rtiss 
 
 HF 
 
 nil 
 
 C85 
 
 
 ■m- 
 
 □ 
 
 eta 
 
 -IT 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 II 11 ill 
 
 00 
 
 o^ 
 
 en 
 
 <3^ 
 
 
 ^>^ 
 
 
 Co 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
-6^ 
 
 After Reading Hand to a Friend. 
 
 DOCUMENT NO. 1 
 
 HE DEFENDER 
 
 Devoted to the Protection of American Labor and Industries. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE 
 No. 339 Ero&dway, New York 
 
 >C. NO. 1 
 
 NEW YORK, AUayjSX^ 191^ 
 
 4 CENTS EACH 
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN 
 PROTECTIONIST 
 
 ashington Introduced the American System of Protection to 
 Domestic Labor and Industry, and Lincoln Aided in 
 Establishing and Perfecting That System. 
 
 AT THE REQUEST OF THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE HON. 
 IGEORGE B. CURTISS, OF BINGHAMTON. N. Y., AUTHOR OF "THE INDUSTRIAL 
 DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONS"-ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT WORKS ON 
 PROTECTION THAT HAS EVER BEEN WRITTEN— AND ALSO AN HONORARY 
 MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE, HAS PREPARED 
 AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "ABRAHAM LINCOLN A PROTECTIONIST." THIS 
 ARTICLE APPEARED IN SECTIONS FROM WEEK TO WEEK IN THE AMERICAN 
 ECONOMIST. AND IS NOW PRINTED IN DOCUMENT FORM. MR. CURTISS HAS 
 BESTOWED UPON THIS SUBJECT MUCH THOUGHT, MUCH CARE AND EX- 
 [TENDED RESEARCH. THE VALUE OF HIS LABORS IN THIS CONNECTION CAN 
 HARDLY BE OVERESTIMATED. 
 
 Lbraham Liincoln One of the Great Pro- 
 tectionists of the World. 
 
 Lincoln's public career as a writer, 
 )eaker and Chief Executive, places him 
 the foreground of the great construc- 
 ^e statesmen and Protectionists of the 
 rorld. Washington introduced the sys- 
 1 of Protection, and Lincoln perfected 
 Washington signed the first Protec- 
 e Tariff law, and Lincoln signed the 
 lighest Protective Tariff law ever 
 >assed by Congress. The Protective pol- 
 ^y introduced by Washington was sup- 
 ported by Adams, Jefferson, Madison, 
 [onroe, John Quincy Adams and Andrew 
 rackson. It stood for forty-five years, 
 mtil overthrown by the friends of slav- 
 and the enemies of the Union, but 
 fas restored and perfected by Lincoln 
 md continued by Grant, Hayes, Harrison 
 
 and McKinley, It was overthrown for 
 three years by Cleveland, with great 
 disaster to the country. It is now being 
 assailed by Woodrow Wilson, but the 
 spirit of Washington and Lincoln still 
 lives and the end is not yet. 
 
 Declarations of Abraham Lincoln. 
 He Favored a "High Protective TariflE." 
 
 "I am in favor of a National Bank; I 
 am in favor of the internal improvement 
 system and a high Protective Tariff. 
 These are my sentiments and political 
 principles." (From Abraham Lincoln's 
 first political speech, 1832.) 
 
 How He Would Restrict Foreign Trade. 
 
 "If I be asked whether I would de- 
 stroy all commerce I answer, certainly 
 not; I would continue it where it is nec- 
 essary and discontinue it where it is 
 
 ivill550-i 
 
// 
 
 not. An instance: I would continue^ ^' 
 commerce so far as it is employed in 
 bringing: us coffee, and I would discon- 
 tinue it so far as it is employed in bring- 
 ing- us cotton goods." (From "Frag- 
 ments of Tariff Discussion." 1847.) 
 
 The Abandonment of Protection Would 
 Produce "Want and Ruin. 
 
 "The abandonment of the Protective 
 policy by the American Government 
 must result in the increase of both use- 
 less labor and idleness, and so, in pro- 
 portion, must produce want and ruin 
 among our people." (From "Pijag^ents • 
 of Tariff Discussion." 1847.) '; •.,/ 
 
 The Famous Gpigrc^n}. . ,* ••,•,••■ 
 
 "Abraham Lincoln's firsf '♦spl5ec]/*i(>ri«' *; 
 the Tariff question was short and to the 
 point. He said that he did not pretend 
 to be learned in political economy, but 
 that he thought he knew enough to 
 know that 'When an American paid 
 twenty dollars for steel to an English 
 manufacturer, America had the steel and 
 England had the twenty dollars. But 
 when he paid twenty dollars for steel 
 to an American manufacturer, America 
 had both the steel and the twenty dol- 
 lars.' That was the sum and substance 
 of the Tariff question as he viewed it." 
 (Editorial in the Harvard Independent 
 of Harvard, 111., of June 9, 1894, written 
 by Otis S. Eastman.) 
 
 Had Not Changed His Views in 1859. 
 
 "I was an old Henry Clay Tariff Whig. 
 In old times I made more speeches on 
 that subject than any other. I have not 
 since changed my views." (Letter from 
 Abraham Lincoln to Dr. Edward Wal- 
 lace, October 11, 1859.) 
 
 He Stood for the Republican Platform 
 of 1860. 
 
 "In the Chicago platform there is a 
 plank upon this subject which should be 
 a general law to the incoming adminis- 
 tration. We should do neither more nor 
 less than we gave the people reason to 
 believe we would when they gave us 
 their votes." (Speech of Abraham Lin- 
 coln, delivered at Pittsburg, Pa., Feb- 
 ruary 16, 1861.) 
 
 "That while providing revenue for the 
 support of the general government by 
 duties upon imports, sound policy re- 
 quires such an adjustment of these im- 
 posts as to encourage the development 
 of the industrial interest of the whole 
 country; and we commend that policy 
 of national exchanges which secures to 
 workingmen liberal wages, to agricul- 
 ture remunerative prices, to mechanics 
 and manufacturers adequate reward for 
 their skill, labor and enterprise, and to 
 the nation commercial prosperity and 
 independence." (Chicago Platform, 1860, 
 Section 12.) 
 
 Introductory. 
 
 The attitude of Abraham Lincoln on 
 the Tariff question has been left in par- 
 
 tial obscurity, while his opinions on 
 every other great question upon which 
 he expressed himself have, during the 
 past twenty years, been given more 
 prominence, and his life and character 
 subjected to greater research and con- 
 sideration than those of any other 
 statesman of modern times. As the 
 emancipator of an enslaved race, and 
 the Chief Executive who saved the life 
 of the American Republic, Abraham Lin- 
 coln stands out as one of the great his- 
 toric characters of the world. The ex- 
 alted position which he attained as the 
 emancipator of a race and savior of a 
 Ce'ijrptry arrested the attention of the 
 woVia* and turned historians and schol- 
 ane <o 'a*, critical investigation of the 
 c^ses^ of/his success and the sources of 
 his power and influence. As the result 
 of a most searching inquiry, he is ac- 
 cepted today as America's greatest 
 President; as one of the wisest and most 
 profound statesmen of the world. Events 
 have proven that he was sound on every 
 great public question which he investi- 
 gated and upon which he expressed 
 opinions. 
 
 Abraham Lincoln, during his whole 
 public career, was a member of political 
 parties which favored as one of their 
 chief political doctrines the policy of 
 "Protection to home industries." He 
 joined the Whig party w^hen it was 
 formed, and remained a staunch sup- 
 porter of its principles until the North- 
 ern wing of that party united with the 
 Jackson or Free Soil Democrats and 
 formed the Republican party in 1854. 
 
 First Speech on the Tariff. 
 
 An account of Lincoln's first political 
 speech is given by W^illiam H. Herndon 
 (who had been his law partner) in his 
 "Life of Abraham Lincoln," published 
 by D. Appleton & Co., pages 94 and 95. 
 
 Late in the political campaign of 1832 
 Lincoln returned from the Black Hawk 
 War, in which he had served as captain 
 of a company, and announced himself as 
 a candidate for the legislature. Mr. 
 Herndon says: 
 
 "His maiden effort on the stump was a 
 speech on the occasion of a public sale 
 at Pappsville, a village eleven miles 
 west of Springfield. Lincoln said: 
 
 "'Fellow Citizens: I presume you all 
 know who I am. I am the humble Abra- 
 ham Lincoln. I have been solicited by 
 many friends to become a candidate for 
 the legislature. My politics are short 
 and sweet, like the old woman's dance. 
 I am in favor of a National Bank; I am 
 in favor of the internal improvement 
 system and a high Protective Tariff. 
 These are my sentiments and political 
 principles. If elected I shall be thank- 
 ful; if not it will be all the same.'" 
 
 Lincoln was noted for saying a great 
 deal in a very few words. This faculty, 
 which he possessed in such a high de- 
 gree, was never better employed than 
 when in this first speech he said: "I am 
 
in favor of (1) a National Bank; (2) the 
 internal improvement system, and (3) 
 a hig-h Protective Tariff." These were 
 the three great questions at that time 
 in controversy between the people of the 
 slave-holding and free States and around 
 which centered the great debates in the 
 halls of Congress. In a letter written 
 to Dr. Wallace in 1859, he said: 
 
 "I was an old Henry Clay Tariff Whig. 
 In old times I made more speeches on 
 that subject than any other. I have not 
 since changed my views." 
 
 TVhat Is a Higrh Protective Tariff? 
 
 It is significant and shows his power 
 of discrimination and the precision with 
 which he spoke when he used the word 
 "high" in defining the kind of a Tariff 
 which he favored, for at this time the 
 enemies of American industries were de- 
 manding a low Tariff, or one imposed for 
 "revenue only," while the friends of 
 American industries favored rates of 
 duties high enough to Protect our man- 
 ufacturers, producers and laborers from 
 the ruinous competition in our home 
 market of the products of the poorly- 
 paid labor of the Old World. To the 
 importer any rate of duty which re- 
 stricted the sale of foreign-made goods 
 in th6 American market was too high. 
 It was to him a high Tariff. This was 
 equally true to the slaveholder and those 
 who favored a Tariff for revenue only, 
 or Free-Trade. 
 
 The low Tariff advocates favored 
 Free-Trade, or the unrestricted purchase 
 of foreign-made goods, instead of pat- 
 ronizing home industries. Lincoln was 
 not only in favor of a "high" Tariff, but 
 a high Protective Tariff; that is, a Tar- 
 iff of duties high enough to secure 
 to American manufacturers, producers, 
 agriculturalists and laborers the entire 
 home market, in order that our indus- 
 tries might thrive, labor be fully em- 
 ployed, the native resources and water 
 powers be utilized, ard the independence 
 and prosperity of the people be made 
 secure. 
 
 A Henry Clay Tariff WTiig. 
 
 His statement in his letter to Dr. 
 Wallace, in 1859, that he was "an old 
 Henry Clay Tariff Whig" contains a vol- 
 ume of meaning. It covers the whole 
 ground, for Henry Clay was the great- 
 est advocate of sound Protectionist doc- 
 trines since Alexander Hamilton. He 
 was the leader of that body of statesmen 
 who gave effect to the great principles 
 expounded by Hamilton in the high Pro- 
 tective Tariff laws of 1824, 1828 and 1832. 
 It was Henry Clay who in one of his 
 great speeches gave to the Protective 
 Tariff policy as advocated by Washing- 
 ton, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, 
 John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jack- 
 son, our first eight Presidents, the name 
 "American System." So when Lincoln 
 said he was "an old Henry Clay Tariff 
 Whig" it meant that he favored that 
 
 form of Protection taught by Hamilton, 
 Matthew Carey, Henry Clay and the 
 great expounders of sound Protection- 
 ism. 
 
 Henry Clay's Tariff Prittclples. 
 
 The practical operation of the Protec- 
 tive system as laid down by Hamilton 
 and expounded and defended by Henry 
 Clay in his great speeches, and what 
 would result from it, were defined as 
 follows: 
 
 First. That Protection was necessary 
 in order to establish a system of manu- 
 facturing. 
 
 Second. That by establishing a system 
 of manufacturing, these results would 
 follow: 
 
 I. Diversification of industries. 
 
 II. iDivision of labor. 
 
 III. The producer and consumer would 
 be brought together, saving to the con- 
 sumer expense of transportation, com- 
 mission, etc. 
 
 IV. It would encourage home trade. 
 
 V. It would build up a home market. 
 
 VI. Encourage the immigration of 
 skilled artisans, manufacturers and agri- 
 culturists. 
 
 VII. Invite the investment of foreign 
 and domestic capital in the establish- 
 ment of domestic industries. 
 
 VIII. Give employment to labor at 
 higher wages than are paid in the Old 
 World. 
 
 IX. Stimulate the inventive genius of 
 the people. 
 
 X. Stimulate the industry of the 
 people. 
 
 XI. Insure to industry the rewards of 
 its labor. 
 
 XII. It would develop the resources of 
 the country. 
 
 XIII. It would secure to the agricul- 
 turist at home the most reliable and 
 largest possible market for the greatest 
 variety of the produce of the farm and 
 garden. 
 
 Third. That it shields the consumers 
 of the country from foreign monopoly, 
 and the competition between native and 
 foreign manufacturers tends to reduce 
 the price of commodities to the level of 
 fair profits based on the cost of pro- 
 duction, under conditions existing at 
 home. 
 
 Fourth. That it increases foreign 
 trade by stimulating the production of 
 a greater variety of domestic articles 
 for -export, and so adds to the wealth, 
 spendable income and purchasing power 
 of the people that the importation of 
 non-competing articles and luxuries will 
 be greatly augmented. 
 
 Fifth. That il tends to secure a favor- 
 able balance of trade and prevents a 
 drain of the precious metals. 
 
 Sixth. That it makes the nation inde- 
 pendent of other nations in time of war. 
 
 Seventh. That it makes possible the 
 accumulation of capital which is neces- 
 sary to the establishment of sound 
 banks, and the growth of agriculture, 
 
manufacturing-, mining, Kliipping-, means 
 of transportation, and everything upon 
 which the material well-being- of the 
 people depends. 
 
 W'liat Lincoln Meant. 
 
 It is by becoming familiar with the 
 foregoing- history and the principles of 
 the Protective system that we are able 
 to understand what Lincoln meant when 
 he said, in 1832: 
 
 "I am in favor of * * * a high 
 Protective Tariff." And what he meant, 
 in 1859, when he said: 
 
 "I was an old Henry Clay Tariff Whig. 
 I have not since changed my views." 
 
 It was during the great debates on 
 the Tariff question between 1819 and 
 the close of the session of 1832 that 
 Henry Clay distinguished himself above 
 all other statesmen of that time as an 
 advocate of Protection, It was Henry 
 Clay that perfected and reduced to prac- 
 tical form the principles of Protection 
 •enunciated by Alexander Hamilton in 
 his g-reat Tleport on Manufactures. It 
 was flenry Clay who g-ave to Protection 
 the name "American System," and who, 
 in his great speech on March 30 and 31, 
 1824, said: 
 
 "The best security against the demor- 
 alizati «n of society is the constant and 
 profitable employm^ent of its members. 
 The greatest danger to public liberty is 
 from idleness and vice." 
 
 In the same speech he also said: 
 
 "The greatest want of civilized society 
 is a market for the exchange and sale 
 of its surplus produce. This market 
 may exist at home or abroad, but it must 
 exist somewhere if society prospers. The 
 home market is the first in order and 
 paramount in importance. The object 
 of the bill under consideration is to cre- 
 ate this market and to lay the founda- 
 tion of a genuine American policy," 
 
 Henry Clay's Plan of Imposing; Duties. 
 
 Prior to 1832 no distinction was made 
 between non-competing commodities, 
 luxuries and competing manufactures. 
 All were subjected to the payment of im- 
 port duties; some, distinctly for the pur- 
 pose of raising revenue; others, both for 
 revenue and Protection. In 1832 we had 
 reached a point where the national debt 
 was extinguished, and a large surplus 
 of revenue was in the treasury. This 
 condition made a revision of the Tariff 
 necessary. It was at this time that the 
 Tariff question for the first time in our 
 history became a party question. It was 
 at this time that the South declared in 
 favor of Free-Trade. It was at this time 
 that the slavery controversy plunged the 
 country into sectional politics and en- 
 dangered the life of the nation. 
 
 The chief leaders of the Free-Trade 
 party were George MacDuffle of South 
 Carolina in the House, and Robert Y. 
 Hayne, of the same State, in the Sen- 
 ate; and of the Protectionist forces, John 
 Quincy Adams in the House, and Henry 
 
 Clay in the Senate. Henry Clay pre- 
 sented a resolution setting forth the 
 system of levying duties in accordance 
 with the Protective system, which provid- 
 ed that (1) non-competing commodities 
 of foreign production, the like of which 
 cannot be produced in the United States, 
 such as tea, coffee, etc., should be admit- 
 ted into the United States free of duty; 
 (2) that certain articles of luxury, al- 
 though produced abroad, such as dia- 
 monds, fine jewelry, wines, liquors, 
 should be subject to the payment of 
 duties for revenue purposes; (3) that 
 duties for the purpose of securing their 
 production at home be imposed on all 
 competing articles, or those articles the 
 like of which might be produced in the 
 United States. Under this system rev- 
 enues were to be reduced by repealing 
 the duties on non-competing articles. 
 The system of Protection was to be pre- 
 served in all its integrity. This plan was 
 embodied in the Protective law of 1832. 
 It met the violent opposition of the 
 planters and importers. The former saw 
 at once that it meant the continuation 
 of a public policy which would make the 
 free States prosperous, rich and power- 
 ful, and the latter that the importation 
 into the United States of competing 
 manufactures would be diminished as 
 domestic industries were established 
 and extended, and in this respect that 
 branch of foreign commerce would be 
 injured and they would lose profits. 
 
 The Free-Trade Plan of Imposing Duties. 
 
 The Free-Trade plan of levying duties 
 in the revision of the tariff was set 
 forth in a counter-proposition presented 
 by George MacDuffie, which provided for 
 the levying of duties on substantially 
 all articles, competing as well as non- 
 competing, at a uniform rate of 12% 
 per cent, ad valorem. The duties were 
 intended to be so low that the manu- 
 factures already established in the free 
 States would be destroyed and the coun- 
 try would enter upon a policy of free in- 
 ternational trade, the idea being that 
 our cotton, tobacco and all raw mate- 
 rials would be sent to England, and as 
 it was called, exchanged there for manu- 
 factures; it being contended that the 
 American people should be permitted to 
 buy their manufactures where they 
 could buy the cheapest, and it being 
 conceded that wages were low in the Old 
 "World, and that England had erected an 
 enormous manufacturing system by in- 
 dustrial organization, the use of ma- 
 chinery and skilled artisans, and having 
 the ships to transport them to market, 
 could under Democratic revenue duties 
 flood the American market with their 
 wares, force into bankruptcy every in- 
 dustry which had been established, and 
 through the power of competition for- 
 ever prevent the Establishment of a 
 system of manufactures on American 
 soil. 
 
Orlgrln and Meaning; of the Trord "Only.'* 
 
 The South also took the position that 
 Congress had no power under the Con- 
 stitution to levy duties for the purpose 
 of fostering- and encouraging the estab- 
 lishment of our industries. The import- 
 ing and shipping- interests of the North- 
 ern States and many persons in other 
 occupations composing the Northern 
 wing of the Democratic party, while 
 being in favor of Free-Trade, did not 
 fully concur with the representatives 
 of the planting States on the Constitu- 
 tional question. This subject was 
 brought before the Free-Trade conven- 
 tion held in Philadelphia in 1831, which 
 by resolution declared that "they admit 
 the power of Congress to levy and col- 
 lect such duties as they may deem nec- 
 essary for the purpose of revenue, and 
 within those limits to arrange those 
 duties so as to 'incidentally and to that 
 extent give Protection to the manufac- 
 turers.' " 
 
 This principle Judge Job Johnson, of 
 South Carolina, representing the South- 
 ern delegation, declared "was to give 
 away the whole case, fatal to the cause 
 of Free-Trade and fatal to the consti- 
 tutional argument." 
 
 The proposition that the Constitution 
 would permit revenue duties which "in- 
 cidentally" or, as an incident thereto, 
 might afford a small degree of Protec- 
 tion, was rejected by the new Demo- 
 cratic party, and to express such dis- 
 sent, the term "Tariff for revenue only" 
 was adopted. Thus by the use of the 
 word "only" every vestige of Protection 
 was excluded. This was the origin of 
 the expression "A Tariff for revenue 
 only." 
 
