X 
 
 m 
 > 
 
 HF 
 
 ITJ5 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 x 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 05 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 X 
 
 -J 
 
 U\ 
 
 X 
 
THE NEW SOUTH 
 
 THE DEMOCRATIC POSITION ON THE TARIFF. 
 
 Speech of (jon. James Pjielan, 
 
 OF MEMPHIS, TENN. 
 
 DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR CONGRESS 
 IN THE TENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, 
 
 DELIVERED AT COVINGTON, TENN., 
 
 On the 2d of October, 1886. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY REQUEST. 
 
 S. C. To< 
 
 MEMPHIS: 
 Printers and Lithographers, 276 Seco 
 
 1886. 
 
ANCHO* 
 
 SPEECH BY MR. PHELAN, 
 
 AT COVINGTON, TENN. 
 
 Fi:i i.< i BNfi 01 Tipton County: 
 
 It affords me genuine pleasure to be brought face to face 
 with a Tiptoo county audience. It is here that I first met 
 a spirit of kindly appreciation it was here that I made 
 my first friends beyond the limits of my own county. The 
 erous support which the Democracy of this county ac- 
 corded me, extended me a helping hand when I was just 
 struggling to my feet, and in the desperate struggle for the 
 nomination which lias just ended, it is to me cause of pride 
 add gratification that at all times my most zealous oppo- 
 nents conceded me an overwhelming majority of your 
 county. To have been nominated at all was a great honor, 
 but to have been nominated by acclamation, after having 
 been opposed by three such able gentlemen as successively 
 retired from the field of contest, adds to the honor an ad- 
 ditional responsibility a responsibility the demands of 
 which I hope so to meet as to bring no harm to the Dem- 
 ocratic party and no mortification to the door of my friends. 
 
 1 have been requested to make some speeches on the sub- 
 ject of the tariff before the beginning of the joint discus- 
 sion between my Republican opponent, the present member 
 of Congress from this district, and myself. A lack of time 
 prevents me from acceding more than partially to this re- 
 quest. But conceiving that there is not as general an un- 
 derstanding among Democrats of the Democratic position 
 on this question as there should be, I have determined to 
 make at least one eftort to set forth at length what I be- 
 lieve to be that position. I speak as the Democratic nom- 
 inee to Democrats. I wish to show exactly where we do 
 stand on a question, the platform utterances upon which 
 are said to be so vague and undecided. 
 
2 
 
 Before however taking up this subject, I wish to give an 
 answer to a question which was propounded to me by a 
 Tipton county friend, an old farmer, on the day of the nom- 
 inating convention. He said to me, " I am not certain that 
 I know exactly what is meant by the phrase, the ' New 
 South.' They say you are a progressive Democrat a man 
 of the ' New South.' Now tell me what this means ?" I 
 promised him an explanation, and by way of prelude to my 
 speech I shall make an attempt to do so to-day. Of course 
 I do not say that I am an exponent of this idea. I do say 
 however that I wish to be. 
 
 THE NEW SOUTH. 
 
 It is always difficult to explain a subject by definitions. 
 Illustrations are in the main easier and more satisfactory. 
 My definition would be this : That the phrase of the " New 
 South " was intended to embody the idea of the social and 
 industrial changes which have taken place since the war, 
 as well as the spirit of enterprise which perfected these 
 changes. It is the liberalized state of mind which recog- 
 nizes that a new order of things has come in since the war, 
 and which, full of a broad patriotism, seeks to adapt itself 
 heartily and earnestly to these things. It is the manifest- 
 ation in all walks of life and in all undertakings of the 
 progressive spirit. It means new methods and more highly 
 developed modes of thought and action. We live in cer- 
 tain social environments as we live in a circumambient 
 atmosphere. This surrounds all things and all beings. Now 
 the currents which fill the sails, and push the barges of 
 commerce and turn the mills upon the great plains and 
 keep pure and fresh the world in which we live, are illus- 
 trative of the social and political currents which make the 
 New South. Take two men standing at the same point, 
 but on opposite sides of a rail or " worm " fence. One 
 looks out from a very acute angle the other from a very 
 obtuse or wide angle. The New South tries to look at 
 things from such an angle as will include as much as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 In the farmer it means improved methods of agriculture, 
 improved agricultural implements, diversified crops, exper- 
 
3 
 
 iments such a> Funnan made, the reading of agricultural 
 journals, a ready contentment with his 1 * t bat an eager de> 
 sire to make the moat out of it. a Liberal treatment of his 
 
 hired labor, a generous sympathy with those more unfort- 
 unate than himself, the education of hie children and an 
 honest pride of character. It means bees and Brown Leg- 
 horn and Plymouth Rock chickens, and fruit trees and 
 Holsteiii or Jersey or Short-Horn cattle, and grasses and 
 meadows on farms whose owners have been ruined by 
 what L have often called the three 0*8, corn, cotton and 
 commissions. 
 
 In the lawyer it means the spirit that rises above case 
 learning and that goes into the literature of his profession 
 audthe philosophy of its development the spirit that holds 
 high the standard of professional honor and professional 
 excellence. 
 
 In the physician it means something higher than a hap- 
 hazard diagnosis and the index of the Materia Medica it 
 means keeping abreast with the rapid rush of experiment 
 that from Vienna to Philadelphia, is changing his profes- 
 sion from a Black Art to a Science. 
 
 In the merchant it means a spirit of enterprise, a strict 
 observance of the laws of business, an eschewing of the 
 sentimental phase in its conduct, the development of new 
 avenues of trade, public spirit, and an absence of specula- 
 tion. 
 
 In a Democratic statesman, it means perhaps more than 
 I can adequately explain to you. In him it should find its 
 highest and most practical exponent. It means first of all, 
 thorough knowledge of and sympathy with the history and 
 traditions of his party. It was in the old days of chivalry 
 required of one who sought the honors of Knighthood that 
 he should fast and pray, and that he should go and pass the 
 night alone in a cathedral, holding communion with the 
 fountain-head of chivalry, purity and truth. I take it that 
 every Democrat, before he dons the armor of his party, 
 should return to the Temple of Democracy where the High 
 Priests have officiated, and there at the Altar hold com- 
 munion with the Great Spirit that pervades all Democratic 
 
institutions. In this spirit and thus equipped, I hold he is 
 ready to come forth upon the field of battle, the Rising Sun 
 upon his shield, the Knight of the New South. 
 
 But the essential requisite of this idea is that of practi- 
 cal statesmanship as opposed to sentimental. It means a 
 desire to accomplish practical legislation and to leave verb- 
 iage in abeyance. It means work, and not rhetoric. It 
 means an earnest desire to know the truth and a fearless 
 determination to follow its dictates, but it as well means a 
 distrust of one's own judgment. It means a lack of arro- 
 gance and a feeling of respect for honest difference of opin- 
 ion. It means a careful and cautious formation of opinion, 
 but an unswerving adherence to the right. It means a 
 hearty sympathy with all people of all classes. It means, 
 as a part of that recognition of the new order of things to 
 which I have just alluded, to accept in good part and in 
 good faith the citizenship of the negro race. They are our 
 fellow-citizens, our fellow-Americans, our fellow-Tennes- 
 seeans. Their rights are as sacred as ours. Socially God 
 has placed a wide and running river between us. This 
 river of race no one of liberal mind can desire to see bridged 
 over. But they are our fellow-citizens, and on opposite 
 sides of this river they are, or ought to be, moving with 
 us toward the common goal of a higher order of civiliza- 
 tion. In civil life they are as much entitled to receive the 
 full worth of their money as we, and they can demand as 
 a right all the privileges that flow from a free ballot and a 
 fair count. The New South, in full sympathy with the 
 lower plane upon which they stand, accepts them with 
 hearty acquiescence and turns cheerfully and earnestly to- 
 ward the solution of the problem that involves their moral, 
 intellectual and industrial development. 
 
 The New South attempts to rise above the barriers of 
 mere partisanship and sectionalism. It loves and reveres 
 the emblem of our nationality, and it is proud of all the 
 great achievements which have made illustrious the name 
 of any American citizen. It rejoices in the Union and its 
 wide domain, and most of all, it is proud that the blot of 
 slavery has been removed from its escutcheon. It says in 
 
all heartiness and sincerity, God be praised for this crown- 
 ing glory of i wonderful century. 
 
 This spirit of generous toleration I hope to Bee especially 
 typical of the New South. And I do not see in this frank 
 acceptance of a quarter-of-a-century'a history anything 
 not in accord with the gallant and chivalrous Cause that 
 
 sheathed its sword at Appomattox. As a Southerner, born 
 and bred, as a member of a family whose blood has been 
 shed upon nearly every battle-field of the Confederacy, as 
 the bod of a Confederate Senator who adyocated immedi- 
 ate Secession ten yean before it was attempted, I distinctly 
 and, if you please, enthusiastically disclaim any intention 
 to utter one word of apology for the South. The New South 
 is not a false South. All of the sacred memories of the 
 days now gone, the great events of a struggle that passed 
 like successive scenes of a gorgeous pageant before the 
 eyes of an admiring and wonder-stricken world, these 
 things, from the greatest to the least, are the heritage of 
 our glory, and we will never utter one recreant word about 
 them. 
 
 But more than twenty years have come and gone since 
 the close of the war. The graves of our fathers and our 
 brothers for more than twenty times have been clothed 
 with the verdure of spring. 
 
 Here scattered oft, the earliest of the year 
 
 By hands unseen are showers of violets found ; 
 The red-breast loves to build and warble here 
 
 And little footsteps lightly print the ground." 
 
 The hearts that were crushed by the weight of sorrow 
 have gone down to the grave, and those that were bruised 
 have been healed by the imposition of the gentle hand of 
 time. The weary Pilgrims of Despair have found rest in 
 the narrow House of Death. The young generation have 
 become the old generation, and the prattle of childhood 
 has mellowed to the deeper voice of maturity. We are in 
 a world that has already spun down many ringing grooves 
 of change, and we are a New South. 
 
