist Mills, product in United States, 700. Guilds, trade, become popular in Venice, 21; development in the free cities, 23; origin of merchant guilds. 50; nature and origin of craft guilds, 50; need of protection, 51; abuse of the system in England, 52; restricted by Parliament, 53; receive their death blow, 53. Gun manufacture, competition of protected countries with England, 291. GunTON, George, on competition, 805; advo- cates protection, 806. Hagan, Philip, evidence on the labor cost of iron, 765. Hamilton, Alexander, his report on the encouragement of manufactures, 572. Hanna, IJR., on the causes of the panic of 1817 in England, 132. Hanseatic League, formation, 23; commer- cial importance, 24; merchants obtain privi- leges in London, 43; privileges extended, 44; exempted from restrictions on other aliens, 45. Hardware, statistics of decline in prices under protection, 710. Harriman, D. G., summary of the McKinley act, 653. Harris, William J., evidence on the de- creased agricultural products of England under free trade, 287. Harrisburg Convention, 584. Harrison, Benjamin, message reviewing the advance of American industries under pro- tection, 730. Harrison, Frederic, on English pauperism, 381. Harter, M. D., on the condition of England under protection, 125; opposition to protec- tion, 729. Hayes, John L., on the export of machinery from England, 88. Hemp. See Fibre Industries. Henry IV., of France, features of his reign. 489. Hewitt, Abram S., on the labor cost of iron products, 768. Historical Method, of economic discussion, 785, 786. Hoar, George F., definition of protection, 779- HoBBS, F. W.. statistics of wages in American and European worsted mills, 681. HODGKIN, T., on the early condition of Ven- ice, 19. Holland, adopts protection, 138, 544; growth of foreign trade, 1854 to 1890, 312; signifi- cance of foreign investments, 319; tariff revised, .545; statistics of foreign trade, 546; statistics of wages in 1890, 719. See also Dutch and Netherlands. Home Market, basis of the American system, 568, destruction of, by Act of 1833, 591, 592; how built up, H. C. Carey on, 598; destroyed by the Act of 1846, 604; necessity of pre- serving and increasing, 633, 635; for farm produce, 65S, 662; nearness of, 664; decline of, under Gorman-Wilson bill, 737, 745-54; magnitude of, in United States, 759-62; advantages of, procured by protection, 780; augmented by domestic trade, S21-24. See Home Trade. Home Market Bulletin, on rates of profit in manufactures, 770. Home Trade, advantages over foreign trade, 4, 5, 6, 7; neglect of, by Romans, 15; de- velopment of, by Venetians, 21, 22; example of, in Western Europe during Middle Ages, 33; foreigners monopolize England's, in fourteenth century, 43; expulsion of foreign- ers from England's, 44, 45; first protection accorded to, in England, 47-49; influence of trade guilds on, 61; encouragement of, in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 85; improved condition of labor in England, 91; benefits over foreign trade in certain coun- tries, 140, 141; diminished under free trade in England, 235-38, 279, 289; of Russia, 483-85; value perceived by Gallatin, 574; need of its development in the United States, 633; basis of industrial prosperity in United States, 818-24; benefits illustrated, 821; effect of supplanting by foreign, 824. Hope, George, on natural protection, 171. Huguenots, given an asj'lum iu England, 66, 67; dispersed by Louis XIV., 67;" carry their trades into Germany, 404; persecution and exodus, 493. HuRtBURT, J. Beaufort, on the industrial future of Canada, 552. HusKissoN, WiLLiAJi, letter on the home pro- duction of food-stuffs, 1 84; on "the -whole- some breezes of competition," 20S. Hutchinson, J. G., statistics of wages in England, 340; their purchasing power, 344. HuxLKv, T. H., on the struggle for existence as modified by civilization, 791. Imports, prohibited in England, 85; bounties on in England, 87, of raw cotton into Eng- land, 87; into Great Britain from all parts of the world from 1697 to 1793, 94; of raw cotton and cotton goods into Great Britain from 1820 to 1859, 106; of wool into England 1800 to 1S59, 109; cf flax and tow into Eng- land 1831 to tS6o, III; of raw silk into Eng- land from 1820 to i860, 112; total into United Kingdom from 1793 to 1859, 119: Tooke on policy regarding, 139; of raw silk into Eng- land 1S60, 1S70, 1S90, 228; of woolen goods into the United States 1885, 1889, 1S90, 257; of linens into Great Britain 1870 to iSgo, 258; of paper into England i860 to 1890, 276; total into United Kingdom 1836 to 1890, 304: increase not necessarily a sign of prosperitj-, 306; growth of, in thirteen principal countries from 1854 to 1890, 312; comparison of, be- tween United States and United Kingdom 1874 and 1S92, 314; of United Kingdom 1864 to 1893, 317; of agricultural products into Great Britain 1836 to 1890, 386; of fully manufactured articles, partially manufac- tured articles, raw material and food pro- ducts into Great Britain 1S36 to 1890,388-90, 392-94; of wheat and rye into Germany in 1 891, 429; of sugar into Germauy 1880 to 1890, 432; into Germany 1S72 to 1890, 447; into German customs territory 1891, 448; of raw material into Gertnany 1893, 450; prohibited in Russia 1800, 455; into Russia 1824 to 1849, 456; of raw cotton into Russia decreasing, 462; of metal goods into Russia, 474; total into Russia 1890-91, 480; into France 1S20 to 1861, 512; of bull- ion into France 1822 to 1829, 512; of raw cotton, hemp, flax and linen yarns into France 1820 to 1840, 514; of Italy 1890, 53S; of Italy from United States, 539; into Hol- land and Belgium, 546; into Denmark, 549; into Norway and Sweden, 550; into Spain and Portugal, 551; into Asiatic countries from United States, 551; into Africa and Australasia from United States, 552; into Canada 1894, 555. into small American countries from United States, 556; of Ameri- can colonies 1771. 569; into United States 17S4 to 1790, 572; into United States 1814 to 1818, 577; into United States 1841 to 1843, 594; into United States from 1842 to 1S50, 6oo; into United States from 1846 to 1S60, 668; into United States, 184S to 1857, 613; of rails into United States, 1S67 to 1893, 620; of wool and woolens into United States, 1883 and 1S89, 625; of certain dutiable articles into United States, 1889, 634; various restric- tions in the McKinley act, 640; of tin plate into United States, 1S91 and 1894, 644; into United States, 1892, 649; of shoddy into United States, 684; into United States, 1892, 1894, 1S95, 745, 840; of agricultural products into United vStates, 1894, 1895, 748; of wheat into England, 1892, 1893, 1894, 758; of agri- cultural products into England, 1894, 760; into United States, 1791 to 1895, S28; of gold and silver into United States, from 1S21 to 1S95. 