 DiflFerence Bet-ween Protective Duties 
 and Duties for Revenue. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun, in a speech before the 
 Senate in 1842, gave a clear and definite 
 interpretation of "a Tariff for revenue 
 only" policy. He said: 
 
 "No two things, Senator, are more 
 different than the duties for revenue and 
 Protection. They are as opposite as light 
 and darkness. The one is friendly and 
 the other hostile to the importation of 
 the articles on which they may be im- 
 posed. Revenue seeks not to exclude 
 or diminish the amount imported. On 
 the contrary, if it should be the result, 
 it neither designed nor desired it. While 
 it takes, it patronizes; and patronizes 
 that it may take more. It is the reverse 
 in every respect with Protection — it 
 seeks, directly, exclusion or diminution. 
 It is the desired result, and if it fails in 
 it then it fails in its object." 
 
 A Tariff for revenue only, then, seeks 
 to accomplish two essential purposes: 
 First, to raise revenue on duties from 
 imports for the support of the Govern- 
 ment; second, to fix the duties at such 
 a low rate that Protection is made im- 
 possible. 
 
 The South was supported in its op- 
 
 position to the Protective system by the 
 importers of our great seaboard cities, 
 many of whom were agents of foreign 
 manufacturers, and all attempting to 
 prevent the establishment of domestic 
 manufactures in order that they might 
 make profits by selling to the Amer- 
 ican people foreign made goods. The 
 shipping interests of New England and 
 the East, although favored until about 
 1828 with Protection to their business, 
 also opposed the building up of our na- 
 tive industries upon the theory that 
 by so much as our domestic raw mate- 
 rials were produced, and manufactures 
 were made in our domestic mills for the 
 supply of our home market, the imports 
 of similar commodities brought from 
 abroad would be diminished and domes- 
 tic materials would be worked up at 
 home instead of being exported, and 
 they would suffer a great loss in the 
 ocean carrying trade. It was from the 
 belief that as home trade in domestic 
 commodities increased, foreign com- 
 merce in competing articles would be 
 diminished, that the importers and the 
 ship owner cried out, "Protection in- 
 jures our foreign commerce." Many per- 
 sons engaged in trade, professions and 
 occupations not directly affected by the 
 Tariff were also led to believe that un- 
 der a system of Free-Trade it would be 
 to their advantage to buy manufactured 
 articles made abroad, and the farmer of 
 the non-manufacturing sections of the 
 Western States was advised that he 
 could save money by buying from the 
 foreign manufacturers rather than from 
 the American. So a formidable party In 
 favor of Free-Trade, composed of the 
 elements mentioned in the North, unit- 
 ing with the slaveholding interests, was 
 organized by the Democratic party 
 which waged an incessant and aggres- 
 sive political warfare against the estab- 
 lishment and extension of American in- 
 dustries. 
 
 Nullification and Secession. 
 
 South Carolina led the way in 1832 by 
 passing an ordinance declaring null and 
 void the Protective Tariff law of 1832, 
 and threatened to secede from the Union 
 in case President Jackson attempted to 
 enforce the collection of duties at the 
 port of Charleston. This was the first 
 overt act threatening the life of the na- 
 tion by the slaveholding interests. Be- 
 fore General Jackson had entered upon 
 the first year of his second term, as 
 President, he was confronted with a 
 most alarming condition of affairs. Civil 
 war and the dissolution of the Union 
 was threatened. The Tariff of 1832 was 
 made the pretext for this threatened re- 
 volt. The people of the free States were 
 compelled to choose between two alter- 
 natives, a coercion of the State of South 
 Carolina by military force, or the aban- 
 donment of the Protective system. 
 The Compromise of 1833. 
 
 So many congressmen throughout the 
 
North were in favor of yielding this 
 point to the South, temporarily at least, 
 that the Compromise act of 1833 was en- 
 acted, under which the duties of the ex- 
 isting- law were to be reduced, was 
 passed, providing for a reduction of 
 duties on a sliding scale; 10 per cent, of 
 the excess of duties above 20 per cent, 
 was to be taken off every two years, un- 
 til finally in 1842 a system of uniform ad 
 valorem duties of 20 per cent, was to be 
 established. 
 
 The rfew Democratic Party. 
 
 The new Democratic party was organ- 
 ized, and nominated Martin VanBuren 
 for President, and presented its first 
 declaration of party principles in reso- 
 lutions adopted by its National Conven- 
 tion in 1836. It declared that Congress 
 had no power under the Constitution to 
 grant a charter for a National Bank, 
 to appropriate money for the improve- 
 ment of highways and other public im- 
 provements, or to impose duties on im- 
 ports to foster and Protect home indus- 
 tries. This was its business creed. It 
 also favored the Protection and exten- 
 sion of slavery, State sovereignty, and 
 the right of secession. From this time 
 until 1861 it controlled the United States 
 Senate, and failed in the election of a 
 President only twice, 1840 and 1848. To 
 make the control of the slave States 
 supreme over the party, it in 1836 adopt- 
 ed the two-thirds rule in its Presidential 
 nominations. Its party control then be- 
 came a mere matter of political bargain 
 and sale. Martin VanBuren's famous 
 maxim, "Carry the South by going with 
 the South, and the North by party ma- 
 chinery," became the keynote of Democ- 
 racy. 
 
 When Cotton Was King. 
 
 The most authoritative account of the 
 causes which induced the people of the 
 slave States to oppose the policy of Pro- 
 tection" and favor the doctrine of Free- 
 Trade is found in a work entitled "Cot- 
 ton Is King" and "Pro-slavery Argu- 
 ments," edited by E. N. Elliott, LL.D., 
 President of the Planter's College of 
 Mississippi, published in Atlanta, Ga., by 
 Pritchard, Abbott & Loomis, in 1860. The 
 part from which the following quota- 
 tions are taken was written by David 
 Christie, Esq., and published under the 
 title of "Cotton Is King, or Slavery in 
 the Light of Political Economy." From 
 the following extracts we have the en- 
 tire scheme unfolded: 
 
 "The logical conclusion, from these 
 different results, was that the less pro- 
 visions and the more cotton grown by 
 the planter, the greater would be his 
 profits. This must be noted with special 
 care. Markets for the surplus products 
 of the farmer of the North were equally 
 as important to him as the supply of 
 provisions was to the planter. But the 
 planter, to be eminently successful, must 
 purchase his supplies at the lowest pos- 
 
 sible prices; while the farmer, to secure 
 his prosperity, must sell his products at 
 the highest possible rates. Few, indeed, 
 can be so ill-informed as not to know 
 that these two topics for many years 
 were involved in the "Free-Trade" and 
 "Protective TarifC" doctrines, and af- 
 forded the material of the political con- 
 tests between the North and the South — 
 between free labor and slave labor. A 
 very brief notice of the history of that 
 controversy will demonstrate the truth 
 of this assertion. 
 
 "A manufacturing population, with its 
 mechanical coadjutors in the midst of 
 the provision-growers, on a scale such 
 as the Protective policy contemplated, 
 it was conceived, would create a perma- 
 nent market for their products, and en- 
 hance the price; whereas, if this manu- 
 facturing could be prevented, and a sys- 
 tem of Free-Trade adopted, the South 
 would constitute the principal provision 
 market of the country, and the fertile 
 lands of the North supply the cheap food 
 
 demanded for its slaves 
 
 For success in the foreign markets they 
 relied, mainly, upon preparing them- 
 selves to produce cotton at the reduced 
 prices then prevailing in Europe. All 
 agricultural products, except cotton, 
 being excluded from foreign markets, the 
 planters found themselves almost the 
 sole exporters of the country; and it was 
 to them a source of chagrin that the 
 North did not, at once, co-operate with 
 them in augmenting the commerce of the 
 nation. 
 
 "At this point in the history of the 
 controversy politicians found it an easy 
 matter to produce feeling of the deepest 
 hostility between the opposing parties. 
 The planters were led to believe that the 
 millions of revenue collected off the 
 goods imported was so much deducted 
 from the value of the cotton that paid 
 for them, either in the diminished price 
 they received abroad, or in the increased 
 price which they paid for the imported 
 articles. To enhance the duties, for the 
 Protection of our manufacturers, they 
 were persuaded would be so much of an 
 additional tax upon themselves, for the 
 benefit of the North; and, besides, to 
 give the manufacturer such a monopoly 
 of the home market for his fabrics would 
 enable him to charge purchasers an ex- 
 cess over the true value of his stuffs, to 
 the whole amount of the duty. By the 
 Protective policy, the planters expected 
 to have the cost of both provisions and 
 clothing increased, and their ability to 
 monopolize the foreign markets dimin- 
 ished in a corresponding degree. If they 
 could establish Free-Trade, it would in- 
 sure the American market to foreign 
 manufacturers; secure the foreign mar- 
 kets for their leading staple; repress 
 home manufactures; force a large num- 
 ber of the Northern men into agricul- 
 ture; multiply the growth and diminish 
 the price of provisions; feed and clothe 
 their slaves at lower rates; produce their 
 
cotton for a third or fourth of former 
 prices; rival all other countries in its 
 cultivation; monopolize the trade in the 
 article throughout the whole of Europe, 
 and build up a commerce and navy that 
 would make us ruler of the seas. 
 
 "Out of this conviction grew the war 
 upon corporations; the hostility to the 
 employment of foreign capital in devel- 
 oping- the mineral, agricultural and 
 manufacturing resources of the country; 
 the efforts to destroy the banks and 
 the credit system; the attempts to reduce 
 the currency to gold and silver; the sys- 
 tem of collecting the public revenues in ^ 
 coin; the withdrawal of the public 
 moneys from all the banks as a basis 
 of paper circulation; and the sleepless 
 vigilance of the South in resisting all 
 systems of internal improvements by the 
 general government. Its statesmen fore- 
 saw that a paper currency would keep 
 up the price of Northern products one or 
 two hundred per cent, above the specie 
 standard; that combinations of capital- 
 ists, whether engaged in manufacturing- 
 wool, cotton, or iron, would draw off 
 labor from the cultivation of the soil, 
 and cause large bodies of the producers 
 to become consumers; and that roads and 
 canals, connecting- the West with the 
 East, were effectual means of bringing 
 the agricultural and manufacturing- 
 classes into closer proximity, to the seri- 
 ous limitation of the foreign commerce 
 of the country, the checking- of the 
 growth of the navy, and the manifest in- 
 jury of planters. 
 
 Besides this, the abolition movement 
 at that moment, 1832, had assumed its 
 most threatening aspect, and was de- 
 manding- the destruction of slavery or 
 the dissolution of the Union. Here was 
 a double motive operating to produce 
 harmony in the ranks of Southern poli- 
 ticians, and to awaken the fears of many. 
 North and South, for the safety of the 
 government. Here, also, was the origin 
 of the determination, in the South," to ex- 
 tend slavery by the annexation of terri- 
 tory, so as to gain the political prepon- 
 derance in the national councils, and to 
 protect its interests against the inter- 
 ference of the North." 
 
 They Agreed as to Effects and Results. 
 
 An analysis of the debates on the sub- 
 ject shows that there was perfect agree- 
 ment between the Protectionists of the 
 North and the Free-Traders of the South 
 on the question of the necessary influ- 
 ence of the policy of Protection in 
 building up the industries of the nation. 
 It was conceded by the Free-Traders 
 that through Protection manufactures 
 would be established; skilled manufac- 
 turers and artisans would come from the 
 Old World and establish themselves in 
 America; that immigration would bo 
 stimulated to people the free States; that 
 capital would flow in from abroad and 
 new capital would be created at home; 
 that villages, cities and great industrial 
 
 centers would spring- up everywhere; 
 that industries would follow the settlers 
 into the new States; that the whole 
 North would become a scene of thrift, 
 industry and prosperity. 
 
 The opposition to Protection by 
 the planters was based on the belief that 
 the free States under its influence would 
 soon become so populous, so strong and 
 powerful that they would outvote the 
 slave States in the halls of Congress, 
 and the political equilibrium between the 
 two sections of the country would be 
 destroyed. It was to prevent the hap- 
 pening of such events that the planters 
 attempted to keep the North poor and 
 backward by preventing the establish- 
 ment of a system of manufactures. So 
 when we come to consider the objections 
 which they interposed against the Amer- 
 ican system, instead of finding- any rea- 
 son for the support of Free-Trade or a 
 low Tariff policy based on national wel- 
 fare, the very reverse appears, and their 
 contentions vindicate the wisdom and 
 justice of the Protective system. 
 
 Lincoln's Political Principles. 
 
 Lincoln was opposed to each one of 
 the Democratic doctrines. He favored a 
 National Bank; the system of internal 
 improvements; a Protective Tariff; thei 
 sovereignty of the people under the per- 
 petual union of the States, and the 
 powers of Congress under the Constitu- 
 tion as expounded by Daniel Webster. 
 He could not favor a National Bank, nor 
 the system of internal improvements, nor 
 the non-extension and abolition of slav- 
 ery, without being- a Protectionist. 
 
 Failure of Free-Trade. The Panic 183T 
 to 1842. 
 
 The Compromise act was adopted when 
 the industries of the North were in a 
 flourishing- condition and the people were 
 enjoying a high state of prosperity. A 
 repetition of their experience under the 
 low Tariff of 1816 came upon them as 
 Protection g-radually disappeared under 
 the sliding- scale of reductions. First, 
 the country was visited with a severe 
 financial panic, followed by a period of 
 business and industrial depression, con- 
 tinuin;?- from about 1838 to the restora- 
 tion of Protection under the Tariff act 
 of 1842. The four years between 1838 
 and 1842 were perhaps more disastrous 
 than the four years immediately pre- 
 ceding- the enactment of the act of 1824. 
 The country was flooded with foreign 
 made goods; factories were closed; many 
 went into bankruptcy; labor w^as idle; 
 no sale for commodities of any kind at 
 remunerative prices; the balance of trade 
 turned against us; revenues were insuffi- 
 cient; the public treasury was bank- 
 rupt and the credit of the nation ruined. 
 
 These conditions brought about a re- 
 volt against VanBuren's administration 
 and the election of Harrison and Tyler 
 in 1840. Harrison, a Northern man, 
 standing for Whig- principles, died 
 
shortly after he was inaug-urated, and 
 Tyler, a Virginian, believing- in the 
 political doctrines of the slaveholders, 
 became President, and after interposing 
 his veto against several Tariff bills, he 
 was finally compelled, on account of the 
 state of the Treasury, to sign the highly 
 Protective act of 1842. 
 
 Protection Overthrown. The Act of 184G. 
 
 Notwithstanding the fact that indus- 
 tries revived and prosperity came back 
 as by magic, the warfare against the 
 Protective system was still continued by 
 the (Democratic party. In 1843 they were 
 struggling to repeal the act of 1842; in 
 184 4 Henry Clay was beaten on the Tariff 
 issue, and James K. Polk, a Free-Trader, 
 was elected President, and upon his in- 
 auguration the Walker Tariff law of 
 1846, completely overthrowing the Pro- 
 tective system, was enacted. At this 
 time the South accomplished the annexa- 
 tion of Texas; declared war on Mexico, 
 and added the territories of California, 
 New Mexico, and Arizona to our public 
 domain. Growing out of the annexation 
 of Texas and the acquisition of those 
 new territories, the controversy over 
 slavery was renewed, divided and dis- 
 rupted old political parties and grew in 
 intensity and violence until the secession 
 of the Southern States in 1861, the South 
 struggling to perpetuate and extend 
 slavery in all of its territories, and those 
 in favor of freedom struggling to pre- 
 vent its further extension, and finally 
 to bring about its total extinction. 
 
 The Tariff an Issue from 1840 to 1846. 
 
 Abraham Lincoln entered public life at 
 a time when the Tariff question at- 
 tracted perhaps more attention and was 
 more widely and thoroughly discussed 
 in Congress and out, than during any 
 similar period of our history. The de- 
 bates in Congress on the subject, from 
 1824 to 1832, were participated in by the 
 greatest statesmen of the times, and dur- 
 ing no period of our congressional his- 
 tory is there to be found in its records 
 debates on the subject conducted with 
 greater talent, learning and ability than 
 during these years. While there was a 
 lull in the controversy following the 
 Compromise act of 1833, the disastrous 
 consequences which resulted from it re- 
 vived a discussion of the question, and 
 from 1838 to the enactment of the Walk- 
 er Tariff act of 1846, it was discussed by 
 the people in every neighborhood, com- 
 munity, town, county and state of the 
 Union. It was during this time and un- 
 der these conditions that Abraham Lin- 
 coln announced himself in favor of a 
 high Protective Tariff, ancl said that he 
 was a Henry Clay Tariff Whig, and made 
 more speeches on the Tariff question 
 than any other. 
 
 Very little was written by Lincoln on 
 the Tariff. Although he made many 
 speeches on the subject, yet they do not 
 appear to have been published. His 
 
 first speech announcing his position, 
 heretofore quoted, is given by his law 
 partner, Mr, Herndon. His next published 
 statement is found in a circular issued 
 by a Committee of the Whig Party for 
 the State of Illinois, dated March 4, 1843, 
 addressed to the people of that 'State. 
 It is signed by Abraham Lincoln, S. T. 
 Logan and A, T. Bledsoe, and was writ- 
 ten by Lincoln, published in "Complete 
 Works of Abraham Lincoln," edited by 
 John G. Nicolay and John Hay, (edition 
 de Luxe), published by Francis D, Tandy 
 Co., New York, Vol. 1, pages 243-247, as 
 follows: 
 
 Protective Circular "Written by Lincoln. 
 
 "Circular from Whig Committee, March 
 4, 1843. Address to the People of Illinois. 
 
 "Fellow-Citizens: By a resolution of 
 a meeting of such of the Whigs of the 
 State as are now at Springfield, we, the 
 undersigned, were appointed to prepare 
 an address to you. The performance of 
 that task we now undertake. 
 
 "Several resolutions were adopted by 
 the meeting; and the chief object of thin 
 address is to show briefly the reasons for 
 their adoption. 
 
 "The first of those resolutions declares 
 a Tariff of duties upon foreign importa- 
 tions, producing sufficient revenue for 
 the support of the General Government, 
 and so adjusted as to Protect American 
 industry, to be indispensably necessary 
 to the prosperity of the American peo- 
 ple and the second declares direct taxa- 
 tion for a national revenue to be im- 
 proper. Those two resolutions are kin- 
 dred in their nature, and therefore prop- 
 er and convenient to be considered to- 
 gether. The question of Protection is a 
 subject entirely too broad to be crowded 
 into a few pages only, together with sev- 
 eral other subjects. Oh that point we 
 therefore content ourselves with giving 
 the following extracts from the writings 
 of Mr; Jefferson, General Jackson, and 
 the speech of Mr, Calhoun: 
 
 " 'To be independent for the comforts 
 of life, we must fabricate them our- 
 selves. We must now place the manu- 
 facturer by the side of the agricultur- 
 alist. The grand inquiry now is. Shall 
 we make our own comforts, or go with- 
 out them at the will of a foreign nation^ 
 He, therefore, who is now against do- 
 mestic manufactures must be for reduc- 
 ing us either to dependence on that for- 
 eign nation, or to be clothed in skins and 
 to live like wild beasts in dens and 
 caverns. I am not one of those; experi- 
 ence has taught me that manufactures 
 are now as necessary to our independ- 
 ence as to our comfort.' — Letter of Mr, 
 Jefferson to Benjamin Austin. [1817], 
 
 " 'I ask. What is the real situation of 
 the agriculturalist? Where has the Amer- 
 ican farmer a market for his surplus 
 produce? Except for cotton, he has 
 neither a foreign nor a home market. 
 Does not this clearly prove, when there 
 Is no market at home or abroad, that 
 
there [is] too much labor employed in 
 agriculture? Common sense at once 
 points out the remedy. Take from agri- 
 culture six hundred thousand men, 
 women, and children, and you will at 
 once give a market for more breadstuffs 
 than all Europe now furnishes. In short, 
 we have been too long subject to the pol- 
 icy of British merchants. It is time we 
 should become a little more American- 
 ized, and instead of feeding the paupers 
 and laborers of England, feed our own; 
 or else in a short time, by continuing our 
 present policy, we shall all be rendered 
 to paupers ourselves.' — General Jackson's 
 Letter to Dr. Coleman. [1824]. 
 