 But in the New South, whilst holding lovingly to the 
 past, we look, full of the brightest hope, toward the future 
 
6 
 
 a future which has its own methods, its own aims, its own 
 aspirations. The confession of ignorance is the beginning 
 of wisdom. Of all things, this New South avoids the sneer, 
 the arrogant superciliousness of the narrow mind. It tries 
 to take a broad and comprehensive view of all subjects. It 
 tries to manifest, in all things, a spirit of eminent human- 
 ity and a liberalized judgment. It utterly discards preju- 
 dice from the domain of debate, and it seeks and merits 
 an investigation of its methods and ideas. It strives to 
 discuss public questions from a high plane. It cultivates 
 a sweep of vision that embraces the heavens, the seas and 
 the mountains not that which, like the down-cast eyes of 
 dumb and driven cattle, takes in merely the circumscribed 
 plot of grass that gives food for the moment. And finally 
 it strives to cultivate that liberal spirit of charity that 
 bursts the confines of a hard, narrow and bigoted mind 
 and soul, and comes out in butterfly radiance into the light 
 of day. 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 Of all subjects of public importance, the tariff is the 
 one most immediately confronting this New South, of 
 which I have just spoken. And.it is also the subject which 
 of all others requires that liberal-minded discussion for 
 which I have just pleaded. There are, roughly speaking, 
 three points of view from which this can be considered, 
 and I will consider it from each of the three. These three 
 points are free trade and protection within the party, and 
 protection without. The free trade element within the 
 Republican party is not as yet a disturbing factor, the Min- 
 nesota congressmen excepted. I shall discuss these three 
 phases of the question not upon their merits, but solely 
 with reference to and in illustration of the Democratic po- 
 sition on the tariff. 
 
 And now first, I address myself to the free traders who 
 claim that the Democratic party is a free trade party. This 
 raises an historical issue which I propose to meet by the 
 historical method. 
 
 Washington, in his first annual message of January 8, 
 1790, said: 
 
"The advancement of agriculture, commerce and manufactures by all 
 proper means will Hot, I trust, need recommendation." 
 
 In his eighth annual message, December 7, 1796, he said: 
 
 M Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, directed their atten- 
 tion to the encouragement of manufactures. The object is of too much con- 
 sequence not to insure a continuance of their efforts in every way which shall 
 appear eligible." 
 
 Benjamin Franklin, in 1771, wrote: 
 
 " Every manufacturer encouraged in a country makes a part of a market 
 for provisions within ourselves, and saves so much money to the country as 
 nrast otherwise be exported to pay for the manufacturers he supplies. Here 
 in England it is well known and understood that whenever a manufacture is 
 established it raises the value of land in the neighboring country all around 
 it. It seems, therefore, the interest of our farmers and owners of land to 
 encourage our young manufactures rather than foreign ones." 
 
 Franklin and Washington were not Democrats, but this 
 will show the first small beginnings of an idea. 
 
 Thomas Jefferson, however, was a Democrat, and in his 
 first annual message of December 8, 1801, he said : 
 
 M Agriculture, manufacture, commerce and navigation, the four pillars of 
 our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enter- 
 prise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be 
 reasonably interposed. If in the course of your observations or inquiries 
 they should appear to need any aid within the limits of our constitutional 
 powers, your sense of their importance is a sufficient assurance that they will 
 occupy your attention." 
 
 In his second annual message, December 15, 1802, he 
 enumerates, as among the things which should claim the 
 attention of Congress : 
 
 "To foster our fisheries and nurseries of navigation, and for the nurture 
 of man, and protect the manufactures adapted to our circumstances." 
 
 Again, Thomas Jefterson says, in his letter to Benjamin 
 Austin, written in 1816 : 
 
 "To be independent for the comforts of life we must fabricate them our- 
 selves we must now place the manufacturer by the side of the agriculturist. 
 The grand inquiry now is, shall we make our own comforts or go without 
 them at the will of a foreign nation ? He, therefore, who is now against 
 domestic manufactures must be in favor of reducing us either to a dependence 
 on that nation or be clothed in skins and to live like wild beasts in dens and 
 caverns. I am proud to say I am not one of these. Experience has now 
 taught me that manufactures are as necessary to our independence as our 
 comforts." 
 
8 
 
 James Madison, in a special message, March 31, 1814, 
 said : 
 
 " I recommend, also, a more effectual safeguard and encouragement to our 
 growing manufactures, that the additional duties and imports which are to 
 expire at the end of one year after a peace with Great Britain be prolonged 
 to the end of two years after that event." 
 
 In a special message of February 20, 1815, he said : 
 
 " But there is no subject that can enter with greater force or merit into the 
 deliberations of Congress than a 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, therefore, to the prompt and constant guardianship of 
 Congress." 
 
 In his seventh annual message of December 7, 1815, he 
 said: 
 
 " Under circumstances giving powerful impulse to manufacturing industry, 
 it has made among us a progress and exhibited an efficiency which justify 
 the belief that with a protection not more than is due to the enterprising cit- 
 izens whose interests are now at stake, it will become at an early day not only 
 safe against occasional competition from abroad, but a source of domestic 
 wealth and even external commerce." 
 
 The recommendations of Washington, Franklin and Jef- 
 ferson may have rested upon the idea that we should have 
 home manufactures as a kind of war measure, but Madi- 
 son distinctly recognizes the principle of modified and con- 
 ditional protection. It should not be overlooked that 
 Madison introduced the tariff bill of 1794, nor that the 
 tariff* bill of 1816, which was a protection per se measure, 
 was reported to the House by William Lowndes of S. C. 
 The Act of 1821 was voted for by no less a Democrat 
 than John C. Calhoun. Calhoun at this time had not fully 
 formulated his system. He first became a free trader 
 when he discovered that the question of nullification could 
 be raised in opposition to a protective tariff. 
 
 Madison's letter to Cabell, written September 18, 1828, 
 proves that he had a clearly defined idea of the issues 
 involved and that he entertained no doubt of the constitu- 
 tionality of a protective tariff. The letter is too long to 
 quote entire, but the following extracts contain his con- 
 clusions : 
 
9 
 
 " Your late letter reminds me of our conversation on the constitutionality 
 of the power of Congress to impose a tariff for the encouragement of manu- 
 facturc^ Mid of my promise to sketch the grounds of the confident opinion I 
 had expressed that it was among the powers of that body." * * " That 
 the encouragement of manufactures was an object of the power to regulate 
 trade is proved by the u>e made of the power for that object in the first ses- 
 sion of the first Congress, under the Constitution." 
 
 James Monroe, in hifl inaugural address of March 5, 181 7 r 
 says : 
 
 " Our manufactures find a generous encouragement by the policy which 
 patronizes domestic industry and the surplus of our produce a steady and 
 profitable market by local wants in less favored parts at home." 
 
 Again, in the same address, he says : 
 
 Our manufacturers will likewise require the systematic and fosteringcare 
 of the government. * * * Equally important is it to provide at home a 
 market for our raw materials, as by extending the competition it will enhance 
 the price and protect the cultivator against the casualities incident to foreign 
 markets." 
 
 Again, in his first annual message of December 2, 1817, 
 he says : 
 
 "Our manufactories require the continued attention of Congress. The 
 capital employed in them is considerable and the knowledge required in the 
 machinery and fabric of all the most useful manufactures is of great value. 
 Their preservation, which depends on due encouragement, is connected with 
 the high interests of the nation." 
 
 In his third annual message of December 7, 1819, he says : 
 
 11 It is deemed of great importance to give encouragement to our domestic 
 manufactures." 
 
 In his fifth annual message of December 3, 1821, he says : 
 
 "It may fairly be presumed that under the protection given to domestic 
 manufactures by the existing laws, we shall become at no distant period a 
 manufacturing country on an extensive scale." 
 
 In his sixth annual message of December 3, 1822, he says : 
 
 "From the best information that I have been able to obtain it appears that 
 our manufacturers, though depressed immediately after the peace, have con- 
 siderably increased and are still increasing under the encouragement given 
 them by the tariff of i8i6and by subsequent laws. Satisfied I am, whatever 
 may be the abstract doctrine in favor of unrestricted commerce, provided all 
 nations would concur in it, and it was not liable to be interrupted by war, 
 which has never occurred and cannot be expected, that there are other strong 
 reasons applicable to our situation and relations with other countries, which 
 impose on us the obligation to cherish and sustain our manufactures." 
 
10 
 
 Andrew Jackson was in the Senate and voted for the 
 protective tariff of 1824. He was elected President on 
 this tariff platform : 
 
 "Resolved, That an adequate protection to American industries is indis- 
 pensable to the prosperity of the country, and that an abandonment of that 
 policy at this period would be attended with serious consequences to the 
 nation." 
 
 In his inaugural address Andrew Jackson said, March 
 4, 1829 : 
 
 " With regard to a proper selection of the subjects of import, with a view 
 to revenue, it would seem to me that the spirit of equity, caution and compro- 
 mise in which the Constitution was formed, requires that the great interests 
 of agriculture, commerce and manufacture should be equally favored." 
 
 In his first annual message of December 8, 1829, he said : 
 
 "The general rule to be applied in graduating the duties upon articles of 
 foreign growth or manufacture is that which will place our own in fair com- 
 petition with those of other countries." 
 
 In his second annual message of December 7, 1830, he 
 says : 
 
 "The power to impose duties on imports originally belonged to the sev- 
 eral States. The right to adjust those duties with a view to the encourage- 
 ment of domestic branches of industry is so completely identical with that 
 power that it is difficult to suppose the existence of one without the other." 
 
 In the celebrated Coleman letter he writes : 
 
 "If we omit or refuse to use the gifts which God has extended to us, we 
 deserve not the continuation of His blessings. He has filled our mountains 
 and our plains with minerals with lead, iron and copper, and given us cli- 
 mate and soil for the growing of hemp and wool. These being the grand 
 materials of our national defense, they ought to have extended to them ade- 
 quate and fair protection, that our own manufactories and laborers may be 
 placed on a fair competition with those of Europe. * * Draw from 
 
 agriculture this superabundant labor, employ it in mechanism and manufact- 
 ures, thereby creating a home market for your breadstuffs, and distributing 
 labor to the most profitable account, and benefits to the country will result. 
 Take from agriculture in the United States 600,000 men, women and child- 
 Ten, and you will at once give a home 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 true that 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 paupers ourselves." 
 
11 
 
 James K. Polk in hii inaugural address, March 4, 1845, 
 says : 
 
 'The incidental protection afforded to our home industry by discrimina- 
 tions within the revenue range, it is believed, will be ample. In making 
 discriminations, all our home interests should, a^ far as practicable, be equally 
 protected." 
 
 In the oft-qu^)td Kane letter Mr. Polk said: 
 
 M 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, economi- 
 cally administered. In adjusting the details of a revenue tariff, I have 
 heretofore sanctioned such moderate discriminating duties as would produce 
 the amount of revenue needed, and at the same time afford reasonable inci- 
 dental protection to our home industry. * * * * * In m y judgment, 
 it is the duty of the government to extend, as far as 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 agricul- 
 ture, manufactures, the mechanic arts, commerce and navigation." 
 
