is 
 
 
 \s \Yv e.'b S d \ ‘b Y*u,^t cd 
 
 yyvyy\5.A \aJte- 
 d \«a vu^pt \&t\ 1 
 
Shall Business Be Disrupted 
 
 BY 
 
 MMEDIATE TARIFF 
 REVISION 
 
 REPLY OF 
 
 HEODORE JUSTICE 
 
 Director of the 
 
 American Protective Tariff League 
 
 o the address of the Secretary of the New York Committee of the 
 
 American Reciprocal Tariff League 
 
 Delivered March 8, 1906, before the 
 Board of Directors of the 
 
 TRADES LEAGUE OF PHILADELPHIA 
 
r> 
 
 U O f ■ 
 
 Immediate Tariff Revision. 
 
 To the Trades League, Philadelphia , Pa.: 
 
 Gentlemen: The address by William 
 E. Corwine, secretary of the New York 
 Committee of the American Reciprocal 
 Tariff League, delivered before the 
 Trades League, printed and circulated 
 by the latter, contains matter that makes 
 it necessary to call the attention of the 
 Trades League to Mr. Corwine, and the 
 motives of the association which he rep¬ 
 resents, whose title being a close coun¬ 
 terfeit of The American Protective 
 Tariff League may lead to confusion 
 in the minds of many, who may not 
 know that the objects of these quite 
 different associations are exactly op¬ 
 posed to each other. The American 
 Protective Tariff League is organized 
 and operating to build up and defend 
 American industries, whereas the effect 
 of the present active work of the Amer¬ 
 ican Reciprocal Tariff League is to 
 break them down. 
 
 Mr. Corwine maintains close relations 
 with Mr. Gustav A. Schwab, of the 
 North German Lloyd Steamship Com¬ 
 pany, of whom more hereafter, and both 
 gentlemen were active in the organiza¬ 
 tion of the American Reciprocal Tariff 
 League, organized in Chicago, August, 
 1905 , the control and operations of 
 which association are practically in the 
 hands of these two gentlemen. 
 
 As Germany is the most conspicuous 
 and most successful Protective Tariff 
 country in Europe, and in some respects 
 in the whole world, the new German 
 Tariff law is attracting universal atten¬ 
 tion, as it puts up her own Tariff in 
 order to force down that of ours. The 
 reciprocity convention, held in Chicago 
 
 last August, was largely inspired by this 
 new German Tariff, and that convention 
 surrendered American to German ideas 
 and resolved to memorialize Congress to 
 enact a new Tariff law similar to that 
 of Germany, with maximum and mini¬ 
 mum rates. 
 
 The American Reciprocal Tariff 
 League, with its headquarters in Chi¬ 
 cago, and the ' Merchants’ Association, 
 of New York, work in absolute harmony 
 in their efforts to break down the Amer¬ 
 ican Tariff system in favor of Germany. 
 The Dingley act, which embodies the 
 American system, has promoted our 
 manufacturing industries to such a de¬ 
 gree that the people of the United States 
 are the wonder and envy of the world. 
 This, Mr. Corwine’s associates are try¬ 
 ing to upset in order that Germany may 
 benefit by it. 
 
 Effects of Dingley Act. 
 
 There is not now nor has there been 
 any widespread demand here for 
 change in our Tariff law. Of course 
 no Tariff law is perfect. The Dingley 
 act corrected the errors of the Wilson 
 and McKinley acts, and is probably as 
 near perfect as any Tariff law we shall 
 ever produce. Human ingenuity could 
 not frame a Tariff law that would suit 
 everybody, and if we revised the Tariff 
 now there would at once again be a 
 clamor for its further revision by some 
 dissatisfied faction. The law we have 
 has worked so well on the whole that 
 even leading Democrats acquiesced in it 
 until stirred to activity by such agita¬ 
 tors as Mr. Schwab and Mr. Corwine. 
 Under the Dingley act our foreign com¬ 
 merce, for the fiscal year ending June 
 
3 
 
 g 
 
 r<> 
 
 30,*" 1906, will reach approximately 
 $3,000,000,000, with a balance of $600,- 
 000,000 in our favor. We never before 
 had commerce even approximating this 
 great volume. Surely such a Tariff law 
 is good enough to keep. 
 
 The President of the United States 
 has been most emphatic in expressing 
 his views upon the matter, and they are 
 to the effect that when a Tariff law is 
 working reasonably well, as it is now, it 
 ought not to be disturbed, unless the 
 benefits to result from a change will 
 manifestly outweigh the acknowledged 
 disadvantages. 
 
 President Roosevelt’s earnest desire 
 to avoid unnecessary disturbances to 
 business is shown in his last public 
 speech, in which he states: 
 
 la addition to honesty we need sanity. 
 No honesty will make a public man useful if 
 that man is timid or foolish, if he is a hot 
 headed zealot, or an impracticable visionary, 
 for the wild preachers of unrest and discon- 
 -tent, the wild agitators against the existing 
 order, the men who preach destruction with¬ 
 out proposing any substitutes for what they 
 intend to destroy, or who propose a sub¬ 
 stitute far worse than the existing evils—all 
 these men are the most dangerous opponents 
 of real reform. If they get their way they 
 will lead the people into a deeper pit than 
 any into which they could fall under the 
 present system. 
 
 More important than all else is the wel¬ 
 fare of the wage-earner, the welfare of the 
 tiller of the soil, and upon these depend the 
 welfare of the entire nation. 
 
 Who can doubt that he had the Tariff 
 rippers and advocates of reciprocity in 
 competing articles like Argentine wool 
 and French hosiery in his mind when 
 he uttered in his now famous “muck 
 rake speech ” these forcible and extreme¬ 
 ly applicable words? 
 
 Customs Regulations. 
 
 The Merchants’ Association, by ar¬ 
 rangement of the Western concern, has 
 charge of the Eastern territory, and 
 
 both organizations, I am informed, are 
 quite successful in obtaining funds for 
 advancing the policy which they repre¬ 
 sent, which may be defined as follows: 
 
 Tariff revision, reciprocity in products 
 which we ourselves produce, and the 
 nullification of the administrative acts 
 of the Tariff, which, Yon Buelow recent¬ 
 ly remarked, would be more useful to 
 German exporters than any reductions 
 in the Dingley schedules could possibly 
 be. 
 