831. Improvements, internal, in England, 89. Incidental Protection, defined, 784. INCLOSURE of land in England, 55; effect on labor, 55. Incomes, of English people, 1799, 93; '" 1S45, 124; in 1S48, 217; of buyers, salesmen, cashiers and managers of English business houses reduced under free trade, 240; loss of, by English farmers and land owners under free trade, 283-8S; of producing class diminished under free trade in England, 297; unreliability of British statistics of, 324-28; of capital, trade and labor in Eng- land, 326-328; of English labor, how affected b)' a slight reduction of wages, 364; would be augmented by protection in Eng- land, 371; increase of, under protection, 780; spendable basis of industrial prosperity of nations, 820-23. Income Tax, English, imposed in 1793, 93, 163; number of payers in England in 1880, 329; of Gorman-Wilson bill, 740. India, discovery of Cape of.Good Hope route, 22; freedom of the Portuguese trade from competition, 68. Industry, three chief classes, i; limited by natural conditions, 2; condition during the Dark Ages, 13; domestic, effects of neglect- ing, 14; a test of civilization, 17; immigration of artisans into England encouraged, 46, 66; condition in England under the guilds, 51; independent of the guilds, 52; rise of capital- istic production in England, 54; disorganized by measures of Henry the Eighth's reign. 55; effect of neglect, 57; promoted by England, 85; influences independent of protection or free trade, 129; doctrine of preference for what a country is best adapted for, 209; causes which accelerate a decline, 297; non- protected, benefits from protection, 701; " natural " and "artificial," 796, 802. Ingram, John K., on the tendency of the Physiocrats, 499. Inventions, of textile machinery in England, eighteenth century, 87; effects on industry. 87; monopoly of, England, 88. See Patent's. Investments, foreign, evidence of decay, 319. Ireland, industries restricted by England, SSi 372; statistics of occupations, loi. Iron and Steel Industry, statistics in Eng- land, 218; iron output of the wyrld, 266; So- British suffers from foreign tariffs and free trade, 264-74 ; capacity of English mills, 273; rates of wages, 333, 338, 341, 720; wages in the United States, 364; de- velopment in Russia, 472; condition in United States in 1S42 and 1S47, 597; progress in United States, 6S9-93; tables showing growth from iS6oto 1890, 691; labor cost in United States and Europe, 765; statistics of labor cost, 767-69. See Metal Industries. Italian cities, rise of manufactures and trade, iS-22; political affairs, 536; protection adopted, 537; prosperit}-, 53S; tables of for- eign trade, 53S; of agriculture, 540; progress in manufactures, 541; statistics of wages, 542; progress under difficulties, 543. Jackson, Andrew, on the constitutionality of protection in United States, 587; conces- sions to the Southern free traders, 589; on con- dition of agriculture in United States, 65S. Jewelry, product in the United States, 700. Jones, Benjamin, on the wages of iron found- ers under free trade, 341; on Mr. Giffen's statistics of wages, 341-42. Journal of Commerce, on the reduction of wages required to cheapen goods, 814. Justice, Bateman & Co., on the quality of American wool, 624. JtJTE. See Fibre Industries. Jute Industry, decline in Great Britain under free trade, 260-62. Kelley, William D., on the evils of the tariff of 1846, 605. Knight, Robert, evidence on the condition of labor in boiler-making and iron ship- building, 272. Knit Goods, dependeiit on protection in the United States, 675; labor cost in the United States and England, 764. KOLB, G. F., table of England's foreign loans during the Napoleonic wars, 97. Labor, exchange for commodities fundamen- tal, and employment of, a prime economic necessity, i; benefited by domestic produc- tion, 4; condition of, under feudal S3-steiu, 36 -38; disorganization of, in England during Middle Ages, 55-5S; lack of employment for in England before protective policy adopted, 56-58; enactments for its benefit in Eng- land under Elizabeth, 60; well occupied in England during the eighteenth centurj-, 90; long hours in Europe, 237, 240, 256, 257, 293; depression in boiler-making and iron ship-building in England, 272; diffi- culty of transfer from one industry to another, 294, 315; decline of employment under free trade, 297, 339, 365; economic value of shorter hours questioned, 29S; Sir Edward Sullivan on foreign competition, 307; loss of employment in agriculture under free trade in England, 315; royal commis- sion of 1891 to 1S94, 347-61, 383-84; the un- employed "residuum," 364; duty of govern- ment to, 420; advantages under protection in Europe, 442-46,562; increase of, under pro- tection in German Empire, 452; table of amount required to produce imports of the United States, 634; amount required to supply the United States with tin plate, 645; improved condition in the United States under the McKinley act, 652; importation of foreign workmen, 687; decrease of em- ployment under the Gorman-Wilson tariff, 749- Labor cost in the United States and other countries, 763-69. Lace curtain manufacture, under a high and low tariff, 676. Lace industry, decline in the United King- dom under free trade, 262. Lacey, George, on unreliability of estimates on English economic affairs, 327; statistics of concentration of wealth in England, 328. Lalssez FAIRE, origin and meaning of phrase, 498; source of doctrine political, 499. Land enclo.sures under Henrj' Vlll., 55; en- closures limited, 65; rents advance, 65; Eng- lish owners intelligent and liberal, 16S; unpopular with the masses, 169; possible reform in land tenures, 204; large holdings in the United Kingdom, 327; ownership in Russia 478; change of tenure in France effected by the Revolution, 509. Larned, J. N. , on the commercial promi- nence of Antwerp, 26. Lauderdale, Earl of, on the prosperity of England in the eighteenth century, 92. Law, John, and his Mississippi scheme, 494. Leader, The, on cheap men, 203. Leather industry, decline in England under free trade, 295; growth in Russia, 467; product in the United States, 699. Levant Company formed. 