 This was the Chicago platform of its day, and it elected 
 Mr. Polk to the Presidency. It carried Pennsylvania for 
 him, without which he would have been defeated by Mr. 
 Clay. Wilson McCandless, a leading Democrat of that 
 State, wrote in 1844, after the publication of the Kane let- 
 ter, a letter in which he denounced Mr. Clay as having 
 abandoned the principle of protection in the Compromise 
 of 1832, and urged Mr. Polk as having the true interests 
 of Pennsylvania at heart. Mr. Polk could justly thank 
 the Kane and the McCandless letters for his election. 
 
 In 1882 took place the great Tariff Debate, immediately 
 following the tariff-for-revenue-only utterance of the party 
 which lost General Hancock Indiana, and possibly New 
 York. Nearly every Democratic speaker recognized the 
 doctrine of incidental protection. Mr. Vest said, " within 
 the scope of a tarift for revenue, I shall vote to foster and 
 protect, by just discrimination in tarift duties, the iron 
 interests of Missouri," and advocated an adjustment of the 
 duties for purposes of protection. 
 
 Mr. Saulsbury said : 
 
 "I am certainly willing to give our industries any advantage which such 
 incidental protection can afford. " 
 
 Mr. Beck said : 
 
 11 In adjusting taxation on imports with a view only to obtain revenue or 
 for rrsenue only, we never thought of discriminating against American indus- 
 
12 
 
 tries or of depriving them of the incidental benefits or protection a proper 
 revenue tariff would afford." 
 
 Senators Bayard, Lamar and others spoke to the same 
 effect. 
 
 In the House Mr. Randolph Tucker said : 
 
 " There is no man on the committee who is not willing in the present con- 
 dition of things to accord such a duty upon all manufactured articles as will 
 enable the manufacturing interests to pay the full measure of wages that 
 the American laborer has a right to demand." 
 
 Mr. J. D. C. Atkins, the able Tennesseean, at that time 
 one of the leaders in Congress, said : 
 
 "The Democracy freely admit that in adjusting the details of any tariff 
 law, it must perforce afford incidental protection to many industries, but the 
 purposes of the tariff laws are to obtain revenue, while as they incidentally 
 must afford protection to some industries, those details should be so 
 adjusted, if practicable, as to apply to those industries which obviously 
 most equitably require it." 
 
 Mr. John G. Carlisle, in that great speech which stands 
 pre-eminent as the ablest argument ever made upon the 
 floor of Congress in favor of tariff-reform, delivered March 
 28 and 29, 1882, said : 
 
 " We cannot as responsible legislators close our eyes to the fact that under 
 this system, whether it was originally wise or unwise, large and valuable 
 interests have grown up, that great masses of capital have been withdrawn 
 from other pursuits and embarked in manufacturing enterprises, and that 
 labor, following, as it always does, where capital leads, has been to a large 
 extent diverted from its previous channels and has permanently identified 
 itself with these various interests. In any revision that may be made, proper 
 regard should be had for the welfare of these great interests." 
 
 Mr. Cleveland in his first message said : 
 
 "Justness and fairness dictate that in any modification of our present 
 laws relating to revenue, the industries and interests which have been en- 
 couraged by such laws and in which our citizens have large investments, 
 should not be ruthlessly injured or destroyed. We should also deal with the 
 subject in such manner as to protect the interests of American labor, which 
 is the capital of our workingmen. Its stability and proper remuneration 
 furnish the most justifiable pretext for a protective policy within these 
 limitations." 
 
 Robert L. Taylor has taken exactly the same grounds. 
 In a speech at Cleveland, Tennessee, Sept. 10, 1886, he 
 said : 
 
 " Now, so far as I am concerned, I am not a free-trader and never was. 
 The Democratic party is not a free trade party, but we are for a tariff which 
 
13 
 
 is necessary to bring us n revenue and to meet the expenses of the govern- 
 ment, to pay the interest on the national debt, and at the same time give 
 protection to the laborer tad OUf Industrie*. In short, the Democratic view 
 of the tariff question is this: A tariff sufficient to meet the expenses of the 
 government, economically administered, and to cover the difference between 
 the price of American labor and foreign labor." 
 
 The Memphis Appeal in an editorial of October -i. 1***1, 
 commenting on a speeeh made by Senator Voorhees, in 
 which he squarely indorsed the Chicago platform, said, 
 referring to the platform : 
 
 This is the law of the Democratic party on the much agitated subject of 
 the tariff, and it must continue to bz the law until it is repealed or modified 
 by the next National Democratic Convention. It is a just medium between 
 the extremes of the ideal free trader and the greedy and grabbing tariff man, 
 and ought to satisfy every man of common sense in the country. It is, as 
 the brainy .senator from Indiana says, * wise, safe and patriotic' " 
 
 The Chicago platform itself is as follows: 
 
 M Knowing full well, however, that legislation affecting the occupations of 
 the people should be cautious and conservative in method, not in advance of 
 public opinion, but responsive to its demands, the Democratic party is 
 pledged to revise the tariff in a spirit of fairness to all interests. 
 
 44 But in making reduction in taxes, it is not proposed to injure any 
 domestic industries, but rather to promote their healthy growth. From the 
 foundation of this government, taxes collected at the custom house have 
 been the chief source of federal revenue. Such they must continue to be. 
 Moreover, many industries have come to rely on legislation for a successful 
 continuance, so that any change of law must be at every step regardful of 
 the labor and capital thus involved. The process of reform must be subject 
 in the execution to this plain dictate of justice. 
 
 "All taxation shall be limited to the requirements of economical govern- 
 ment. The necessary reduction in taxation can and must be effected with- 
 out depriving American labor of the ability to compete successfully with 
 foreign labor, and without imposing lower rates of duty than will be ample 
 to cover any increased cost of production which may exist in consequence of 
 the higher rate of wages prevailing in this country. 
 
 "Sufficient revenue to pay all the expenses\of the Federal Government, 
 economically administered, including pensions, interest, and principal of the 
 public debt, can t>e got, under our present system of taxation, from custom 
 house taxes on fewer imported articles, bearing heaviest on articles of luxury, 
 and bearing lightest on articles of necessity. 
 
 M We therefore denounce the abuses of the existing tariff; and subject to 
 the preceding limitations, we demand that federal taxation shall be exclu- 
 sively for public purposes, and shall not exceed the needs of the government 
 economically administered." 
 
 This, my fellow citizens, is my answer to those who say 
 that the Democratic party is a free trade party, and who 
 
14 
 
 studiously ignore the Chicago platform and the doctrine 
 of incidental protection. Is there any man who can in 
 the face of these authorities, insist upon Democratic can- 
 didates declaring themselves on the nearest approach to 
 free-trade which can be accomplished under a tariff-reve- 
 nue ? The general impression of the Chicago platform is, 
 that it is what is now-a-days called a straddling utterance. 
 They think it such an answer on this subject as that of an 
 ingenious but not over-positive student whom a professor 
 asked whether the sun went around the earth or the earth 
 around the sun. His answer was, " sometimes one and 
 sometimes the other." I beg you to notice, however, that 
 the ignorance of the student in no wise affected the law 
 of nature, and the Chicago platform is not made ambiguous 
 by the blindness of those who construe it. It is a con- 
 servative measure of statesmanship, adapted to the needs 
 and exigencies of the hour. It stands between protection 
 per se and free trade as any other mean stands between any 
 other two extremes. It is not as with these two questions, 
 like the third tine of a tripod, one at each angle, but it is 
 like the central arch of a bridge, standing between the 
 two ends, supporting and connecting both. 
 
 The Republican party favors protection per se. I heed 
 not cite authority to prove this, beyond Mr. Blaine's letter 
 of acceptance in 1884 in which he said, " for twenty-three 
 years the Republicans have, in the tariff laws, maintained 
 the policy of protection." His recent Maine speeches 
 take the same position. Mr. Wm. D. Kelly, Mr. Wm. A. 
 Russell, and in fact all the Republican leaders in Congress, 
 have announced this doctrine over and over again as the 
 corner-stone of Republicanism. 
 
 Now my definition of protection, or of the Republican 
 tariff, is this : A tariff levied upon the fewest number of 
 articles in general use, manufactured in this country, as 
 will suffice to raise the revenue necessary to meet the 
 demands of a government extravagantly administered, a 
 prohibitory tariff upon all other articles in general use, 
 and a low rate for luxuries. 
 
L5 
 
 The Democratic Idea of a tariff, boweyer, La a tariil just 
 sufficient to raise the. revenue needed for the purposes of 
 an economical government! so ml.justiMl within this limit 
 as to afford a reasonable amount of protection to Ameri- 
 can industries and suflicienl to equalise wages paid at home 
 and abroad. 
 
 This then ta the aim of the two parties; the Republican 
 tries to adjust the details of the tarilt so as to protect the 
 manufacturer. 
 
 The Democrat tries to adjust the details of the tariff so 
 as to protect the laborer and farmer. 
 
 Now my Republican friends know this tobe true, hut 
 they frequently try to becloud the issue by saying in one 
 breath that the Democrats are for free trade, and that the 
 Democrats are as much in favor of protection as they are. 
 
 Let us for a moment follow the mental process of each 
 in the case of any particular article. If this is an article in 
 very general use, in the manufacture of which his con- 
 stituents have a large amount of capital invested, the 
 Republican at once decides that a high rate of duty must 
 be imposed upon it. If it is a luxury, he imposes a low 
 rate of duty. 
 
 The Democrat, however, in reference to the same arti- 
 cle, inverts his conclusions. If it is an article in general 
 he at once decides upon a low rate of duty. He next 
 wishes to know how much capital is invested in its manu- 
 facture and what effect any particular rate of duty would 
 have on the manufacturer. Especially is this the case, if 
 the investment has been made, on account of the allure- 
 ments held out by a high protective tariff. Having ex- 
 amined these points, he decides upon such a reduction as 
 will bring him within the influence of a healthful compe- 
 tition, and serve as a warning, to prepare for future reduc- 
 tions. He also asks what effect this will have upon the 
 laborer. Going into an examination of this question, and 
 not heeding the Republican manufacturer, who insists that 
 the highest rate of duty is the best measure of protection 
 for the laborer, he will probably find that a rate of about 
 18 percent, will cover the difference between home-paid 
 
16 
 
 and foreign wages. Here lie has his starting point. He 
 therefore levies 18 per cent., to which he will add such a 
 rate of duty as will yield the maximum of revenue. If 
 necessary he adds, for the present only, such an additional 
 rate as will enable the judicious manufacturer to readjust 
 himself to a new order of things, an order of things devised 
 for the benefit of the laborer, the farmer and the mechanic. 
 
