66

This

first passed. The first tariff act was a second declaration of independence." It was approved by President Washington on the fourth of July, 1789 act aroused the anger both of the English statesmen and English manufacturers, as they saw the late colonies, now the United States, were beginning to manufacture for themselves and to emancipate themselves as commercial dependencies" of Great Britain. "The separate states had indeed possessed the power to levy imposts, but they had never exercised it in any comprehensive manner, and had usually adapted the rate of duty to English trade rather than to the protection of manufacturing interests at home. The action of the Federal government was a new departure of portentous magnitude, and was recognized at home and abroad."—(Blaine's " Twenty Years in Congress," Vol. 1, p. 185.)

The duties under the act of 1789 were not high, but England was disturbed that the power was given to the Federal government to levy any duty which would enable the Americans in time to produce everything for themselves and gain commercial independence.

In 1816 Mr. Clay was a protectionist and Mr. Webster a free trader. Mr. Calhoun, in 1816, was in favor of protection. He said, "The farmer will find a ready market for his surplus products, and, what is almost of equal consequence, a certain cheap supply for all his wants."

The tariff of 1816 was moderately protective," but it encountered the opposition of the commercial interest. Mr. Webster opposed protection because it tended to depress commerce and curtail the profits of the carrying trade. When the New England states were largely engaged in manufacturing, Daniel Webster joined Mr. Clay as a protectionist. When the "New South" engages more and more in manufacturing the South itself will become the advocate of protection. When Calhoun saw that slave labor could not be profitably employed in manufacturing, and that the South would, for an indefinite time, remain agricultural, with England as her chief customer, he became the leader in the South of the free traders, or anti-protectionists.

In 1828, Mr. Calhoun was elected vice president, with Jackson as president. Mr. Van Buren was appointed secretary of state, and became the head of Jackson's cabinet.

A quarrel arose between Van Buren and Mr. Calhoun which caused Mr. Calhoun to resign from the vice presidency. He was elected a United States senator from South Carolina, as the leader of nullification, in 1832. Nullification and treason were vigorously stamped out by President Jackson in 1832. Then Calhoun took up the slavery question as a more potent question for unit. ing the South against the North and for leading the solid South to treason, secession and rebellion.

In 1833 a compromise tariff bill was passed, which was a sliding scale of duties. In consequence of the tariff act of 1833, the financial crisis of 1837 followed which brought on universal distress from 1837 to 1842. This distress and financial and business depression defeated the Democrats and Van Buren in 1840.

In 1844 the Democrats abandoned the tariff issue and took up the annexation of Texas and the Northwest boundary-the line of "Fifty-four-forty or fight."

Mr. Polk was elected by a false and fraudulent issue and misrepresentation. The Democrats passed the anti-protection or free trade tariff law of 1846. It is a remarkable fact that, in 1846, England became a free trade country, so far as food and the raw materials for manufacturing were concerned; but she retained high duties on tea, coffee, sugar, tobacco, malt, spirits, etc. She adopted free trade to crush the infant industries of competing countries, especially her best customer, the United States.

England taxes only that class of imports which meet no competition at home and which she does not produce in sufficient quantities. Strange that

our American anti-protectionists cannot see this distinction. She has always studied the best interest of her people in the trade and commerce of Great Britain. The ambition of English statesmen for over five hundred years has been to make their own country supreme in manufacturing so long as protection was needed to give her the command of trade. She has adopted "partial free trade when she could overcome competition."

In 1846, Mr. Calhoun, James Buchanan, a Democratic supreme court, Democratic senate and house of representatives, with Polk's administration, favored the wishes of England. Indeed, the same can be said of Pierce, Buchanan and Cleveland, that they were subservient to the British government. They outrivaled the Federalists of the Hartford Convention in the memorable war of 1812. The reader should pause here. Mr. Calhoun, James Buchanan, Jefferson Davis and the Southern leaders of the slaveholders entered into a conspiracy with England in 1846, that in consideration that England would not object to the annexation of Texas, the Mexican War and the annexation of Mexican territory, Polk's administration would surrender the disputed territory of "Fifty-four-forty or fight," and adopt the line of forty-nine degrees of latitude, thus surrendering the vast territory from Washington state to Alaska, and from the Red River of the North and Hudson bay to the Pacific ocean to England. The other article of this secret compact was the free trade tariff act of 1846. Loyal Democrats, what do you now think of Calhoun, Buchanan, the Cobden Club and free traders?

After the election of Pierce, in 1852, the Democrats had control of the Federal government. That party has been drifting gradually as a free trade party. Since the Southern leaders got control of the Democratic party, after the Civil War, they have thrown aside all disguise and are in open hostility to the manufacturing interest of the United States, notwithstanding that Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Mississippi are engaged in the manufacturing of iron and steel, and that some cotton factories have been recently started in Alabama and Mississippi. The Democrats in the closing session of Pierce's administration passed the tariff act of 1857, placing duties lower than they had been since 1812.