70. Levi, Leone, on the difficulty of producing economic statistics in England, 325. Liberty, personal, 795; civil, its limits, 79S; not in conflict with the doctrine of protec- tion, 705-801. Lincoln, Abraham, on home trade, 81S. Linen industry, growth in the United King- dom under protection, no; table of imports of flax and exports of linen goods, in; de- cline under free trade, 257-60; wages of women in British mills, 358; table of exports from i860 to 1892, 396; development in Ru.s- sia, 463; need of protection in the United States, 688. List, Frederick, on adoption of protection by Prussia, 136; on protective policy, 583. London Financial News, on trade between England and America in 1895, 685. Lord, George, evidence on the rise of cotton manufacturing in Asia, 236. Lord, William Wiley, evidence on the de- cline of gun-making in England, 291. Louis XIV., of France, dominating character, 491; persecution of the Huguenots, 492. Louis XV., of France, accession, 494; dis- asters of his reign, 495. Lumber, product in the United States, 700. McCarthy, Justin, on Disraeli's criticism of Peel, 181. 858 McCuLLOCH, J. R., on the commerce of the Venetians, 20; on Portugal's freedom from competition in the East India trade, 68; on the charter of the English East India Com- pany, 70; statistics of the English cotton in- dustry, 105; on the progress of the metal industries in England, 113; statistics of England's foreign trade, 119; on decline in prices, 122; on the industrial supremacy at- tained by England, 143; on the impotence of industrial rivals of England, 144. Macdonell, H. D., report on the decrease of British trade in Germany, 440, 441. McDuFFlE, George, leader of South Carolina free traders, 587-SS; on State sovereignty, 591- Macgregor, John, account of the war be- tween England and Holland, 75-77; state- ment of Board of Trade report in 1732, 83; on the significance of foreign investments, 319; on rates of dut}' under the ZoUverein, 412; basis of French tariff of 1791, 505. Machinery, important aid to English indus- try, 87, 107; export from England pro- hibited, 88; period of rapid introduction in England, 127; industrial effects, 127; has caused glut in markets, 366 ; growth of manufacture in Russia, 474; American in European knitting mills, 676; progress in silk-looms, 686; production in the United States in 1S60 and 1890, 694. McKlNLEY Bill, 631-54; progress under, 730, 731- McKinley, William, on responsibility of United States Senate for tariff of 1883, 626; on McKinley bill, 640-42. Madison, James, on the importance of pro- moting manufactures, 574. MaleT, E. B., on the rise of wages under pro- tection in Germany, 445. Malkin, Peter, evidence on the decline of the English silk industry, 229, 230. Malthus, Thomas Robert, his theorj' of population, 792-94. Manchester School, cold-blooded policy, 419. Manor, English, 36, 37. Manufactures, not limited by nature, 2; in- troduced into England by Edward III., 46; advantages as national industries, 211; trans- fer of plants to protected countries, 263; tables of imports into United Kingdom, 3S8- 91 ; statistics of exports from United King- dom, 396-403; condition in United States in 1840, 1850 and i860, 611; table showing growth in United States 1880-90, 628-30; from 1S60 to 1S90, 704-7; rates of profit, 770. "Mark," Anglo-Saxon, 36. Markets, neutral, protectionist countries strong in, 241. Markets of the World, being closed to British manufacturers, 232, 235-78; struggle of Gennans to acquire, 451 ; Continental com- petitors in, 563; total value of, 758; struggle for, 759; competition in agricultural produce in, 75S, 760, 761; United States can only sell in, by means of low wages and cheap goods, 811-817, Mason, David H., on free trade in the United States under the Confederation, 568. Mason, Frank H., on German import duties, 427; on American wheat in Germany, 428. Mawdsley, James, evidence on cheapness due to long hours of labor, 241; minority re- port of British Labor Commission, 1S94, 3S3. Mazarin, Cardinal, pohcy, 491. Medley, George W., on the benefit to Eng- land of universal free trade, 727. Mercantile System, nature of, 775. Metal industries, growth in England under protection, 113; table of exports of metal goods, 114; decline under free trade, 264-73; table of metal goods exported from the United Kingdom, 398; growth in Russia, 470-75- Milan, manufactures, 22. Mill, John Stuart, wages of laborers, natur- allv low, 806. Mills Bill, 627. Mills, Roger Q. , free trade views, 728; on the Democratic tariff policy, 742; on the alleged benefits of free trade, 743; on the workman's share of protection, 766. Mining, not limited by climate, 3; in Russia, statistics, 477; products in United States, 1 860- 1 890, 631. Mining record, statistics of the English iron industry, 218. Mississippi scheme, 494. Mitchell, Henry', evidence on the decline of England's exports of woolens, 253; evi- dence on wages as an element in cost of pro- duction, 256; on the influence of duties on foreign trade, 256; on tUe competition of France in the woolen industry, 257; on the importation of agricultural products, 290. Molesworth, William, on abuses of the English Poor Laws, 376; on the Poor Law reform in 1834, 377. Monasteries, effect of confiscation of prop- erty of, on labor, 55. Money, fiat in France, 494; paper, issue of 1S60 in the United States at a discount, 607. Mongredien, Augustus, on the prosperity of England under protection, 124; on alleged crudities in the English tariff, 151; on the attitude of English manufacturers toward protection, 156; on foreign commerce under free trade, 313; on the fall of wages under free trade in England, 816. Monopolies, granted in England, 86; not fos- tered by protection, 523; what they are, 775. Moon, Charles, letter on the decline of woolen yarn spinning under free trade, 293. Moors, expulsion of from Granada. 