 THE PRESENT TARIFF. 
 
 The present tariff is a protective tariff, and I oppose it as 
 a Democrat. 
 
 It is a sectional tariff, and I oppose it as a Tennesseean. 
 
 Let me adduce just a few instances which show how the 
 farming interest has been discriminated against. 
 
 Before however going into this question, I wish again 
 to call attention to the fact that at present I have nothing 
 to do with the contest between the free trader and pro- 
 tectionist. The general principles of the latter, I believe, 
 are as follows : 
 
 That protection supplies a home market for agricultural 
 purposes. 
 
 That it gives diversified employment, preventing over- 
 production in agriculture. 
 
 That the tariff is not added to the price of the article, 
 but that home competition keeps down the price. 
 
 That it increases the amount of wages paid to the 
 laborer. 
 
 That it develops the resources of a country. 
 
 That a protective system is necessary to compensate for 
 the difference in wages, taxation, and the rate of interest 
 here and abroad, that is, in England. 
 
 That it builds up the infant industries of a country until 
 sufficient skill and experience have been acquired to ren- 
 der possible, competition with foreign skill and experience. 
 
 The free trader says that a protective tariff is a bounty 
 levied upon the many for the few. 
 
 That it is class legislation in its most hateful form of tax- 
 ation. 
 
 That it makes the poor poorer and the rich richer. 
 
17 
 
 That the amount of the tarifl Lb added to the price of the 
 article, and that the manufacturer at home pockets thie 
 difference on every article sold. 
 
 That wages are not increased by protection, and that free 
 trade England paye higher wages than protected Germany 
 
 and Fran 
 
 That on the, contrary, wages are fixed by tree trade 
 instead of protection. 
 
 That a tariff Levied for protection is unconstitutional and 
 
 unjust. 
 
 That it works an especial hardship on the farmer, who 
 is forced to buy in the highest and sell in the cheapest 
 market. 
 
 That the difference in wages, taxation and the rate of 
 interest is so small as to have no appreciable result where 
 any tariff is levied at all. 
 
 That the Republican tariff has driven American ships 
 from the high seas. 
 
 Now with these general principles we have at this time 
 nothing to do. I merely state them beause they are so 
 often made the weapons of attack and defense in the dis- 
 cussion of this question. I have never been an admirer of 
 the inductive method, and almost invariably this question 
 is discussed in this manner. 
 
 Abstract reasoning deals in abstractions and attaches to 
 words and phraseologies significances that vary according 
 to the individual. People who discuss questions in this 
 way, laying down no common premise, agreeing upon the 
 definitions of no general terms, starting from no common 
 point, remind me of such a fight as would take place if a 
 kite were to make a violent attack on a wind-mill. 
 
 I remember once reading in an old chronicler, a curious 
 story of a peasant who lost his way in a forest and stum- 
 bled into fairy-land. The sights he saw were of a most 
 curious kind. He was especially struck by the strange 
 regularity of everything. He saw hosts of butterflies flut- 
 tering about in rows and columns in a kind of military 
 evolution, as if they were being guided by some unseen 
 butterfly commander. The flowers were massed in huge 
 
18 
 
 clusters, each cluster representing a lion, a tiger, a lizard, 
 or other natural shape. The birds flew in mathematical 
 curves. The trees ran in lines or crowded together in 
 squares, and when the breeze swept over them, each one 
 bowed just as low as the other, as if a king had stepped 
 suddenly among his attendant courtiers. Charmed and de- 
 lighted, the peasant wandered on through endless repeti- 
 tions of the same scene. There were, however, no land- 
 marks that enabled him to pursue a straight course, and he 
 eventually died of starvation in the midst of all these fan- 
 tastic wonders. Democrats who in this way discuss the 
 public questions of the day, and especially the abstract 
 principle of free trade as opposed to protection, without re- 
 gard to the demands of party supremacy and regardless of 
 the fact that the necessities of the case do not require any- 
 thing beyond the Chicago platform, are in my mind with- 
 drawn from the fields of actual life and are wandering in 
 the grotesque realms of the abstract and intangible. This 
 kind of juggling with ideas is to the practical and compre- 
 hensive discussion of a subject what a clock with its pro- 
 cession of apostles, and ringing of chimes, and crowing of 
 cocks is to a compass, or what a set of fire-works with its 
 twisting serpents, and writhing dragons, and shooting 
 sky-rockets and colored flames is to a light house, or what 
 anything which excites merely a pleasurable emotion by 
 the ingenuity of its mechanism, is to those things which 
 add to the comforts of life and the means of intellectual 
 improvement. 
 
 The question at issue is tarifl reform or protection. As 
 between the two, I wish to say pointedly that I am for re- 
 form. This position is well approved by the leaders of the 
 party. Mr. Cleveland, in his message Dec. 8, 1885, said : 
 
 "The proposition with which we have to deal is the reduction of the rev- 
 enue received by the government and indirectly paid by the people from cus- 
 toms duties; the question of free trade is not now involved, nor is there any 
 occasion for the discussion of the wisdom or expediency of a protective system." 
 
 Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, in a speech delivered in Congress 
 March 30, 1882, said: 
 
 " Happily, in considering the situation we are relieved from all the neces- 
 sity of deciding the vexed question of free trade or protection. That ques- 
 tion, important as it is, is not now involved in the work before us." 
 
19 
 
 I think, too, that this view of the question is a wise one 
 Tlit- political blunders of the world have been made by 
 those who were not willing to adapt themselves to the issue 
 q{ the hour. All great statesmen have invariably followed 
 the rule of accomplishing the work in hand. IiismarcJc, 
 during long years of weary Waiting, Worked (for the unili- 
 
 on of Germany, deposing a prince here, mediatising 
 
 a province there, perfecting the military organization bf 
 
 Germany, waging each war as it came, reconciling and 
 
 harmonizing within, crushing and annihilating without, 
 until the time came when he could say to the astounded 
 world. " I have crowned a EJohenzollern in the palace of 
 the Bourbons." 
 
 Fqi- fifteen years Gladstone has favored Home Rule for 
 Ireland, hut not till this year has he avowed his purpose 
 to accomplish that result. As he says himself, "a thing 
 must be seen as well as foreseen." 
 
 In my mind there is no doubt that'Parnell expects to see 
 Ireland an independent Republic before be dies, but not 
 one word has yet fallen from bis lips to justify the belief. 
 
 I know of one instance of a great eagerness to antici- 
 pate an issue and take action before it arrived. This was 
 the secession of the South, when Mr. Lincoln was elected. 
 
 Let twenty-five years of Republican misrule speak for 
 the wisdom of the rash step. 
 
 The radical school of statesmanship makes good soldiers 
 but poor leaders. They are good in attack but poor in 
 flank movements. They are good preachers but poor diplo- 
 mats In Bismarck's place, instead of adapting themselves 
 to the whims of Louis Napoleon and learning the lesson 
 of French weakness under the elms of Versailles, they 
 would have whispered in his startled ears that they wanted 
 and intended to have Alsace and Lorraine as provinces 
 of a united German empire. 
 
 They would never have accomplished the disestablish- 
 ment of the Church of Ireland, because they would have 
 at once demanded a Parliament on College Green. 
 
 I repeat, the issue is between tariff reform and protec- 
 tion, per se. I regard the present tariff as embodying 
 everything a protectionist could ask, and I oppose it. 
 
20 
 DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE FARMERS. 
 
 It is a notorious fact that the agricultural laborers of 
 Europe and Asia are the worst paid in the world, and yet 
 ti is with these who produce wheat in Russia, and Hun- 
 gary and India, and rice in India, and cotton in Egypt and 
 India, and potatoes in Germany, that the American farmer 
 has to compete. They receive wages greatly inferior to 
 the mechanical laborer, and yet whilst the American me- 
 chanic is protected, and justly protected against his well- 
 paid foreign rival, the American agricultural laborer is 
 (the rice-growers excepted), practically unprotected. This 
 is the first patent effect of the Republican tariff. 
 
 Let me read you a short list of the articles generally con- 
 sumed by the farmers of the country, with the rate of duty 
 affixed to each, omitting fractions. The rates are taken 
 from the " Annual Report of the Chief of the Bureau of 
 Statistics, in Regard to Imported Merchandise for the 
 Year Ending June 30, 1885." The duties as a rule are both 
 specific and ad valorem, but I take the estimated ad valo- 
 rem rates : 
 
 Sugar pays 73 per cent., salt pays 53 per cent., molasses 
 29, window-glass 26, cotton ties 35, plows 45, chains and 
 trace-chains 51, leather 28, lumber 18, nails 36, horse-shoe 
 nails 116, wire (iron) 30, bagging 35 to 48, blankets (coarse) 
 71, cheap cotton goods (bleached) 62, (unbleached) 53, dyed 
 60, woolen cloths 67 to 89, soap 25, paint 32, carpets 40 to 
 86, crockery 56, flannels (common) 77, cheap wool hats 75, 
 spool-thread 51, yarn 47, starch 82, vinegar 35, cooking 
 vessels (iron) 42, cotton socks 40. 
 
 On the other hand, see how small the rate of duty is on 
 those things which he produces. Cotton and eggs are free, 
 potatoes pay 15 cts., rye 10 cts., barley 10 cts., corn 10 cts. 
 and wheat 20 cts. a bushel. Hemp pays 20 per cent, ad 
 valorem. Hay pays $2 a ton. Vegetables, in their natural 
 state, pay 10 per cent., but after they have passed through 
 the hands of the manufacturer they pay 38 per cent. 
 Cattle, horses and mules pay 20 per cent. Flour pays 
 20 per cent, ad valorem. Beef and pork pay 1 cent, 
 ham and bacon 2 cents, cheese 4 cents, bristles 15 cents 
 
21 
 
 a pound. Honey pays 20 cents a gallon. Wool pays 
 from 10 to 11 cents a pound. Cotton, the greal staple of 
 
 the South, of which $800,0o<> was imported in 1888, is not 
 . without protection, bul Buch is our situation thai it 
 is practically impossible to protect it. The price of cot 
 is directly affected by the Egyptian and [&dian crop, which, 
 II known, is steadily increasing in quantity, and 
 10 method can possibly be devised by which this com- 
 petition can be oflfeel by ai m of tarifl or taxation. 
 