 " 'When our manufactures are grown 
 to a certain perfection, as they soon will 
 be, under the fostering care of govern- 
 ment, the farmer will find a ready mar- 
 ket for his surplus produce, and — what 
 is of equal consequence — a certain and 
 cheap supply of all he wants; his pros- 
 perity will diffuse itself to every class of 
 the community.' — Speech of Hon. J. C. 
 Calhoun on the Tariff. [1816]. 
 
 Revenue liost Through Free-Trade. 
 
 "The question of revenue we will now 
 briefly consider. For several years past 
 the revenues of the government have 
 been unequal to its expenditures, and 
 consequently loan after loan, sometimes 
 direct and sometimes indirect in form, 
 has been resorted to. By this means a 
 new national debt has been created, and 
 is still growing on us with a rapidity 
 fearful to contemplate — a rapidity only 
 reasonably to be expected in time of war. 
 This state of things has been produced 
 by a prevailing unwillingness either to 
 increase the Tariff or resort to direct 
 taxation. But the one or the other must 
 come. Coming expenditures must be met, 
 and the present debt must be paid; and 
 money cannot always be borrowed for 
 these objects. The system of loans is 
 but temporary in its nature, and must 
 soon explode. It is a system not only 
 ruinous while it lasts, but one that must 
 soon fail and leave us destitute. As an 
 individual who undertakes to live by 
 borrowing soon finds his original means 
 devoured by interest, and, next, no one 
 left to borrow from, so must it be with a 
 government. 
 
 "We repeat, then, that a Tariff suffi- 
 cient for revenue, or a direct tax, must 
 soon be resorted to; and. Indeed, we be- 
 lieve this alternative is now denied by 
 no one. But which system shall be 
 adopted? Some of our opponents, in the- 
 ory, admit the propriety of a Tariff suf- 
 ficient for a revenue; but even they will 
 not in practice vote for such a Tariff; 
 while others boldly advocate direct tax- 
 ation. Inasmuch, therefore, as some of 
 them boldly advocate direct taxation, and 
 all the rest — or so nearly all as to make 
 exceptions needlessi — refuse to adopt the 
 Tariff, we think it is doing them no in- 
 justice to class them all as advocates of 
 direct taxation. Indeed, we believe they 
 
 are only delaying an open avowal of the 
 system till they can assure themselves 
 that the people will tolerate it. 
 
 "Let us, then, briefly compare the 
 two systems. The Tariff is the cheaper 
 system, because the duties, being col- 
 lected in large parcels at a few commer- 
 cial points, will require comparatively 
 few officers in their collection; while by 
 the direct-tax system the land must be 
 literally covered with assessors and col- 
 lectors, going forth like swarms of Egyp- 
 tian locusts, devouring every blade of 
 grass and other green thing. And, again, 
 by the Tariff system the whole revenue 
 is paid by the consumers of foreign 
 goods, and those chiefly the luxuries, and 
 not the necessaries, of life. 
 
 " By this system the man who contents 
 himself to live upon the products of his 
 own country pays nothing at all. And 
 surely that country is extensive enough, 
 and its products abundant and varied 
 enough, to answer all the real wants of 
 its people. In short, by this system the 
 burden of revenue falls almost entirely 
 on the wealthy and luxurious few, while 
 the substantial and laboring many who 
 live at home, and upon home products, 
 go entirely free. By the direct tax sys- 
 tem none can escape. However, strictly 
 the citizen may exclude from his prem- 
 ises all foreign luxuries — fine cloths, fine 
 silks, rich wines, golden chains, and dia- 
 mond rings — still, for the possession of 
 his house, his barn, and his homespun, 
 he is to be perpetually haunted and har- 
 assed by the tax-gatherer. With these 
 views we leave it to be determined 
 whether we or our opponents are the 
 more truly democratic on the subject." 
 
 Signed by A. Lincoln, S. T. Logan, A. 
 T. Bledsoe. Dated March 4, 1843. 
 
 ("Complete Works of Abraham Lin- 
 coln," Vol. 1. Pages 243-247). 
 
 Complete indorsement of Protection. 
 
 In the introductory paragraph briefly 
 stating the substance of the resolutions 
 adopted by the committee, it is declared 
 that Protective duties are "indispensably 
 necessary to the prosperity of the Amer- 
 ican people." A more complete endorse- 
 ment of the Protective system could not 
 be made. This is followed by the quota- 
 tions from the utterances of three emi- 
 nent Democrats, made before the Tariff 
 question became a party issue, and be- 
 fore the modern Democratic party es- 
 poused the cause of slavery, John C. Cal- 
 houn, who was a staunch Protectionist 
 until 1828, when he changed his opinions 
 in the interest of slaveholders; Thomas 
 Jefferson, who as President signed the 
 acts of Congress of March 27, 1804, March 
 3, 1807, and March 4, 1808, which in- 
 creased duties and extended Protection 
 to new industries. It was Jefferson who 
 in his message to Congress in 1806 op- 
 posed reducing the Tariff to get rid of a 
 surplus revenue. He said: "Shall we sup- 
 press the import and give that advan- 
 tage to foreign over domestic Indus- 
 
tries?" Instead, however, of advising- a 
 leduction of Protective duties, he rec- 
 ommended the application of the surplus 
 revenue to "public education, roads, riv- 
 ers, canals, and such other objects of 
 public improvement as it may be thought 
 proper." 
 
 Jefferson a Defender of Protection. 
 
 During- the eight years that he was 
 President, Jefferson was one of the 
 staunch defenders of Protection. In 
 1809 he wrote to Thomas Leiper, of 
 Philadelphia, as follows: 
 
 "I have lately inculcated the encour- 
 agement of manufactures to the extent 
 of our own consumption, at least in all 
 articles of which we raise the raw ma- 
 terial. On this, the Federal papers and 
 meetings have sounded the alarm of the 
 Chinese policy, destruction of commerce, 
 etc. • * * This absurd hue and cry 
 has contributed much to federalize New 
 England; their doctrine goes to the sac- 
 rificing of agriculture and manufactures 
 to commerce; to the calling all our people 
 from the interior country to a seashore 
 to turn merchants; and to convert this 
 great agricultural country into a City 
 of Amsterdam. But I trust the good 
 sense of our country will see th^t its 
 g^reatest prosperity depends on a due bal- 
 ance between agriculture, manufactures 
 and commerce." 
 
 To Governor Jay, a little later, he 
 wrote: 
 
 "An equilibrium of agriculture, manu- 
 factures and commerce is certainly be- 
 coming essential to our independence." 
 
 The third paragraph is from Andrew 
 Jackson's famous letter to Dr. Coleman. 
 
 TvFO Systems Contrasted. 
 
 After distinctly approving the Protec- 
 tive system as means of developing the 
 resources and industries of the country 
 and making- the people prosperous, the 
 two Systems, as methods of providing 
 revenue for the national treasury, are 
 considered and contrasted. In the outset 
 it is stated that the Tariff for revenue 
 only, adopted in 1833 and practiced until 
 1842, had proven a complete failure. This 
 was the first trial which had been made 
 of the Free-Trade plan. Its first effect 
 was to greatly stimulate imports, which 
 suddenly increased from $108,000,000 in 
 1834 to $176,000,000 in 1836. Within four 
 years our imports exceeded our exports 
 by $99,000,000. The total balance of 
 trade against us from 1834 to 1836 was 
 $116,332,000. A financial panic came in 
 1837. During the year of 1839 the ad- 
 verse balance of trade, including the ex- 
 port of $8,776,000 of specie, was about 
 $44,000,000, From 1839 to 1842 over $10,- 
 000,000 of specie was exported; a foreign 
 debt for merchandise purchased of over 
 $30,000,000 was created; the industries of 
 the country were paralyzed, and a period 
 of hard times set in which spread all 
 over the country, and prosperity did not 
 return until Protection was restored by 
 
 the act of 1842. From 1838 to 1842 there 
 was a deficiency in the Treasury of $22,- 
 590,000; from 1837 to 1841 the adminis- 
 tration borrowed $30,000,000. The public 
 treasury was without credit and bank- 
 rupt. Unable to borrow money at home 
 the Government sent Commissioners to 
 Europe in 1840 with instructions to place 
 a loan of $12,000,000. The effort failed. 
 The government then advertised for a 
 popular loan, and only $250,000 was of- 
 fered by different parties at rates of in- 
 terest ranging from 28 to 32 per cent, 
 per annurn. In 1841 the Speaker of the 
 House of Representatives borrowed on 
 his personal credit $100,000 to loan to 
 Congressmen in order that they might 
 receive their salaries. 
 
 Hence, the administration was pre- 
 sented with the situation as stated by 
 Mr. Lincoln: 
 
 "We repeat, then, that a Tariff suffi- 
 cient for revenue, or a direct tax, must 
 soon be resorted to." 
 
 Ijincoln's Arguments Confirmed by Sub- 
 sequent Events. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln then states that a resort 
 to the system of direct taxation was 
 then favored by the Democratic party 
 and was inevitable if their Tariff system 
 was restored. Rather than see the in- 
 dustries of the free States revived by 
 Protection, they would leave them to 
 perish and levy direct taxes for the sup- 
 port of the government. Mr. Lincoln 
 had such a profound understanding, 
 gained not only from the practical appli- 
 cation of the Democratic plan between 
 1838 and 1842, but from the scientific 
 principles upon which it is based, that 
 he fully realized that it must fail when- 
 ever tried. Subsequent events have jus- 
 tified this contention. 
 
 The Tariff for revenue only, known as 
 the Walker Tariff, passed in 1846, and 
 reductions made by the act of 1857. 
 brought about the same condition of the 
 Treasury and so embarrassed Buchanan's 
 administration that he found himself 
 with a deficiency of $70,000,000. a na- 
 tional debt increased by $45,000,000, for 
 money borrowed to pay the ordinary ex- 
 penses of the government, and produced 
 a period of hard times even worse than 
 that of 1838 to 1842. 
 
 Buchanan Turned to Protection. 
 
 In his message to Congress of Decem- 
 ber, 1857, President Buchanan said: 
 "Panic and distress of a fearful char- 
 acter prevail throughout the land. Our 
 laboring population is without employ- 
 ment and consequently deprived of the 
 means of earning their bread. Indeed all 
 hope seems to have deserted the minds 
 of men," Mr. Buchanan finally acquiesced 
 in a return to Protection and signed the 
 Morrill Tariff Bill, March 2, 1861. 
 
 Grover Cleveland had the same experi- 
 ence with a revenue Tariff, and was 
 compelled to borrow $256,000,000, 
 
 No Democratic President, however, has 
 
 10 
 
been bold enough to resort to direct tax- 
 ation in aid of a deficiency creating" 
 Free-Trade Tariff law until Woodrow 
 Wilson gave it another trial, the burdens 
 of whose policy are oppressing nearly 
 every citizen, and whose tax assessors, 
 as Lincoln said, "are going forth like 
 swarms of Egyptian locusts, devouring 
 every blade of grass and every green 
 thing." Lincoln was a great prophet, 
 but he was a great prophet because he 
 understood the subject. 
 
 Those Who Pay Tariff Duties. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln then takes up tlje effect 
 of the two systems on the consumers 
 and shows that it is only the consumers 
 of foreign made goods who pay any part 
 of the duties levied; that by the Protec- 
 tive system "the man who contents him- 
 self to live on the products of his own 
 countrj' pays nothing at all," and then 
 follows a recognition of the wonderful 
 resources of our country and the capac- 
 ity of our people in the statement: "And 
 surely that country is extensive enough, 
 and its products abundant and varied 
 enough to answer all of the real wants 
 of its people." 
 
 He then states that under the Pro- 
 tective system, "the burthen of revenue 
 falls almost entirely on the wealthy and 
 luxurious few, while the substantial and 
 laboring many who live at home, and 
 upon home products, go entirely free." 
 
 The importance to be attached to the 
 Whig circular is found not 'alone in the 
 fact that it contains an unqualified en- 
 dorsement of the Protective policy, but 
 the carefully considered discussion of 
 the revenue features of the opposing 
 Tariff policies. The objections to the 
 Protective policy then being urged by 
 the Free-Traders are specifically and 
 completely answered. 
 
 Lincoln's Early Political Career. 
 
 Although living in the then remote 
 and sparsely settled agricultural section 
 of the country, his speeches and writings 
 show that he was one of the best inform- 
 ed men of his time on all great questions 
 pertaining to American politics. From 
 the time of his entrance into public life, 
 Central Illinois contained a group of men 
 of great talent; leaders of both the Whig 
 and Democratic parties, who in later 
 years gained great distinction at the bar, 
 on the bench, and in the halls of Con- 
 gress. From among these sprang two 
 conspicuous characters, Stephen A. Doug- 
 las, one of the greatest debaters that 
 ever occupied a seat in the United States 
 Senate, and who finally became the lead- 
 er of the Northern wing of the Demo- 
 cratic party, and Abraham Lincoln. In 
 those times political questions were the 
 chief topic of discussion among men. 
 Nearly every lawyer divided his time be- 
 tween law and politics. There were 
 few newspapers, and. in the earlier years 
 of Mr. Lincoln's career, no railroads or 
 telegraphs. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln entered politics upon his 
 return from the Black Hawk War in 
 1832, at the age of 23 years, as a candi- 
 date for the Illinois Legislature. Not- 
 withstanding his defeat, he entered the 
 field again and was elected to that body 
 successively in 1834, 1836, 1838, and 1840. 
 He was Presidential Elector on the Whig 
 ticket in 1840, 1844, 1848, and in 1846 he 
 was elected to Congress, serving one 
 term. He received votes in the National 
 Republican Convention of 1856 for the 
 office of Vice-President. In 1844 he 
 stumped the State of Illinois for Henry 
 Clay. In 1848 he was called to Massa- 
 chusetts and made speeches for the Whig 
 party to counteract the influence of 
 Henry Wilson, Charles Francis Adams, 
 Charles Sumner, Stephen C. Phillips, E. 
 Rockwood Hoar, Richard H. Dana, Jr., 
 Anson Burlingame and John A. Andrews, 
 who had revolted against the nomination 
 of General Taylor. The Lowell Journal 
 and Courier in its issue of September 
 18th, 1848, said of Mr. Lincoln's speech 
 at that place: 
 
 "It was replete with good sense, sound 
 reasoning and irresistible argument, and 
 spoken with that perfect command of 
 manner and matter which so eminently 
 distinguishes the Western orators." 
 
 From the Legislature to the Presidency. 
 
 In 1843 he was a member of the Whig 
 Central Campaign Committee of the 
 State, and for many years was one of 
 Illinois' most influential public men. He 
 fought his way step by step from a 
 member of the Legislature in 1835 to the 
 Presidency in 1860. He was never for a 
 moment out of politics. He was, year by 
 year, extending his acquaintance, study- 
 ing and mastering the great political 
 questions of the day, and storing up in- 
 formation and reasoning out problems 
 which enabled him in his great debate 
 v.'ith Stephen A. Douglas in 1858, and in 
 speeches which he delivered at Spring- 
 field, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cooper In- 
 stitute and other places, to present the 
 slavery question before the people of the 
 United States in an entirely new aspect. 
 It was Lincoln's ability as a constitu- 
 tional lawyer that showed the American 
 people how slavery could be arrested in 
 its extension and finally 'extinguished 
 under the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 "When Lincoln Made More Speeches on 
 
 the Tariff Than Any Other Subject. 
 
 The Tariff Campaigns of 1840, 
 
 1S42 and 1844. 
 
 The campaigns of 1840, 1842 and 1844 
 were fought largely on the Tariff ques- 
 tion. Illinois was a Democratic State, 
 and Lincoln and his associates were 
 striving to build up the Whig Party in 
 order that a national bank, the system of 
 internal improvements and a Protective 
 Tarilt might prevail throughout the 
 country. Henry Clay was beaten for 
 President in 1844 on all of these issues, 
 
 11 
 
the Tariff being- the most prominent, by- 
 James K. Polk. Clay lost New York and 
 Michigan by the votes drawn off from the 
 Whig Party by James G. Birney, the 
 Abolitionist candidate. Besides, the 
 'Democrats carried Pennsylvania by a 
 letter written by Polk declaring in favor 
 of Protection. The rallying cry of the 
 Democratic party was "Polk, Dallas, and 
 the Tariff of 1842," asserting that Polk 
 was as good a Tariff man as Henry Clay. 
 As soon, howe'ver, as Polk was inaugur- 
 ated, the mask was thrown off, and he 
 emerged a Free-Trader. The Protective 
 act of 1842 was repealed, and the revenue 
 Tariff, known as the Walker Tariff of 
 1846, was enacted. Lincoln was elected 
 to Congress in 184€, serving one term. He 
 had been on the stump in the exciting 
 campaigns of 1840, 1842 and 1844, and 
 1846, and as he says, "he made more 
 speeches on the Tariff than on any other 
 subject." Such was the political situa- 
 tion when, between the time of his elec- 
 tion of 1846 and taking his seat in Con- 
 gress, December 1, 1847, he wrote "Frag- 
 ments of Tariff Discussion" ("Complete 
 Works of Abraham Lincoln," edited by 
 John G. Nicolay and John Hay, published 
 by Francis D. Tandy Co., N. Y. Vol. 1, 
 pages 300 to 315) as follows: 
 
 "Fragments of Tariff Discussion. Lin- 
 coln Had Studied, Weighed and Carefully 
 Analyzed the Tariff Liegislation of the 
 United States.»» 
 
 "Whether the Protective policy shall 
 be finally abandoned is now the question. 
 (Discussion and experience already had, 
 and question now in greater dispute 
 than ever. Has there not been some 
 great error in the mode of discussion? 
 Propose a single issue of fa(tt, namely: 
 From 1816 to the present, have Pro- 
 tected articles cost us more of labor 
 during the higher than during the lower 
 duties upon them? Introduce the evi- 
 dence. Analyze this issue, and try to 
 show that it embraces the true and 
 whole question of the Protective policy. 
 Intended as a test of experience. The 
 period selected is fair, because it is a 
 period of peace — a period sufficiently 
 long (to) furnish a fair average under 
 all other causes operating on prices, a 
 period in which various modifications 
 of higher and lower duties have occur- 
 red. Protected articles only are em- 
 braced. Show that these only belong to 
 the question. The labor price only is 
 embraced. Show this to be correct. 
 
 Effect of Duties Upon Prices. 
 
 "I suppose the true effect of duties 
 upon prices to be as follows: If a 
 certain duty be levied upon an article 
 which by nature cannot be produced in 
 this country, as three cents a pound 
 upon coffee, the effect will be that the 
 consumer will pay one cent more per 
 pound than before, the producer will 
 take one cent less and the merchant one 
 cent less in profits; In other words, the 
 
 burden of the duty will (be) distributed 
 over consumption, production and com- 
 merce, and not confined to either. But if 
 a duty amounting to full Protection be 
 levied upon an article which can be pro- 
 duced here with as little labor as else- 
 where, as iron, that article will ultimate- 
 ly and at no distant day, in consequence 
 of such duty, be sold to our people 
 cheaper than before, at least, by the 
 amount of the cost of carrying it from 
 abroad. 
 
 Useless Labor. 
 "First as to useless labor. Before 
 proceeding, however, it may be as well 
 to give a specimen of what I conceive 
 to be useless labor. I say, then, that all 
 carrying, and incidents of carrying, of 
 articles from the place of their produc- 
 tion to a distant place for consumption, 
 which articles could be produced of as 
 good quality, in sufficient quantity and 
 with as little labor at the place of con- 
 sumption as at the place carried from, is 
 useless labor. Applying this principle 
 to our own country by an example, 
 let us suppose that A and B are a 
 Pennsylvania farmer and a Pennsylvania 
 iron maker, whose lands are adjoining. 
 Under the Protective policy A is fur- 
 nishing B with bread and meat, and 
 vegetables and fruits, and food for 
 horses and oxen, and fresh supplies of 
 hordes and oxen themselves occasionally 
 and receiving in exchange all the iron, 
 iron utensils, tools and implements he 
 needs. In this process of exchange each 
 receives the whole of that which the 
 other parts with, and the reward of labor 
 between them is perfect; each receiving 
 the product of just so much labor as he 
 has himself bestowed on what he parts 
 with for it. But the change comes. The 
 Protective policy is abandoned, and A 
 determines to buy his iron and iron 
 manufactures of C in Europe. This he 
 can only do by a direct or an indirect ex- 
 change of the produce of his farm for 
 them. We will suppose the direct ex- 
 change is adopted. In this A desires to 
 exchange ten barrels of flour — the pre- 
 cise product of one hundred days' labor — 
 for the largest quantitj' of iron, etc., that 
 he can get. C also wishes to exchange 
 the precise product, in iron, of one hun- 
 dred days' labor for the greatest quan- 
 tity of flour he can get. In intrinsic 
 value the things to be so exchanged are 
 precisely equal. 
 