29. Morris, George, letter on the decline of the English cotton trade, and reduction of in- comes under free trade, 240. Morse, Arthur, on the influence of free trade on the price of corn, 171. Mortgages on farms in the United States, 665-70; on real estate in England, 670. MULHAi.1., M. G., diagram sbowiug fluctua- tions in prices of English products, :2i. MuLi-KR, Henry L., evidence on the dechne of gun making in England, 291. MuLVANY, Consul, report on the decrease of British trade in Germany, 438; on the rise of wages in Germany, 444. Napoleon, Continental system, 505. Napoleonic wars, 79, 97, 130, 505, 506. Natural Capabilities, of England, Cuba and the United States, influences on branches to be pursued, 139-43. Natural Laws governing, 2, S02-04. Natural Sklrction, law of basis of doctrine of free ir:idc, 7SS; not the best means of secu'-iiiu itiilustrial development, 7S9-92. Navigai I' 'N Acts, England's first, 47; act of 165 1, 75; various provisions, 77, 82. Navy, English, enrollment of reserves, 86. Nesselrode, Count, on the adoption of pro- tection by Russia, 137. Netherlands, contrast between the southern and northern parts, 25; height of their pros- peritv, 26; early commercial history, 543. See a/so Belgium and Holland. Newmarch, on circumstances promoting Eng- lish trade, 223. New York Commercial Bulletin on the efifect of a low tariff' on wages in 1893, 735; on necessitv of reducing wages uuder Gor- man-Wilson Bill, S15. Norman Conquest, 37, 38. NoRW.\Y, growth of foreign trade 1854 to 1S90, 312; industrial condition, 549. OCEANICA, statistics of trade with, 552. Oi'PENheimer, Consul-General, on decrease of British trade in Germany, 43S. Over-production, 366. Paper industry, decline under free trade, 276-78; decline in England due to foreign competition, 293; development in Russia, 467. Parliamentary Commission on Labor mi- nority report, 3S3. Patents, many issued in the United States under protection, 612. Pauperism in England in reign of Henry VIH, 55; in reign of Elizabeth, 56; Poor Laws of Elizabeth's reign, 63; alleged decrease in England, 375; encouraged by a system of relief, 376; in Europe, statistics, 380; charac- ter and extent in England, 381, 384. Pearl Buttons, prices before and under the McKinley act, 702. Pearson, Richard, on free trade in velvets, 687. Peel, Sir Robert, introduces a revision of Corn Laws, 162; introduces an income tax, 163; and a revision of tariif, 163; announces a change of views on protection, 177; his desertion of the protection party, 181; on the superiority of England in manufactures, 186; on importance of capital, 207. . Percentages, comparison of, misleading, 611; fallacy of comparing in labor cost, 766. Petroleum Industry, growth in Russia, 476. Phoenicians, ancient commerce, 9. Physiocrats, origin, 498; errors, 499. Pitkin, on the protective views of early American statesmen, 571. Pitt, William, on the causes of England's prosperity, 92; computation of Enghsh in- comes in 1799, 93. Platform, of Democratic party, 1S4S, 603; in 1856, 605; of Republican party in i860, 616; of Democratic party in 1892, 732. Playfair, Sir Lyon, on the failure of free trade, 250. Plumb, Senator, on the partisan character of the Mills bill, 627. Political e;conomist, chief contents, 5S0. Political Economy, defined, 787. Polk. James K., disingenuousness on the tariff', 505; declaration in first message, 599. Poole, R. S., on the loss to France from the exodus of the Huguenots, 493. Poor Laws, English, of Elizabeth, 63, 64; recent, 375-79- Porter, G. R., on import of wheat into Eng- land, 104; on decline in value of cottons in England, 107; on progress of England under protection, 125; on English exports to United States in 1815, 135; on England's industrial supremacy, 145; on failure of English efforts for universal free trade, 147; .statistics of Eng- lish revenue from duties in 1S42, 165; in 1849, ^66; on English duty on silks, 227. Porter, Robert P., on the magnitude of the English woolen industry, 255; on farm mort- gages in the United States, 667; on improve- ment in silk machinery, 686. Portugal begins the Eastern trade, 28; adopts protection, 138; growth of foreign trade 1S54 to 1870, 312; industrial condition, 550. Pottery, table of exports from England from i860 to 1892, 398; growth of the industry in Russia, 475; progress in the United States, 695-97- Price, Bonamy, on "goods for goods" theory, 210; on working man's protection, 298; doc- trine of free trade on wages stated by, 398. Prices, decline of in England from 1819 to 1845, 121, 122; ultimately reduced by protec- tion, 265; reduction in Canada, 554; in the United States, 703; tables showing this de- crease, 70S-12; not necessarily raised by the amount of duties. 772. Production, chief branches of, i. Profits, evidence of British manufacturers on loss of, in productive industry under free competition, 229-99; of manufacturers of. New England, 770; competition in capital prevents excessive, 771. Protection, field of controversy with free trade, 3-7; form enjoyed by the ancient com- mercial nations, 15; the policy in Venice, 21; in the free cities of Europe, 23; not needed by the Dutch and Flemmings, 31; adopted by them after the Napoleonic wars, 31; necessary to the Venetians from the first, 32; value taught by the history of Western Europe, ^3; introduced into England by Edward HL, 46; England prohibits the importing of silk goods and other manufac- tures, 48; extended to agriculture, 48; value to English industries, 49, 57, 62, 98, loS; under Queen Elizabeth, to manu- factures, agriculture and shipping, 64-66; abandonment in England follows years of bad crops, 12S; eflect on England of this polic\' in other countries, 128, 14.5; adopted by Prussia, 136 ; tariffs of the United States, 137; the German Zollverein, 137; protection in Russia, 137; in Belgium, Holland, Spain and Portugal, 138; advisability depends on the economic situation of a nation, 140; out- grown by England, 143; proof of its value, 143; English efforts to remove it in other countries, 146; continued in England until 1846, 14S-52 ; opposed to duties on non- competing raw materials, 154; three divisions of the policy, 155; in other countries a men- ace to Great Britain, 158; Cobdeu on natural protection, 172; how far favored by Peel and Gladstone, 164, 178; speeches by Disraeli, Bentinck, Lord Granb\', Lord Derby, oppos- ing the repeal of, iSi-84 ; evidence of Brit- ish manufacturers on the restriction of their trade by foreign tariffs, 229-7S; reduces prices ultimately, 265, 771-73; secures home markets for chemical manufactures, 276; the remedy for foreign competition in paper making, 277; recommended by a minority of the Royal