 The Republicans have claimed thai their tariff, whilst it 
 might increase the price oi some articles, more than offsets 
 this by giving the farmer a home market for his products. 
 Let us see how far this claim is home out by fa 
 
 The rapid increase in the aggregate of our agricultural 
 lucts has in the main come from a rapid increase of 
 population and improved methods in agriculture. In this 
 way production has outstripped home consumption and we 
 have been forced to export more than ever before. In 
 1856, the entire amount of agricultural produce exported 
 amounted to s248,091,0H4. In 1880 this amount had risen 
 1685,961,091. Of this amount, about #211,535,905, or 
 about 80 per cent., was raw cotton, the staple of the South, 
 
 Of the total exports of 1880, agricultural exportation 
 amounted to 83 J per cent. 
 
 In 1882 we exported of domestic merchandise $181,019,- 
 913, and of domestic agricultural products $552,219,819. 
 Of this $181,019,913, but $103,132,481 were articles of do- 
 itic manufacture. Thai i per cent, of our total 
 
 exports were agricultural products, and 14.o7 per cent, 
 were domestic manufactur 
 
 In the case of the farmer, a- in the case of the Laborer, 
 like an object approaching a light: the shadow goes 
 one way and the substance another. There has heen no 
 increase in the value of his farm commensurate with the 
 burdens which the farmer has heen compelled to hear. 
 The increase in the value of farms in the United States 
 from 1850 to 1860, during a period of what may he called 
 a properly adjusted Democratic tariff (the average ad va- 
 lorem rate under the tariff acts of 1846 and 1857 was about 
 
22 
 
 24 per cent.) was 103 per cent., but from I860 to 1880, dur- 
 ing the monopolistic Republican tariff, the increase was 
 23 per cent., or about J as much. 
 
 If, now, the price of things he consumes were offset to 
 the farmer by an increased price of the things he produces, 
 a high tariff would be a matter of indifference to him. 
 But just the converse holds true. Take a few of the main 
 articles he produces and compare their prices from 1850 to 
 1860, and from 1870 to 1880, and then see the difference 
 between a Democratic and a Republican tariff. I take the 
 lowest average price in New York : 
 
 Corn (bushel) 
 
 Oats 
 
 Wheat 
 
 Flour (per barrel), 
 Pork (per barrel).. 
 Lard (per pound) .. 
 
 18501860. 
 
 18701880. 
 
 Average lowest 
 
 Average lowest 
 
 price. 
 
 price. 
 
 .65^ 
 
 .52 
 
 Ab}4 
 
 .35 
 
 1.32 
 
 1.13 
 
 5. 
 
 4.38 
 
 14.31 
 
 12.45 
 
 .08K 
 
 .08 
 
 The average lowest price of cotton from 1855 to 1860, 
 6 years, was 9f cents a pound. From 1878 to 1883, 6 years, 
 the average lowest price was 10J- cents. 
 
 I allow for the difference in the purchasing power of 
 gold. 
 
 I do not overlook the effect that increased production, 
 taken per capita, may have on these prices, but without re- 
 citing the factors that a careful estimate would show as 
 offsetting this, the fact still stands that the difference is 
 in favor of the Democratic tariff. 
 
 The truth is, the Republican tariff was framed at a time 
 when the manufacturing States had complete ascendency 
 in Congress. The South had, like Cataline leaving Rome, 
 drawn her robes haughtily about her and retired from the 
 floor of the National Council, to gird on her armor, to beat 
 her pruning-hooks into spears and her plow-shares into 
 swords. The Young Giant of the West had just planted 
 his foot upon the western banks of the Mississippi, and his 
 eyes were still turned toward the setting sun and the pur- 
 ple mists that crowned the distant Sierras. Texas was 
 given over to the ranchman and the cowboy. It was but 
 
natural that the Morrill tarifl should reflect accurately the 
 interests of oSVw England and the Eaet, 
 
 Bui the time for a change baa come. The people are 
 weary of the bondage. The farmer and the laborer, the 
 mechanic and the merchant, are demanding recognition, 
 
 and they insist upon such a change as will rocogni/,i' their 
 
 interests and their rights. 
 
 The same discrimination which lias been made against 
 the fanner has been made against the laborer. It is in the 
 name of the mechanic and the citizen thai the most 
 
 approved claims for protection are made. John ( i. Carlisle 
 in the groat speech from which I have already quoted says : 
 
 "The truth is that the difference which lias always existed and must always 
 exist between the rates of wages here and elsewhere, constitutes t In- princi- 
 pal ground and about the only plausible ground upon which protection can 
 be asked." 
 
 The adjustment of the details of the tariff so as to off- 
 Bet this difference is a principle recognized by the Chicago 
 platform, and indeed it has always been advocated by the 
 illustrious loaders of our party, both before and after its 
 adoption. Mr. Cleveland has said " we should also deal 
 with the subject in such manner as to protect the interests 
 of American labor, which is the capital of our working- 
 men.'* Our Democratic nominee for governor said, in a 
 speech delivered at Cleveland, Tennessee, Sept. 10, 1886, 
 " In short, the Democratic view r of the tariff question is 
 this: A tariff suiHcient to meet the expenses of the gov- 
 ernment, economically administered, and to cover the dif- 
 ference between the price of American labor and foreign 
 labor." I have already shown that this same principle 
 was recognized by the earlier leaders of the party. But 
 whilst this has been a principle with our party, a straight- 
 forward exposition of a simple and business-like proposi- 
 tion, it has been in the hands of the Republicans a web of 
 deception, a web as curious and intricate as that woven by 
 the Lady of Shalott. You doubtless know the legend 
 which the poet laureate has fashioned into a bit of Sat- 
 suma china-ware. The Lady of Shalott was a sorceress 
 who dwelt in a castle on the isle of Shalott, but by some 
 law of her being a curse would come upon her if she 
 
24 
 
 looked down to the many-towered town of Camelot. She 
 sat at a window before which was placed a magic mirror, 
 and in this mirror were reflected all the sights and scenes 
 of the outside world. As the mirror reflected these things 
 the fair sorceress wove them into a web of many quaint 
 and curious colors. The shallops with their silken sails, 
 and the reapers that worked in the harvest, and the clear 
 blue skies, all things fair and beautiful she wove into her 
 web. Now a spell was on all the country because of her. 
 But one day a knight rode by and according to the custom 
 of his order, he wore a suit of armor that glittered in the 
 sunlight. The brave knight in the lightness of his heart 
 sang a merry lay as he passed on down to the city of many 
 towers. The sorceress heard it ; she could no longer with- 
 stand the impulse, and she looked down to Camelot. At 
 once the mirror cracked, the web floated out of the win- 
 dow, the curse came upon the sorceress, and the spell was 
 lifted from the country. The fairy herself drifted down 
 the river to meet her doom at Camelot. 
 
 This, m} T fellow-citizens, is the legend of the Republican 
 party and the present tariff. Let the -sorceress weave on 
 aye, deftly draw and mix the shadowy threads. But I tell 
 her the gallant young knight of Democracy is coming in 
 his noble pride and his joyous strength, he is singing a 
 song that falls pleasantly upon the ears of the people, and it 
 shall be heard. The spell shall be lifted, the mirror shall be 
 broken, the web shall be torn asunder and the curse shall 
 come upon her, for in spite of her arts and her magic 
 spells she shall be forced, albeit against her will, to look 
 down to the beautiful city with its many towers which we 
 call the city of Tariff' Reform. 
 
 And yet it is in the name of American labor that the 
 Republican tariff has been framed. " What crimes are 
 committed in thy name, oh, Liberty !" and what robbery 
 is perpetrated in the name of American labor! 
 
 I know of no nobler task that could claim the attention 
 of a legislator than to devise methods within the limits of 
 law and in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution, to 
 ameliorate the condition of those whose lot has made them 
 
peculiarly exposed to the attacks <>f the strong, the rich 
 and the unscrupulous. But Undoing this, no d more 
 
 imperative than that of protecting well their inl 
 tihoee self-appointed guardians who. under the form 
 law, plunder their wards to enrich themseh 
 
 Lei me read yon a lisi of the articles in general use 
 among labor >ple and the average ad valorem duties 
 
 for the year ending June compiled from 
 
 report of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, pre- 
 viously quoted by me. A cheap hat 76 percent., eheap 
 on blankets 71 per cent.', fine woolen blankets 66, 
 ap flannels 77, cheap <\\< >da 67, fine dress goods 
 
 66, common woolen cloths 89, ready-made J>4, cheap cot- 
 ton yarn 47. line woolen yarn 7". tanned leather 20, gloves 
 85, cheap plain bleached cottons 62, spool thread 
 earthen .linen goods 3r>. pockel knife 50, salt 40, 
 
 sugar 73, house furniture 35, soap 20, starch 82, vinegar 
 35, chip hats 80, chip bonnets 30, needles 35, buttons 25. 
 rticles you see pay an average! duly of over 50 per 
 
 If now we examine into the difference between home 
 and foreign wages we shall find that I of duty in 
 
 practically w^vy case is laid, utterly without regard to the 
 aid. A properly adjusted tarift would equalize 
 home and foreign labor, and whilst protecting the Ameri- 
 can mechanic, it would still leave the manufacturer liable 
 :id bring him within the influence of a healthful corn- 
 ion without decreasing the former's wages ; a properly 
 reduced tar; If would increase their purchasing power. As 
 it now stands, the difference between this amount of duty 
 and the present rate goes bodily into the pockets of the 
 manufacturer, less the reduction in price caused by home 
 competition. 
 
 The great fortunes of America. I imagine. Were made 
 in a large measure from the financial operations and army 
 contracts of the government during the war. and from 
 rniii' tock speculations since. But I verily believe 
 
 that largely more than half of our northern millionaires 
 have amassed their fortunes from factories, upon whose 
 
26 
 
 products heavy duties were laid to protect American labor* 
 Allow me to illustrate this by a few well-known examples. 
 
 According to the census of 1880, there were 253,852 
 manufacturing establishments in the United States, and 
 the value of their products was $5,369,579,191. The 
 value of the material, raw and otherwise, worked up, was 
 $3,395,823,547, and the amount of wages paid was $947,- 
 953,795. Subtract the wages paid from the value of the 
 material used and we have a profit of $1,024,801,847, or a 
 profit of very nearly 20 per cent, on the entire production,, 
 from which would have to come a small per cent, for inter- 
 est on the plant, repairs, and perhaps office expenses. 
 
 The number of laborers of all kinds was 2,732,595, and 
 dividing among these $947,953,795, would give just $347 a 
 year, or $1.16 a day as an average. When capital gets an 
 average profit of from 15 to 20 per cent., and labor gets an 
 average daily wage of $1.16, it is easy to see that any sys- 
 tem of laws that brings this about was made in the inter- 
 est of capital rather than of labor. 
 
 Take the works which produce Bessemer steel rails and 
 open-hearths and mantel pieces. I quote from Mr. Car- 
 lisle's speech : 
 
 "The number of hands employed in the Bessemer and open-hearth steel 
 works during the census year of 1880 was 10,835 > tne wages paid amounted 
 to $4>93>349 5 the amount of capital invested, including all the real estate, 
 was $20,975,999; total cost of material used $36,826,928, and the total value 
 of the product was $55,805,210. Deducting the total cost of labor and 
 materials from the value of the product there is left the sum of $14,047,933, 
 which is a small fraction less than 67 per cent, on the whole capital invested. 
 It thus appears that while capital retains in its hands, after paying the whole 
 cost of production, nearly 67 per cent , labor received less than 9 per cent, 
 of the value of the product." 
 
 According to the census of 1880, $18 of labor will pro- 
 duce $100 of woolen goods. Now American woolen fac- 
 tory hands receive about 50 per cent, more wages than 
 English laborers of the same class. The amount of duty 
 on this class of goods ranges from 50 to 140 per cent. As 
 a result of the Republican tariff, of every 100 cents of duty, 
 the laborer gets 18 cents and the manufacturer the rest, 
 less the reduction caused by home competition. In 1850, 
 under a Democratic tariff, labor received 23 per cent. In 
 1860 labor received 20 per cent, of the value of the man- 
 
utactuivs of the country. This was under a Democratic 
 tariff. In 1870, under a Republican tariff, labor'sshare had 
 sunk to 18 per cent., and in 1S80 to. 17 per cent. 
 
 ( >n the other hand, the percentage of profit to value of 
 products went from -' per cent, in 1850 to ID per cent, in 
 ISvSO, or _ per cent, more than the percentage of wages to 
 value of products. 
 
 You see now the hollowness of the pretense that the 
 Republican taritl is devised in the interests of labor. On 
 the contrary it discriminates directly against both the 
 laborer and the tanner. I hope you can now see the dill- 
 erence between the Democratic and Republican parties on 
 the tariff. If not, 1 have spoken to but little advantage. 
 You also see, I hope, that a reform of the tariff and a pro- 
 tection adequate to the necessities of the workingmen are 
 not antagonistic. 1 have already offered you some illus- 
 trations of what the Democratic party is trying to do in 
 this matter, and before closing I wish to take up a few 
 articles and go sufficiently into details to enable you all to 
 see what line of thought I would pursue if I were to intro- 
 duce a tariff bill in the next House of Congress. 
 
 But before this, I would like to call your attention to a 
 few of the inequalities to be found in the existing tariff, 
 which is fearfully and wonderfully made. I remember a 
 homely story told by Hans Sachs, the old German verse- 
 maker. It was of a Strassburg tailor, who had been in the 
 habit of stealing pieces from the cloth brought him to 
 make into suits. One night, in a dream, the Devil arose 
 before him, holding in his hand a parti-colored Hag, which 
 upon inspection, the frightened scissors-man discovered to 
 contain a bit of each piece of cloth he had ever stolen. 
 After much penance and contrition he obtained forgive- 
 ness by donating largely of his ill-gotten wealth to the 
 poor. Xow this is an exact counterpart of the Republican 
 tariff, and we Democrats intend to carry out the illustra- 
 tion by making such a revision of the tariff as will give 
 the poor at least a more equitable division. 
 
 So numerous are the articles on the present dutiable list 
 that the widest divergence of opinion exists as to their 
 
28 
 
 actual number. The general estimate heretofore had been 
 about 2,000. But Mr. Manning in his recent report esti- 
 mates the number to be over 4,000. This difference of 
 course, turns chiefly upon nomenclature, but both esti- 
 mates give a very clear conception of what the tariff 
 is. It covers everything from chloroform to carpets. 
 I have already explained to you the principles which 
 guide a Republican in tariff legislation. I have told 
 you that he lays the heaviest duties on articles of gen- 
 eral use, and that having arranged to collect the reve- 
 nue he needs to run the government from the fewest 
 articles possible, he then lays a prohibitory tariff upon 
 the rest. A prohibitory tariff you know, is one which 
 excludes all importation. Hence you will not be surprised 
 when I tell you that, in spite of the fact that duties have 
 been levied on these two to four thousand articles, at least 
 70 per cent, of the entire revenue is collected from six 
 classes of articles. This is enough to stagger credulit}^ 
 but it is true. Take the census year of 1880. In the report 
 of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, on our foreign 
 trade and commerce, he says : 
 
 "The duties collected on these six commodities and classes of commod- 
 ities, viz : (sugar and molasses, wool and the manufactures thereof, iron and 
 steel and the manufactures thereof, the manufactures of silk and cotton, and 
 flax and the manufactures thereof) amounted to $133,580,347.88, and consti- 
 tuted 69.01 per cent, of the total amount of duties collected on imports." 
 
 If you examine these articles in detail, you will find the 
 same glaring inequalities. Diamonds pay 10 per cent, but 
 the duty on wool hats is prohibitory. Chocolate pays 7 
 per cent., prunes pay 25, but lead pencils 56. Morocco 
 skins pay 10 per cent., but pocket-knives 50 per cent. 
 Statuary pays 30 per cent, and salt in bulk 85. Bird nests 
 pay 20 per cent, and steel rails 61. This shows you what 
 is meant by the inequalities of the Republican tariff. It 
 means that there is a discrimination against the things 
 the farmer produces and in favor of the things he con- 
 sumes. It means that in the case of the laborer, there 
 is a discrimination against the things he uses and in favor 
 of the things he cannot use. 
 
 But this is not all. The present tariff is so intricate 
 and complicated that no human ingenuity can solve all 
 
the perplexing problems which Arise. Bait after Bail 
 been brought to Bettle diiierences of opinion between 
 importers and the Treasury Department and in one case 
 the government iras compelled to refund about $2,000. 1 
 
 illegally collected upon sugar. 1 do not -ay it La exclu- 
 sively 1 ).nioeratie to levy only specific duties, but I do say 
 
 it is exclusively common sec 
 
 So monstrous have the oppressions of this truly remark- 
 able tariff become thai an amused public sentiment has 
 forced itself upon the Leaders of the Republican party. 
 Your talented follow-townsman, Mr. C. B. Simonton, in 
 a speech delivered in Congress on April 6, 1882, gave a 
 history of the present tariff. Among other things he said : 
 
 When the Republican party was first struggling for supremacy in this 
 country it sought and obtained an alliance, not universal, but very general, 
 with the protected classes of the country by adopting as part of its political 
 creed the doctrine of protection, and during its continuance in power it has 
 loaded them with extraordinary marks of favor. In return it has received 
 their unwavering and loyal support in many a doubtful and bitter political 
 contest. In 1861, when just seated in power, it bestowed its first mark of 
 reward in passing the Morrill tariff, and although this act for the first time 
 in the history of this country imposed double duties upon the same article, 
 specific and ad valorem, it was followed five months later (August, 1861) by 
 a further increase of duties. In the same year (December, 1861) further 
 duties were laid, this time on tea, sugar, and coffee; which is one of the few 
 instances where, under Republican rule, duties were imposed solely or 
 chiefly for revenue. This was followed by a general increase in July, 1862. 
 On the 30th of June, 1864, there was another increase, followed by a still 
 greater one in i865~'66. From this time till 1874 several modifications of 
 the tariff followed, in which duties laid purely for revenue were repealed, 
 and others on the principle of protection were increased." 
 
 The Republican President, Arthur, in his message <>f 
 December, 1882, said : 
 
 44 You can not fail to note with interest the discussion by the Secretary as 
 to the necessity of providing by legislation some mode of freeing the Treas- 
 ury of an excess of assets in the event Congress fails to reach an early agree- 
 ment for the reduction of taxation. I heartily approve the Secretary's 
 recommendation of immediate and extensive reductions in the annual reve- 
 nues.of the government." 
 
 The result of this agitation was the appointment by a 
 Republican president, under a law passed by Republican 
 votes, of a Republican tariff commission, who heard elab- 
 orate testimony and who recommended a reduction aver- 
 aging about 24 per cent. But true to their party precedents, 
 the actual reduction made averaged not quite 2 per cent. 
 
 The record of the Democratic party, both in pledges 
 and performances, is one of unequivocal tariff reform. 
 
30 
 
 During times when there has been no radical issue on the 
 tariff, the party has always kept its principles before the 
 people by incorporating them in the party platform. 
 It has declared for incidental protection whenever the 
 revenue to be raised made this possible or when it has been 
 demanded by the exigencies of the hour. 
 
 Having read you citations upon the principle of inci- 
 dental protection and protection to American labor, I 
 will now read you extracts from the party platforms 
 enunciating its ideas on the subject of revenue in the 
 abstract. 
 
 The Democratic National Conventions before the war 
 generally met at Baltimore. The convention of May 5, 
 1840, adopted the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, "That it is the duty of every branch of Government to enforce 
 and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and 
 that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the nec- 
 essary expenses of the Government." 
 
 The convention of 1844 adopted the same resolution. 
 In 1848, the same principle was set forth : 
 
 Resolved, " That it is the duty of every branch of Government to enforce 
 and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and 
 that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the neces- 
 sary expenses of the Government and for the gradual but certain extinction 
 of the debt created by the prosecution of- a just and necessary war, after 
 peaceful relations shall have been restored." 
 
 The convention at Baltimore, on June 1, 1852, adopted 
 practically the same resolution : 
 
 Resolved, "That it is the duty of every branch of the Government to enforce 
 and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and 
 that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the nec- 
 essary expenses of the Government, and for the gradual but certain extinc- 
 tion of the public debt." 
 
 The same resolution was adopted at Cincinnati, 1856 ; at 
 Charleston, 1860, and by the second convention that met 
 at Baltimore, June 18, 1860. In 1864, no tariff resolution 
 was adopted. 
 
 The platform of 1868, adopted by the National Conven- 
 tion at New York, has the following tariff utterance : 
 
 " And a tariff for revenue upon foreign imports, and such equal taxation' 
 under the internal revenue laws as will afford incidental protection to domestic 
 manufactures, and as will, without impairing the revenue, impose the least 
 burdens upon and best promote and encourage the great industrial interests 
 of the country." 
 
31 
 
 The Greeley convention of lsyj refused to re-ailirm the 
 
 doctrine of the party, hut relegated it to tin* people. 
 
 The St. Louie ootiventioD of 1876, declared that custom- 
 house taxation should be only for revenue, and the Cin- 
 cinnati convention of 1*K0, declared for revenue only. 
 
 80 much for I >cuiocratic pledges ! Let me now show 
 you what our party has done to redeem them I have no 
 hesitancy in Baying that every bill since the war, whose 
 distinctive feature waa a reform of the Republican tariff, 
 haft been introduced hv a I kunocrat, if we except the Blaine 
 hill of 1871, which came to nothing, and the Schenk bill 
 370. 
 
 Mr. Holmes, in 1S74. offered the following resolution : 
 
 . "That in the judgment of this i'ouse, there is no necessity for 
 increased taxation." 
 
 On March 29, 1876, Mr. Charles H. Adams, a Republi- 
 can, offered a resolution to this effect: 
 
 . "That in the judgment of this House, legislation affecting the 
 tarift is, at this time, inexpedient." 
 
 This was defeated by a motion of Mr. Morrison, a Dem- 
 ocrat. 
 
 < Mi January 12, 1880, Mr. Hatch moved to put salt on the 
 list. This was defeated by the Republican party, 
 iehl voting with his party. 
 
 On March 8, 1880, Mr. Sautbrd, a Democrat, offered a 
 bill "to reduce the tariff* on certain articles (50 per cent, 
 on merchandise, composed in principal part of hemp, met- 
 als, wool, wood and cotton) and one to repeal the tariff on 
 printing type and paper, and the materials entering into 
 their composition." By parliamentary action, this was 
 defeated by a reference to the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, where it was smothered. 
 
 The Republicans may justly claim the reduction of 1882, 
 which took off the tax on matches, perfumery, cosmetics, 
 bank-checks and other such kick-shaws. 
 
 The Morrison Horizontal Reduction Bill was a prepos- 
 ue measure, viewed from the stand-point of practical 
 statesmanship, but it was devised as a measure of reform. 
 The recently defeated Morrison Bill was a more conserva- 
 tive and practical measure and in spite of its defeat by 
 Democratic votes, it was distinctly a Democratic measure. 
 
32 
 
 On June 5, 1882, Mr. Turner, a Democrat from Ken- 
 tucky, introduced a bill placing trace-chains on the free 
 list. This was defeated by Republican votes. The knit 
 goods bill of the same year reducing the duties on certain 
 classes of goods in very general use, was voted for by 
 an overwhelming majority of the Democratic party but 
 defeated by Republican votes, aided by a few stray and 
 recreant Democrats. Senator Bayard offered an amend- 
 ment levying a maximum duty of 25 per cent, on wool 
 and 50 per cent, ad valorem on manufactures of wool, 
 which was defeated by Republican votes. Brown of Geor- 
 gia, and Yoorhees of Indiana, alone among the Democrats 
 voted against this, and not one Republican voted for it. 
 
 Senator Vest offered another amendment, placing salt 
 on the free list, which was voted down. Brown of Geor- 
 gia was the only Democrat voting against this. 
 
 Senator Vest offered another amendment, reducing the 
 duty on blankets and flannels, which ranged from 64 to 
 104 per cent., to a maximum ad valorem duty of 50 per 
 cent. This was voted down by Republican senators, every 
 Democrat but one voting for, and every Republican voting 
 against it. 
 
 It was only in response to a public demand that threat- 
 ened to take political shape, that quinine was eventually 
 placed on the free list. On another occasion, Senator Mor- 
 gan of Alabama offered a resolution placing on the free 
 list salt, tea, coffee, sugar, matches and tobacco, which 
 was defeated by Republican votes. 
 
 Is anything more necessary, my fellow-citizens, to show 
 you that the Democratic party has faithfully, and in obe- 
 dience to the law of its being, attempted to carry out its 
 pledges of reducing the unjust and exorbitant burdens 
 which now rest upon you? I think not. I hold that my 
 case has been made out. I hold that I have proven two 
 facts so clearly that no fair-minded man can deny them. 
 One is that the Democratic party is not a free trade party, 
 and the other is that the Democratic party is not a protec- 
 tion party that is that its sentiment in favor of protection 
 does not go beyond that which is merely an incident of a 
 
revenue derived from a tariff. A mind just broad and lib- 
 eral enough to hold one idea, will not be able to accept Che 
 
 two at tli.' same time. The free trader will say probably, 
 that I have made out my case for free trade, and the pro- 
 tectionist will say 1 have made <>ut my case for protection, 
 or rirr-rersa. But this I have not endeavor* <1 to do. My 
 endeavor has been to treat in a frank and business-like 
 manner the question at issue, without rhetorical display. 
 without any mental shuttling, without evasion. The sub- 
 ject is a complex one. It has many sides. K very moral 
 question presents but two phases that which is right and 
 that which is wrong. But economical questions are ao1 
 of this nature. The moral looks to the means, the politi- 
 cal to the end. The moral creed of Confucius'embraced 
 nearly every moral precept that has been formulated to this 
 day. But think of the systems of political philosophy. 
 which have subserved the ends of wise legislation daring 
 the progress of the ages, and which have then made way 
 for Other methods better adapted to a higner r oHFe*r*6T civ- 
 ilization and a more advanced stage of progress. Each 
 nation levies duties, not because free trade is absolutely 
 right, or because protection is a primary duty of govern- 
 ment, but because those who govern it see in free trade or 
 protection, or some intermediate stage between the two. 
 that system which brings the greatest good to the great* mi 
 number. Calhoun began as a protectionist and ended as 
 a tree trader. Webster began as a free trader and ended 
 as a protectionist. 
 
 At our present stage, it seems to me that the Democratic 
 party has wisely chosen its position. It stands upon the 
 platform that elected a Democratic President, and it stands 
 upon the platform that brings us promises of a happy and 
 prosperous future. 
 
 But I promised, before closing, to give you a few prac- 
 tical illustrations of such features as I would attempt to 
 incorporate in a tariff bill were I to introduce one in the 
 next House of Congress. Only do not imagine that I 
 intend to introduce one, for a new member is apt to 
 accomplish but little initiatory legislation. But I do prom- 
 
34 
 
 ise to look closely after this matter, and I promise you 
 some exhibitions of stubborn opposition to any tariff bill 
 that does not sufficiently consider the interests of my con- 
 stituents. 
 
 I should first demand a radical reduction of prohibitory 
 duties in particular and a reduction of duties generally. 
 In doing this I would take such steps as would enable the 
 agricultural classes to make their crd|>s as cheaply as pos- 
 sible. I would then try to give their products such a rate 
 of duty as would afford them the greatest amount of pro- 
 tection, realizing that this, at the best, would be very 
 small. 
 
 I would then try to so adjust the tariff duties as to give 
 to those industries which are just beginning to spring up 
 in the South a fair share of protection. In cases involv- 
 ing a sacrifice of one of two industries, I shquld insist on 
 sacrificing the older and more experienced establishments 
 of the North, which are no longer infant. 
 
 I would insist that a sufficient rate of duty be retained 
 to equalize home and foreign labor. 
 
 Perhaps some one would ask me if I think it possible to 
 accomplish all these things at one time. If so. I would 
 say in reply that I have my doubts, but certainly they 
 could all be approximated. As Sir Philip Sidney nobly 
 said, "He who aims at the moon will shoot higher than 
 he who aims but at a hedge.*' 
 
 To accomplish this, I would first make out a free list on 
 which I would place salt, cotton-ties, trace-chains, plows, 
 harness, agricultural implements, seeds for agricultural 
 purposes, bags, bagging, rope, and wire for fencing, both 
 iron and steel, barbed and unbarbed. I would make these 
 changes slowly and by gradual stages. Of course, plac- 
 ing some of these articles on the free list and not also the 
 raw material out of which they are manufactured, would 
 raise a Cape of Good Hope storm among some of the 
 manufacturers, but it would be simply reversing the rule 
 which has heretofore obtained. It would disarrange some 
 industries, but it would enable the farmer to make his 
 crop without paying for the privilege. It would throw 
 
tome laborers out of employment, bu1 certainly not more 
 than could easily find other and profitable employment, 
 
 I would thru take up articles t' general consumption 
 atul I would bring abOul a radical reduction in the amount 
 of tarifl levied on them. 
 
 Cheap wooTen goods, including flannels, wool bats, knil 
 ds,balmoral8,etc'., valued at 80 cents a pound and under, 
 which now pay 72 per cent, ad valorem. I fro u Id reduce to 
 60 per cent., then to SO er cent, and thereafter to 40 per 
 .nt. During the fiscal year ending June " u . L886, the 
 amount oi" revenue derived from this source was $l,478,! ,,,v . 
 
 It has been the history of all tariff legislation since the 
 
 time t' sir Robert Peel, that the reduction of high imporl 
 duties on any article of necessity increases the revenue 
 derived from thai source^ This reduction on cheap blank- 
 ets would. 1 firmly believe, double or treble the amount of 
 
 revenue paid in 1885 fchd'er the present rate. 
 
 1 would next take cotton goods. Cotton is our stap 
 and Upon this hangs more largely our prosperity than upon 
 any other one thing. It is toward the manufacture of cot- 
 ion that Southern skill has been turning its attention, and 
 it has been the products of our cotton factories that have 
 most successfully competed with the North. Home com- 
 petition has bo reduced the price of common goods that 
 the products of our mills sell here as cheaply as those of 
 Manchester in English markets. New England manufact- 
 urers are beginning to demand a freer trade in these things, 
 and this is a responsive effect of Southern competition. 
 Therefore I see no disadvantages which result to the con- 
 sumer from these rates. I also see no advantages which 
 result to the manufacturer. It has been claimed, and with 
 tow of justice, that the tariff simply enables Amer- 
 ican mill> to tide over times of trade stagnation, when the 
 
 _ i>h manufacturer- would be enabled to temporarily 
 flood the American market, shutting up American mills, 
 toil proportionately their prices immediately upon 
 
 a revival of trade. 
 
 Under th. present tariff, cotton thread and yarn, valued 
 at from under 25 cents up to, but not exceeding, 60 cents 
 
36 
 
 a pound, pay an estimated average duty of 43 per cent. 
 The amount of revenue derived from this source in 1885 
 was $109,004.66. These are the threads that go chiefly into 
 the manufacture of coarse and cheap cotton cloth, and as 
 matters stand, they yield, in comparison with other articles, 
 a respectable amount of revenue. I would leave them, 
 therefore, untouched. The Northern demand for a decrease 
 of duty on them is in order to look for this class of goods 
 to England, where they would find a cheaper market than 
 in Tennessee or Georgia. 
 
 But let us in this instance leave matters where they 
 stand. Our arguments in favor of this proceeding we get 
 from Northern writers and speakers. It may look a little 
 like protection, and it may come in conflict with the Dem- 
 ocatic doctrine, that a man should not be prevented from 
 buying in the cheapest market he can find. 
 