In consequence of the low tariff of 1857, in the autumn of that year a financial panic swept over the country, bringing ruin to banks, merchants, farmers and workingmen. The wholesale depression of all kinds of business followed from 1857 to 1861. The business of the country was as much paralyzed as in 1837. No new enterprises were spoken of; all was at a standstill. Wages were low, employment was scarce; all kinds of farm produce had a sudden fall; the price of real estate was at a low rate. There are now many millions of people living who remember the hard times during Buchanan's administration, from 1857 to 1861, as compared with good times under a high protective tariff from 1861 to 1883. At no time in the history of the United States did the country grow in every branch of business. Wages were high and employment steady and active. Real estate and farm production commanded a higher price than under a low tariff. At the same time, under the protective tariffs of 1861, 1883 and 1890, the prices of all kinds of protected manufactured articles became cheaper than under the low tariffs of 1846 and 1857. Besides, our protective duties compelled the foreign manufacturer to pay a large federal tax and sell his goods cheaper than under the low tariff of 1846 and 1857. The protective tariff gave employment to the American workmen and kept a large amount of money for home circulation and provided a home market for the American farmers.

The free traders argue that the country was prosperous between the enactment of the tariff of 1846 and 1857. The protectionists say that directly after the passage of the tariff of 1846, "the great famine occurred in Ireland, followed in the ensuing years by short crops in Europe. The prosperity which came to the American agriculturist was, therefore, from causes beyond the sea

and not at home-causes which were transient; indeed, almost accidental. Moreover, an exceptional condition of affairs existed in the United States in consequence of our large acquisition of territory from Mexico at the close of the war, and subsequent and almost immediate discovery of gold in California. A new and extended field of trade was thus opened in which we had a monopoly, and an enormous surplus of money was speedily created from the products of the rich mines on the Pacific coast. At the same time, Europe was in convulsion from the revolutions of 1848, and production was materially hindered over a large part of the continent. This disturbance had scarcely subsided when three leading nations of Europe, England, France and Russia, engaged in the wasteful and expensive war of the Crimea. This struggle began in 1853, and ended in 1856, and during those years it increased consumption and decreased production abroad, and totally closed the grain fields of Russia from any competition with the United States." (Blaine's "Twenty Years in Congress, Vol. 1, p. 203.)

ENGLISH FACTORIES IN CHINA AND INDIA.

During the last quarter of a century more English money has been invested in foreign countries, in foreign enterprises, than at home. India is the country that is sucking English capital out of its natural channels. It shows that imports to England from India are steadily increasing, and exports from England to India are as steadily decreasing. The same thing is taking place with China. English capital is being invested in that country in an ever-increasing volume. Labor is so cheap in India and in China that factories can be run in those countries at less than half what would be required to run them in England. It appears that threepence British or about six cents in American money would buy as much labor in India as two shillings would in England. It would be a terrible retribution if England had to pay for the wrongs done India by making that country rich, while she herself was becoming poor.

If the English nationality could be transferred to India, the change of economic positions of both countries would not be so galling to England. But India cannot be colonized by England, because India is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Neither can the English people, or any considerable part of them, be transferred to India, for even if there were room for them the climate is such as to preclude the possibility of English emigration to that country. But money heeds neither sun nor malaria, and English money has no patriotism. A few men will always be found, for big pay, willing enough to take charge of factories in China or India, but the English themselves cannot go where their money goes. They seem destined to stay at home and starve, while the country they conquered grows rich at their expense and with their money.

There is hardly a branch of manufacture that cannot be carried on as well in India or China as in England. The natives of these countries are very peaceably disposed, they hardly ever go on a strike. They can live, work and get fat on such wages as an European would starve on. China and India have unlimited supplies of cash; they grow cotton in abundance; the supply of cheap labor is so great that men can be found to work for almost anything that is offered them. It is not the pauper labor of Europe, so called, that we in this country may soon have to protect ourselves from, but the pauper labor of India and China, that have, between them, well onto 700,000,000 of inhabitants. England may find that introducing factories into China and India will most likely be the ruin of even the capitalists in the long run. The natives of those countries are poor organizers but great imitators. English manufacturers will not be long without opposition. The natives will soon find out the superiority of machinery over hand power. Plenty of natives will soon be found to build and run factories on the European plan, and dispense with the services of the English overseers. The temptation of the English capitalist to employ

cheap labor is driving English money out of England, not only to India but to other lands of rich soil, cheap labor and easy subsistence, that will drain out capital and trade.