 Changes in the customs, rules and 
 regulations are sought in order that 
 they may cripple the customs policy of 
 the United States, partly in the interest 
 of foreign owned transatlantic steamship 
 lines, of importers and traders in for¬ 
 eign products, and to the detriment and 
 injury of domestic producers. They 
 seek to make such changes in our cus¬ 
 toms regulations as would make it more 
 easy for foreign articles to enter the 
 ports of this country, and particularly 
 those of German make. 
 
 Honest importers, who are giving cor¬ 
 rect returns of the valuation of their 
 commodities, are interested as much as 
 are the revenue officers of our Govern¬ 
 ment in seeing that there shall be no 
 undervaluations by dishonest importers 
 who want the administrative acts 
 changed in order to make possible sys¬ 
 tematic undervaluation. These -admin¬ 
 istrative acts, which they attack, pro¬ 
 vide the machinery to prevent roguery 
 of this kind, and the American people 
 insist on keeping this machinery in mo¬ 
 tion. We must be wary to see that 
 those who wish to avoid the payment of 
 proper duties do not use the Trades 
 League to further their ends. 
 
 It has been charged that the present 
 and most active policy of these organ¬ 
 izations (their legislative schemes hav¬ 
 ing failed) is to prevent the nomination 
 
 16771 
 
 D 
 
4 
 
 and election of Protectionist members 
 of Congress. There is evidence that 
 they propose to canvass every corner of 
 the United States, and they seem to 
 have begun their work in Philadelphia 
 with the Trades League. They admit 
 that they are putting reading matter to 
 this effect in the leading agricultural 
 papers and paying for it at advertise¬ 
 ment rates. It is therefore impossible 
 to escape the conclusion that Tariff tear¬ 
 ing legislation and its consequent dis¬ 
 turbance to business is to be forced to 
 an issue by Mr. Corwine’s associates in 
 this year’s Congressional campaigns. 
 
 Among the principal backers of the 
 opponents of Protection in this line are 
 the transatlantic steamship companies, 
 the Western packing industries, the mak¬ 
 ers of agricultural implements and 
 other exporters who seek to expand a 
 foreign market which at present takes 
 only 3 per cent, of our entire produc¬ 
 tion, there being a far better market 
 at home for the other 97 per cent, of it. 
 
 Activity of Foreign Steamship Com- 
 “ panies. 
 
 Now let us see whom Mr. Schwab and 
 Mr. Corwine represent. Mr. Schwab 
 represents a German steamship com¬ 
 pany, that wished to throttle our ef¬ 
 forts to build up an American mercan¬ 
 tile marine, so essential as an auxiliary 
 to our navy. 
 
 An officer of his line recently called 
 the attention of an American passenger 
 to the fact that the splendid fighting 
 ships of our navy are all under offi¬ 
 cered and under manned, and that in 
 case of war we have no trained auxil¬ 
 iary resources to fall back upon. 
 
 They are desperately afraid that the 
 United States will at last apply to its 
 merchant marine, through subsidy, 
 that Protective policy so wonderfully 
 successful with the German mercantile 
 
 marine (which is the most heavily sub¬ 
 sidized in the whole world), and also 
 with the Tariff Protected manufactur¬ 
 ing industries of the United States. 
 
 They know, as do all other foreign 
 ship owners, that if the United States 
 does adopt that policy the foreign 
 monopoly to which we pay out $1,000,- 
 000,000 every five years for carrying 
 our commerce, every dollar of which 
 should be earned by Americans, and 
 which monopoly now grips the throat 
 of American commerce, will be broken. 
 Consequently these powerful foreign 
 steamship companies are doing every¬ 
 thing they can to delude Congress and 
 baffle the efforts of President Roosevelt 
 and others who seek to create a great 
 American shipping industry. 
 
 The Tariff has so stimulated our steel 
 and iron industries that we are now ex¬ 
 porting bridges and locomotives on a 
 large scale. Some one has recently said 
 that a steel steamship is practically a 
 bridge with a locomotive inside of it, 
 which, in a rough way, illustrates our 
 readiness to build up a mercantile ma¬ 
 rine just as soon as Congress applies to 
 it, through the Ship Subsidy bill, the 
 system of subsidies that has built up 
 the mercantile marines of not only Ger¬ 
 many, but of France and England as 
 well. 
 
 The British Government has practical¬ 
 ly advanced to the Cunard Company the 
 whole cost of building their newest big 
 ships in order that Great Britain may 
 have their use, as auxiliary to its navy, 
 in case of war. Contrast with this our 
 deplorable condition, with no auxiliary 
 ships at all for use in case of foreign 
 war. 
 
 The real character and aims of for¬ 
 eign ship owners may be conjectured 
 from the fact that one of the German 
 steamship companies, the Hamburg- 
 
American Company, took two of their 
 fastest steamships out of the New York 
 service during our war with Spain and 
 deliberately sold them to the Spanish 
 Government to burn, sink and destroy 
 the commerce of the American people, 
 whose patronage had rolled up enor¬ 
 mously the company’s dividends. Our 
 soldiers in the meanwhile were crowded 
 like cattle in such old cast-off tubs as, 
 by straining international laws to the 
 breaking point, we could procure, and 
 while our Government was embarrassed 
 in every way for lack of American 
 ships fast steamers were transferred 
 from the German mercantile marine to 
 assist our foe and to defeat our army 
 and navy. One if not both the ships 
 soft by the Hamburg-American Line 
 formed a part of the squadron with 
 which Admiral Camara sailed from 
 Cadiz to strike Admiral Dewey at 
 Manila. 
 
 At the same time the German squad¬ 
 ron under von Diederichs at Manila was 
 harassing Admiral Dewey in every pos¬ 
 sible way to the verge of actual hostili¬ 
 ties. It is stated, and I believe it to be 
 true, that both the Hamburg-American 
 and the North German Lloyd are largely 
 controlled by members of the Imperial 
 family and the Imperial Government of 
 Germany, and that they are virtually a 
 branch of the Imperial naval reserve. 
 
 Thus has the whole elaborate Ger¬ 
 man Imperial programme aided' the 
 German mercantile marine, involving 
 not only grants to transatlantic lines, 
 but often the carriage at only actual 
 cost on German State railroads, of ma¬ 
 terial for use in German shipyards. 
 The offering of preferential railway 
 rates on goods exported by German 
 ships and the interference with the pas¬ 
 sage through Germany of immigrants 
 holding tickets by other than these Ger¬ 
 
 man lines are parts of this practice. 
 These German steamship companies are, 
 you will see, in one way or another the 
 creatures of governmental favor, and 
 this is the nation that Mr. Corwine 
 would persuade you Americans to fa¬ 
 vor commercially. 
 