Commission, 29S; adverse interests built up in England, 366; would improve the home market, 366; growth of favorable sentiment in England, 367; devel- opment in Germany, 404; effects on German industries, 412, 434; revival in Germany, 422, 425; adopted in Russia, 455; effects in Russia, 486; adopted in France, 492; bene- (iis to French industries, 503, 509; influence on agriculture in France, 510; on the textile industries of France, 510-12; how long needed, 522; alleged production of monop- olies, 523; practiced in Austria-Hungary, 533; in Italy, 537; Belgium, 545; Switzerland, 548; in Denmark, 548; Norway and Sweden, 549; in Spain and Portugal, 550; summary of results, 557; productive power of Europe, 563; growth of sentiment in the United States, 577; good effects in the United States, 586, 718; constitutionality, 587; H. C. Carey on the benefits of domestic manu- factures, 598; stimulating to invention, 612; admits most non-competing products free, 619; still needed by the United States, 631, 637-39; benefits the so-called non-protected industries, 701; breaks down monopolies, 714; increases wages, 715; its nature and principles, 774; natural and legal protection defined, 779; involves no injustice, 783; in- cidental protection illusory, 784; based on historical study in the United States, 7S5; protectionists' view of political economy, 787; scientific basis, 790; deals with the real man, 795; allows the utmost freedom to the individual, 797; a matter of public policy, 800; chief purpose to prevent reduction of wages, 803; advantages in Europe, 80S; pre- serves opportunities for employment, 810. Protective Tariff, defined, 779-83, Prussia, adopts protection, 408; forms the Zoll- verein, 411; wars with Austria and France, 416. Prussia Eastland Company, English, formed, 71. Publishing Business, progress in the United States, 701. Railroads promote the English iron indus- try, 21S, 219; miles in operation in 1866, 220; wages of employes in Scotland and the United States, 692; wages in England in 1891 and 1S92, 720. Raleigh, Sir Walter, report on England's foreign trade in 1604, 71. Ramie. See Fibre Industries. Rawlinson, Joshua, evidence on the decline of the English cotton industry, 243, Kavj material, free entry of foreign in har- mony with protection, 31; English revenue duties, 153; English resources, 155; to fur- nish profits to England, 205; table of imports into United Kingdom, 392; dutiable under tariff of 1S46 in United States, 601; draw- back increased by the McKinley act, 641; definition of and argument concerning, 754-57- Raymond, A. C, evidence on the labor cost of buttons, 765. Rayxor. Isidor. free trade \'iews, 729, Readf, R. H., evidence on the decline of the British linen industry, 258. Receipts, of United kingdom, 1894, 195-97; of United States, 1789 to 1895, 834. Reciprocity, recommended by merchants of London in 1820, 147; between England and France, 193, 215, 501-04-; a merchant's ad- vocacy, 240; under McKinley act, 646-51. Redgrave, Alexander, gives statistics of the texrile industries of England, 220; of the cotton industry of Europe, 221. Reed, Thomas B , on the nature and princi- ples of protection, 774; on wages under protection, 8 10, Rents of laborers' dwellings increased, 345. Republican Party, declares for protection in i860, 616; tariff legislation of, from iS6i to 1S90, 616-56; return to power in 1S88, 630, 729; enacts McKinley bill, 640; defeated by deceptive tactics of free traders in 1892, 732-35; carrs- elections throughout the coun- try in 1894 and 1S95, 754. Revenue, from customs duties in England, 1842,165-66; 1859,191-92; 1894,195; in United States, deficiencv of, under Act of 1833, 593; under Walker tariff, 600; under Act of 1S57, 607, 612; under Gorman-Wilson bill, 752; of United States, from 17S9 to 1895, S34. Revenue Tariff. Sec Tariff for Revenue Only. Revenue System, disctissed, 782-S4. RiCARDO, David, on the tendency of wages to reduction, 807. Richardson, evidence on the decline of British exports of linens, 259. -Richelieu, Cardinal, despotic administration, 491. RiGG, SiSBON S., statistical analysis of the English cotton trade, 245-50. Rogers, Thorold, on the supremacy of Eng- land after the Napoleonic wars, 131. Romans, ancient commerce, 11-13; fatal change of economic polic}-, 15. Rdvai, Commission, on the Depression in Trade, in England, (1SS5) under free trade, appointed, 273; extracts from, evidence before, on decline of British industries, 229- 95; extracts from reports of, 296-9S; oppo- sition to its investigating effects of free trade, 299; report on unemployed, 315; report of labor organizations to a reduction of wages, 332-39 : insufficiency of emplo^-ment of labor, minority report on, 339 ; capital may- lose all inducements for investment in Eng- land, 367. Royal Commission on Labor, appointed by parliament in 1891, 347; extracts from reports on wages in England in 1892, 34S, 350, 361; minority report on pauperism, housing, unemployed, and deplorable con- dition of English masses, 383, 384. Rubber goods, growth of the manufacture in Russia, 46S. Russia, adherence to protection, 137; eco- nomic conditions, 141; supplies agricultural products to Gennany, growth of foreign trade, 1854 to 1890, 312; 42S, 429; advantages of situation, 454; manufactures encouraged by Peter the Great, 454; history of her tariff, 455-60; table of foreign trade from 1824 to 1849, 456; growth of manufactures, 458; advance under a high tariff, 459-61; table of manufactories, 461 ; growth of the cotton industry, 461-63; development of flax, hemp and jute manufactures. 