 "Wasteful Transportation. 
 
 "But before this exchange can take 
 place the flour must be carried from 
 Pennsylvania to England and the iron 
 from England to Pennsylvania. The 
 flour starts. The wagoner who hauls it 
 to Philadelphia takes a part of it to pay 
 him for his labor; then a merchant there 
 takes a little more for storage and for- 
 warding commission, and another takes 
 a little more for insurance; and then the 
 shipowner carries it across the water 
 and takes a little more of it for his 
 
 12 
 
trouble. Still, before it reaches C it is 
 tolled two or three times more for stor- 
 age, drayag-e, commission, and so on; so 
 when C gets it there are but seven and 
 a half barrels of it left. The iron, too, 
 In its transit from England to Pennsyl- 
 vania goes through the same process of 
 tolling, so that when it reaches A there 
 are but three-quarters of it left. The 
 result of this case is that A and C have 
 each parted with one hundred days' labor 
 and each received but seventy-five in re- 
 turn. That the carrying in this case was 
 introduced by A ceasing to buy of B and 
 turning (to) C; that it was utterly use- 
 less, and that it is ruinous in its effects 
 upon A, are all little less than self-evi- 
 dent. "But," asks one, "if A is now only 
 getting three-quarters as much iron from 
 C for ten barrels of flour as he used to 
 get of B, why does he not turn back to 
 B?" The answer is: "B has quit mak- 
 ing iron, and so has none to sell." "But 
 why did B quit making?" "Because A 
 quit buying of him, and he had no other 
 customer to sell to." "But, surely, A did 
 not cease buying of B with the expecta- 
 tion of buying of C on harder terms?" 
 "Certainly not. Let me tell you how that 
 was. When B was making iron as well 
 as C, B had but one customer, this far- 
 mer A: C had four customers in Europe." 
 
 Falsity of the "Cheapest Market'* Theory. 
 
 It seems to be an opinion very gener- 
 ally entertained that the condition of a 
 nation is best whenever it can buy 
 cheapest; but this is not necessarily 
 true, because if, at the same time and 
 by the same cause, it is compelled to 
 sell correspondingly cheap, nothing is 
 gained. Then it is said the best con- 
 dition is when we can buy cheapest and 
 sell dearest; but this again is not neces- 
 sarily true, because with both these we 
 might have scarcely anything to sell, or, 
 which is the same thing, to buy with. 
 To illustrate this, suppose a man in the 
 present state of things is laboring the 
 year round, at ten dollars per month, 
 which amounts in the year to ?120. A 
 change in affairs enables him to buy sup- 
 plies at half the former price, to get 
 fifty dollars per month for his labor, but 
 at the same time deprives him of em- 
 ployment during all the months of the 
 year, but one. In this case, though 
 goods have fallen one-half, and labor 
 risen five to one, it is still plain that at 
 the end of the year the laborer is twenty 
 dollars poorer than under the old state of 
 things. 
 
 Value of Constant E^mployment. 
 
 These reflections show that to reason 
 and act correctly on this subject we 
 must look not merely to buying cheap, 
 nor yet to buying cheap and selling dear, 
 but also to having constant employ- 
 ment, so that we may have the largest 
 possible amount of something to sell. 
 This matter of employment can only be 
 secured by an ample, steady, and certain 
 
 market to sell the products of our labor 
 in. 
 
 But let us yield the point, and admit 
 that by abandoning the Protective policy 
 our farmers can purchase their supplies 
 of manufactured articles cheaper than 
 by continuing it; and then let us see 
 whether, even at that, they will upon the 
 whole be gainers by the change. To sim- 
 plify this question, let us suppose the 
 whole agricultural interest of the 
 country to be in the hands of one man, 
 who has one hundred laborers in his 
 employ; the whole manufacturing inter- 
 est to be in the hands of one other man, 
 who has twenty laborers in his employ. 
 The farmer owns all the plow and pas- 
 ture land, and the manufacturer all the 
 iron mines and coal banks and 
 sites of water power. Each is 
 pushing on his way, and obtain- 
 ing supplies from the other so far 
 as he needs — that is, the manufac- 
 turer is buying of the farmer all the 
 cotfon he can use in his cotton factory; 
 all the wool he can use in his woolen 
 establishment; all the bread and meats 
 as well as all the fruits and vegetables 
 which are necessary for himself and all 
 his hands in all his departments; all 
 the corn and oats and hay which are nec- 
 essary for all his horses and oxen, as 
 well as fresh supplies of horses and 
 oxen themselves to do all his heavy haul- 
 ing about his iron works and generally 
 of every sort. The farmer in turn is buy- 
 ing of the manufacturer all the iron, iron 
 tools, wooden tools, cotton goods, woolen 
 goods, etc., that he needs in his business 
 and for his hands. 
 
 Must Have Something: to Buy With. 
 
 But after a while the farmer discovers 
 that were it not for the Protective 
 policy he could buy all of these supplies 
 cheaper from a European manufacturer, 
 owing to the fact that the price of labor 
 is only one-quarter as high there as here. 
 He and his hands are a majority of the 
 whole, and, therefore, have the legal and 
 moral right to have their interest first 
 consulted. They throw off the Protec- 
 ' five policy and the farmer ceases buying 
 of the home manufacturer. Very soon, 
 however, he discovers that to buy even 
 at the cheaper rate requires something 
 to buy with, and somehow or other he 
 is falling down in this particular. 
 
 All Things Belong; to Labor. 
 
 In the early days of our race the Al- 
 mighty said to the first of our race "In 
 the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat 
 bread"; and since then, if we except the 
 light and the air of heaven, no good 
 thing has been or can be enjoyed by us 
 without having first cost labor. And, 
 inasmuch, as most good things are pro- 
 duced by labor, it follows that all such 
 things of right belong to those whose 
 labor has produced them. But it has 
 so happened In all the ages of the 
 world that some have labored and 
 
 13 
 
others have without labor enjoyed a 
 large proportion of the fruits. This is 
 wrong-, and should not continue. To 
 secure to each laborer the whole pro- 
 duct of his labor, or as nearly as possi- 
 ble, is a worthy object of any good 
 government. 
 
 H.OW Can Government Help? 
 
 But then, a question arises. How can 
 a government best effect this? In our 
 own country, in its present condition, 
 will the Protective principle advance or 
 retard this object? Upon this subject 
 the habits of our whole species fall into 
 three great classes — useful labor, use- 
 less labor and idleness. Of these the 
 first only is meritorious, and to it all 
 the products of labor rightfully belong; 
 but the two latter, while they exist, are 
 heavy pensioners upon the first, robbing 
 it of a large portion of its just rights. 
 The only remedy for this is to, so far as 
 possible, drive useless labor and idle- 
 ness out of existence. And first, as to 
 useless labor. Befonfc making war upon 
 this, we must learn to distinguish it 
 from the useful. It appears to me that 
 all labor done directly and indirectly in 
 carrying articles to the place of con- 
 sumption, which could have been pro- 
 duced in sufficient abundance, with as 
 little labor, at the place of consumption 
 as at the place where they were carried 
 from, is useless labor, 
 
 Xeedless Labor in Carrying. 
 
 Let us take a few examples of the 
 application of this principle to our own 
 country. Iron and everything made of 
 iron can be produced in sufficient abun- 
 dance, and with as little labor in the 
 United States as anywhere else in the 
 world, therefore, all labor done in bring- 
 ing iron and its fabrics from a foreign 
 country to the United States is useless 
 labor. The same precisely may be said 
 of cotton, wool and of their fabrics, re- 
 spectively, as well as many other arti- 
 cles. While the uselessness of the 
 carrying labor is equally true of all the 
 articles mentioned, and of many others 
 not mentioned, it is perhaps more glar- 
 ingly obvious in relation to the cotton 
 goods we purchase from abroad. The 
 raw cotton from which they are made 
 itself grows in our own country, is car- 
 ried by land and by water to England, 
 is there spun, woven, dyed, stamped, 
 etc., and then carried back again and 
 worn in the very country where it 
 grew, and partly by the very persons 
 who grew it. Why should it not be 
 spun, wove, etc., in the very neighbor- 
 hood where it both grows and is con- 
 sumed, and the carrying thereby dis'- 
 pensed with? Has nature interposed 
 any obstacle? Are not all the agents — 
 animal power, water power and steam 
 power — as good and as abundant here 
 as elsewhere? Will not as small an 
 amount of human labor answer here as 
 elsewhere? We may easily see that the 
 
 cost of this useless labor is very heavy. 
 It includes not only the cost of actual 
 carriage, but also the insurance of every 
 kind, and the profits of the merchants 
 through whose hands it passes. All 
 these create a heavy burden necessarily 
 falling upon the useful labor connected 
 with such articles, either depressing the 
 price to the producer or advancing it to 
 the consumer, or, what is more probable, 
 doing both in part. 
 
 Cotton as an Illustration. 
 
 A supposed case will serve to illus- 
 trate several points now to the purpose. 
 A, in the interior of South Carolina, 
 has one hundred pounds of cotton, 
 which he supposes to be the precise 
 product of one man's labor for twenty 
 days. B, in Manchester, England, has 
 one hundred yards of cotton cloth, the 
 precise product of the same amount of 
 labor. This lot of cotton and lot of 
 cloth are precisely equal to each other 
 in their intrinsic value. But A wishes 
 to part with his cotton for the largest 
 quantity of cloth he can get. B also 
 wishes to part with his cloth for the 
 greatest quantity of cotton he can get. 
 An exchange is, therefore, necessary; 
 but before this can be effected the cot- 
 ton must be carried to Manchester and 
 the cloth to South Carolina. 
 
 To Manchester and Back. 
 
 The cotton starts to Manchester. The 
 man that hauls it to Charleston in his 
 wagon takes a little out of it to pay 
 him for his trouble; the merchant who 
 stores it awhile before the ship is ready 
 to sail takes a little out for his trouble; 
 the shipowner who carries it across the 
 water takes a little out for his trouble. 
 Still, before it gets to Manchester it is 
 tolled two or three times more for dray- 
 age, storage, commission, and so on, so 
 that when it reaches B's hands there 
 are but seventy-five pounds of it left. 
 The cloth, too, in its transit from Man- 
 chester to South Carolina goes through 
 the same process of tolling, so that 
 when it reaches A there are but seven- 
 ty-five yards of it. Now, in this case, 
 A and B each have parted with twenty 
 days' labor, and each received but fif- 
 teen in return. But let us suppose that 
 B has removed to the side of A's farm 
 in South Carolina, and has there made 
 his lot of cloth. Is it not clear that he 
 and A can then exchange their cloth and 
 cotton, each getting the whole of what 
 the other parts with? 
 
 Imposes a Direct Burden. 
 
 This supposed case of carrying 100 
 pounds of cotton to Manchester and 
 bringing back 100 yards of cotton cloth 
 to South Carolina shows the utter use- 
 lessness of the carrying labor in all 
 similar cases, and also the direct burden 
 it imposes upon useful labor. And 
 
 whoever will take up the train of re- 
 flection suggested by this case and run 
 it out to the full extent of its just ap- 
 
 14 
 
plication, will be astonished at the 
 amount of useless labor he will thus dis- 
 cover to be done in this very way. I 
 am mistaken if it is not in fact many 
 times over equal to all the real want in 
 the world. This useless labor I would 
 have discontinued, and those engaged 
 In it added to the class of useful labor- 
 ers. If I be asked whether I would de- 
 stroy all commerce, I answer, Certainly 
 not; I would continue it where it is 
 necessary and discontinue it where it is 
 not. An instance: I would continue 
 commerce so far as it is employed in 
 bringing us coffee, and I would dis- 
 continue it so far as it is employed in 
 bringing us cotton goods. 
 
 Would the Farmer Be the Gainer? 
 
 But let us yield the point and admit 
 by abandoning the Protective policy our 
 farmers can purchase their supplies of 
 manufactured articles cheaper than be- 
 fore; and then let us see whether, even 
 at that, the farmers will upon the whole 
 be gainers by the change. To simplify 
 this question, let us suppose our whole 
 population toi consist of but twenty 
 men. Under the prevalence of the Pro- 
 tective policy, fifteen of these are farm- 
 ers, one is a miller, one manufactures 
 iron, one implements from iron, one cot- 
 ton goods, and one woolen goods. The 
 farmers discover that, owing to labor 
 only costing one-quarter as much in 
 Europe as here, they can buy iron, iron 
 implements, cotton goods and woolen 
 goods cheaper when brought from Eu- 
 rope than when made by their neigh- 
 bors. They are the majority, and there- 
 fore have both the legal and moral 
 right to have their interest first con- 
 sulted. They throw off the Protective 
 policy and cease buying these articles 
 of their neighbors. But they soon dis- 
 cover that to buy, and at the cheaper 
 rate, requires something to buy with. 
 
 Nothing Doing at the Furnace. 
 
 Falling short in this particular, one 
 of these farmers takes a load of wheat 
 to the miller and gets it made into 
 flour, and starts, as has been his cus- 
 tom, to the iron furnace. He ap- 
 proaches the well-known spot, but, 
 strange to say, all is cold and still as 
 death; no smoke rises, no furnace roars, 
 no anvil rings. 
 
 After some search he finds the owner 
 of the desolate place and calls out to 
 him: "Come, Vulcan, don't you want to 
 buy a load of flour?" 
 
 "Why," says "Vulcan, "I am hungry 
 enough, to be sure; haven't tasted bread 
 for a week, but then you see my works 
 are stopped and I have nothing to give 
 you for your flour." 
 
 "But, Vulcan, why don't you go to 
 work and get something?" 
 
 "I am ready to do so; will you hire 
 me, farmer?" 
 
 "Oh, no; I could only set you to rais- 
 ing wheat; and you see I have more of 
 
 that already than I can get anything 
 for." 
 
 "But give me employment and send 
 your flour to Europe for a market." 
 
 "Why, Vulcan; how silly you talk. 
 Don't you know they raise wheat in 
 Europe as well as here, and labor is so 
 cheap there as to fix the price of flour 
 there so low as scarcely to pay the 
 long carriage of it from here, leaving 
 nothing whatever to me?" 
 
 "But, farmer, couldn't you pay to 
 raise and prepare gardenstufCs and 
 fruits, such as radishes, cabbages, Irish 
 and sweet potatoes, cucumbers, water- 
 melons and muskmelons, plums, pears, 
 peaches, apples, and the like? All these 
 are good things and used to sell well." 
 
 "So they did use to sell well, but It 
 was to you we sold them, and now you 
 tell us you have nothing to buy with. 
 Of course, I cannot sell such things to 
 the other farmers, because each of them 
 raises enough for himself, and, in fact, 
 rather wishes to sell than to buy. 
 Neither can I send them to Europe for 
 a market, because, to say nothing of 
 European markets being stocked with 
 such articles at lower prices than I can 
 afford, they are of such a nature as to 
 rot before they could reach there. The 
 truth is, Vulcan, I am compelled to quit 
 raising these things altogether, except 
 a few for my own use, and this leaves 
 part of my own time idle on my hands, 
 instead of my finding employment for 
 you." 
 
 Useless Labor as Bad as Idleness. 
 
 "If at any time all labor should cease 
 and all existing provisions be equally 
 divided among the people, at the end of 
 a single year there could scarcely be 
 one human being left alive; all would 
 have perished by want of subsistence. 
 So, again, if upon such division all that 
 sort of labor which produces provisions 
 should cease, and each individual should 
 take up so much of his share as he 
 could and carry it continually arouna 
 his habitation, although in this carry- 
 ing the amount of labor going on might 
 be as great as ever, so long as it could 
 last, at the end of the year the result 
 would be precisely the same — that is, 
 none would be left living. 
 
 "The first of these propositions shows 
 that universal idleness would speedily 
 result in universal ruin, and the second 
 shows that useless labor is, in this re- 
 spect, the same as idleness. I submit, 
 then, whether it does not follow that 
 partial idleness and partial useless la- 
 bor would, in the proportion of their 
 extent, in like manner, result in partial 
 ruin; whether, if all should subsist upon 
 the labor that one-half should perform, 
 it would not result in very scanty allow- 
 ance to the whole. 
 
 "Believing that these propositions and 
 the conclusions I draw from them can- 
 not be successfully controverted, I for 
 the present assume their correctness, 
 
 IS 
 
and proceed to try to show that the 
 abandonment of the Protective policy 
 by the American Government must re- 
 sult in the increase of both useless 
 labor and idleness, and so, in propor- 
 tion, must produce want and ruin 
 among- our people." 
 
 Lincoln's Arguments Analyzed. 
 
 The "Fragments of Tariff Discussion" 
 Is an exceedingly valuable document, 
 not alone because it contains Lincoln's 
 views on some of the fundamental prin- 
 ciples underlying- the controversy, but 
 for the plain, simple and original meth- 
 od employed in illustrating them. Lin- 
 coln had gone to the very root of the 
 whole question, and discovered the true 
 relation of domestic exchanges to the 
 public welfare. He draws a clear dis- 
 tinction between domestic exchanges 
 and foreign trade. He emphasizes the 
 value of a home market over a foreign 
 market, the importance of the employ- 
 ment of home labor instead of foreign 
 labor, and the interdependence of one 
 industry or occupation upon another as 
 well as of individuals upon each other. 
 
 Protection Reduces Prices. 
 
 He even goes into some of the phases 
 of the practical operation of Protective 
 duties in their effect on prices, and 
 points out the distinction in this re- 
 spect between duties on articles not 
 produced in the United States and on 
 domestic production. As to the later, 
 he says: 
 
 "But if a duty amounting to full Pro- 
 tection be levied upon an article which 
 can be produced here with as little 
 labor as elsewhere, as iron, that article 
 Will ultimately and at no distant day, 
 in consequence of such duty, be sold to 
 our people cheaper than before, at least, 
 by the amount of the cost of carrying 
 it from abroad." 
 
 The introductory paragraph shows 
 that Lincoln based this statement upon 
 the experience of the American people 
 Under the several Tariff laws from 1816 
 down to the time he wrote, that he con- 
 sidered only Protected articles; that the 
 period covered was a period of peace 
 and sufficiently long to furnish a fair 
 average under all other causes operat- 
 ingr on prices. 
 
 "When the Greatest Progress Was Made. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln chose a period of peace 
 for consideration, extending from the 
 close of the War of 1812, to the time he 
 wrote. Although certain manufactures 
 had their beginning under the Tariff 
 laws enacted prior to the War of 1812, 
 and others were brought into existence 
 during that struggle, the period covered 
 by him embraces the years when the 
 greatest progress was made in the es- 
 tablishment and growth of the manu- 
 factures of the United States. In 1789 
 we were a nation of farmers from 
 Maine to Florida. In 1850 the census 
 
 of the United States of manufacturing: 
 industries sliowed an investment of cap- 
 ital of $533,245,000; raw materials 
 worked up $555,000,000; male hands em- 
 ployed, 731,137; female hands employed, 
 225,922; wages paid, $236,755,000; value 
 of the production, $1,019,106,616; 86 per 
 cent, of which was produced in the fif- 
 teen free States. The manufactures 
 consisted of the coarser and more ordi- 
 nary sorts of commodities in common 
 use among the people, and were as fol- 
 lov7s: Woolens, carpets, hosiery, cotton 
 goods, glass, leather and manufactures 
 of leather; boots and shoes, paper, hats, 
 cabinet ware, furniture, manufactures 
 from flax and hemp, silk, sugar, tobacco, 
 candles, lead, red and white lead, but- 
 tons, certain chemicals, the production 
 of pig and bar iron, castings, a great 
 variety of manufactures from iron, and 
 a great variety of other articles of less 
 importance. 
 
 Confirmatory History On Decline In 
 Prices. 
 