 Mr. Corwine comes before you to urge 
 special Tariff reductions on imports 
 from Germany in exchange for rates 
 that have been marked up in order to 
 offer a ma.rked-down concession. This 
 is not such reciprocity as American ex¬ 
 porters have been seeking. 
 
 The only way to meet it would be to 
 follow the German example and enact 
 a law increasing the rates now in force, 
 to be used only against nations who 
 make reprisals on us, so as to make con¬ 
 cessions to friendly nations that would 
 not fall below the present Dingley act 
 rates of duty. As Secretary Shaw has 
 so often and so well expressed it, Ger¬ 
 many offers to treat the United States 
 as well as she treats other friendly 
 Powers if we will in return treat Ger¬ 
 many better than we treat any other 
 friendly Poicer. To make such an agree¬ 
 ment with Germany would be equiva¬ 
 lent to a commercial alliance and dis¬ 
 crimination against every other commer¬ 
 cial rival of Germany. 
 
 On February 18 Prince von Buelow, 
 the Imperial Chancellor, sent to the 
 Reichstag a bill for the extension of 
 the United States Tariff because he, at 
 least, realized that in case of a Tariff 
 war with the United States much of the 
 merchandise now and heretofore pass¬ 
 ing between Germany and the United 
 States would still continue to be han¬ 
 dled by us through Free-Trade England 
 without any increase in duty, but in¬ 
 stead of being carried as now in Ger¬ 
 man ships would be carried in British 
 bottoms. 
 
Germany Not to Write Our TarilTUaws. 
 
 Baron von Sternoerg learned in Wash¬ 
 ington that the United States was not 
 to be bluffed by Germany and would 
 not permit Germany to write the Tariff 
 laws of the United States. 
 
 A canvass of the members of Con¬ 
 gress showed clearly that they would 
 not submit to German reprisal, but that 
 they would enact something like the 
 McCleary bill, giving to Germany the 
 same minimum Tariff rates that were 
 given to England, who buys more of us 
 than all the rest of the world put to¬ 
 gether, and would then apply a penalty 
 of 25 per cent, to German imports of 
 all kinds, whether now free or dutiable, 
 If Germany discriminated against the 
 United States. Such retaliation would 
 hurt Germany more than it would hurt 
 us. 
 
 The German threat of declaring a 
 Tariff war against the United States 
 was therefore dropped, and will not now 
 be carried into effect. 
 
 The contention of Mr. Corwine that 
 “ it is clearly up to us in the next six¬ 
 teen months to adopt a Tariff policy 
 which will enable us to make permanent 
 our present trade relations with Ger¬ 
 many ” is a poor bluff, and is a conten¬ 
 tion based upon the single fact, perfectly 
 obvious to those who will take the 
 pains to grasp the situation in all its 
 aspects, that Germany was certain to be 
 the chief sufferer in a Tariff conflict 
 with the United States, and therefore 
 could not afford it and would not adopt 
 it. Mr. Schwab and Mr. Corwine both 
 know this very well. Our imports from 
 Germany consist almost exclusively of 
 manufactured articles which we can 
 produce in our own factories or buy as 
 well in Free-Trade England. 
 
 Our sales to Germany for the most 
 part are materials, such as cotton and 
 
 copper, which Germany must have and 
 cannot obtain from any other country. 
 
 The position of the United States has 
 at all times been an impregnable one. 
 All we had to do was to state that Ger¬ 
 many was to he treated exactly on the 
 most favorable basis of any other na¬ 
 tion, but not any better than England, 
 our best customer, and then let Ger¬ 
 many do the worrying, which she has 
 done. Finding that she could not com¬ 
 pel us to accede to her defires she has 
 backed down, and will always do so 
 when our position of equal fairness to 
 all countries is not deviated from. The 
 McCleary policy of a minimum and max¬ 
 imum Tariff, with the Dingley act as 
 the minimum, but with a penalty of 25 
 per cent, additional duties on the im¬ 
 ports from any nation that discriminates 
 unjustly against the products of the 
 United States, is a policy that will al¬ 
 ways win popular support, as its mere 
 introduction into Congress has recently 
 done. 
 
 To Force German Competitive Prod¬ 
 ucts luto the United States. 
 
 What Germany seeks is to force a 
 wider opening for the entrance of her 
 competitive products into the United 
 States. 
 
 Our splendid market of 85,000,000 
 people, who are the most liberal pur¬ 
 chasers on earth, was her main objec¬ 
 tive. The accomplished fact of the 
 American Protective Tariff system has 
 been to raise the standard of living in 
 this country, whidh makes this big mar¬ 
 ket of 85,000,000 people the best market 
 in the world. This market is what 
 Germany is striving for, and the trade 
 treaties negotiated between her and 
 other European nations were minor af¬ 
 fairs. Those countries could not take 
 much more than they had been taking, 
 while, on the other hand, if the Amer- 
 
ican Tariff could be broken down Ger¬ 
 many’s sales to this country would be 
 doubled, trebled or even quadrupled, a 
 prize which Mr. Corwine and Mr. 
 Schwab and all other German repre¬ 
 sentatives here see is worth striving for. 
 
 They have worked the German scare 
 for all it was worth and, as the event 
 has proved, for much more than it was 
 worth. Mr. Schwab and Mr. Corwine 
 called together a reciprocity confer¬ 
 ence in Chicago, and the result of that 
 movement was the organization of the 
 American Reciprocal Tariff League, 
 whose main object in its short life so 
 far has been to frighten the Western 
 farmers into fits at the prospect of los¬ 
 ing the market in Germany for their 
 food products. 
 
 As has been previously stated, they 
 were able to secure the strenuous co¬ 
 operation of the Merchants’ Association 
 of New York, the entire Democratic 
 press of the United States, German 
 manufacturers and American Free- 
 Traders and a number of Republican 
 newspapers, who for a time were de¬ 
 ceived into helping along the movement 
 to break down the American Tariff sys¬ 
 tem, but the determination expressed by 
 the McCleary bill, with the Dingley 
 Tariff as the minimum, and a Tariff 
 penalty of 25 per cent, additional as a 
 maximum, to be used only as a reprisal 
 against nations warring upon us, has 
 enabled the American people to hold for 
 the present the American market for 
 the benefit of American labor and Amer¬ 
 ican industry. 
 
 American Tariff Not to be Broken 
 Down to Flease Germany. 
 