Should England decline to protect her country against the alienation of capital and trade, another half century may see England the retreat of the old age of a small aristocracy of millionaires, who will have made their money where labor was cheapest and return to spend it where life was easiest and most pleasant. No productive work will be possible in England but such as is required for personal services will be procurable at a cheap rate, owing to the reluctance of labor to emigrate with capital.

We look forward to a revived feudalism in England, in which the retired industrial baron will rule with absolute sway the more sentimental or less adventurous menials who shall cling to their own country in preference to following into India or China, Africa and other lands of cheap labor.

England will get her manufactured goods from India and China, where she can employ labor in her factories for about ten cents a day, and dump them in the United States to compete with American labor.

No wonder that English free traders want the United States to throw down the bars of protection and flood the country with goods manufactured by the cheap labor of India and China, and other lands of cheap labor; thus ruining the American manufacturers and the American working people.

The American people must guard against the cheap labor of India and China as much as against Chinese immigration.

Free trade would ruin American manufacturers and the workingmen of the United States as completely as it ruined the manufactures, trade and commerce of Ireland, and in time the cheap labor of India and China will reduce the workingmen of England, Scotland and Wales to the deplorable condition of the Irish workingmen. Then the world will hear of famine in the island of Great Britain. The American workingmen should protect themselves at the ballot box against free trade and starvation wages or no wages at all.

England is now sending her capital to Mexico, Central and South America and to her vast colonies, including Africa, India, China, and other cheap labor countries of the world. All of this drain of English capital will deprive the workingmen of England of employment and wages, and will build up peon and coolie labor all over the greater part of the world.

For over one hundred years the wealth of the world has been flowing into England, making England the first country in the world, ancient and modern, in money, manufactures, trade and commerce, and giving the workingmen of that country the best wages of any other country in the world except the United States.

CHAPTER XIII.

SHIP BUILDING AND THE CARRYING TRADE-COALING STATIONS - AMERICAN NAVY-COAST DEFENSES - BRITISH FORTIFICATIONS.

A

MERICAN shipbuilding has declined since the Civil War in 1861. Dur

ing that war England's piratical cruisers depredated on American commerce, nearly driving the American flag from the ocean. Consequently American capital found safer investment in federal, state, county and city bonds, railroads, mortgages, mines, manufacturing, farms, town lots and inland navigation, than in building ocean steamships. With reciprocity with Spanish America and the West Indies, and by railroads North and South, the South and West will have an outlet from Mobile, New Orleans and Galveston to the markets of the world. This will encourage ship building in the United States. The people should encourage ship building by liberal subsidies. We have over 64,000,000 of a population. Five cents from each person in the United States for five years would give us a merchant marine superior to that of any other country, and would open new markets for the American farmer.

When the navies of the world were sailing vessels, the United States did not need coaling stations. Since the Civil War of 1861, ironclads have superseded wooden vessels. England was prepared for this change, as she had colonies all over the globe, where she could have all kinds of naval supplies. She could protect her flag and subjects in the ports of the world.

The United States has no coaling station from Florida to California, or a harbor for our sick soldiers, or for the repairing of our war vessels, except at the Samoan islands. We have to beg, either from enemies or neutral powers, coal and provisions, and for permission for repairing our national vessels.

A few years ago the United States could have purchased the island of Cuba for $10,000,000. We could have acquired from Denmark the island of St. Thomas, in the West Indies. The treaty for its purchase was rejected in the senate. In 1884, President Arthur made a treaty with the Republic of Nicaragua, which provided that the United States could build and own the Nicaragua canal. The treaty was sent to the United States Senate in 1884, but when President Cleveland got into power, in 1885, he withdrew the treaty from the senate. Were it not for the withdrawal of this important treaty the United States would have built and would now own the Nicaragua canal. We would have coaling stations at Greytown and Brito. Our navy could go through the Nicaragua canal in twenty-eight hours, saving a distance of several thousand miles around South America. With the Nicaragua canal and naval stations at Greytown and Brito, our minister would not have been insulted and our marines murdered in Chili.

It is about time for the United States Congress to wake up to this dangerous state of affairs and pass the senate bill for aiding the construction of the Nicaragua canal. It should pass a bill for the purchase of the island of Cuba and the island of St. Thomas, a bill for leasing from the Republic of Nicaragua and the Nicaragua Canal Company a coaling dock or pier at Greytown and Brito, and a suitable harbor in Peru, as a coaling station and as a place for repairing war vessels. A bill for fortifying the harbor of San Francisco.

A coaling station is now as necessary for a navy as a woodyard and water tank for a railway. No party should vote against the means of protecting the American flag and American people in foreign lands. With reciprocity with Spanish