 But my principle is to begin in this reform at the other 
 end of the line. When it gets to my end I shall be very 
 tractable. In this matter I feel as I did once at a school, 
 where the buckwheat cakes at breakfast had a vicious 
 and confirmed habit of giving out. I sat at the end of 
 the table, opposite the beginning point, and I was rather 
 fond of buckwheat cakes too. Being admonished that 
 these things could not be helped, that I must bear 
 them with patience, I suggested that it would help me out 
 in the attempt considerably, if the waiter would begin 
 at my end sometimes. 
 
 I think the reform of the tariff could be proceeded with 
 in much the same way. This same class of goods valued 
 at from sixty cents to a dollar a pound, pay an average 
 duty of 50 per cent. In 1885 they paid a revenue of 
 $53,214.33, or about half as much as the cheaper grades. 
 These I would reduce to an average of 35 per cent On 
 cheap cotton cloths, bleached and unbleached, I would 
 make no changes. On cheap cotton cloths dyed, col- 
 ored, stained or printed, I would make a reduction rang- 
 ing from 5 to 10 per cent., according to the value, and the 
 number of threads to the square inch. Articles of cloth- 
 ing made of cotton I would reduce to 30 per cent.; -they 
 
lmw pay from 85 to W per rent. On laces, Iftce window 
 cm-tain-, lace trimmings, and the like, on which the duty 
 is now i<i per cent., I would increase the duty to first 
 K> per cent., and then "><' per cent , until 1 had reached 
 the point of maximum revenue. The duty on Icnil 
 is now about \ {) per cent. 1 would leave the duty on this 
 unchanged ; also the fluty ou Btoc hi. h is i< per 
 
 cent., and which lasl produced a revenue of 
 
 12,198,468.86. The duties on hemp, flax and jute goods, 
 which pay a general duty of about l ( per cent., I would 
 leave as now, except bags and bagging for cotton, which I 
 would place on the free list ; and embroideries which I 
 would increase from : '^ per cent, to 80 per cent Women's 
 and children's Woolen dress goods, which pay now < > T per 
 cent., 1 would gradually reduce to 40 per ceut. Ami 
 ready made clothing of wool, which now pays 55 per 
 cent.. 1 would reduce also to 40 per cent. The present 
 duties on Axminster, Brussels, tapestry Brussels, velvet, 
 and other fancy grades of carpets, I would leave unchanged 
 or slightly increase a cording to the necessities of the 
 revenue. Treble, ingrain, three ply, and worsted carpets, 
 which n>w pay a duty of 44 per cent., I would gradually 
 decrease to ;, ><> percent. On the chemicals in common 
 use, on which the duty ranges from 40 to 220 per cent, I 
 would make radical reductions. leads and artificial How 
 ers pay 50 per cent., meerschaum pipes pay 70 per cent.: 
 I would leave this unchanged, Wooden pipes pay 70 per 
 cent : I would reduce till- to 35 per cent. Sardines pay 
 _'7 per cent : these 1 would leave unchanged. Almonds 
 and nuts generally pay about ">- per cent ; these 1 would 
 leave unchanged. Common window glass, which now 
 pays from 53 to 87 per cent., according to size. 1 would 
 reduce to 40 percent Common gunpowder } would re- 
 duce from 46 per cent, to 4o per cent. On boilerplates, 
 cast-iron pipes, hair-pins, hollow-ware, scrap-iron, wrought, 
 steam and gas tubes, cutl Lies, and the manufac- 
 
 tures el and iron generally, 1 would make small and 
 
 gradual reductions, the duties upon them ranging now 
 from 43 per cent, to 155 per cent. The duty on corn 
 starch, which is 85 per cent., I would reduce to 35 percent. 
 
38 
 
 This will give you an idea of what I mean by tariff re- 
 vision. I have not mentioned the difference in the price 
 of wages, as in no instance do I believe that I have sug- 
 gested Buch a rate. of duty as would affect this difference. 
 When I speak of the difference of wages I do not refer to 
 the labor which does not compete with ours, such as that 
 of China, India, etc., but of the skilled labor of Europe. 
 It will also be seen that I have advocated a gradual reduc- 
 tion in the rates. The essential requisite of all tariff reduc- 
 tion is that it should be, as Carlisle expressed it, a reform, 
 not a revolution. L wish to close by mentioning a few 
 things which I would not place on the free list. 
 
 I would not place hemp, jute and similar articles on the 
 free list. 1 would not place bristles on the free list, as Mr. 
 Randall did in his recent tariff bill. I would not place 
 logs, manufactured wood, staves, all varieties of sawed 
 lumber, cross-ties, raw wood, hemp, jute, sisal grass and 
 other vegetable substances on the free list, as Mr. Mor- 
 rison did in his recent tariff bill. 
 
 Neither would I place coal and iron ore on the free 
 list, as Mr. Hewitt and the Massachusetts manufacturers 
 wish to do, now that our mines have made these things 
 cheap to us and dear to them, and affected unfavorably 
 their ability to keep down Southern competition. On these 
 two articles more than any other depends the industrial 
 regeneration of the South. I am willing to advocate a 
 radical reduction of this most undemocratic tariff. I am 
 willing to meet half way any spirit of mutual concession 
 in the adjustment of those details of the tariff which affect 
 local interests variously, but I am not willing to begin the 
 reduction by taking up the very articles, the duties upon 
 which, after a century of oppression, have finally turned 
 to our advantage. I wish to say here, I wish to say to my 
 fellow citizens of the State, to the on-coming race of the 
 entire South, that the duty which now exists on these arti- 
 cles, coal and iron ore, is the very ark of our salvation. 
 Mr. Morrison placed these two articles on the free list ot 
 his recent tariff bill. At once an earnest protest went up, 
 and in Tennessee and Alabama especially, a cloud came 
 
up from the sea. Bu1 'n uever gathered to a storm, for id 
 ansv ommittees from all parts of the country, these 
 
 two States especially, Mr, Morrison removed them from 
 his free list and Lefl them on the dutiable List. 
 
 The recenl cry for free raw material, insofar as L1 tends 
 to cheapen the oecessities of life and to lessen the burdens 
 axation, is one thai meets my hearty approbation. Bui 
 when it simply mean- thai the Northern manufactm 
 have grown restive under a collar which baa been sailing 
 us for bo long a time, the inconveniencies of which the} 
 are jusl beginning to feel, then I am frank to say it does 
 not appeal bo directly to any spiril of liberalized statesman- 
 ship on my part. The time has come when the duty on 
 . which nt- a ton, does uol affecl us one cent a 
 
 ton. [f it were on the free lisl it would not change the 
 price i" asone penny a year, bul it would enable Northern 
 mills to buy it cheaper than they now can, and it would 
 injure both the products of our own mines and the advan- 
 tages in competition which we reap from its greater cheap- 
 10 ns. which in a measure offsets the greater skill of 
 the North. 
 
 In 1880 Tennessee produced only 78. nun tons of pig iron. 
 In 1883 this had gone up to 138,000 tons. This year Maj. 
 A. .1. McWhirter, the energetic and efficient head of our 
 Agricultural and Mining Department, estimates the out- 
 put a1 328,000 tons. This gives as cheap fuel and cheap 
 iron and the resultant advantages in competition. The 
 building of the Memphis and Birmingham Railroad will 
 pour these two articles into Memphis in rich abundance, 
 and with smoke ascending from factories located on her 
 every running stream, with an abundance of cheap fuel 
 and cheap iron. Wesl Tennessee will soon rake her place 
 at the very head of the advancing column which is mov- 
 ing onward toward our Promised Land. 
 
 Let us reform the tariff, bu1 let us also exercise thai char- 
 ity which begins at home. Let us, within the limits of a 
 revenue tariff, give to Southern industries and Southern 
 products a fair portion of those advantages which, hpw- 
 ! unjustly, always flow from any form of protection. 
 
 The principle of protection to infant industri 
 
 ed by many of the most radical i'vw trade advocates. 
 Now of all industries in the world. 1 know of none thai stand 
 so much in need of the bottle as those of the South. The 
 present rates of duty are sufficient for this purpose. We 
 have a right to demand that they be not disturbed for the 
 present. 
 
40 
 
 I think now, my fellow citizens, I have gone over the 
 whole field, as nearly as I have been able. Not stopping 
 with generalities which are vague, or that class of statistics 
 which are vaguer still, with which both free traders and 
 protectionists prove unanswerably their side of the case, I 
 have tried, by what figures I have adduced, to make clear 
 the real Democratic position on this vexed question. 
 
 I think I have answered those who taunt us with having 
 adopted a straddling platform at Chicago, because it did 
 not declare for either extreme. Nature is filled with com- 
 promise, and harmony itself is only one of its forms. As 
 is well known, the great river that washes the western bor- 
 ders of this county is not navigable at certain seasons of 
 the year above a certain point, and it overflows its banks 
 at other seasons of the year below a certain point. The 
 work which is now being done by the river commission in 
 the case of the Mississippi River, is the work which the 
 Chicago platform proposes to do in the case of the tariff. 
 It avoids the low stage of free trade which would strand 
 the great barges of commerce, and it seeks to keep within 
 their banks the high protective rates of the Republican tariff 
 which overflows at times, carrying ruin and destruction to 
 all the country through which it flows. I hold that there 
 is a just medium between low water which is not naviga- 
 ble and an overflow. 
 
 A tariff has been compared to an intoxicant. Is there 
 no intermediate stage between the sobriety of Gough and 
 the delirium tremens? Cannot a man look at life from 
 the smiling standpoint of an appetizer before dinner ? Be- 
 tween the frigid zone, with its desolation of icebergs and 
 its white- coated bears, and the terrific heat of the equator, 
 has not nature girdled the earth with the temperate zone 
 as with a ribbon of bright colors and exquisite workman- 
 ship ? Do we not find in all this that which gives the world 
 its onward impetus? 
 
 My fellow citizens, it is only those who can not and will 
 not understand the subject who declare that the Chicago 
 platform is ambiguous. To my mind, it is one of the finest 
 pieces of political mechanism I have ever known, and it 
 appeals to the conservative judgment of the great masses 
 of the American people, by its perfect adaptation to the 
 needs, requirements and exigencies of the hour. 
 
 Allow me, in closing, to thank you for your patient 
 attention, which I know I have sorely tested. 
 
m< ago pl'-'-y 
 ft avoids tne 
 [he great b&rf 
 [heir banks tl 
 which overflc 
 ^ the count n 
 : ust medi 
 \<1 an o 
 
 tf li