 The American Tariff must not be 
 broken down to please Germany and 
 her American reserves of Free-Traders, 
 Tariff revisers and reciprocarians, but 
 Americans must ever continue to write 
 
 American Tariffs to suit American and 
 not German interests. 
 
 From the testimony of the expert 
 United States special agents who work 
 in German territory it has been thor¬ 
 oughly demonstrated that in no respect 
 is the German customs policy so rea¬ 
 sonable and fair to American shippers 
 as is the present policy of the United 
 States to German shippers. A square 
 deal to all is the United States practice. 
 
 Neither in Germany nor in any other 
 country is there an independent Board 
 of Appraisers, such as the United States 
 employ, but, on the contrary, in Ger¬ 
 many the customs officers are arbitrary 
 and indulge in all sorts of unreasonable 
 acts calculated to impede the introduc¬ 
 tion into their markets of American 
 commodities. They find trivial excuses 
 for excluding American horses, apples 
 and hog products, which latter are most 
 carefully and scientifically prepared for 
 export of any similar products in the 
 world. If therefore we have any favors 
 to grant to foreign nations we should 
 give them to England, our best customer, 
 who welcomes our exports, and not to 
 the German nation, which inclines to 
 prohibitive duties upon so many Amer¬ 
 ican articles similar to those Germany 
 herself manufactures or produces. 
 
 There is nothing that comes from 
 Germany that we cannot get elsewhere, 
 and there is nothing that we sell to 
 Germany, in case she piles up a pro¬ 
 hibitive Tariff against our exports, that 
 we cannot indirectly sell to Germany 
 through other countries to whom Ger¬ 
 many allows her minimum rates. 
 
 That Threatened Commercial War 
 Vanishes Into Thin Air. 
 
 The proposed prohibitive German du¬ 
 ties upon many of our products which 
 we are exporting to Germany in in¬ 
 creasing quantities, as Mr. Corwine 
 
clearly states, if carried into effect 
 without doubt “ would under the new 
 system have borne so heavily upon some 
 of the products of our soil as to have 
 been burdensome to us,” but this is not 
 so very' alarming, for Germany cannot 
 afford to go into a Tariff war with the 
 United States, for whatever she ceases 
 tp buy of us us she must buy elsewhere, 
 which to some extent would make an 
 opening and a market elsewhere for 
 these American products. 
 
 Mr. Corwine speaks of the German 
 Tariff Commission, composed of experts, 
 which made an exhaustive study of the 
 subject of German trade. Their pres¬ 
 ent Tariff bill was formulated as the re¬ 
 sult of this study, and after considera¬ 
 ble discussion in the Reichstag became 
 law over a year ago. Germany (hoping 
 to frighten our timid people) immedi¬ 
 ately gave notice to the United States 
 that it would become operative the 
 first of March, 1906. 
 
 When our Congress failed to take any 
 notice of the situation, and when the 
 German officials discovered that a pen¬ 
 alty of 25 per cent, in retaliation was 
 more than likely to be imposed on all 
 German exports to this country, includ¬ 
 ing many which are now free, they dis¬ 
 covered that the United States had 
 called Germany’s bluff. So they laid 
 down their cards, and the commercial 
 war into which in his view we were 
 drifting and which was so graphically 
 portrayd by Mr. Corwine in his address 
 to the Trades League vanishes into thin 
 air. 
 
 That Broad and Enlightened Policy. 
 
 Mr. Corwine quotes President McKin¬ 
 ley as stating that “ only a broad and 
 enlightened policy will keep what we 
 have. No other policy will get more.” 
 That enlightened policy, in its perfec¬ 
 
 tion, is surely the policy of the Ding- 
 ley Tariff act, for under it our average 
 annual imports in the first two fiscal 
 years of this act were valued at $656,- 
 599,071, and the annual average of the 
 last two fiscal years ending June 30, 
 1905, was $1,054,300,221, an increase 
 of $397,701,150, or over 60 per cent. 
 But Mr. Corwine endeavors to make 
 us believe that in order to sell to a 
 country we must buy from her. Let us 
 see if this is true. 
 
 We sold to foreign nations during 
 the first two fiscal years of the Dingley 
 Tariff act an annual average of $1,229,- 
 252,876 worth of merchandise. But 
 during the last two fiscal years of the 
 Dingley Tariff act, ending June 30, 
 
 1905, we sold to foreign nations mer¬ 
 chandise, the annual average of which 
 was $1,489,694,468, an increase of $260,- 
 441,592, or over 21 per cent. This is 
 the “ broad and enlightened policy ” 
 to which President McKinley alluded, 
 which for the year ending June 30, 
 
 1906, will probably reach $1,800,000,000, 
 and, as before stated, $600,000,000 
 worth more will be sold to foreign na¬ 
 tions under the Dingley Tariff than we 
 will buy of them. Is not this policy 
 better than any other that we can 
 adopt when we find our competitors, 
 like Germany, going almost to the verge 
 of a commercial war to force her sur¬ 
 plus productions into new markets? 
 
 Resiprocity. 
 
 Mr. Corwine advocates “ reciprocity 
 treaties in harmony wfith the spirit of 
 the times,” but the reciprocity which 
 he and Germany propose is the reci¬ 
 procity on such competing articles as 
 Germany can produce at a lower cost 
 than we can. This was not the Mc¬ 
 Kinley idea of reciprocity. 
 
 In effect it would be Free-Trade, 
 
9 
 
 which McKinley opposed with all his 
 force. As an illustration of the only kind 
 of reciprocity that Americans should 
 ever adopt, we should take free from 
 Brazil her coffee, which we do not pro¬ 
 duce, in exchange for the free entrance 
 into their market of American flour, 
 which we do produce. 
 
 Any other sort of reciprocity in com¬ 
 petitive products is Tariff reduction. 
 Tariff reduction is price reduction; 
 price reduction is wage reduction. Ger¬ 
 many desires reciprocity in woolen 
 hosiery because she can make it 
 cheaper than we can, for she pays only 
 one-tliird the wages that are paid in 
 the same industry in the United States. 
 Such reciprocity would mean lack of 
 employment for those of our people 
 now employed in manufacturing under¬ 
 wear for approximately 85,000,000 peo¬ 
 ple, and as fast as you throw out of 
 employment the labor employed in such 
 vast industries you precipitate business 
 trouble, and when you multiply these 
 troubles, as was done by the Wilson 
 act for Tariff revision in 1894, you pro¬ 
 duce panic. 
 
 Mr. Corwine speaks of the failure of 
 the Senate to ratify the reciprocity 
 treaties with the Argentine Republic 
 and with France. He failed to tell you 
 that the Argentine treaty failed because 
 it was so drawn as to be a serious 
 menace to the very life of the wool in¬ 
 dustry of the United States. Reciprocity 
 in wool would be a move toward Free- 
 Trade in wool, which was tried with 
 such disastrous effects in Grover Cleve¬ 
 land’s administration. The French 
 treaty was not ratified because it was 
 found that with it we would have freer 
 trade in hosiery, which would have 
 ruined a very important American in¬ 
 dustry. It is very well to propose re¬ 
 ciprocal treaties, for the word reciprocal 
 
 sounds soothing and attractive, but when 
 you go into details and come to examine 
 them you soon find you are against a 
 proposition to cripple an important 
 American industry. This is what Presi¬ 
 dent McKinley in his Buffalo speech 
 especially warned us not to do. 
 
 Danger In Tariff Revision. 
 
 In three months after the Ways and 
 Means Committee of the House of Rep¬ 
 resentatives begins to revise the Tariff 
 on the lines recommended by Germany, 
 through the secretary of the New York 
 Committee of the American Reciprocal 
 Tariff League, symptoms of a financial 
 panic would appear which might be a 
 worse panic than any this nation has 
 ever known. This is because prices, 
 through the long period of abounding 
 prosperity have reached such heights, 
 that they would now have further to 
 fall to the Free-Trade level than ever 
 before. 
 
 Those who advocate reciprocity insist 
 that we must invite importations if we 
 wish to increase our exportations. The 
 figures quoted above, showing the actual 
 commerce of this nation, disprove this 
 assertion. 
 
 They urge that if we place the Tariff 
 on some articles sufficiently low to in¬ 
 sure a greater influx of foreign goods 
 the doors of trade will automatically 
 open to us, and we will have an abun¬ 
 dant outlet, but an examination of the 
 records shows nothing to justify this 
 claim. 
 
 Never in recent years has there been a 
 period of low Tariff that has not re¬ 
 sulted in less importations, nor a period 
 of high Tariff that has not resulted in 
 larger importations. This is because 
 when our people are prosperous, as they 
 are to-day under the Dingley Tariff act, 
 
10 
 
 I 
 
 they buy everything in sight and send 
 abroad for more. 
 
 When they are suffering from the ef¬ 
 fects of a Tariff for revenue only, or 
 from unwise reciprocity, they are unable 
 to consume and therefore import little. 
 
 Whenever the American people buy 
 their woolens, and their iron and steel, 
 and their articles of every day consump¬ 
 tion abroad, American producers of those 
 articles are out of employment and our 
 consumptive capacity is reduced to a 
 minimum. 
 
 For the four fiscal years of high Pro¬ 
 tection in operation previous to the Free- 
 Trade Wilson law we imported for con¬ 
 sumption an average of $12.21 per cap¬ 
 ita. During the next four years of the 
 revised Wilson Tariff, giving credit for 
 the great influx of goods in anticipation 
 of the higher rate of the forthcoming 
 Dingley act, we imported only $10.81 per 
 capita—a loss of over $1 per capita. 
 During the last fiscal year of the pres¬ 
 ent Dingley act we imported for con¬ 
 sumption merchandise valued at $13.44 
 per capita, and this year we have in¬ 
 creased our importations of articles for 
 consumption over last year. If this rec¬ 
 ord continues throughout the year, giv¬ 
 ing credit for our increase in population, 
 we will import for consumption material 
 worth nearly $16.00 per capita. 
 
 Never in the history of the United 
 States did our people consume so many 
 dollars’ worth of foreign goods, and 
 never in the history of the world did 
 any people ever consume so many dol¬ 
 lars’ worth of domestic goods as we are 
 now consuming. Is it any wonder then 
 that President Roosevelt and Speaker 
 Cannon “stand pat?” 
 
 What wonder is it then that all sorts 
 of insidious efforts are being made by 
 representatives of foreign interests to 
 build up organizations like the Ameri¬ 
 
 can Reciprocal Tariff League, in order 
 that foreigners may share with us what 
 we are now enjoying under the Dingley 
 Tariff act? 
 
 Prospering as we did under the old 
 McKinley act, we imported in the fiscal 
 year of 1892 $12.50 per capita, and ex¬ 
 ported $16.51 per capita. Two years 
 later, when the Tariff had been revised 
 on such lines as were recommended by 
 the secretary of the Committee of the 
 American Reciprocal Tariff League, who 
 has so recently addressed the Trades 
 League, we imported $3 less per capita, 
 exported $2.75 less per capita and con¬ 
 sumed 2 y 2 bushels less wheat per capita 
 than was consumed under the McKinley 
 act. 
 
 This comparison gives some illustra¬ 
 tion of how the nation prospers under 
 what you would be led to believe was a 
 system of Republican Protection which 
 is so often denounced by Free-Traders 
 as fraud and robbery. 
 
 The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. 
 Shaw, has just stated that the country 
 is now being flooded with literature urg¬ 
 ing that we treat those best who treat 
 us worst. 
 
 We are asked to reduce our Tariff 
 for the benefit of those countries which 
 increase theirs, and let those who take 
 our goods in greatest quantities pay the 
 full rate. “ The present Tariff act,” he 
 says, “ has given the American pro¬ 
 ducer, artisan and farmer such advan¬ 
 tages in the American home market that 
 we actually sell to each other more than 
 twice as much as the aggregate interna¬ 
 tional commerce of the whole world.” 
 Is there any reason here for upsetting 
 this happy condition? 
 
 “ The Dingley Tariff act has made pos¬ 
 sible our marvelous development, until 
 the finished products of our shops and 
 factories equal those of any other three 
 
 « 
 
11 
 
 
 countries on the map. and our daily 
 wage pay roll exceeds that of the bal¬ 
 ance of the globe.” 
 
 Selling at Lower Prices Abroad. 
 
 Speaking of the attack upon the Tar¬ 
 iff, the Secretary of the Treasury says: 
 
 “ It is based mainly on the fact that we 
 sell some products in foreign markets at 
 lower prices than we obtain for them 
 at home.” This seems to act like a red 
 flag to a bull, and the American people 
 seem not to understand that while our 
 industries are so stimulated by the Tar¬ 
 iff at times, there must be moments of 
 over-production, and our surplus has 
 then to be sold in foreign markets at 
 whatever it will fetch there. This proc¬ 
 ess of running full time, even at the risk 
 of producing a surplus, cheapens prod¬ 
 ucts to the American consumer, for if our 
 mills made only the goods that could be 
 consumed at home the cost to the Amer¬ 
 ican consumers would be increased. For 
 instance, a great American carpet mill 
 when running full time will make more 
 carpets than can be sold to the American 
 people, but by doing so the cost of pro¬ 
 duction is lessened, for the reason that 
 fixed charges are the same when they 
 run three-quarter time as when they 
 run on full time. Assuming that by 
 running three-quarter time they could 
 make all the carpets they could sell in 
 the United States, the cost per yard 
 under these circumstances w T ould be in¬ 
 creased 5 cents, whereas, by running 
 full time the cost per yard is decreased 
 5 cents to the American consumer. The 
 unsalable surplus portion is dumped on 
 the London market and sold there at 
 cost or less. This immediately sets up 
 a howl on the part of those Americans 
 who are seeking an excuse to rip open 
 the Tariff, because we sell cheaper 
 abroad than at home. 
 
 • 
 
 Steel Ralls. 
 
 The Dingley Tariff act has been de¬ 
 nounced because of the report that steel 
 rails produced in the United States are 
 sometimes sold abroad at lower prices 
 than in American markets. Therefore, 
 the absurd proposition is advanced that 
 because of this fact the Dingley Tariff 
 act promotes trusts and should be imme¬ 
 diately repealed. 
 
 E. H. Gary, chairman of the board of 
 directors of the United States Steel Cor¬ 
 poration, in his recent testimony before 
 a Congressional committee which was 
 investigating this subject, stated that 
 “ the charge made against his corpora¬ 
 tion of having sold 100,000 tons of steel 
 plate to Belfast ship builders at consid¬ 
 erably less than the domestic price was 
 not true. His corporation had sold no 
 such amount of steel.” 
 
 He stated that the facts were these: 
 The corporation sold 3,000 tons of steel 
 plate abroad inyllXH* but none in 1903 
 nor 1902. 
 
 He went on to show that the export 
 price for rails made in and exported 
 from Great Britain, a Free-Trade coun¬ 
 try, was $25 per ton, or nearly 21 per 
 cent, below their home price, which was 
 $31.50. 
 
 On the other hand, in the United 
 States the home price was $28, and the 
 United States export price nearly $2G, 
 the export price being slightly under 8 
 per cent, below the price charged home 
 consumers, as against an export price 
 of nearly 21 per cent, less than the home 
 price in Free-Trade England. 
 
 The home price in Germany and Bel¬ 
 gium was $30, and their export price 
 $24, or 20 per cent, less than their home 
 price. The home price in France and 
 Austria-Hungary was $31, and their ex¬ 
 port price $25.50, or 18 per cent, less 
 
 than their home price. 
 
12 
 
 What seems to affront those who want 
 the Tariff revised is the fact that the 
 American export price, like that of the 
 rest of the world, is also below the 
 home price. To satisfy this class who 
 would rip open the Tariff in order to 
 lower domestic prices to the level of for¬ 
 eign prices, we would have to close 
 American factories for a period until 
 American wages could be reduced more 
 closely to the European level. All must 
 admit that American rails cannot be ex¬ 
 ported without loss in competition with 
 European rails when the latter are made 
 by labor receiving fully one-half less 
 than that paid to American labor. 
 
 In view of the established fact that 
 nearly all of the benefits of the Protec¬ 
 tion of the Dingley Tariff act go to 
 labor, how can the Tariff be revised 
 downward, and our mills be kept run¬ 
 ning on full time, at the scale of wages 
 prevailing under the Dingley act, and 
 at the same time compete abroad with 
 foreign rails, often receiving a Govern¬ 
 ment bounty, as in Germany, the export 
 price for which rails is nearly 21 per 
 cent, less than their home price? 
 
 Considering that Great Britain is a 
 Free-Trade country, and Germany has 
 a very high Protective Tariff, and with 
 an export bounty besides, and also con¬ 
 sidering the fact that in both of these 
 
 countries the difference between the -ex¬ 
 port price and the home price is greater 
 than in the United States, will the 
 Reciprocal Tariff League explain how 
 revising the Tariff downward will alter 
 established worldwide conditions show¬ 
 ing greater differences between home 
 and export prices in foreign countries 
 than in the United States? 
 
 The claims that the Dingley Tariff 
 act is responsible for charging a higher 
 price to home than to foreign consum¬ 
 ers, and that Tariff revision downward 
 is a remedy for a custom that is world¬ 
 wide, and practiced in both Free-Trade 
 and Protective foreign countries, are 
 both ridiculous and false, and to persist 
 in these claims is neither fair nor 
 manly. 
 
 The effect of “ Tariff revision down¬ 
 ward ” w T ould be to destroy American 
 industries, injure American labor and 
 crush out American competition, w r hich 
 would end in a foreign monopoly of the 
 home market. 
 
 Comparison of Prices. 
 
 Below is the schedule presented by 
 Mr. Gary to a committee of the House 
 of Representatives, comparing present 
 “ free on board ” mill prices on iron and 
 steel with home and export prices, in 
 the principal countries producing these 
 articles: 
 
 COMPARISON OF PRESENT F.O.B. MILL PRICES WITH DOMESTIC AND EXPORT PRICES ON IRON' 
 
 AND STEEL IN THE PRINCIPAL PRODUCING COUNTRIES. 
 
 Structural material, including shapes, 
 
 , -Rails.- N plates, bars, angles and tees. 
 
 Percentage Percentage 
 
 Home of dif- of dif- 
 
 Country. price. Export price. ference. Home price. Export price, ference. 
 
 Great Britain.$31.50 $25.00 20.97 $1.60 $1.35 15.60 
 
 Germany . 30.00 24.00 20.00 1.50 1.25 16.66 
 
 France . 31.00 25.50 18.00 1 65 1.45 12.00 
 
 Austria-Hungary... 31.00 25.50 18.00 1.50 1.35 10.00 
 
 Belgium. 30.00 24.00 20.00 1.55 $1.35 to 1.40 11.30 
 
 United States. 28.00 $25.00 to 26.60 7.86 $1.60 to 1.70 1.40 to 1.50 12.12 
 
 Note. —The above is a copy in part from page 292, “ Hearings before the Committee on 
 Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives on Senate bill 529.” 
 
But Secretary Shaw calls attention to 
 the fact that Europe encourages the 
 maintenance of two distinct schedules of 
 prices—a higher one for their domestic 
 or home consumption and a lower one 
 for export. He says there is scarcely 
 a manufactured article in all Europe 
 that Cannot be purchased from 10 to 25 
 per cent, cheaper for export to the 
 United States than for domestic con¬ 
 sumption in countries of production. He 
 quotes, in confirmation of this, George 
 Paish, editor of the London “ Statist,” 
 the greatest economic journal in Europe, 
 who was Mr. Shaw’s guest in this coun¬ 
 try. 
 
 Secretary Shaw introduced him to an 
 audience that he was addressing, and 
 Mr. Paish sat on the platform. In the 
 course of the discussion Secretary Shaw 
 made the assertion that every European 
 government except England encourages 
 the sale of merchandise abroad at lower 
 prices than at home. He added that he 
 was not certain as to the attitude of 
 England, and referred the question to 
 Mr. Paish, who promptly replied: “ Eng¬ 
 land does not encourage it, but the Brit¬ 
 ish people practice it.” Americans alone 
 of all the people in the world complain 
 that goods are sometimes sold abroad 
 cheaper than at home. Those who do 
 the most harm in these attacks upon 
 the Tariff in unsettling business are 
 Republicans, who profess to believe in 
 the principles of Projection, but who 
 are led through the influence of such 
 men as Mr. Corwine to denounce the 
 successful application of Protection. If 
 the Tariff were opened with the inten¬ 
 tion only of crossing a “ t ” or dotting 
 an “ i,” it would be impossible for the 
 managers to keep it from being distorted, 
 so that till it was finished no one could 
 tell what sort of Tariff we would then 
 have, nor would they know how much 
 
 business would be disturbed until after 
 the harm was done. Even then if a new 
 Tariff was made, as has always been 
 the case, there would be a lot of people 
 who would be angry about it, because 
 the changes which were made some 
 might think should not have been made, 
 and others would have been angry be¬ 
 cause such changes were not made. 
 Thus we are ever bound to have Tariff 
 agitation and demands for Tariff re¬ 
 vision that will act as disturbances to' 
 business, so that there is more safety 
 in letting alone a law that is working 
 so much better than any we have ever 
 before had than in trying doubtful ex¬ 
 periments. To-day the most active of 
 the small handful of disturbers, like 
 Governors Cummins, of Iowa, and 
 Guild, of Massachusetts, who are 
 asking for Tariff revision, as a reason 
 for this, point to a few rates in the 
 Dingley act as excessive, while the aver¬ 
 age of all the goods that are dutiable 
 under this act is only in the neighbor¬ 
 hood of 45 per cent. 
 
 A Sample of the fiew German Tariff. 
 
 Secretary Shaw calls attention to the 
 moderation of the Dingley act, in com¬ 
 parison with the new German Tariff, 
 where the rates were advanced 50 per 
 cent, in her minimum Tariff and 210 per 
 cent, in her maximum Tariff. On some 
 articles she increased her minimum Tar¬ 
 iff 67 per cent., her maximum Tariff 
 being increased 210 per cent. She in¬ 
 creased her minimum. Tariff on wheat 
 flour 40 per cent, and her maximum 
 Tariff on this 157 per cent. She in¬ 
 creased her minimum Tariff on fresh 
 beef 80 per cent, and her maximum Tar¬ 
 iff on this article 200 per cent. She in¬ 
 creased her minimum Tariff on salted 
 and pickled beef 100 per cent, and her 
 maximum Tariff 250 per cent. She in¬ 
 creased her minimum Tariff on high- 
 
14 
 
 grade boots and shoes 38 per cent, and 
 on these articles she increased her max¬ 
 imum Tariff 177 per cent. She increased 
 her minimum Tariff on bicycles and 
 parts thereof 300 per cent, and her max¬ 
 imum Tariff on these articles 525 per 
 cent. Germany also took a large num¬ 
 ber of articles from her free list and 
 imposed minimum and maximum duties 
 thereon. Yet we find plausible Free- 
 Trade agents asking us to reduce our 
 Tariff for the benefit of this same Ger¬ 
 many, requiring at the same time full 
 rates on her imports from such countries 
 as receive our goods free. Will the 
 Trades League allow its eyes to be closed 
 by any bunco game as shallow as this? 
 The Dlngley Act a Revenue Producer. 
 
 Tariff revision downward and reci¬ 
 procity caused such a deficit in the rev¬ 
 enue during Grover Cleveland’s admin¬ 
 istration that we were obliged to sell 
 $262,000,000 of bonds to defray the cur¬ 
 rent necessary expenses of the Govern¬ 
 ment. 
 
 Duties had been cut down low in order 
 to invite heavier importations, or, in 
 other words, reciprocity was put into 
 practice on competitive products, and 
 while there was enough brought in un¬ 
 der the Wilson act to paralyze our do¬ 
 mestic industries and throw millions of 
 men employed therein out of work, there 
 was not enough imported to furnish suffi¬ 
 cient revenue, and a deficit had to be 
 met by the sale of bonds. This created 
 distrust, and there was a financial panic 
 every year during the existence of that 
 Tariff act. There has been none since 
 the Dingley act was enacted in its place. 
 Is this any reason for its repeal? 
 
 Contrast the Wilson act conditions 
 with the situation at present. The Ding- 
 ley act is proving to be the best revenue 
 producer ever in force. Our increased 
 expenditures are met by increased cus¬ 
 
 toms duties and increased internal reve¬ 
 nues as well. The year before last it 
 was the Panama Canal payments that 
 depleted the Treasury, and last year 
 the Cuban treaty and a great increase 
 in the appropriation for rural free de¬ 
 livery, but now the revenue exceeds our 
 expenditures, and at the end of the fiscal 
 year of 1906 there will be a surplus, not¬ 
 withstanding enormously increased ex¬ 
 penditures. 
 
 Our imports coming over the top of 
 our so-called high Tariff Chinese wall 
 are enormous, because of the prosperity 
 of the people, who, owing to the present 
 Tariff, are enjoying full employment at 
 high wages. It would be folly, there¬ 
 fore, to listen to the advice of Mr. Cor- 
 wine, favoring immediate Tariff revision 
 and reciprocity of the German brand, 
 when the present law continues to bring 
 such beneficial results, both to the Treas¬ 
 ury of the United States and the Ameri¬ 
 can people, and the Trades League 
 should be wary of how its funds are 
 contributed to circulate such pamphlets 
 as that which contains his address. 
 