 It is a significant fact in support of 
 Mr. Lincoln's statement that the great 
 decline in prices of commodities took 
 place in those articles which were made 
 in the United States, while there was a 
 very slight decline in the prices of those 
 articles imported, which met with no 
 competition in the American market. 
 Ex-Governor Davis, of Massachusetts, 
 referring to this fact in his speech be- 
 fore Congress, in 1828, said: 
 
 "Another circumstances which has a 
 strong bearing upon this ought also to 
 be mentioned. Goods which have been 
 manufactured here have experienced a 
 greater decline than those which we 
 have not manufactured. 
 
 "Coarse and middling cassimers have 
 fallen half, while the finest qualities 
 have declined no more than 12 1^ per 
 cent. These facts show that the foreign 
 supplies of cloths have been forced into 
 our market, and the effect has been to 
 sink the price both here and in Eng- 
 land. The progress of this decline has 
 kept pace very accurately with the in- 
 crease of business in this country. This 
 struggle for the market could produce 
 no other effect. The principal depres- 
 sion is occasioned by our competition 
 with England." 
 
 Savings Through Protection. 
 
 Mr. Young, from Connecticut, in his 
 speech before Congress the same year 
 said: 
 
 "We know that coarse cotton cloths 
 below about No, 25 have been fairly 
 Protected; those from that to about No. 
 45 or 50 partially Protected; those above 
 that very slightly, including what are 
 termed, in our Tariff, cambrics, muslins, 
 etc. And what has been the result? 
 While the fine cottons, which include a 
 greater proportion of labor, and should 
 have fallen lower, have only fallen from 
 15 to 25 per cent, (not so much as your 
 
 16 
 
agricultural produce in the same time), 
 coarse cotton goods have fallen from 50 
 to 75 per cent. This case I have put for 
 the double purpose of exemplifying the 
 effects of our Protection and competi- 
 tion in those articles we manufacture, 
 and of showing the use the foreigner 
 makes of our market, so far as he sup- 
 plies and controls it. 
 
 "I will give another instance, exem- 
 plifying the same effects, more palpable 
 and decisive, probably. I allude to 
 common crockery ware and common 
 glassware, both imported and sold by 
 the same class of merchants generally. 
 Glass and glassware, we know, have 
 received * such Protection as to excite 
 powerful competition. While the man- 
 ufacture of common enameled and print- 
 ed wares had as yet scarcely been at- 
 tempted in this country, some brown 
 wares and imitation Delphian wares 
 have been common, and some new man- 
 ufactories of porcelain are lately prom- 
 ising success. But the common Liver- 
 pool ware, as it is often called, has at 
 all times occupied, commanded and con- 
 trolled our market, and regulated its 
 prices. And what has been the result? 
 While one has hardly fallen 15 per cent., 
 the other has, in many branches of it, 
 fallen 75 per cent. And the opposers 
 of this system, who complained so much 
 of its injustice and oppression, are now 
 actually saving 25 per cent, or more on 
 their glasswares in consequence of this 
 Protection, and losing the same amount 
 on their earthen wares for the want of 
 such Protection. 
 
 "Our coarse cottons are sucessfully 
 competing with those of British manu- 
 facture. The greater mystery of our 
 competition in foreign markets is that 
 the English manufacturer cannot, and 
 if he could, he will not (where he can 
 avoid it) sell his goods at our present 
 reduced prices, where he can command 
 the market. The American manufac- 
 turer asks no better business than to 
 sell his goods at the English market 
 price, where the English manufacturer 
 and merchant have the trade." 
 
 "How is it with the Georgia planter?" 
 asked Mr. Wilde, of Georgia. "He sends 
 a cargo of cotton and receives in return 
 a cargo of cottons, woolens and hard- 
 ware. But a duty is levied on the 
 homeward cargo in the United States of 
 40 per cent. If he could contrive to throw 
 this duty on the consumer, he might be 
 able to get a fair remuneration for his 
 slave labor, but he cannot. He is met in 
 the United States by the domestic manu- 
 facturer. If he were to add the duty to 
 the price of his goods the domestic man- 
 ufacturer would undersell him. 
 
 A Few Instances Mentioned. 
 
 A few instances of the decline of tlie 
 prices of cotton goods may be cited: 
 Merrimac prints, which in 1855 averaged 
 '25.07 cents per yard at the factory, de- 
 clined to 16 cents in 1830, 12 cents in 
 
 17 
 
 1840, 10.90 cents In 1845, and 9.24 cents 
 in 1S50. The cotton fabrics made at 
 Waltham, staple articles, were year by 
 year reduced in price per yard as fol- 
 lows: 1816, 30 cents per yard; 1819, 21 
 cents; 1826, 13 cents; 1829, SV2 cents, and 
 in 1843, had declined to 6^ cents per 
 yard. The price of cotton machinery fell 
 320 per cent, from 1810 to 1830, all 
 brought about by the establishment of 
 manufactories in the United States, Which 
 came into competition with the foreign 
 manufactures and forced down the price 
 of foreign manufactures, and this con- 
 tinued to reduce the price more and mord 
 as the industries were developed and ex- 
 tended. 
 
 This was true of all of the industries 
 which were established in the United 
 States during this period under Protec- 
 tion high enough to secure to them the 
 American market. From 1818 to 1830 
 the price of bar iron was reduced at 
 Pittsburg from $190 per ton to $100 per 
 ton; boiler iron from $350 per ton to 
 $140 per ton; sheet iron from $18.00 per 
 hundredweight to $8.50; hoop iron from 
 $250 to $120; axes from $24 per dozen to 
 $12 per dozen; brazier's rods in 1824 were 
 imported at a cost of $313 per ton, and 
 in 1831 sold for $130. In 1816 the Amer- 
 ican people were importing nails from 
 Great Britain and paying 16 cents a 
 pound, and a duty of 5 cents a pound 
 was imposed, and by 1830 the entire 
 American market was being supplied at 
 6»^ cents a pound. 
 
 Lincoln Opposed to Foreign Trade in 
 Competing; Commodities. We Sliould 
 Supply tlte American Marlset with. 
 Goods Made In American In- 
 dustries by American Labor. 
 "If it be asked," says Lincoln, 
 "whether l would destroy all commerce, I 
 answer certainly not. I would continue 
 it where it is necessary and discontinue 
 it where it is not. An instance, I would 
 continue commerce so far as it is em- 
 ployed in bringing us coffee, and I would 
 discontinue it so far as it is employed 
 in bringing us cotton goods." 
 
 Here Lincoln attacked the vitals of 
 Free-Trade. The traders of the world, 
 those who buy in one country to sell in 
 another, as well as the foreign manu- 
 facturer, never objected to our imposing 
 duties on tea, coffee, spices, and those 
 natural products the like of which can- 
 not be produced at home. These things 
 we must have and will have, whether 
 made dutiable or not. But when we im- 
 pose Protective duties on cotton goods, 
 woolens, manufactures of iron and other 
 articles for the purpose of causing their 
 production at home, then foreign com- 
 merce is interfered with, and a great hue 
 and cry is raised that Protection "de- 
 stroys commerce." Importers are de- 
 prived of commissions, foreign manufac- 
 turers of profits, ship owners of freight 
 rates, bankers of discounts, and ex- 
 change, and the marine insurance com- 
 
parties of premiums; so all of these in- 
 terests favor the sending of iron, copper, 
 lead, cotton, wool, timber and all of the 
 raw materials which we produce across 
 the Atlantic Ocean to be there manu- 
 factured into the finished products which 
 are then to be sold to us, with all of the 
 profits and expenses of these middlemen 
 added to the price. These same great 
 captains of foreign commerce also desire 
 that the raw materials of all countries be 
 also shipped to the great manufacturing 
 centers of the Old World that all of the 
 manufacturing be done there. 
 
 "What Lincoln Called ^'Useless Labor." 
 
 The enormous expense of transporting 
 raw materials from the United States to 
 foreign countries and bringing back the 
 finished products, which Lincoln calls 
 "useless labor," he would have abolished 
 by excluding the foreigner from our mar- 
 ket and forcing the manufacturing to be 
 done in American mills by American la- 
 bor, thereby securing to American labor 
 and capital all of the profits and com- 
 pensation for effecting every step in the 
 process of production, manufacture, 
 transportation and marketing. By this 
 means, a vast home trade would be built 
 up; the spendable income of the people 
 multiplied; the country flourish and grow 
 by industrial effort, and the people be- 
 come enriched and independent by re- 
 taining among themselves the fruits of 
 their own industry. Useless labor would 
 be abolished by dispensing with needless 
 transportation, and idleness would 
 be abolished by keeping the American 
 people employed. Lincoln well under- 
 stood that the true source of a nation's 
 wealth and power was the development 
 and utilization of its own natural re- 
 sources, its land, its mines, the machin- 
 ery, the waterpowers, and the full em- 
 ployment of its labor, and the conduct of 
 all of its business by its own people. 
 
 home: trade is more valuable to 
 a nation than foreign trade. 
 
 Lincoln's Famous Epigram. 
 
 The editor of the Harvard Independent 
 (Harvard, Illinois), on June 9, 1894, said: 
 
 "Abraham Lincoln's first speech on the 
 Tariff question was short and to the 
 point. He said that he did not pretend 
 to be learned in political economy, but 
 he thought he knew enough to know 
 that 'when an American paid Twenty 
 Dollars for steel to an English manufac- 
 turer, America had the steel and Eng- 
 land had the Twenty Dollars. But when 
 he paid Twenty Dollars for steel to an 
 American manufacturer, America had 
 both the steel and the Twenty Dollars.' 
 That was the sum and substance of the 
 Tariff question as he viewed it." 
 
 Adam Smith In 1776. 
 
 We may write pages on the subject; 
 we may quote Adam Smith, Sir John 
 Barnard Byles, the writings of Henry 
 
 C. Carey, or the speeches of Thomas B. 
 Reed, and prove the proposition by argu- 
 ments and statistics, yet for a simple, 
 plain and convincing statement of the 
 great fact, we must revert to Lincoln's 
 epigram. The epigram had been quoted 
 so many times without its authenticity 
 having been questioned, that the writer 
 used it in "The Industrial Development 
 of Nations," (published in 1912), firmly 
 believing that it was genuine and with- 
 out the slightest intimation from any 
 source to the contrary. It appears now 
 that doubt has been thrown on its genu- 
 ineness, yet it has not been shown that 
 these words were ever uttered by any 
 person other than Abraham .Lincoln, 
 Both Professor F. W. Taussig and Mr. D. 
 M. Matteson of Harvard University made 
 a great endeavor to trace the phrase to 
 its origin and discover evidence to es- 
 tablish that it was not uttered by Lin- 
 coln. Prof. Taussig in an article en- 
 titled "Abraham Lincoln on the Tariff — a 
 Myth," published in the Quarterly Jour- 
 nal of Economics, August 19, 1914, 
 says that "the first mention which we 
 have found is in the American Econo- 
 mist." He then states that the American 
 Economist on June 29, 1894, published 
 it as having been copied from the How- 
 ard Independent of Howard, Illinois, on 
 June 9, 1894. It liaving been ascertained 
 that there was no such paper as "The 
 Howard Independent" and being unable 
 to find a reference to it in any of the 
 published works on Lincoln, it was con- 
 cluded by Prof. Taussig that the whole 
 story was "a myth." Upon further in- 
 vestigation, however, he discovered that 
 the word "Howard" as used in the Ameri- 
 can Economist was a misprint, and that 
 the article first appeared in the Harvard 
 Independent of Harvard, Illinois, on June 
 9, 1894. (See "Lincoln on the Tariff — a 
 Sequel" by F. W. Taussig. Quarterly 
 Journal of Economics, February, 1915). 
 
 It should be noted, however, that in 
 these articles written by Prof. Taussig, 
 and in the criticisms made by others on 
 the use which was being made of the 
 epigram by attributing it to Abraham 
 Lincoln, no question was raised but that 
 Lincoln was in fact a Protectionist, it 
 being contended simply that sufl[icient 
 proof has not been found to justify a 
 claim that Abraham Lincoln ever uttered 
 the words attributed to him. The writer 
 of this article made an investigation of 
 the subject to ascertain who wrote the 
 editorial for the Harvard Independent of 
 June 9, 1894. He visited the village of 
 Harvard (McHenry County), Illinois, 
 late in January, 1916; called at the print- 
 ing office and interviewed Mr. M. J. Em- 
 erson, the present editor and proprietor 
 of the paper. In the printing office he saw 
 a copy of the Independent which con- 
 tained the editorial, and ascertained that 
 the article in question was written by 
 Otis S. Eastman, deceased, and later 
 received from Mr. Emerson a letter, of 
 which the following is a copy: 
 
 18 
 
"Established 1866, 
 "Hai'vard Independent. 
 "M. J, Emerson, Editor and Proprietor. 
 "Harvard, Illinois, March 3, 1916. 
 
 "Hon, George B. Curtiss, Binghamton, 
 New York. My dear Mr. Curtiss: Am 
 sending under separate cover a copy of 
 the Harvard Independent of May 27, 1897, 
 containing the obituary notice of Mr. 
 Otis S. Eastman. 
 
 "I was personally acquainted with said 
 Mr, Eastman for a period of twenty years. 
 He was appointed my legal guardian in 
 July, 1888. I have positive knowledge 
 of the fact that he was the editor of the 
 Harvard Independent in June, 1894; that 
 he was the sole editor of said paper at 
 that time, and that he wrote the edi- 
 torial published therein on June 9, 1894, 
 of which the following is an exact copy: 
 
 " 'Abraham Lincoln's first speech on the 
 Tariff question was short and to the 
 point. He said that he did not pretend 
 to be learned in political economy, but 
 he thought that he knew enough to know 
 that "when an American paid twenty dol- 
 lars for steel to an English manufactur- 
 er, America had the steel and England 
 had the twenty dollars. But when he 
 paid twenty dollars for steel to an Amer- 
 ican manufacturer, America had both the 
 steel and the twenty dollars," That was 
 the sum and substance of the Tariff 
 question as he viewed it.' 
 
 "Mr. Eastman was a great student of 
 the Tariff question and of politics and 
 was a very learned and capable man. ,He 
 was a lifelong Republican and an en- 
 thusiastic Protectionist. 
 
 "Mr. Eastman died at Harvard, Mc- 
 Henry County, Illinois, on May 23, 1897. 
 
 "Trusting that the above information 
 will be of some use to you, and assuring 
 you that if I can be of any further serv- 
 ice to you in this matter, please have 
 no hesitancy in advising me, and I will 
 endeavor to attend to the same with 
 more promptness than I did in this one. 
 
 "With kindest regards, and best wishes 
 for the successful completion of your 
 wdrk on the Tariff, I beg to remain. 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 "M. J. EMERSON." 
 
 tn the above letter we have conclusive 
 proof that the editorial containing the 
 epigram was written by Otis S. Eastman, 
 "a great student of the Tariff question 
 and of politics and a very learned and 
 capable man." 
 
 "Who, Then, Was Otis S. Bastman? 
 
 Who, then, was Otis S. Eastman, who 
 made this important statement of words 
 uttered by Abraham Lincoln? Upon the 
 decease of Mr. Eastman, which occurred 
 on May 23, 1897, the Harvard Independ- 
 ent on the following Thursday, May 27, 
 published the following obituary account 
 of his life and character: 
 
 "Otis S. Eastman Passed Away. 
 "An Honored Career, 
 "Well Known Newspaper Man and Form- 
 er Editor of the Independent. 
 
 "Otis S. Eastman died at his home in 
 this city last Sunday morning, after a 
 lingering illness of over two years, aged 
 64 years. 
 
 "The deceased was born in Benton, 
 N. H„ Feb. 10, 1833, and moved to •Man- 
 chester, that State, in March, 1845, grad- 
 uating from the High School in 1850. At 
 the age of 17 years he entered the Union- 
 Democrat office in Manchester and learn- 
 ed the printer's trade. He worked in the 
 Boston Pathfinder office with Charles F. 
 Brown (Artemus Ward) and B. P. Shill- 
 aber (Ma'am Partington) and was after- 
 ward employed on the Boston daily 
 papers. He learned the book and press 
 department in the book office of Allen & 
 Farnham in Cambridge, Mass., and had 
 charge of the press department of Thurs- 
 ton & Torrey in Boston, where Ticknor, 
 Fields & Co. had their printing done. He 
 went to New York City in 1854, having 
 charge of Holman & Gray's press depart- 
 ment of Putnam's Magazine. Later he 
 returned to Boston and had charge of the 
 Franklin Printing House from 1861 to 
 1865, printing the Atlantic Monthly. He 
 came West in 1866, working the year 
 previous to that in the University print- 
 ing office of Cambridge, Mass. On ar- 
 riving in Illinois he purchased the Fair- 
 bury Journal, which he published seven 
 years, returning to New Hampshire In 
 1873. A year later he established the 
 Journal in Suncook, N, H,, which he pub- 
 lished nine years. He went to Washing- 
 ton, D. C, in 1883 and was employed in 
 the document room of the Government 
 Printing Office until Cleveland's first 
 election, in 1884, when he resigned. From 
 June, 1885, to October of the same year 
 he was connected with the Niles, Michi- 
 gan, Republican, In October, 1885, he 
 purchased the Harvard Independent of 
 N. B. Burtch. He published this paper 
 nearly ten years, selling out to the pres- 
 ent firm the latter part of August, 1895, 
 
 "Mr. Eastman was married to Rachel 
 A. Dimick in 1855, by whom he had two 
 sons, Charles O. and Frederick L. The 
 latter died in Fairbury, in 1873, aged 12 
 years, Mrs, Eastman died in Manchester 
 in March, 1876, and Charles passed away 
 in the same city five years later, aged 
 23 years. 
 
 "The deceased was married to Harriet 
 M. Miles in Manchester, Nov. 10, 1885. 
 His wife and two sons, Otis M. and 
 Jesse C, survive him. 
 
 "He joined the Masonic fraternity in 
 New York City in 1855, the Royal Arch 
 Chapter in Fairbury, 111., in 1870, and 
 Trinity Commandery, Knights Templar, 
 in Manchester, in 1876. 
 
 "Mr. Eastman's life was an open book, 
 to be read of all men. He was a staunch 
 and fearless friend, frank and manly in 
 his every act and expression. He scorned 
 duplicity in any form, because he was 
 the soul of truthfulness, and was wont 
 to visit the severest condemnation upon 
 those who practiced it toward himself or 
 his friends. Socially he was of the most 
 
 19 
 
kindly nature, and while keen of obser- 
 vation, rarely saw anything to censure 
 In those to whom he had given his con- 
 fidence. His friendship once given he 
 was always loth to believe any evil of 
 the person upon whom it was bestowed, 
 and hQ never withdrew unless under 
 great provocation and only after irre- 
 fragible proof of the unworthiness of 
 the object of it. 
 
 "In his family relations Mr. Eastman 
 was resplendent. The wealth of his large 
 heart went out to those immediately sur- 
 rounding him with a largesse seldom 
 equaled, and only those who have wit- 
 nessed the unaffected manifestation of 
 affection for those embraced within the 
 charmed circle of his home could appre- 
 ciate his rare nature. They were all in 
 all to him. In their presence his eyes 
 beamed with love and his voice was at- 
 tuned to the sweetest sympathy. How- 
 ever stern and unyielding he might be 
 to others, he was led captive by his wife 
 and children, and their wishes his law. 
 Death, inexorable death has bereft his 
 friends and family of one who was very 
 dear to them, but the influence of his 
 life will be a benediction to all of them, 
 and his memory one of their richest 
 blessings. 
 
 Statement Was Not Fabricated. 
 