463; of woolen manufactures, 465; of the silk industry, 466; of the paper industry, 467; of the leather goods manufacture, 467; of the rubber goods manufacture, 46S; of the wood-working in- dustries, 469; of pitch and tar making, 470; 0[ the metal working industries, 470-75; tool and machine making sacrificed to other industries, 474; growth of the glassware and pottery industries, 475; of chemical manufactures, 476; of the petroleum indus- try, 476; of cement industry, 476; of beet sugar industry, 477; statistics of mining, 477; condition of agriculture, 478; ownership of land, 47S; statistics of stock-raising, 479; fisheries, 480; table of irhports and exports in 1890 and 1891, 480-83; internal trade, 483- 85; fairs, 484; condition of labor, 4S5; table of wages in factories, 485; effects of pro- tection, 486; statistics of wages in 1890, 719. Russian Company, EngHsh, formed, 71. St. Ferrol, on the treaty of 17S6 between England and France, 504. Salisbury, Lord, on struggle for markets, 759. Sanford, Arnold O., evidence on the labor cost of cotton yarns, 764. Savings, in Germany, 452; in Italy, 538; in- crease in United States during Civil War, 617; from 1S60 to 1S90, 631. ScHULZE, William, evidence on foreign com- petition shielded by protection, 241. Scientific basis of protection and free trade discussed, 788-94. Scott, Charles, report to British Govern- ment, on German trade under protection, 434, 435- Sheffield Daily Telegram, on Mr. Giffen's statistics of wages, 343. Ship-building, bounties granted by England, S6; table of artisans' wages in England, 350; condition in the United States in 1842 and 1848, 597. Shoddy, imports into the United States from 1890 to 1895, 684; imports before and under the Gorman- Wilson tariff, 747. Silk industry, decline in England, 22S-33; foreign competition with England, 292; table of exports of silk goods, 396; development in Russia, 466; under protection in France, 510; growth in the United States, 6S5. Silver. See Gold and Silver. Silver-working. See Metal Industries. SiMCOX, Edith, on the rents paid by the working classes in England, 345 Smith, Adam, on the benefits of home trade, 4, 819. Society, its benefits and requirements, 799. Spain, injured by disregard of domestic in- dustries, 29; increases import duties, 138; growth of foreign trade, 1854 to 1890, 312; industrial condition, 550. Specie p.^yments, effect of sudden resump tion in England, 132. Specific duties, advantages, 262, 263; supe- rior to ad valorem. 410. "Statute of Apprentices," 60-63. Steel. See Iron and Steel. Steel, quality' of goods lowered by competi- tion, 272. Steel rails, manufacture depressed in Shef- field, 267; English kept out of the United States only by high duty, 26S; European in- ternational trust, 269; statistics of produc- tion and imports of United States, 620. Sterling, W. R., on wages in the iron and steel, railroad, and mining industries, 692. STOCKRAISING in Russia, statistics, 479. Sugar industry, beet sugar in Germany, 432, 447) 450; condition in the United States in 1841 and 184S, 597; bounty in the United States under the McKinley act, 642. See Beet Sugar Industry,. SuLLiV-iN, Sir Edward, on foreign competi- tion with English labor, 307; on the proba- bility of England returning to protection, 370-72. Sully, Due de, economic policy, 490. Sumner, W. G , defines free trade, 781. Survival of the Fittest, law of, its relation to economics, 207, 7S8-94. Sweden, industrial condition, growth of for- eign trade, 1854 to 1890, 312, 549, Switzerland, industrial condition, 547; statis- tics of wages in 1890, 719 Syme, David, on the effect of competition on prices, 713. Taine, H. a., on the economic condition of trance before the Revolution, 495. Tammany Society, on the commercial de- pression under the tariff of 1816, 577. Tariff, of Great Britain, in 1S94, 193-95; in United States, Act of 17S9, 576; of 1816, 577; of 1824, 585; of 1828, 585; Compromise Act of 1833, 590; of 1S42, 593; of 1846, 600; of 1.S57, 605: Morrill tariff of 1861, 616; of 1S67, 618; of 1872, 620; of 1883, 623-26; Mc- Kinley bill of 1890, 640, 654; Gorman-Wilson bill of 1894, 741-53; table of all United States tariffs from 1789 to 1894, 664-66. Tariff for Revenue Only defined, 782, 783. Taussig, F. W., on the cause of the panic of 1857, 612. Taxes, paid in wool in England, 42; taxation in France before the Revolution, 496. Taylor, Zachary, on protection, 603. Tariff, is it a tax? 771. Tariff Reform a misleading term, 785. Tenants, free, number and position in Eng- land after the Norman Conquest, 38; rights and privileges, 40. Thiers, L. A., on the protective policy, 517-24- Thompson, Col. Perronet, on the free im- portation of food-stuffs, 180. Thompson, Robert Ellis, on the ideas of the Physiocrats, 49S. Thompson, R. W., on the constitutionality of protection in the United States, 571; on excessive importation, 609. TiBBiTTS, John A., on wages in English woolen mills, 355. Times, The, on the funds of the Anti-Corn Law League, 176; on the Marquis of Graii- by's support of protection, 182; on the inva- sion of the United States b)^ the Cobden Club, 722. Tin pl.^TE, British manufacturers of, to hold American market by reducing wages, 321; tariff and industrial history in the United States, 643-46. Tobacco Manufacture product in the United States, 700. TooKE, Thomas, author of an English peti- tion for free trade, 139. Towns, English, origin and progress, 38. Townships, English, 36-37. Trade, general divisions, 3. See Foreign Trade and Domestic Trade. Treaties, free trade advanced by, 559. See Reciprocity. Trollope, Mrs. Frances, on the real object of the repeal of the Corn Laws, 199. Turcot, A. R. J., attempts many reforms, 500. TwEMLOW, James, evidence on the decline of the English silk industry, 231. Umbrellas, product in the United States, 700. Umpire, The, on low wages under free trade, 233- United States, competition of England in manufactures, 134; tariffs from 1S16-46, 137; economic conditions, 141; raw materials taxed only for revenue, 154; Cobden on American wheat, 172; largest market for the Scotch jute manufacture, 261 ; English steel manufactures kept out only by high duties. 268, 270; competition with England in gun- making, 292; successful competition with the English watch industry, 294; with the trades of Sheffield, 295; statistics, of gro\\-th of foreign trade, 1854 to 1890, 312, 314; reason for the return of securities from England, 318; rise of wages, 363; American grain in Germany, 42S; not much market for wheat in France, 531; small market in Austria-Hungary, 536; statistics of trade with Italy, 539; small market in Holland and Belgium, 547; in Switzerland, 54S; in Denmark, 549; in Norway and Sweden, 550; in Spain and Portugal, 551; statistics of trade with Asia, 551; with Africa, 552; with Oceanica, 552; trade with Canada, 555; with other American countries, 556; man- ufactures repressed by England in colonial times, 564; customs regulations of tlie several States, 566; agriculture the chief industry at the close of the Revolution, 56/ ; effect of free trade under the Confederation, 567; protec- tion an object of the Constitutional Conven- tion, 