 Undervaluation Is Fraud. 
 
 Examine for a moment the attitude of 
 Germany toward the United States and 
 consider whether the solicitude for Ger¬ 
 many on the part of the American Re¬ 
 ciprocal Tariff League is warranted. 
 Taking such high authority as that of 
 Secretary Shaw, in his statement before 
 the House Committee of Ways and 
 Means in opposition to the importers’ 
 plea for opening hearings in cases of 
 alleged undervaluation. Secretary Shaw 
 quoted liberally from an address recently 
 delivered before the German Chamber 
 of Commerce at Berlin, by the chairman 
 of the meeting, who is one of the largest 
 and most reputable merchants in the 
 whole of Germany, and a record of it 
 was sent to all the Chambers of Com- 
 
15 
 
 # 
 
 merce of the realm. In that speech, ad¬ 
 dressed to a body of representatives 
 from every important manufacturing 
 center in Germany, there were disclosed 
 a plan and policy of undervaluation for 
 exports to the United States of the most 
 deliberate and systematic character. 
 Plainly and without equivocation, it set 
 forth that a proposition to undervalue 
 German exports into the United States 
 was not considered fraudulent in Ger¬ 
 many. The following statements are 
 from the speech of the chairman : 
 
 As a fact, the United States is not de¬ 
 pendent for its existence on the collection of 
 duties, and it can afford to allow the falling 
 off of revenues “ on German goods ” for 
 their general good. 
 
 It is clear that the purpose of the Ameri¬ 
 can Tariff is to make the entry of com¬ 
 peting articles into the United States as 
 difficult as possible. To carry this out the 
 United States Government agents resort to 
 the meanest and smallest measures. 
 
 The first of these is the certification of the 
 correctness of invoices by American consular 
 officers stationed in various districts of the 
 Empire. 
 
 Investigation by the United States cus¬ 
 toms officers as to the correctness of these 
 same invoices, which have in America the 
 force and effect that an oath would have in 
 the German Empire. 
 
 A re-examination by agents of the Treas¬ 
 ury Department in cases where there is rea¬ 
 son to suspect undervaluations. 
 
 By the high penalties added for under¬ 
 valuation. 
 
 We admit that an actual swindle is in¬ 
 correct in any business transaction, but un¬ 
 dervaluations of German goods for the pur¬ 
 pose of entry into American ports should 
 not be treated as such unless fraud is posi¬ 
 tively proved. American customs officials 
 treat undervaluations as fraudulent and ap¬ 
 ply the penalties. 
 
 Our goods have been exported to the 
 United States and to England as well, we 
 all admit, at lower prices than those in the 
 home market in Germany, and there have 
 been in some cases low values made that in 
 the United States would be termed fraudu¬ 
 lent. 
 
 Information gained under the Dingley 
 
 Tariff regulations concerning the cost of 
 production has been thwarted through the 
 prudence of our German officials, who have 
 taken care that investigations of this char¬ 
 acter shall throw little light on the actual 
 value of their consignments to the United 
 States. 
 
 In many cases trouble has been avoided 
 by having invoices consulated remote from 
 districts in which the goods are manufac¬ 
 tured. But we must follow up this whole 
 question as to the rights of consular or 
 other American officers to pry into our busi¬ 
 ness for the sole purpose of keeping our 
 merchandise out of the United States. In 
 this we are assured of the cordial support 
 of the Imperial Government. If we stand 
 together firmly as a body, aided and sup¬ 
 ported by our German Boards of Trade, we 
 can bring about a change that will be of 
 untold benefit to our American export trade. 
 
 “ Now, mark you,” says Secretary 
 Shaw, “ from this German standpoint it 
 is not a fraud to undervalue, but from 
 the standpoint of the Dingley Tariff act 
 it is a fraud to undervalue. Market 
 value as defined under American law is 
 the wholesale price at the time of ex¬ 
 port. The trouble with the United 
 State Treasury Department lies in the 
 fact of Germany having two sets of 
 prices—a lower one for export and a 
 higher one for home trade.” 
 
 Mr. Corwine has pointed to the fact 
 that branch factories in Canada have 
 been erected by American manufactur¬ 
 ers, which shows in his view that the 
 United States Tariff ought to be revised. 
 Just what effect the revision of the Tar¬ 
 iff would have on these factories is not 
 apparent. It is the Canadian Tariff 
 that needs to be revised to effect any 
 change in this policy. It is not the 
 Dingley Tariff act that has moved the 
 factories to Canada, but on the other 
 hand, the Canadian Tariff, which is a 
 copy of our own. The Dingley Tariff 
 act has worked so admirably for the 
 United States that Canada has copied 
 it for Canada. Does Mr. Corwine think 
 
16 
 
 it possible that Canada would cut down 
 her Tariff for the purpose of getting 
 these factories to move back to the 
 United States? When the McKinley 
 Tariff went into effect a number of fac¬ 
 tories were erected in this country by 
 Englishmen, who found they could bet¬ 
 ter afford to supply the demands of the 
 American people for certain lines of 
 goods by making them here rather than 
 to make them in England and pay the 
 McKinley Tariff duties upon them to get 
 them into this country. The McKinley 
 Tariff was enacted for the purpose of 
 bringing about this condition of affairs. 
 In the same way the Canadians have 
 passed a Tariff bill that is intended to 
 increase Canadian manufactures. In¬ 
 stead of trying to get them to repeal 
 their Tariff in favor of the United States 
 it would seem to be a wiser thing to 
 endeavor to so adjust the Tariff of the 
 United States as to compel the manu¬ 
 
 facturing of goods in the great ij 
 market in this country by increasing 
 Tariff where necessary, as German] 
 doing, as is illustrated by her inci| 
 of 300 per cent, in the minimum 
 her increase of 525 per cent, in^ 
 maximum duties upon bicycles and pj 
 
 Without opportunity to fully exaj 
 the views which Mr. Corwine so adrj 
 expounds and to determine their 
 lacy many of the members of the Trj 
 League might believe it impossibl 
 escape his conclusion that Tariff rev] 
 is a burning question to be pushej 
 this year’s Congressional campaign. 
 
 The Trades League should advd 
 commercial stability and tranquility] 
 not encourage experiments in line 
 those that have been tried and 
 resulted in disaster, disaster whic 
 often by public men has been said! 
 the American people more than; 
 whole cost of the Civil War. 
 
 
wnm© 
 
 ll If