 The high character of Mr. Eastman at 
 once acquits him of any suspicion of 
 having fabricated the statement, or pub- 
 lished it without evidence which justi- 
 fied him in believing that he was correct- 
 ly quoting Lincoln's words. It should be 
 noted that for six years, from 1866 to 
 1873, he published a newspaper at Fair- 
 bury, Livingston County, Illinois, which 
 was located not far from Springfield and 
 in the district throughout which Lincoln 
 made many speeches early in his career 
 upon the Tariff issue. Mr. Eastman does 
 not say that the words were uttered in 
 Lincoln's "first speech" but in his "first 
 speech on the Tariff." It is a well known 
 fact that the anecdotes, sayings and do- 
 ings of Abraham Lincoln were quoted 
 and talked about by the people of Cen- 
 tral Illinois from the time he became 
 President, until those who knew him 
 personally or had heard him speak pass- 
 ed away. In fact his fame has grown 
 and spread until the whole civilized world 
 has become interested in his life and 
 character. The fact that the statement 
 does not appear in any of the written or 
 published reports of his speeches and 
 writings does not militate against its 
 genuineness, for but very few of the 
 stump speeches of Lincoln or Douglas or 
 Clay, or in fact any of the Western 
 statesmen of that age and period, were 
 published. This utterance was probably 
 handed down by tradition (as many 
 other sayings of Lincoln have been), and 
 Mr. Eastman was informed of it by some 
 one who heard Lincoln say it. This, 
 however, is to be said of it: it sounds 
 like Lincoln, it is Lincolnian in style, and 
 
 in this respect it is like other sayings 
 of the man which have come down to us 
 by tradition. Moreover, the epigram is 
 characteristic of the great emancipator; 
 it reads like one of his statements of a 
 great truth expressed in plain and sim- 
 ple language. Mr, Bryan said of Lin- 
 coln: 
 
 "He was a master of the power of 
 statement. Few have equaled him in 
 the ability to strip a truth of surplus 
 verbiage and present it in its naked 
 strength. He could state a question so 
 clearly that one could hardly misunder- 
 stand it, when he wanted to." 
 
 Henry Clay embellished his great ut- 
 terances with adjectives and beautiful 
 words. Webster's great expressions, al- 
 though many of them were short and toi 
 the point, were delivered in a style which 
 was characterized as Websterian, and so 
 there was an individuality about Lin- 
 coln's epigrams that is unmistakable. 
 This questioned epigram, if submitted 
 to one hundred students of Lincoln's style 
 for decision as to the name of the author, 
 would almost unanimously at once say 
 Lincoln. Moreover, Lincoln had made a 
 profound study, as is shown in "Frag- 
 ments of Tariff Discussion," of the very 
 phase of the Tariff question elucidated 
 by the epigram. He had considered fully 
 the value to a nation of buying at home 
 instead ot buying abroad. Hence it is 
 fair to conclude that until it is estab- 
 lished by competent evidence that the 
 epigram was uttered by some person 
 other than Lincoln, we shall believe that 
 Mr. Eastman's statement is true. 
 
 The idea embodied in this epigram is 
 not new. The great fact which it con- 
 tains was pointed out by Adam Smith In 
 his lectures late in the Eighteenth Cen- 
 tury. It is immaterial in illustrating the 
 fact, whether one uses "money" in ex- 
 change for goods, or whether it is as- 
 sumed that in trade indirectly goods are 
 paid for with goods. For if an American 
 exchanges twenty dollars' worth of wheat 
 with an English manufacturer for twetjty 
 dollars' worth of manufactured goods, 
 England has the wheat and America has 
 the goods, but when he exchanges the 
 twenty dollars' worth of wheat with a 
 Massachusetts manufacturer for twenty 
 dollars' worth of woolen goods, America 
 has both the wheat and the woolen goods. 
 Adam Smith carried the argument to the 
 point of showing how home exchanges 
 are most beneficial to a nation. It is an 
 old Protectionist argument that by a 
 system of home trade under Protection, 
 the United States would become a world 
 within itself, land as the fruits of the in- 
 dustry of the people were kept at home, 
 they would constantly multiply and grow, 
 and ultimately the people of the United 
 States would have a larger spendable 
 income each year than the people of any 
 nation practicing Free-Trade. In discuss- 
 ing the proposition in his "Wealth of Na- 
 tions," Adam Smith said (Wealth of Na- 
 tions, Book II, Chapter 5): 
 
 20 
 
"The capital which is employed in 
 purchasing- in one part of the country 
 in order to sell in another the produce 
 of the industry of that country, gener- 
 ally replaces by such operation two 
 distinct capitals that had both been 
 employed in the agriculture or manu- 
 facture of that country, and thereby 
 enables them to continue that employ- 
 ment. When both are the produce of 
 domestic industry, it necess,arily re- 
 places, by every such operation, two 
 distinct capitals, which had both been 
 employed in supporting productive 
 labor, and thereby enables them to 
 continue that support. The capital 
 
 which sends Scotch manufacturers to 
 London, and brings back English 
 manufacturers and corn to Edinburg, 
 necessarily replaces, by every such 
 operation, two British capitals, which 
 had both been employed in the agricul- 
 ture or manufactures of Great Britain. 
 
 "The capital employed in purchasing 
 foreign goods for home consuruntion, 
 when this purchase is made with the 
 product of domestic industry, replaces, 
 too, by every s-uch operation, two dis- 
 tinct capitals, but one of them only is 
 employed in supporting domestic in- 
 dustry. The capital which sends Brit- 
 ish goods to Portugal, and brings back 
 Portuguese goods to Great Britain, re- 
 places by every such operation only one 
 British capital. The other is a Portu- 
 guese one. Though the returns, there- 
 fore, of the foreign trade of consump- 
 tion should be as quick as those of the 
 home trade, the capital employed in it 
 will give but one-half the encourage- 
 ment to the industry or productive labor 
 of the country. 
 
 "A capital, therefore, employed, in the 
 home trade, will sometimes make twelve 
 operations, or be sent out and returned 
 twelve times, before a capital employed 
 in the foreign trade of consumption has 
 made one. If the capitals are equal, 
 therefore, the one will give four-and- 
 twenty times more encouragement and 
 support to the industry of the country 
 than the other." 
 
 Sir John Bernard Byles, in 1849. 
 
 The economic principle which forms 
 the basis of the advantage derived from 
 the policy of Protection stated by Adam 
 Smith, was elucidated and developed by 
 Sir John Barnard Byles, in 1849, in the 
 following able and comprehensive dis- 
 cussion: 
 
 "What does Adam Smith mean by the 
 expression, 'replace capital'? It is an 
 expression not to be passed over in 
 haste, but well deserving to be atten- 
 tively considered and analyzed. 
 
 "He means that the whole value of a 
 commodity is spent in its production, 
 and yet reappears in the shape of the 
 new product. That in its production 
 there is an expenditure not of the profit 
 merely, but of the entire value, and that 
 the whole of that expenditure not only 
 
 ai 
 
 maintains landlords, tenants, tradesmen 
 and work people, but furnishes an effec- 
 tive demand and market for other pro- 
 ductions. He means that the clear gain, 
 the spenda.ble revenue, the net income of 
 the producing nation, is increased by 
 the amount of the entire value of 
 the domestic product, and that the 
 nation is so much the richer; for while 
 producing, it spends the entire gross 
 value, and, nevertheless, after it has pro- 
 duced, it yet has the entire gross value 
 left in another shape. 
 
 "He then goes on and says that if 
 with British commodities you purchase 
 British commodities you replace two 
 British capitals; but if with British com- 
 modities you purchase foreign commod- 
 ities you replace only one British cap- 
 ital. That is to say, you might have 
 had the entire gross value of two in- 
 dustries to spend, and thereby also to 
 create and sustain markets; but you are 
 content to have the value and the mar- 
 ket of one industry alone. 
 
 "These observations of Adam Smith, 
 though demonstrably true, derive addi- 
 tional weight from the quarter from 
 which they come. They are the admis- 
 sions of the founder of the existing 
 school of political econoinists. on a point 
 of vital importance, so vital that it 
 affects the entire theory of Free-Trade. 
 
 "At the risk, therefore, of being 
 charged with prolixity and repetition, I 
 Venture to invite the candid and serious 
 attention of the reader to a further con- 
 sideration of this problem. 
 
 "The entire price or gross value of 
 every home made article constitutes net 
 gain, net revenue, net income to British 
 subjects. Not a portion of the value, 
 but the whole value, is resolvable into 
 net gain, income or revenue maintaining 
 British families, and creating or sus- 
 taining British markets. Purchase 
 British articles with British articles and 
 you create two such aggregate values 
 and two such markets for British in- 
 dustry, 
 
 "Change your policy — purchase foreign 
 articles with British articles — and you 
 now create only one value for your own 
 benefit instead of creating two, and only 
 one market for British industry instead 
 of two. You lose by the change of 
 policy the power of spending the entire 
 value of one industry, which you might 
 have had, as well as the other, and you 
 lose a market for British industry to the 
 full extent of the expenditure of that 
 superseded industry. 
 
 "A small difference in price may cause 
 the loss, but will not compensate the 
 nation for that loss. For example, sup- 
 pose England can produce an article for 
 100 pounds and can import it for 99 
 pounds. By importing it instead of pro- 
 ducing it she gains 1 pound; but though 
 she pay for it with her own manufac- 
 tures, she loses (not, indeed, by the ex- 
 change itself, but by the collapse of the 
 suspended industry) 100 pounds of 
 
wealth which she might have had to 
 
 spend by creating- the value at home; 
 that is to say, on the balance she loses 
 99 pounds which she might have had in 
 addition by producing- both commodities 
 at home. 
 
 "Nor can it be said that what the pro- 
 ducer loses the consumer g-ains. The 
 producer loses 100 pounds, the consumer 
 gains 1 pound. The nation, moreover, 
 loses the markets which that superseded 
 industry supported.' 
 
 Elqnal Amounts of ludiistry. 
 
 The relative value to a nation of do- 
 mestic trade and foreign trade has been 
 one of the chief points in controversy 
 between Protectionists and Free-Traders 
 ever since opposition to Protection was 
 introduced. It occupied a prominent 
 place in the debates on the subject be- 
 tween 1830 and 1846, when Lincoln was 
 giving so much attention to the Tariff 
 question. The Free-Traders, at a con- 
 vention held in Philadelphia in 1831, con- 
 tended in their resolutions adopted, that 
 the exchange of domestic goods for for- 
 eign goods (in foreign commerce) pro- 
 motes or puts in motion two equal 
 amounts of industry, one foreign and the 
 other domestic. The Protectionists, in 
 their memorial issued the same year, re- 
 plying to the declaration of the Free- 
 Trade convention, asserted that even if 
 this be true, and if all foreign trade was 
 •carried on by an exchange of commodi- 
 ties, still it is not worth more than one- 
 half as much to a nation as domestic ex- 
 changes or home trade, for domestic or 
 internal trade also promotes, or puts in 
 motion, two equal amounts of industry, 
 both domestic, and that it employs, of 
 course, twice as much domestic capital 
 and labor as the other. 
 
 Ninety Per Cent. Is Labor. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that direct- 
 ly or indirectly 90 per cent, of the value 
 of every commodity produced, represents 
 labor distributed among producers from 
 the first human effort until the product 
 is finished. In its distribution a com- 
 modity is packed, shipped, handled, and 
 sold by labor which must be rewarded 
 for its efforts at every step that is taken 
 until it is delivered to the consumer. 
 And labor does not stop here. Effort is 
 required to cook and prepare food for 
 the table. To trace to the bottom the 
 cost price of every commodity, to the 
 consumer, we find that it constitutes net 
 spendable income. 
 
 This great economic principle goes to 
 the root of the controversy. It was by 
 the exchange of the produce of the 
 American farm for domestic manufac- 
 tures that the American people had accu- 
 mulated their wealth and reached the 
 stage of development which they en- 
 joyed. It was by such internal trade 
 that the State of Massachusetts alone, in 
 1840, consumed of the food products and 
 raw materials of other States an amount 
 
 22 
 
 worth $40,000,000. Five million dollars' 
 worth of raw cotton, produced by the 
 State of South Carolina, exchanged for 
 $5,000,000 worth of manufactured goods 
 made in the State of Virginia, would 
 have added $10,000,000 to the spendable 
 incomes of the people of the two States; 
 but $5,000,000 worth of cotton exported 
 to England and exchanged for a like 
 value of manufactured goods made there 
 would have added $5,000,000 to the spend- 
 able income of South Carolina and $5,- 
 000,000 to the spendable income of Eng- 
 land. But this is not all. England by 
 converting the $5,000,000 worth of cotton 
 into fabrics would have increased its 
 value fourfold and exported it to other 
 countries for $20,000,000. The wealth 
 and spendable income of the English 
 people would have been increased by 
 $15,000,000; besides, her merchants, who 
 imported the cotton and marketed the 
 fabrics, would have received commis- 
 sions and profits; her insvirance com- 
 panies would have assumed the risKs 
 and received premiums; further, her 
 ships would have made a profit by the 
 cost of carriage both ways. Apply this 
 principle to all the productions of our 
 country and we find the great under- 
 lying cause of England's commercial 
 greatness and the reasons why Ameri- 
 cans should have fabricated for them- 
 selves and turned the profits to their 
 own account. 
 
 Another Great Lesson. 
 
 Moreover, another great lesson may be 
 drawn from the above example. Had 
 the $5,000,000 worth of cotton been con- 
 verted into cloth in the United States by 
 the two operations, the spendable in- 
 come of our people would have been in- 
 creased by $20,000,000; and American 
 merchants, railroads and insurance com- 
 panies would all have been supported. 
 
 A nation which exports raw materials 
 and crude products to a distant market, 
 there to be converted i^lto finished pro- 
 ductions by the addition of labor and 
 enterprise of foreigners, subjects the 
 people to a still greater loss. Thomas B. 
 Reed, in his great speech in opposition 
 to the Wilsoi bill on February 1, 1894, 
 illustrated this proposition when he said: 
 
 "Let me give one item, and the figures 
 shall be furnished by the gentleman 
 from Alabama (Mr. Wheeler), who told 
 me in your presence that the value of 
 all the cotton raised in the United States 
 was only $300,000,000, while the finished 
 product of that cotton was $1,750,000,000. 
 When cotton leaves the field it is worth 
 $300,000,000; when it leaves the mill it is 
 worth six times as much. On our own 
 cotton crop alone we might in time make 
 the profits on a billion and a half of 
 manufactured goods. Nor is there any- 
 thing to prevent such a result in a Pro- 
 tective Tariff." 
 
 IJncoln Predicts Di.saster from the 
 Walker Variflf of 1846. 
 
 In the concluding paragraph of "Frag- 
 
ments of Tariff Discussion," Mr. Lincoln 
 said: 
 
 "The abandonment of the Protective 
 policy by the American Government must 
 result in the increase of both useless 
 labor and idleness, and so, in proportion, 
 must produce want and ruin among the 
 people." 
 
 This prediction was verified in 1857, 
 for, notwithstanding the fact that fol- 
 lowing the overthrow of Protection by 
 the adoption of a Free-Trade Tariff law 
 in 1846, many causes intervened which 
 operated to stimulate trade and indus- 
 try, the system broke down in 1857 and 
 brought upon the country a persistent 
 and widespread period of hard times 
 which continued until Protection was 
 restored by the passage of the Merrill 
 Tariff law of 1861, Gold was discovered 
 in California in 1848, and from that time 
 until 1860, $651,250,000 of gold was pro- 
 duced from its mines. Yet it did not 
 remain in the country; $406,519,000 was 
 sent abroad to settle an adverse balance 
 of trade of $491,753,000 incurred by the 
 purchase of foreign manufactures. At 
 the same time 26,340 miles of railroads 
 were built at an expenditure of $996,- 
 025,860 for labor and materials, and 
 50,000 miles of telegraph lines were 
 built. Steamships at this time were 
 to a great extent substituted for sail- 
 ing vessels; yet our manufacturing in- 
 dustries did not thrive. They were 
 checked in their growth and finally went 
 down under the pressure of foreign com- 
 petition, producing idleness, want and 
 ruin among the people. 
 
 Greatness and Youth Combined. 
 
 Lincoln was one of the greatest de- 
 baters and public speakers of all times. 
 His oratory, like that of Demosthenes, 
 convinced the people, moulded and crys- 
 talized public opinion and arrested the 
 attG«Won of the country, not so much 
 on ttie wan as on the subject which he 
 discussed. He never over-stated the 
 case, but always spoke and wrote with 
 moderation, eliminating nonessentials. 
 As Jusserand, the P'rench Ambassador, 
 said of him, "He said the right thing." 
 He was always a master of his subject. 
 He was thoroughly informed, honest and 
 earnest. His great purpose was always 
 to have the question at issue settled 
 right. His opinions and beliefs deep- 
 rooted, sprang from a thorough knowl- 
 edge of the facts ascertained, sifted, dis- 
 criminated, balanced and weighed on the 
 scales of justice, right and public wel- 
 fare. 
 
 His superior genius, strength of mind 
 and wisdom were recognized by his asso- 
 ciates long before he became a national 
 character. His faculty for sound reas- 
 oning and correct thought seems to have 
 been a part of him from his youth. There 
 is no day or year or time in his life 
 which can be pointed out when it may be 
 said of him that he changed his views 
 and became converted to this or that 
 
 doctrine. His conception of sound eco- 
 nomic principles, of wise public policies 
 and great moral truths, is disclosed by 
 his earliest speeches and writings. In 
 1837, when he was 28 years of age, he 
 signed and presented a protest to the 
 Illinois Legislature which declared that 
 he believed that "the institution of slav- 
 ery is founded on both injustice and bad 
 policy" and that "the Congress of the 
 United States has povrer under the Con- 
 stitution to abolish slavery in the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia." 
 
 Tvro Great Principles. 
 
 It was these two great principles, that 
 slavery was wrong and that Congress 
 had under the Constitution the exclusive 
 power to abolish or prohibit it on all 
 waters and in all of the places and ter- 
 ritories under the jurisdiction of the 
 United States, and to prohibit the trade 
 in slaves between the States as well as 
 with foreign countries, so early an- 
 nounced by Mr. Lincoln, which consti- 
 tuted the two great fundamental prin- 
 ciples upon which the Republican party 
 nineteen years later was organized, and 
 the triumph of which, in the election of 
 Lincoln in 1860, precipitated the seces- 
 sion of the Southern States and culmi- 
 nated in the abolition of slavery, forever 
 settling the question that we are a na- 
 tion and not a confederation of sovereign 
 States. It was the question of jurisdic- 
 tion of Congress over the subject under 
 the Constitution, which split the Demo- 
 cratic party in 1860 into the Northern 
 and Southern wings, led respectively by 
 Douglas and Breckenridge. The pro- 
 test was presented to the legislature 
 the saine year that Lovejoy was mur- 
 .dered at Alton on account of his anti- 
 slavery views, and against a resolution 
 of the legislature condemning anti- 
 slavery societies. At this time anti- 
 slavery doctrines were unpopular in Illi- 
 nois. The State was overwhelmingly 
 Democratic. Hence Lincoln started in 
 life as a member of a minority party 
 and espoused a cause and political doc- 
 trines which were then unpopular. 
 
 The Whigrs Beaten Out On the Tariflf 
 Q,nestion. 
 
 In October, 1859, Lincoln wrote the fol- 
 lowing letter to :Dr. Wallace: 
 
 "Clinton, October 11, 1859. 
 
 "My Dear Sir: I am here just now 
 attending court. Yesterday before I left 
 Springfield, your brother, Dr. William S. 
 Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, 
 in which you kindly mention my name, 
 inquire for my Tariff views, and suggest 
 the propriety of my writing a letter 
 upon the subject. I was an old Henry 
 Clay-Tariff-Whig. In old times I made 
 more speeches on that subject than any 
 other. 
 
 "I have not since changed my views. 
 T believe yet, if we could have a moder- 
 ate, carefully adjusted Protective Tariff, 
 so far acquiesced in as not to be a per- 
 
 23 
 
petual subject of political strife, sciuab- 
 bles, changes, and uncertainties, it would 
 be better for us. Still it is my opinion 
 that just now the revival of that ques- 
 tion will not advance the cause itself 
 or the man who revives it. 
 
 "I have not thought much on the sub- 
 ject recently, but my general impression 
 is that the necessity for a Protective 
 Tariff will ere long force its old oppo- 
 nents to take it up; and then its old 
 friends can join in and establish it on a 
 more firm and durable basis. We, the 
 old Whigs, have been entirely beaten 
 out on the Tariff question, and we shall 
 not be able to re-establish the policv 
 until the absence of it shall have dem- 
 onstrated the necessity for it in the 
 minds of men heretofore opposed" to it. 
 With this view, I should prefer to not 
 now write a public letter on the sub- 
 ject. I therefore wish this to be con- 
 sidered confidential. I shall be very 
 glad to receive a letter from you. 
 Yours truly, A. Lincoln." 
 
 ("Complete Works of Abraham Lin- 
 coln," Vol. V. Pages 256-257.) 
 