568-70; constitutionalit}- of protection, 568-71; first tariff bill passed, 569; opinions of the early presidents on protection, 570; early tariff' hi.story, 572; manufactures in iSio, 573; tariff of 1816, 575; commercial hostility of England, 576; tariff of 1816 in- adequate, 577; tariff lite;:ature of 1827, 582; tariff bill of 1820, 578-80; tariff of 1824 en- acted, 580; effects, 585; tariff of 1828, 585; statistics of production in 1831, 586; modifv- ing tariff bill of 1832, 586, 58S; agitation of the Southern free traders, 588; nullification, 588; tariff of 1833 and its effects, 590-93; distress during Tyler's administration, 593; tariff of 1842, 593; its effect on revenue and imports, 594; Polk's election and his cabinet, 595; plan of the free traders of 1844, 596; bene- fits of the protective tariff of 1842, 597; Walker tariff' enacted, 599; effectsof the Walker tariff and the tariff of 1842 compared, 600; acciden- tal prosperity under the Walker tariff, 603; domination of the slave-holding section, 605; tariff law of 1857 enacted, 605; its effects, 606; table of imports in 1S46 and 1S60, 608; agriculture in 1840, 1S50 and i860, 610; .sta- tistics of the cotton industry from 1847 to 1860. 610; condition of manufactures in 1840, 1S50 and i860, 611; revenue from 1S55 to 1857, 612; adverse balance of trade, 613; effect of free trade in the South, 614; tariffs of i860 and 1861, 616; additional war tariffs, 617; resources of the North under protec- tion, 617; statistics of national debt for five years before and five vears after the civil war, 618; tariff acts from 1865 to 1870, 61S; tariff changes from 1870 to 1880, 619; causes ofthe panic of 1873, 62t; prosperity under protection, 622; tariff of 18S3, 623; unsuc- cessful attempts of Democrats to reduce the tariff, 626; table showing growth of manu- factures from 1880 to 1890, 628; prosperity from 1880 to 1890,630; sectional character of the Mills bill, 630; protection still needed in 1890, 631; table showing general progress from i860 to 1890, 631; table of dutiable im- ports and the labor employed in producing them, 634; industrial possibilities in 1890, 635; tables showing manufacturing and general progress in the South, 636, 637; need of protection in the West, 637; in the East and North, 63S; the McKinley act, 639; reci- procity under the McKinley act, 646-51; table of foreign trade in iS92,'649; summary of tariffs from 1789 to 1894, 654-56; Admin- istrative Customs Law, 656; agriculture the leading industry, 657; distribution of popu- lation among the industries, 657; home mar- ket for farm products built up, 658; various causes of agricultural prosperity, 659; table showing agricultural progress, 660; growth of the cotton industry, 672; table showing progress with reference to that of England, 674; tables of textile imports from England in 1SS3, 1890 and 1891, 679; trade with Eng- land in 1S95, 6S5; growth of the silk indus- try, 685-88; industries brought in by protec- tion, 687; need of protection for the linen in- dustry, 5SS; progress of the iron and steel industry, 689-93; tables showing growth from 1S60 to 1890, 691; progress of the pot- tery industry, 695-97; condition ofthe glass industry, 697-99; progress of miscella- neous industries, 700; table showing growth of manufactures, from i860 to 1890, 704-7; advance of wages under protection, 715-20; advance of industries under the McKinley tariff, 730; foreign trade in 1891 and 1892, 731; beginning ofthe panic of 1893, 735; its intensity, 737,75 1 ; enactment of the Gorman- Wilson tariff, 739-41; chief features, 742; tables of foreign trade under the Gorman- Wilson-tariff, 745-49; increase of the na- tional debt, 752; depression of home trade, 753; domestic market exceeds all foreign, 758, 759; statistics of exports of agricultural products to England in 1894, 760; labor cost of various commodities, 763-69; the country has natural advantages that should be util- ized, 803; high standard of living, S04; home trade compared with foreign. 823; industrial greatness compared with the rest of the world, 823; table of exports and imports from 1791 to 1895, 828-830; table of exports and imports of gold and silver from 1821 to 1S95, 831-33; table of revenue from 1789 to 1894, 834-36; table of expenditures from 1789 to 1894, 837-39; table of imports in 1S90, 1892, 1S94 and 1895, S40-43; table of exports in 1890, 1892, 1S94 and 1895, S44-46. Utti,p;y, Stewart, evidence on the spurious goods brought out by fierce competition, 271. Van Buren, IMartin, sulimits to the free traders, 592. Venetians, rise to commercial importance, iS -20; take up manufacturing, 21; protective policy, 21; cause of commercial decline, 22; need of a protective policy, 32; obtain privileges in London, 43. ViCKERS, Thomas Edward, evidence on the closure of the American market to English steel, 270. Vii,i,EiNS, rights and obligations, 38; modes of becoming enfranchised, 41. Wade, John, on the prosperity of England under George II., 90; on agriculture in Eng- land during the eighteenth century, 91. Wages, attempt to fix rate, 61; relation to cheap production, 212, 233; of .Asiatic labor- ers, 235; reduction demamki"; in ., "1. . iining industr}', 237,238; reduction i : . i-.n millsunderfree trade, 243; 1: < h 11 mills, 254; relation to tlu- ...,i .1 i.i, l,n goods, 256; reduced in the British linen industry under free trade, 259; competition demands low rates in the jute industry, 25i; reduced in the English steel works, 269; reduced to meet foreign competitior in English metal industries, 264, 270, 272; in boiler-making and iron ship-building; 272; in the chemical industry, 274; reduction in agricultural occupations under free trade, 283-85; reduction required to hold foreign markets, 321, 322; necessary decline under free trade, 330; evidence of decline in Great Britain, 331-44, 347-61; TMr.Giffen's statistics, 340; Mr.Hutchinson'sstatistics, 340; purchas- ing power in 1804, 1X14, 1S33, 1836 and 1876, 344; general condition of the English working people, 346; as found by the Royal Commission on Labor of 1S91 to 1S94, 348; Mr. Brassey on the influence of coinpetitioti, 349; table of rates paid in ship-building in England, 350; in English cotton mills in 1892 and 1852, 351-53; in English woolen mills in 1892, 353-57; in miscellaneous textile industries, 358; in " sweated trades, " 360; small advances and large reductions under free trade, 361; advance in the United States under protection, 363; reduction not compensated for by cheap food, 364; rise under protection in' Germany, 442-45; table of rates paid in 1882 and 1889, 446; rates in Russia under protection, 485; rise in France under protection, 529; statistics in Italy under protection, 542; advance under protec- tion in Canada, 553; table showing rates in American and English cotton mills, 673; in the lace curtain manufacture, 676; table of rates in American and Euro- pean worsted mills, 681; in the clothing industry in the United States, 684; statistics in .American and European linen mills, 6S8; table of rates in the iron and steel, railroad, and coal mining industries in England and America, 692; table of rates in the pottery industrj' in England and America, 696; table of rates in American and European glass works, 699; advanced by protection in the United States, 715; tables of rates in the United States and Europe in 1890, 719; how aSected by a low tarifif, 735; low under ihe Gorman-\Vilson tariflf, 749; under the supply and demand theory, 796; to prevent reduc- tion is tlie cliief purpose of protection, 803; old Mallluisian theory, 806; the wage-fund theory, 807; what iixes the rate in the United States, 809; reduced by cheap goods, S14. Wagner, Professor, on paternal legislation in Germany, 41S. Walker, Francis A., on the value of farms in the United States in 1870, 661. Walker Tariff, 596-99. Warner, John De Witt, free traders re- joice over death of protected industries in United States, 740. Warner, William D., report on the beet- sugar industry in Germany, 432. Wars, conmiercial, of Dutch, English, French and Spanish, 68-79; Napoleonic, 79, 97, 130. Watch making, in England, decline under free trade, 294; product in United States, 700. Watterson, HiiNKY, on the Democratic tariflf policy, 742, Watts, James, on the facilities of England for the cotton manufacture, 251. Ways and Means Committee, of Fifty-first Congress. 639; of Fiftv-third Congress, 739. Wealth of English people, 93, 96, 97, 325, 326; of German people, 452; unequal distribution of, in England, 328, 329, 330; of France. 524; of Italy, 538; of United States, 631; distribu- tion of, 825. Webb, Sidney, on pauperism in the United Kingdom, 38 1. Webster, Daniel, on protection in the Con- stitutional Convention of the United {States, 56S; speech against the tariflf of 1S46, 599. Weinburg, Julius, evidence on the decline of the British jute industry, 261; on the loss of foreign markets, 261. Wells, David A., misleading comparisons, 118; on natural rights of citizens, 797. West, Algernon, evidence on the concentra- tion of wealth in England, 327. Wheat, consumption of, foreign and home grown, in England from iSoo to 1S40, 104, 105; deceptive arguments relating to British competition in, 171, 173; speech of Lord Derby on protection to, 183-86; imports into England from 1859 to '890, 280; de- creased production in England, 280, 281, 285; consumption of, foreign grown in England, 285-86; Irish imports of, 373-74; duty on, in Germany, 427; German production and imports of, 429; Russian exports to Germany, 429; production of, France, 513,525, 531; con- sumption of, in France, 531; production of, Italy, 540; production of, Holland, 547; pro- duction of Canada, 555; production in United Stales, 1850 to 1890, 631, 660, 661; price of, i873and 1S91, 711; exportsof, under McKin- ley and Gorman-Wilson bills, 749; increas- ing production of foreign countries, 758; im- ports of, into England, 1894, 760; decreasing exports of, from United States, 1892 to 1S95, S44. Whitman, William, Jr. , statistics of wages in American and English cotton mills, 673. Williams, Edwin, statistics of revenue from duties in 1842-44, 166; on the American duties on raw materials, 602. William of Orange, England under, 77, 78. Walker, , on the loss of foreign mar- kets for British jute manufactures, 262. Walker, Francis A., theory of wages, 808. Women, in miscellaneous textile industries, 358; wages in English cotton mills in 1892, 353; in English woolen mills, 356; relief given under the English Poor Law, 379. Wood-working industries, growth in Prus- sia, 469. Woolen industry, growth in England under protection, 108; table of imports of wool and exports of woolen goods, 1820 to 1859, 109; magnitude in England in 1856, 220; decline in England under free trade, 252-57; de- cline in British exports of from 1S74 to 1892, 252, statistics in England and the United States, 252, 255 ; influences of changes in duties in the United States, 257; foreign competition with England, 292; decline of yarn spinning, 293; wages in English mills in 1S92, 353-57; three-loom weavers rare in England, 355; effect of fast looms, 357; wages in the United States, 363; table of exports from England from i860 to 1892, 396; development in Russia, 465; ad- vance under protection in France, 511; its need of protection, 520;- condition in the United States in 1S42 and 1847, 597; growth in the United States, 631, 706, 677-85; condi- tion in the United States in 1843 and 1847, 597; rise and decline in the United States, 623-26; tables of imports and exports of the United States in 1895, 746; conditions aflfect- ing it in France; 520; various customs regu- lations in America, 677; statistics of imports and domestic production from 1820 to 1890, 678; statistics of wages in worsted mills in America and Europe, 681; tables of imports and exports of the United States from 1S92 to 1895, 746, 747- Wright, Carroll D., on the rise of wages in the United States, 363. Wright, J., evidence on the depres,sion of the English silk industry, 232. Yeats, John, on the decrease of England's exports of manufactures, 15S; on the ship- ments of gold from Australia to England, 217; on the Poor Laws of George III., 376; on the commerce of Germany after the Napoleonic wars, 406, 407; on the indus- trial advancement of Germany under pro- tection, 413; on the Continental system of Napoleon, 505. Zollverein formation, 411. 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on t he date to which renewed . )ks are subTecn^mme3T ^^m' ^Sm 22Nov'.' 7p )oks are subject to immedia iREe^ puo t40V Vo '0^ lOjan'59SD Z >SG'P^^ m 15 '66 -10 M LD M/^R 7 m3 APR 1 5 1966 3 rj RECEIVED ^^m 1_^^Lqah -^^t^^ •*j^ ^n-^ ^..r^^-6^^ -'it^^ DEPT. ■AR5 1969 4 7 RECEIVED FEB25'69-8AM LOAN DEPT. jmtMmUa