 Yes, the Whig Party had been "beaten 
 out on the Tariff question." It had been 
 beaten out on the "National Bank," and 
 it had been beaten out on the question 
 of internal improvements. But these 
 great public policies were not dead, and 
 Lincoln had not lost hope, for he believed 
 that the absence of Protection would in 
 time "demonstrate the necessity for it in 
 the minds of men heretofore opposed to 
 it." 
 
 The Slavery Controversy Eliminated the 
 Tarijf from Political Discussion. 
 
 When Lincoln wrote his "Fragments of 
 Tariff Discussion" the Mexican War was 
 in progress, yet he evidently believed at 
 that time that the Tariff controversy was 
 not settled. But questions growing out 
 of the Mexican War suddenly changed 
 the entire course of political discussion 
 and brought the conflict over slavery to 
 the front as the all-absorbing topic of 
 debate. All other questions, the Tariff, 
 the national bank and the policy of in- 
 ternal improvements, were laid aside un- 
 til the Republican party took control of 
 the Government in ISGO. Through the 
 Mexican War a vast domain was added 
 to our territory. The triumph of our 
 armies, the valor of our soldiers and the 
 glamor of military achievement added 
 greatly to the popular prestige and 
 strength of the Democratic party. Al- 
 though Lewis Cass, its candidate for 
 President, was defeated in 1848, and 
 General Taylor elected through the revolt 
 of the Free Soil Democrats led by Van 
 Buren, it swept the country in the elec- 
 tions of 1852 and 1856. The great com- 
 promise of 1850, which "was accepted by 
 so many as a settlement of the slavery 
 question, brought about the election of 
 Pierce in 1852, and the endorsement of 
 the popular sovereignty doctrine carried 
 Buchanan through in 1856. 
 
 J\o Room for Tariff Discussion. 
 
 The annexation of Texas and the ex- 
 tension of slavery territory to the Pacific 
 ocean, the defeat of the Wilmot Proviso 
 in 1846, the passage of the fugitive slave 
 law in 1850, the repeal of the Missouri 
 Compromise in 1854, and the decision in 
 the Dred Scott case in 1857, and the 
 avowed purpose of the slaveholders to 
 force slavery into all of the territories 
 of the northwest, aroused the people of 
 the free States in resistance to exten- 
 sion and in defense of the territory dedi- 
 cated to freedom in 1820. The discussion 
 was carried into the churches, schools 
 and the homes; the old political parties 
 were disrupted; the anti-slavery Whigs, 
 uniting with the Abolitionists and the 
 Free Soil Democrats, formed the Repub- 
 lican party in 1854 and ran Fremont for 
 President in 1856. 
 
 At the very time when the Tariff act 
 of 1857 was before Congress, Kansas was 
 a scene of conflict and bloodshed; the 
 whole country was aroused to a high 
 pitch of excitement, and on March 3, 
 1.857, the day that this act was signed by 
 the President, the people were anxiously 
 waiting for the decision of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States in the Dred 
 Scott case, which was made public three 
 days later. The Kansas struggle, which 
 began in the fall of 1854, had grown 
 more threatefiing. Emigrant aid socie- 
 ties in the North were sending anti- 
 slavery men into the territory to make 
 it a free State, and from over the Mis- 
 souri border pro-slavery men were rush- 
 ing in to force the adoption of a slavery 
 Constitution. The people of the free 
 States, under these conditions of great 
 political excitement and threatened civil 
 war, had no room for Tariff discussion. 
 
 Protection was simply being held in 
 abeyance until the slavery question was 
 settled. 
 
 Tariff Question Must Come Up Again. 
 
 In his speech at New Haven, Connecti- 
 cut, March 6, 1860, Lincoln said: 
 
 "Mr. President and Fellow Citizens of 
 New Haven: If the -l^epublican party of 
 this nation shall ever have the National 
 House intrusted to its keeping, it will be 
 the duty of that party to attend to all the 
 affairs of national housekeeping. What- 
 ever matters of importance may come up, 
 whatever difficulties may arise, in the 
 way of its administration of the govern- 
 ment, that part3'- will then have to attend 
 to; it will then be compelled to attend to 
 other questions besides this question 
 which now assumes an overwhelming im- 
 portance — the question of slavery. It is 
 true that in the organization of the Re- 
 publican party this question of slavery 
 was more important than any other; in- 
 deed, so much more important has it be- 
 come that no other national question can 
 even get a hearing just at present. The 
 old question of Tariff — a matter that will 
 remain one of the chief affairs of national 
 housekeeping to all time; the question of 
 
 24 
 
the management of financial affairs; the 
 question of the disposition of the public 
 domain; how shall it be managed for the 
 purpose of getting- it well settled, and of 
 making there the homes of a free and 
 happy people — these will remain open 
 and require attention for a great while 
 yet, and these questions will have to be 
 attended to by whatever party has the 
 control of the government. Yet just now 
 they cannot even obtain a hearing, and I 
 do not purpose to detain you upon these 
 topics, or what sort of hearing they 
 should have when opportunity shall come. 
 For whether we will or not, the question 
 of slavery is the question, the all-absorb- 
 ing topic, of the day." — ^(Complete Works 
 of Abraham Lincoln," Vol. V. Pages 339- 
 340.) 
 
 The election of Abraham T^incoln and the 
 Return to Protection. 
 
 The slavery question was regarded by 
 Lincoln of such paramount importance 
 that he did not think that the Tariff ques- 
 tion should be agitated in the Chicago 
 Convention. To Dr. Edward Wallace he 
 wrote in May, 1860: 
 
 "Springfield, Illinois, May 12, 1860, My 
 Dear Sir: Your brother. Dr. W. S. Wal- 
 lace, shows me a letter of yours in which 
 you request him to inquire if you may 
 use a letter of mine to you in which some- 
 thing is said upon the Tariff question. I 
 do not precisely remember what I did say 
 in that letter, but I presume I said noth- 
 ing substantially different from what I 
 shall say now. 
 
 "In the days of Henry Clay, I was a 
 Henry-Clay-Tariff man, and my views 
 have undergone no material change upon 
 that subject. I now think the Tariff ques- 
 tion ought not to be agitated in the Chi- 
 cago convention, but that all should be 
 satisfied on that point with a presidential 
 candidate whose antecedents give assur- 
 ance that he would neither seek to force 
 a Tariff law by executive influence, nor 
 yet to arrest a reasonable one by a veto 
 or otherwise. Just such a candidate I 
 desire shall be put in nomination, I really 
 have no objection to these views being 
 publicly known, but I do wish to thrust 
 no letter before the public now upon any 
 subject. Save me from the appearance of 
 obtrusion, and I do not care who sees this 
 or my former letter. Yours very truly, 
 A. Lincoln," 
 
 ("Complete Works of Abraham Lin- 
 coln," Vol. VL Pages 11-12.) 
 
 Lincoln was evidently fearful that to 
 press the Tariff question to the front as a 
 party issue might alienate voters who 
 were opposed to slavery, yet had not been 
 convinced that a Protective Tariff was 
 necessary to the prosperity of the coun- 
 try. The Tariff had not been discussed in 
 a political campaign since 1844, and to 
 undertake to educate the people on the 
 subject would detract from the all-im- 
 portant work of eradicating the curse of 
 slavery. But there was a strong current 
 of sentiment for a change in the Tariff 
 
 25 
 
 taking possession of the minds of the peo- 
 ple. This was shown in the October 
 election in the State of Pennsylvania, 
 when Andrew G. Curtin was elected 
 Governor in a campaign largely fought 
 on that question. When the delegates to 
 the Republican convention met at Chi- 
 cago, it developed that a strong senti- 
 ment prevailed among them in favor of 
 placing the party before the country 
 squarely on a Protective Tariff platform 
 and a Tariff plank drawn by Henry C. 
 Carey was adopted. Lincoln was made 
 the candidate and victory followed. 
 
 When Lincoln passed through Pitts- 
 burg on his journey to Washington for 
 inauguration, he spoke briefly on the 
 Tariff as follows: 
 
 Address at Pittsburg:, February 15, 1861. 
 
 "It is often said that the Tariff is the 
 specialty of Pennsylvania, Assuming 
 that direct taxation is not to be adopted, 
 the Tariff question must be as durable as 
 the government itself. It is a question of 
 national housekeeping. It is to the gov- 
 ernment what replenishing the meal-tub 
 is to the family. . Ever-varying circum- 
 stances will require frequent modifica- 
 tions as to the amount needed and the 
 sources of supply. So far there is little 
 difference of opinion among the people. 
 It is as to whether, and how far, duties 
 on imports shall be adjusted to favor 
 home production in the home market, 
 that controversy begins. One party in- 
 sists that such adjustment oppresses one 
 class for the advantage of another; while 
 the other party argues that, with all its 
 incidents, in the long run all classes are 
 benefited. In the Chicago platform there 
 is a plank upon this subject which should 
 be a general law to the incoming admin- 
 istration. We should do neither more 
 nor less than we gave the people reason 
 to believe we would when they gave us 
 their votes. Permit me, fellow-citizens, 
 to read the Tariff plank of the Chicago 
 platform, or rather-have it read in your 
 hearing by one who has younger eyes. 
 
 "Mr. Lincoln's private secretary then 
 read Section 12 of the Chicago platform, 
 as follows: 
 
 " 'That while providing revenue for 
 the support of the General Government 
 by duties upon imports, sound policy re- 
 quires such an adjustment of these im- 
 posts as will encourage the development 
 of the industrial interest of the whole 
 country; and we commend that policy of 
 national exchange which secures to 
 working-men liberal wages, to agricul- 
 ture remunerating prices, to mechanics 
 and manufacturers adequate reward for 
 their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to 
 the nation commercial prosperity and 
 independence.' 
 
 "Mr. Lincoln resumed: As with all 
 general propositions, doubtless there will 
 be shades of difference in construing 
 this. I have by no means a thoroughly 
 matured judgment upon this subject, es- 
 pecially as to details; some general ideas 
 
are about all. 1 have long thought it 
 would be to our advantag-e to produce any 
 necessary article at home 'which can be 
 made of as good quality and with as little 
 labor at home as abroad, at least by the 
 difference of the carrying- from abroad. 
 In such case the carrying is demonstrably 
 a dead loss of labor. For instance, labor 
 being the true standard of value, is it not 
 plain that if equal labor get a bar of 
 railroad iron out of a mine in rEngland, 
 and another out of a mine in Pennsyl- 
 vania, each can be laid down in a, track 
 at home cheaper than they could ex- 
 change countries, at least by the car- 
 riage? If there be a present cause why 
 one can be both made and carried cheaper 
 in money price than the other can be 
 made without carrying, that cause is an 
 unnatural and injurious one, and ought 
 gradually, if not rapidly, to be removed. 
 The condition of the Treasury at this 
 time would seem to render an early re- 
 vision of the Tariff indispensable. The 
 Morrill (Tariff) bill, now pending before 
 Congress, may or may not become a law. 
 I am not posted as to its particular pro- 
 visions, but if they are generally satis- 
 factory, and the bill shall now pass, there 
 will be an end for the present. If, how- 
 ever, it shall not pass, I suppose the whole 
 subject will be one of the most pressing 
 and important for the next Congress. By 
 the Constitution, the Executive may rec- 
 ommend measures which he may think 
 proper, and he may veto those he thinks 
 improper, and it is supposed that he may 
 add to these certain indirect influences 
 to affect the action of Congress. My po- 
 litical education strongly inclines me 
 against a very free use of any of these 
 means by the Executive to control the 
 legislation of the country. As a rule, I 
 think it better that Congress should orig- 
 inate as well as perfect its measures 
 without external bias. I therefore would 
 rather recommend to every gentleman 
 wno knows he is to be a member of the 
 next Congress to take an enlarged view, 
 and post himself thoroughly, so as. to 
 contribute his part to such an adjustment 
 of the Tariff as shall produce a sufficient 
 revenue, and in its other bearings, so far 
 as possible, be just and equal to all sec- 
 tions of the country and classes of the 
 people " ("Complete Works of Abraham 
 Lincoln," Vol. VI. Pages 126-129.) 
 
 Preferred Home Trade to Foreign Trade. 
 
 It should be noted that Lincoln at this 
 time declared that it was the duty of 
 the Republican party to carry out its 
 Tariff plank, which he said "should be a 
 general law to the incoming administra- 
 tion." After listening to the reading of 
 the platform, he asserts a very impor- 
 tant economic proposition. He said: 
 
 "For instance, labor being the true 
 standard of value, is it not plain that 
 if equal labor gets a bar of railroad iron 
 out of a mine in England and another 
 out of a mine in Pennsylvania, each can 
 be laid down on a track at home cheaper 
 
 than they could exchange countries, at 
 least by the carriage?" 
 
 From what follows it would appear 
 that he here used the words "equal 
 labor" in the sense of labor power as 
 one would mention horse power. It is 
 evident that it was in this sense that he 
 used the term "equal labor," for in the 
 next sentence he uses the term "money 
 price," saying: 
 
 "If there be a present cause why one 
 can be both made and carried cheaper in 
 money price than the other can be made 
 without carrying, that cause is an un- 
 natural and injurious one and ought 
 gradually if not rapidly to be removed." 
 
 The money price as here used must 
 involve wages paid to labor. So his con- 
 tention was that if a bar of iron can be 
 taken out of a mine in England and on 
 account of the lower wages paid to labor 
 in that country, -it can be both produced 
 and shipped to the United States and sold 
 for a lower price than a bar of iron can 
 be taken out of an American mine by 
 American labor, employed at the higher 
 American standard of wages, that cause 
 for the difference in price is an unnatu- 
 ral and injurious one and should be re- 
 moved. The only way, of course, by 
 which such injurious cause could be re- 
 moved was either by reducing the wage:^ 
 of American labor to the European stand- 
 ard or by interposing Protective Tariff 
 duties to shield American labor from 
 such unequal and unjust conditions. It 
 is important, then, that immediately be- 
 fore his inauguration he clearly and 
 plainly asserted that when a foreign 
 country could manufacture and then 
 transport a finished article to our coun- 
 try and undersell our own industrial pro- 
 ducers, a Protective Tariff became im- 
 peratively necessary in order to over- 
 come that advantage of the foreigner. 
 The value of these utterances in the 
 Pittsburgh speech become greater when 
 we consider the conditions under which 
 the address was delivered. At this time 
 nearly all of the Southern States had 
 seceded from the Union, and on February 
 4, only eleven days before it w^as de- 
 livered, the Southern Confederacy was 
 formed, its Congress had met at Mont- 
 gomery, Alabama, and elected Jefferson 
 Davis President. The speech, like all of 
 the speeches which he delivered in his 
 journey from Springfield to Washington, 
 at this critical time, was conciliatory in 
 its nature. He had studiously avoided 
 the discussion of administrative policies 
 on all economic and business questions, 
 and confined himself to appeals to the 
 patriotism of the people, urging on all 
 occasions the preservation of the Union 
 above everything else. His great en- 
 deavors was to win over to the support 
 of the cause of the Union the people of 
 the border States and the Douglas Demo- 
 crats of the Free States. He had, all 
 through his discussions of the slavery 
 question, avoided arousing the antagon- 
 ism arising out of business questions, and 
 
 26 
 
was undoubtedly ready at this time tO 
 make concessions for the cause of peace 
 on all questions excepting those affect- 
 ing the integrity of the Union, and those 
 sacred human rights which the Republi- 
 can party was organized to preserve, and 
 which he had so ably and earnestly up- 
 held in those great debates and speeches 
 which made him the leader and repre- 
 sentative of the friends of humanity. 
 
 In his address to the Legislature of 
 Pennsylvania, at Harrisburg, February 
 22, 1861, he referred to the Pittsburg 
 speech as follows: 
 
 "Allusion has also been made by one 
 of your honored speakers to some re- 
 marks recently made by myself at Pitts- 
 burg in regard to yi^hat is supposed to be 
 the especial interest of this great com- 
 monwealth of Pennsylvania. I now wish 
 only to say in regard to that matter, 
 that the few remarks which I uttered 
 on that occasion vere rather carefully 
 worded. I took pains that they should 
 be so. I have seen no occasion since to 
 add to them or subtract from them. I 
 leave them precisely as they stand, add- 
 ing only now that I am. pleased to have 
 an expression from you, gentlemen of 
 Pennsylvania, signifying- that they are 
 satisfactory to you." ("Complete Works 
 of Abraham Lincoln," Vol. VI. Pages 
 164-165.) 
 
 The Condition of the Country Under 
 Fourteen Years of Free-Trade. 
 
 With the national treasury bankrupt; 
 the industries paralyzed; the country 
 drained of its gold; the war vessels in a 
 state of decay or sent to foreign parts; 
 the army disorganized and filled with 
 traitors; the guns and cannon sent to 
 rebel States; and the Free-Trade party 
 in open revolt against the Union, Lin- 
 coln, on March 4, 1861, became President. 
 Through four years of Civil War, "with 
 malice towards no one and charity for 
 all," he united the people of the North 
 in the defense of the flag and for the 
 preservation of the Union. He raised, 
 armed and equipped an army of over 
 two million of freemen, built a great 
 navy and suppressed the most gigantic 
 rebellion of modern times. He restored 
 the credit of the nation; replenished the 
 Treasury and raised over $6,000,000,000 
 from his own people, not asking or bor- 
 rowing a dollar from a foreign country. 
 He restored the Protective system, im- 
 posing higher duties on imports than 
 •were ever known, and secured the home 
 market to his own people. Every mill, 
 forge, furnace; every farm and garden, 
 was quickened into life as though 
 touched by some magic power. Every 
 able-bodied man was either at the front 
 fighting for the flag or working night 
 and day in some Protective occupation 
 to sustain the armies in the field and 
 make the nation rich and strong. The 
 first question attended to was that of 
 revenue, which was suj^plied by extend- 
 ing the duties on imports to non-com- 
 
 2? 
 
 petlng- as well as competing' articles by 
 the acts of August 5, 1861, and December 
 24, 1861. By the act of July 1, 1862, a 
 system of internal revenue taxes was 
 established, which w^as enlarged and ex- 
 tended on March 3, 1863, May 7, 1864, 
 June 30, 1864, and March 3, 1865. Every 
 available source of revenue was resorted 
 to. Licenses and taxes were imposed on 
 every conceivable trade, occupation and* 
 profession. Taxes were levied on in- 
 comes and on all materials used in man- 
 ufacturing and upon their products in 
 all of the stages of production. These 
 burdens placed on the industries of the 
 country were so great that without com- 
 pensatory duties on imports our manu- 
 facturers could not have withstood the 
 competition of their foreign rivals. So 
 high Protective Tariff duties were im- 
 posed on all competing products by the 
 acts of July 14, 1862, March 3, 1863, April 
 29, 1864, June 30, 1864, and March 3, 
 1865, and the industries were enabled to 
 grow and thrive and at the close of the 
 struggle had been extended in variety 
 and »-eached a magnitude not dreamed 
 of by their most ardent friends. . 
 
 President Lincoln ana his able cabinet 
 ministers were not unmindful of the les- 
 sons of history. Almost w^ithin the 
 memory of men then living within sev- 
 enty years, the world had witnessed 
 Great Britain pass triumphantly through 
 the Continental wars, break the power 
 -of Napoleon, the greatest military genius 
 since Caesar; become the master of the 
 carrying trade of the world, and rise to 
 the first rank among the empires of 
 modern times. Her military and naval 
 forces and her exhaustless financial re- 
 sources had been sustained through the 
 cultivation of the industrial arts, fos- 
 tered by Protective regulations. With 
 the experience of mankind before them, 
 the statesmen of the North at once turned 
 to the Protective policy as the source of 
 the nation's strength to carry it suc- 
 cessfully through the destruction of 
 property and exhaustion of resources 
 •which must result from the impending 
 military conflict. 
 
 Stanton's Protective Order, 
 
 "Secretary Stanton," says Mr. Fowler 
 (Fowler's Life of Edward M. Stanton, 
 pp. 126, 127), "discovering that arms, 
 clothing and supplies for the armies were 
 largely purchased in Europe, said to Sec- 
 retary Chase: 'If these things were pur- 
 chased at home, the flow of gold abroad 
 would be stopped and our factories lifted 
 from depression.' " 
 
 Therefore, in the famous oflflcial "Or- 
 der" of January 29, 1862, he declared: 
 
 "1. That no further contracts be made 
 by this Department or any bureau there- 
 of for any article of foreign manufac- 
 ture that can be produced in the United 
 States. 
 
 "2. All outstanding orders, agencies, 
 authorities or licenses for the purchase 
 
of arms, clothing- or anything else in for- 
 eign countries, or of foreign manufac- 
 ture, for the Department are revoked 
 and annulled." 
 
 Great and far-sig'hted as this concep- 
 tion proved to be, Lincoln was "afraid it 
 would exasperate our friends over the 
 water," and Seward opposed it as likely 
 to "complicate the foreign situation." 
 
 "It will have to be issued," replied 
 Stanton, "or very soon there will be no 
 situation to complicate." 
 
 "That closed the argument," says Mr. 
 Fowler. "The order went forth and cre- 
 ated the industrial era in America, 
 against the ever-increasing pressure of 
 which, throughout the world, the na- 
 tions are still groaning their protests. It 
 made of the United States a self-sup- 
 porting and ten-fold more expansive, 
 glorious and powerful nation than it was 
 before. It was one of the most pregnant 
 edicts ever issued by an American official, 
 and it is one of the few adequate meas- 
 ures of Stanton's g-reatness." 
 
 T^e security and support given to do- 
 mestic industries by the Tariff acts and 
 the policy of the "War Department so de- 
 veloped the resources and increased the 
 w^ealth of the country that the loyal 
 'States soon became independent of for- 
 eign nations for everything necessary to 
 a successful prosecution of the war. The 
 wealth and industrial power thus created 
 enabled the people to bear the enormous 
 burdens of taxation incident to the war 
 and to the discharg'e of the oblig'ations 
 incurred. 
 
 It has been contended by Free-Traders 
 that the Protective Tariff laws signed 
 by Lincoln were simply war measures 
 intended when enacted to be abandoned 
 at the close of the struggle, and that the 
 Free-Trade policy of the Democratic 
 party was to be restored. This may have 
 been the views of many Congressmen 
 who had little knowledge of the ques- 
 tion, but tliis cannot reasonably be said 
 of Lincoln when we consider his pro- 
 found knowledge of the subject and his 
 Arm conviction that Protection was nec- 
 essary to the prosperity of the country. 
 The war had brought about an entirely 
 new condition of affairs. The wages of 
 labor had increased on an average of 67 
 per cent.; new mines had been opened; 
 mills and furnaces had been built; a 
 great system of manufacturing had been 
 erected; demands for labor and labor 
 products had greatly extended and a 
 home market had been created which 
 was the envy of the world. Lincoln 
 
 would never have withdrawn Protection, 
 left our industries to perish, and the 
 Wages of labor to be reduced to the 
 standard of the old world by opening our 
 market to be flooded with the products 
 of the poorly paid labor of our foreign 
 rivals. 
 
 It is inconceivable that Abraham Lin- 
 coln would have changed his opinions as 
 to the wisdom and necessity for con- 
 tinuing the Protective system. His opin- 
 
 ions on the subject were well grounded, 
 the result of a careful and thorough 
 study of the question in all of its as- 
 pects. He was not only by conviction, 
 but by sympathy and natural inclination, 
 an extreme Protectionist. He had no 
 sympathy with those international trad- 
 ers who buy cheap in one country to sell 
 in another, regardless of the welfare of 
 labor; nor with those foreign manufac- 
 turers who would keep the wages of 
 their labor at a starvation point that 
 they might undersell their competitors in 
 foreign markets; nor with those short- 
 sighted farmers who would impoverish 
 the labor and industries of their own 
 country by patronizing the pauper labor 
 of Europe. His fine sensibilities had been 
 shocked and he looked with horror upon 
 the Southern planter who made his prof- 
 its in raising cotton and tobacco by the 
 labor of slaves driven to work under the 
 lash of a cruel master. His great heart 
 was overflowing with a sincere love for 
 his fellowmen, and an unfaltering de- 
 votion to the welfare of his country. His 
 uttered words were expressions from his 
 heart directed by a master intellect. He 
 was neither influenced in forming his 
 political opinions by the interest of a 
 farmer seeking a market for his grains 
 and provisions, nor by the desires of 
 those manufacturers or traders whose 
 supreme purpose was to gain profits. 
 From a high eminence above the world 
 of strife and .selfish interests, Lincoln 
 had looked forward to a time when the 
 people of the United States would enter 
 upon the full enjoyment of that happy 
 state contemplated and striven for by 
 our Revolutionary fathers, in whicla all 
 men would stand equal before the law, 
 and labor would be worthy of its hire. 
 He saw in the future a nation of freemen 
 occupying a land of plenty, with idle- 
 ness and poverty, slavery and oppression 
 abolished; with marts of trade, cities and 
 industrial communities flourishing and 
 thriving in every State of the Union; 
 with the great resources of the nation 
 developed and utilized; with mills, forges, 
 furnaces, farms and gardens, through the 
 industry of freemen, yielding the treas- 
 ures of the earth tO' the comfort, inde- 
 pendence and happiness of the people. 
 This was the goal striven for by all 
 sound and consistent Protectionists. Pro- 
 tection and prosperity; Protection and 
 public welfare; Protection and good 
 wages for labor, have been and are one 
 and inseparable. If Abraham Lincoln had 
 lived out the remaining years of his sec- 
 ond term, he would have been the same 
 Abraham Lincoln that he was from his 
 humble beginning to the day of his tragic 
 death. He never betrayed a great cause 
 nor sacrificed a great principle. He would 
 never have abandoned the cause of Pro- 
 tection to American labor and industries. 
 He would have done previously what 
 Grant and tlie great statesmen of the 
 Republican party did upon making a 
 thorough investigation of the subject and 
 
 28 
 
readjusting the Tariff and internal reve- 
 nue taxes for times of peace. During 
 Grant's administration the Tariff was 
 revised according to the plan recom- 
 mended by Henry Clay in 1832, They 
 repealed internal revenue taxes so far 
 as they were burdens on industry, 
 abolished direct taxes, and continued the 
 system of duties on imports for the Pro- 
 tection of home industries, and by ani- 
 mating, diversifying and rewarding in- 
 dustry, made it possible for the Ameri- 
 can people to pay the national debt and 
 to build up the most progressive, pros- 
 perous and greatest manufacturing and 
 commercial nation in Christendom. 
 
 Lincoln's public career as a writer, 
 speaker and Chief Executive places him 
 in the foreground of the great construct- 
 ive statesmen and Protectionists of the 
 world. Washington introduced the sys- 
 tem of Protection, and Lincoln perfected 
 
 it; Washington signed the first Protective 
 Tariff law, and Lincoln signed the high- 
 est Protective Tariff law ever passed by 
 Congress, The Protective policy intro- 
 duced by Washington was supported by 
 Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John 
 Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, It 
 Stood for forty-five years until over- 
 thrown by the friends of slavery and the 
 enemies of the Union, but was restored 
 and perfected by Lincoln and continued 
 by Grant, Hayes, Harrison and McKin- 
 ley. It was overthrown for three years 
 by Cleveland with great disaster to the 
 country. It is now being assailed by 
 Woodrow Wilson, but the spirit of Wash'- 
 ington and Lincoln still lives and the 
 end is not yet, 
 
 "You can fool a part of the people a 
 part of the time, and some of the people 
 all of the time, but you can't fool all of 
 the people all of the time." 
 
 Every sincere Protectionist should reg- 
 ularly read THE AMERICAN ECONOMIST, 
 $2.00 a year. Address 339 Broadway, 
 New York. 
 
 Ten copies of this document, No. 1, sent 
 for 30 cents. Address The Tariff League, 
 339 Broadway, New York. 
 
TARIFF OUT OF POLITICS? 
 
 To Editors: The New York 
 Evening Sun started it. Below 
 are numerous variations of the 
 thought that the Tariff cannot be 
 taken out of politics. Please am- 
 plify with one line of your own. 
 Keep it going. Also, kindly for- 
 ward copy of paper containing 
 your addition. Editor American 
 Economist. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics" — 
 ' takfe the sentiment out of love." — New 
 York Evening Sun. 
 
 "Take the letters out of the alphabet." 
 — New York Press. 
 
 of 
 
 laughter." — 
 out of air." — Erie 
 
 "And the mirth out 
 Philadelphia Inquirer. 
 
 "Take the oxygen 
 (Pa.) Dispatch. 
 
 "Take business out of business by 
 Free-Trade."— Lyons (N. Y.) Republican. 
 
 "Better say the present Tariff put 
 notes on much property." — Tazewell 
 (Va.) Republican. 
 
 Take the Satan out of Hades, 
 
 Take the headache out of booze, 
 Take the motion out of movies, 
 Take the sleepiness from snooze. 
 — Lackawanna (N. Y.) Journal. 
 "Oh, well; take the politics out of poli- 
 tics." — New York Evening Sun. 
 
 "Take the Prince of Denmark out of 
 Hamlet." — San Francisco Chronicle. 
 
 of verse." — New 
 
 "Take the poetry out 
 York Evening Sun. 
 
 The American Protective Tariff League 
 desires us to add a line to "Take the 
 Tariff out of politics." Anything to 
 oblige: "Take the P. O. out of pork." — 
 Cleveland Leader. 
 
 "Take the people out of politics; take 
 liberty out of government." — Monmouth 
 (111.) Atlas, January 31. 
 
 "Take the heat out of fire." — Secaucus 
 (N. J.) News, January 29. 
 
 "Take daylight out of darkness." — 
 Omro (Wis.) Herald, January 29. 
 
 "Take the flowers out of speech." — 
 New York Evening Sun, February 3. 
 
 "Take the cloves out of prohibition." — 
 Idaho Statesman. 
 
 "Take the chat out of a movie audi- 
 ence." — Coeur d'Alene (Idaho) Press. 
 
 "Take the lips out of kisses." — Dover 
 (Del.) Sentinel. 
 
 Take the full-house out of poker, 
 Take the frenzy from the mob, 
 
 Take the stroke from Willie Hoppe, 
 Take the bingle from Ty Cobb. 
 
 — Scottdale (Pa.) Independent. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics?" Why, 
 sure! by all means — if you're the chap to 
 do it — and at the same time take the 
 heartaches out of booze. — Augusta (Me.) 
 Journal. 
 
 "Take the air out of rubber tires, take 
 the gas away from glass making; it will 
 shrink, it will wither, it may fail even 
 to survive, for 'the devil take the hind- 
 most' is a motto we must hear; we'll live 
 it, too, by ginger, when the Free-Traders 
 arrive," — Jeanette (Pa.) News. 
 
 30 
 
 "Politics and the Tariff have been, are 
 and will be as inseparable as sunshine 
 and the sun — take the sun out of sun- 
 shine!" — Salisbury (Md.) Tribune, Feb- 
 ruary 11. 
 
 "Take the laughter out of childhood." 
 — Payette (Idaho) Independent, February 
 10. 
 
 "Take the 'kick' out of whiskey." — 
 Uoundup (Mont.) Record, February 4. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics! As 
 well try to take the 'pep' out of pepper." 
 — Brewster (Wash.) Herald. 
 
 If you want to fix the West, 
 Take the salmon out the can; 
 
 Pinchotize the timber. 
 
 Take aw^-y from girls the tan. 
 — Chinook (Wa»h.) Observer. 
 
 "Take the flop out of Woodrow." — Bay 
 Shore (L, I.) Journal. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics," shout 
 the Democratic statesmen as a faint 
 hope. Yes, take the color out of the 
 rainbow. When the Democrats admit 
 that we are right and they are wrong, 
 let us enact a Protective Tariff, and quit 
 tampering with it. The Tariff will be 
 out of politics, but not until then. — Bata- 
 via (O.) Courier. 
 
 "Take Free-Trade from Democracy — 
 if you can." — A Harmon (111.) correspon- 
 dent. 
 
 "Take Hiram from the Johnsonites, 
 Take Teddy from the Progs, 
 Take the Tariff out of oolitics, 
 And the world will slip its cogs." 
 
 — Sanger (Cal.) News. 
 
 "Take the devil out of all of us and 
 there will be less room for pain." — Car- 
 mi (111.) Convincer, February. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics?" — 
 with ease! Take the wind out of tor- 
 nado and the water out of seas; take the 
 light out of sunshine and the cold out of 
 freeze. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics?" for 
 sure! Take safe out of safety and heal- 
 ing out of cure; take stable out of sta- 
 bility — no nation will endure. — Chester- 
 ton (Md.) Enterprise. 
 
 "Take the value out of money, 
 
 Take the sting out of bees. 
 Take the sweetness out of honey. 
 
 Take the timber out of trees." 
 
 — Newport (N. H.) Champion. 
 
 "The talk of taking the Tariff out of 
 politics is the same as asking for taxa- 
 tion without representation." — World's 
 Work. 
 
 "While there is a great endeavor to 
 take the Tariff out of politics why does 
 not some statesman take politics out of 
 the Tariff?" — Bay City (Mich.) National 
 Farmer. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics? Take 
 the hugs and kisses out of spooning." — 
 Marion (111.) anonymous correspondent. 
 
 "Take the substance out of flour and 
 the sweetness out of sugar." — Trenton 
 (Mich.) Times. 
 
 "Take the Stars from the field of Old 
 Glory." — Huntingburg (Ind.) Iruiepen- 
 dent. 
 
 "Take the value out of money. 
 Take the pleasure out of fun, 
 Take the sweetness out of honey; 
 Take — Oh, what's the use? It can't be 
 
 done." 
 — Plymouth (Mass.) News, March 24. 
 
"Take the 1 out of 100." — Milwaukee 
 Sentinel. 
 
 Tak? the lesson from the learner, 
 Take the writing from the clerk; 
 
 Take the earnlng-s from the earner, 
 And the worker from his work. 
 
 — Gladstone (Mich.) Delta. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics." Why 
 not take "e" out of alphabet, or laughter 
 out of childhood? — Ashtabula (O.) Star. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics," 
 Take the moisture out of rain, 
 Take the colors from the rainbow. 
 Take the kernel out of grain. 
 
 — Brookneld (Mo.) Gazette. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics? Not 
 till we have absolute Free-Trade." — 
 Union (N. Y.) Union-Endicott News, 
 
 "Take the raindrops out of showers; 
 take the fragrance out of flowers." — 
 Ord. (Nebr.) Quiz. 
 
 "Or take the 'Bull' out of 'Bull 
 Moose.' " — Grand Rapids (Mich.) Herald. 
 
 "Take the stars and stripes out of our 
 flag. Take hope out of life." — American 
 ^<]coNOMiST reader. 
 
 " 'Take the Tariff out of politics,' says 
 the New York Sun. Take the angel- out 
 of heaven; take the cooing from the 
 dove; take the warble from the birdlet; 
 take religion out of love." — Elkton 
 (Mich.) Review. 
 
 "They can't take the Tariff out of poli- 
 tics, but they can take it out of the hands 
 of the Free-Trade Tariff tinkers." — Kan- . 
 sas City (Mo.) Liberal News. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics? It 
 is a cry born of forlorn hope. It is as 
 feasible as to try to take the lye out of 
 soft soap." — Tahlequah (Okla.) Sun. 
 
 "The differences of opinion and convic- 
 tion which put the Tariff question into 
 politics are not differences as to facts, 
 but as to the interpretation of facts. 
 Hence the fallacy of 'taking the Tariff 
 question out of politics' by creating a 
 mere statistical board, bureau or com- 
 mission." — Muncie (Ind.) National Repub- 
 lican. 
 
 Take the Tariff out of politics, 
 Take the motor from the car; 
 Take the talk out of Teddy; 
 Take the battle out of war. — Hancock 
 (Mich.) Copper Journal. 
 
 "Take disaster from our labor and indus- 
 tries without the re-establishment of a 
 High Protective Tariff."— Breaux Bridge 
 (La.) Advance. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics!" Take 
 the gas out o' gasoline and the "old 
 boat" will stop; take the electricity out 
 o' the arc and darkness will prevail. — 
 Caldwell (O.) Leader. 
 
 Trying to take the Tariff out of poli- 
 tics is causing President Wilson a good 
 deal of anxiety, and he is sidestepping 
 like a barefooted boy in a brier patch. — 
 Bethany (Mo.) Republican. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics? Might 
 as well take the honey out of the honey- 
 moon," — Rhinelander (Wis.) News. 
 
 31 
 
 "Take the limbernes.s from 11:;11k:-, 
 
 Take the spiciness from kpice, 
 Take the wood from out the timber, 
 Take the water out of ice. 
 (Next?)" — ^Astria (Ore.) Morning Asto- 
 rian. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics? 
 
 Take the moisture out of snow. 
 Take the 'our' out of flour. 
 
 And the 'leven' out of dough." 
 
 — Fedora (S. D.) Messenger. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics! You 
 might as well try to take the bung out 
 of bungle." — Decorah (la.) Republican. 
 
 "As well try taking selfishness 
 From out the heart of man; 
 For the Demys, in their foolishness, 
 Will make trade free if they can." 
 — Columbus (O.) Saturday Monitor. 
 
 "If the Tariff were taken out of poli- 
 tics what would Presidential candidates 
 do for an issue?" — ^Mobile (Ala.) Tribune. 
 
 "The Tariff can be taken out of politics 
 as easily as the 'squeal' can be taken 
 from the pig and the 'squall' from the 
 tomcat." — A North Carolina correspon- 
 dent. 
 
 "Removing the Tariff out of politics 
 would be about as easy as taking the 
 hole out of the doughnut." — Muncie 
 (Ind.) National Republican. 
 
 Take the Tariff out of politics. 
 Take the sweet out of sugar. 
 Take the jingle out of money. 
 Take — well, miracles do not happen 
 any more, — Huntsville (Ark,) Republican, 
 
 What is the use of talking about "re- 
 tiring the Tariff from politics," It can- 
 not be done. — ^Marion (la.) Register. 
 
 Taking Tariff out of politics is like 
 taking salt out of soup. — Waterloo (111.) 
 Republican. 
 
 To take Tariff out of Politics 
 
 And let Free-Trade prevail " 
 Is just a Democratic trick 
 
 That takes food from the dinner pail. 
 — Craig (Colo.) Courier. 
 
 "Take the Tariff out of politics," shout 
 the Democratic statesmen as a faint 
 hope. Yes, take the color out of the 
 rainbow. When the Democrats admit 
 that we are right and they are wrong, 
 let us enact a Protective Tariff and quit 
 tampering with it. The Tariff will be 
 out of politics, but not until then. — La 
 Plata (Mo.) Republican. 
 
 Removing the Tariff from politics is 
 like solving the fourth dimension — es- 
 pecially when it comes to wool. — Ameri- 
 can Sheep Breeder and Wool Grower. 
 
 Taking, the Tariff out of politics al- 
 ways reminds us of the hospital report 
 of the medical interne wlio wrote his 
 chief: "The operation proved preemi- 
 nently successful, but the patient died." 
 — American Economist Contributor. 
 
 "Take the notes out of music." — Amer- 
 ican Economist. 
 
The Industrial Developmenl 
 
 of Nations 
 
 and 
 
 A History of the Tariff Policies of the United States, and of Great Britc 
 Germany, France, Russia and Other European Countries 
 
 BY 
 Hon. GEORGE B. CURTISS 
 
 OF BINGHAMTON, NEW YORK 
 
 The Work of a Lifetime » 
 
 The Industrial Development of Nations is the result of more tl 
 thirty years' research and study. It is the work of a lifetime and has involl 
 in its production the largest financial expenditure of any single treatise 
 the subject ever published. 
 
 the author 
 
 The qualifications of Mr. Curtiss for this important undertaking need not be rehearsed for those] 
 are familiar with his distinguished career as a lawyer and the pre-eminent position he holds at thej 
 In 1900, President McKinley appointed him United States Attorney for the Northern District of 
 York, a posit**on he has filled with marked distinction for more than twelve years. 
 
 The Binghamton Press. 
 
 Price 
 Bound in Fancy Basket Buckram (gilt top, gold back, with silk ribbon, bookmark) $li 
 
 In Three Volumes of 1936 pages. Size 7x10 inches. Illustrated with 33 
 page portraits. The pages have subject headings, marginal notes, and are prini 
 admirably clear type. The binding is all that is to be desired. All of the httle del 
 of good book-making have been observed. 
 
 T. W. COMPTON 
 
 Sales Manager 
 
 160 Fifth Avenue New York 
 
 Orders received by 
 
 THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGU 
 
 339 Broadway 
 New York 
 
T. M. Reg. U.S. Pat. Off. 
 
 IVI145504 
 
 111 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY