Newspaper Page Text
’'»***“*
■xsxmim
Hjfl
wmi
S£J_
®hq Jerald and gjalcytisy.
Newnan, Ga., Friday, November 23, 1888.
ADDRESS OF HOE SUITE
Id on common carpets 51
; 'lax on blankets 104
!Tax on brooms 35
; Tax on thread
; Tax on tin ha.-ins
i Tax on roofing shingles
T .x on pine boards-
Ta\- on pine hoards planed
i Tax on laths
Tax on molasses 4S
Upon the Tariff as It Affects the Farm
ers of Georgia—A System Which
Draws Millions from Georgia as
Tax and Tribute—No Return
J'rllow Citizens of Georyia:
I must tell you, with deepest regret, that
the lalcst news points inevitably to the de
feat. of Cleveland.
EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS TARIFF REFORM.
Prepare at once to hear that his message
and tariff reform caused the republican
success.
You will be advised to abandon principle
jfor the hope of future victory.
' THE TRUE POLICY.
I am here to-day to urge that you stand
rqnarely by the policy of tariff reform. It
is the greatest of all issues dividing the
democratic and republican parties. It is a
fight against the legalized but unjust con-
. contratiou of the products of the many into
the, pockets of the few. If it is true that
tariff reform caused our defeat, it is also
true that organized monopoly has for years
t iught, without full contradiction, the false
doctrine that a high tariff increases the
wages of the laborer, while it also blesses
the farmer with a home market. In this
campaign there was not sufficient time to
meet and answer these unscrupulous state
ments. But it will be four years before an
other presidential election, h -.r every dem
ocrat in the meantime study the question.
That victory is only deferred, I am abso
lutely certain.
I desire in the face of defeat to announce
; a growing devotion to the fight for a rt-duc-
Tax on women’s hats and bonnets.
Tax on starch 91
tion of taxation upon the necessaries of
life, and I beg you to listen closely while I
present my views of the effect of the tariff
upon the farmers of Georgia.
| NATIONAL TAXATION.
I Our government collects taxes princi
pally hi two ways—by the internal reve
nue and by the tariff.
THE INTERNAL RENENUE
is a tax levied by the United States upon
t he manufacture and sale of liquors and
tobacco. From this source the government
realizes 120,000,000 a year. The manufac
turer and the seller add tlio tax to the
price of their liquors and tobaccos, and the
consumer, through the manufacturer and
the seller, pays the’tax into the national
'treasury. The entire burden, however,
consists of the tax. Tribute is paid to no
one, and, to avoid the tax, all any citizen
of the United States has to do is to let
liquors and tobacco alone. It is therefore
a voluntary contribution by the consumer
•towards the expenses of our national gov
ernment.
, THE TARIFF
tis a tax levied by the government upon im
ports brought for the use of the people of
jthia country from other countries. It is
charged at the custom house, and the im-
iporter adds the tariff to the original cost of
ji,is goods to find out what the actual cost
'has been. He then places his profit upon
•the actual cost and sells the goods to our
^Georgia merchants who in turn add their
Iprofits and sell to our people generally.
So that, finally, the consumer pays the
itariff on the goods which he uses, together
with a percentage of the profit going to the
different customers who handle the goods.
! The government realizes from the tariff
£225,000,000 a year; but the heaviest bur-
deu placed upon the masses by reason of
the tariff, as it now exists, is not the amount
■which the government, realizes, hut is the
iiribute. paid to certain protected classes
throughout our country. To make this
plainer, you must kuow that many
.m tides upon which there is a high pro-
,1 ! ve tariff are produced in this country.
", ' producer pays no tariff, but he adds to
the foreign price of the goods a sum almost
equal to the amount of the tariff duty upon
the goods, selling them just a little under
.the foreigu price, with the duty added, so
us to prevent foreigu goods from entering
iuto competition with him, aud he obtains
from the consumer the foreign value of the
,g.'ods, aud a sum almost equal to the tariff
on the goods. This amount which lie col
lects from the consumer, almost equal to
the tariff, is simply tribute which the law
gives him the power to force from the pock
et of the consumer into his own.
I The theory of a protective tariff, of our
present tariff, is based upon the idea that
it is wise by legislation to allow one man
to compel another to pay a price much be-
■yoml the foreign price of goods, the pur
pose being to help out the profits of the
protected party. In other words, it is a
system by which a certain class of con
sumers is compelled to pay large bounties
to a certain class of producers; and as the
tariff averages 47 percent.., the increased
cost which these favored producers are al
lowed to charge, is an average increase of
about 47 per eut., for which literally noth
ing is given in return. In plain language,
the party benefited by the tariff is allowed
to plunder the party injured by
the tariff to the extent of one-tliird of the
entire cost of goods purchased. The ques
tion therefore naturally arises, do you be
long to the plunderers or the plundered?
I put it to you practically. Of course there
is a higher question even than this; the
question as to whether it is right to allow
one class of people to feed upon another
class.
But it is not my purpose to discuss the
justice of making one class of men toil
without compensation for another class, or
of making one industry pay tribute to an
other. 1 wish to see how it affects Georgia
'and licr agricultural interests. Do we f ain
or lose by the system? To determine this
question it is uocessary to examine s< me of
the articles which the ariff affects. Are
thoy things which we buy, or things which
we sell? If we buy them we pay tribute
jto the man who makes them to the amount
of the percentage that they are taxed by
the tariff. The following are some of the
items, the cost of which the tariff tax in
creases, and the per cent, of increased cost
tar the customer who must necessarily use
t'*e article so taxed, is about the per cent
of the tariff:
S«>ME OF TUB ITEMS THE COST OF WHICH THE
TJSRI FF TAX IXC *EASES.
Per Cent, of tariff.
Tax on window glass 8b
Tax on steel rails 80
Tax on bar iron 54
Let each one who hears me settle the
q ;estion for himself, and let him in his
own mind decide whether he buys or
sels theitems that I have mentioned,upon
which the tariff tax falls. They are but an
average, and from them you can judge of
the constant, drain upon the agricultural
interests of Georgia by reason of the pres
ent system of protective tariff. You can
not think over this partial tariff schedule
without seeing clearly that your pockets
are being emptied to fill those of somebody
else, and you must naturally desire to
know how much money is taken out of
Georgia each year in this way.
TARIFF TRIBUTE.
Senator Coke estimated, in an able
speech, that if the manufactories were pro
tected <uily 25 per cent, they received
£1,200,000,000 from the people. By these
figures, Georgia’s share of the tribute
would he £08,000,000.
Congressman Springer, of Illinois, in an
elaborate contribution to the North Amer
ican Review, puts the amount received by
•the favored interests, exported from the
consumers through a protective tariff, at
£550,038,037 per annum. Tariff taxes are
taxes on the consumption, and, as ageneral
rule, universally, so far as necessaries are
concerned, the tax-paver gives not aecord-
ing to his means, hut according to the num
ber dependent upon him for shelter, food
and clothing. So that the proportionate
part of this tax which falls upon each state
can he approximated hv dividing the bur
den of the whole people according to the
population. Georgia has about one-tliiity-
second of the population of the union
within her borders. Tried by these figures
Georgia would pay £17,000,000 per year as
tribute to favored industries.
TARIFF TAX.
The government, as I have before stated,
receives a tax from the tariff <•[ /.u_5,\C),-
000 per year, our proportionate part of
Which is-something over £7,000,000, esti
mating, as before, that we pay according
to population, and therefore one thirty-
second of the amount. Add the two
amounts together and we have the
N. w York regulates the prices by
the Liverpool market, and takes into
consideration the fact that it pays for gross
weight, while Liverpool pays for net
weight, and it so fixes its prices that it
really pays just as Liverpool does on net
weight only. The Liverpool prices regu
late th,e New York prices, the New York
prices regulates the Georgia prices, and the
deduction on you is made in price while in
Liverpool it is made in weight.
The capital invested in iron works, foun
dries, etc., in Georgia, according to this
yei-r’s tax returns, is £580,310, which is
only £5,121 mo e tli m the tariff and trust
taxes which Georgia farmers pay yearly
before they can market their cotton. Thus
it is seen that Georgia loses over £20.000,000
a year by reason of the tariff, and an exam-
; ination of the figures shows clearly that
Tax on flannel shirts
Tax on woolen shirts
Tax «n plain eartnemvare....
Tax ,n knives and forks
'Pax on salt
Tax on pepper
'iex ou corn starch
Tv? on sugar
Tax on w- olen dress goods
Tax on common woolen shawls
Ti :: on woolen lio-i ry
T^x on plows ••••
Th\ on trace chains
'iafi. ou Lillies
TARIFF TRIBUTE AND TAX
costing Georgians £24,000,000 each year.
STEEL RAILS.
Nothing illustrates better the tribute
which we pay than the cost of steel rails.
During the past two years, including side
tracks, there were laid in Georgia 850
miles of rails. Estimating the rails as
being 60 pound rails, we would have about
100 tons to the mile and therefore 85,000
tons. The duty is £17 per ton. Rails sold
at a little less than their foreign price with
the tariff added. It therefore resulted
that only 77,000 tons were imported while
over 2,200,000 were used, made in this coun
try. The United States collected on the
77,000 tons, seventeen dollars per ton
while Mr. Carnegie and others engaged in
similar business collected almost as heavy
a duty on 2,123,000 tons. The cost of rails
in Georgia was increased by “the tariff
nearly £1,445,000, the government’s propor
tion of which was about £45,000, while the
fostered monopolies received about £1,400,-
000. I say fostered monopolies, for Mr. Car
negie’s yearly income is over §1,500,000, and
it can hardly be claimed that the farmers of
Georgia are so rich that they should he
taxed to contribute further to his support
as a matter of charity. Nor
can any one successfully argue that the
burden of this additional price of rails
falls on the railroads. The commission al
low them to charge a fair price, taking into
consideration the cost of their construction
aud maintenance. So the man who rides
on the railroads and sends his property over
them really pays the increased cost of the
rails.
COTTON BAGGING AND TIES.
The burden which this protective tariff
places upon our farmers is also excellently
illustrated by its effect upon the cost of
COTTON BAGGING AND TIES.
The cotton crop of Georgia for 1887 is put
at 910,000 hales. Each hale requires six
yards of bagging, weighing ten and a half
pounds. The duty on bagging worth over
7 cents a yard is 2 cents a pound or 21
cents a hale, which ajnounts to £191,000 on
Georgia’s crop of last year. This tariff fax
on bagging has amounted to a prohibition
of the importation of bagging made
India. The manufacturers of
that country being excluded with
tleur bagging from this country by reason
of the tariff they make no preparation to
furnish the United States with bagging.
Late in the season, after the time had
passed for the manufacturers to prepare
bagging for our cotton market, the bagging
trust was formed in this country, and bag
ging has been advanced from 7j4 to 13%
cents a yard. Tl;at is to say, it has been
advanced 6 cents a yard by the trust, mak
ing 36 cents a hale, aud £327,700 on 910,000
hales, the same being an estimate that the
cotton crop of this year will he of equal
size of the crop of last year.
Each hale of cotton is hound with five or
six ties; say five and a half ties are an
average. Ties are worth about £1 50 a
bundle, aud there are thirty ties to the
bundle, making each tie worth 4 1-3 cents,
aud an average of five and a half ties per
bale 23 8-10 een’s, and £216.580 for a cotton
crop of 910,000 hales. The duty on cotton
ties is 35*per cent., and as in this case the
price is certainly added to the duty. The
£216,580 is 35 per cent, of the price, which
makes the price £160,000, less the duty.
The difference between the two sums,
£56,5S0 is the tariff tax on cotton ties
which Georgia farmers pay. Add the bag
ging tax, the tie tax, and the extra price of
the bagging charged by the trust, aud it is
seen that the Georgia farmers must pay on
the cotton crop alone, by reason of the
present tariff, the sum of £575,180.00. This
is more than one-third of the entire tax
levied by the state of Georgia for the sup
port of our local government. This tax
falls upon the farmers alone. Cotton is
soli! in Liverpool net. the tare being fixed
at about 6 per cent.; that is, a bole weigh
ing 500 pounds is sold for 470 pounds, 6 per
cent, being taken off on account of the
bagging aud ties, for which the Liverpool
cotton factor does not pay. While in the
United States cotton is sold at gross weight
tlia - is, the 500 pound bile is sold for 500
p mnds, the tare is taken off of the price,
that being reduced instead of The weight of
- .. h.le. As our farmers get cotton pri • '
for the gross weight of cotton, bagging ; nd
t.< s;ai gu ments have been made to show that
’hey buy bagging and ties at haggiug aud
tie prices, and sell them at cotton prices,
thus making the m ire money, the more
.... giug and ties thev use. The truth is that
! this burden falls with the greatest severity
upon the agricultural regions of the state.
HOME MARKETS.
But it. is urged by those who receive ben
efit by aid of the tribute and tax forced
from you, that a great advantage is derived
by the agrieuL nral interests fro n the fact
that manufactories are bu It up by a pro
tective tariff, and thus a home market is
furnished to the farmers.
MANUFACTORIES AS A CLASS NOT BENEFITED.
I most earnestly protest against ihe doc
trine that a protective tariff real!-.- benefits
the manufacturing industries of the coun
try. It is undoubtedly true that a certain
class of manufacturers, whose plants are
already built, and who are already thor
oughly established, are benefited by check
ing the growth of other manufactories and
by choking off the opposition which they
would meet from the establishment
in our own land of new enterprises.
They are rich aud powerful and monopo
lize home trade. They sell at enormous
prices, and have hut little competition
either in wliat they sell or in the selection
of the men they employ. They can put
down the prices which they pay for labor,
for their skilled laborers can seek employ
ment from them alone. They eau put up
the prices of the commodities which they
sell, for the market! of the world are not
open to their customers; they check by
their monopolistic strength the investment
in similar enterprises by men of less capi
tal, while at the same time they roll in the
wealth which they have forced as tribute
by the aid of a protective tariff from the
hard earnings of the masses of our people.
Nor is it necessary for me to support this
position by argument alone. History lias
already demonstrated from experience
which we have had, the truth of my argu
ment. Take for illustration, quiniue and
leather.
QUININE.
lias been subject to an import duty
for many years up to July 1, 1879. At
that date th#re were only four manufactur
ers of quiuine in the United States,
and the amount produced by them
annually about 1,200,000 ouuces of sulphate
of quinine, with some cheaper alkaloids.
The total consumption at that date was
2,000,000 ounces, and the drug was worth
£3 52% an ounce at wholesale. The effort
to put the quinine on the free list was re
sisted by these manufacturers with the
usual arguments that free quinine would
destroy the manufacture of quiniue in this
country, lessen the price which labor would
receive, and do no good to the mass of con
sumers, hut carry the profits for the manu
facture of quinine into foreign countries,
and that the price of quinine would rise.
Quinine was freed from duty on and after
July 1, 1S79. The first effect was in the
price, which immediately dropped. In
stead of £3 52% an ounce sulphate of quin
ine got as low as 37 cents an ounce, aud it
is now from 45 to 65 cents, according to
quality.
Another effect was the increased con
sumption in the United States, which -is
now over 4,000,000 ounces annually, as
against 2,000,000 a little more than nine
years ago.
Another effect was the increase in the
manufactories from four to twelve in eight
years, one of the four, Powers & Weight-
man, chief of the protestants against free
quiniue, having built, on a much laiger
scale, their works which had been de
stroyed by fire.
Grand result of free qu ; niDe: A more
than double consumption, a trebling in the
number of manufacturing establishments,
and a saving of at least £6,000,000 a year to
consumers of the indispensable article.
The manufacturing industries developed,
more labor found remunerative employ
ment, and the consumers were allowed to
buy for 45 cents what before cost them
£3.52.
LEATHER.
On August 1,1S72, rawhides, with the ex
ception of sheepskins with the wool on,
were made free for the first time in thirty-
years. Since then shoe manufacturers
have liad free raw material, while woolen
manufacturers have had tariff taxed raw
material.
For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1S70,
our exports of leather and manufactures of
leather were valued at £673,331. For the
year ending June 30, 1872, they were valued
at. £3,684,029. The next year they increased
to £5,305,494; in 1875 to £7,324,796. and for
1880-’S7 to £10,436,138.
In 1870, while hides were dutiable, the
importations were valued at £14,402,336. In
1873 we imported free hides worth £16,248,-
421, and in 1887 they were worth £24,219,101.
Between 1870 and 1887 we increased our
imports of raw hides from £14 402,339 to
£24,219,101, that is to say. £9,816,762, and at
the same time our exports of leather aud
manufactures of leatuer increased from
£673,331 to £10,436,138, that is to say, £9,-
762,807. The total increase of our com
merce in imports of hides and exports of
leather aud exports of manufactures of
leather in seventeen years was £19.579,569,
almost equally divided between i he uides
imported and the leather and manufactures
exported; hut as we imported the the raw
material and exported the finished
product, we made the greater
profits. The increased manufac
ture created a greater demand for
labor, aud the larger product not only
helped the manufacturer, the importer and
the working man, hut the farmer aud every
other person who wore a pair of shoes.
Tmiff reform on hides worked like a
charm.
In 1870 our exports of wool, blankets,
carpeis. -tv., amounted in value to £179,-
087, aud in 1887 to £58'.!,; 42. In 1870 our im
ports of clothing, comb ng, carpet and sim
ilar wools amounted to c6,*4o,oo0, and in
18S7 at £16,424,479. With free hides,
our imports of the law material and ex
ports of the finished products increase in
equal proportion, aud all classes of t 1 e
community were benefited. W ith tax. d
raw wool our.imports of material increa-e
iu value £4,881,129, while our exports of
woolen goods increase only £366,255. With
free hides we make and manufacture
leather which successfully competes w. It
the produc - ions of Europe throughout tin-
world. ‘Willi taxed wool we sell woolen
goods to our own people at European prices
with the tariff added.
This result was due to the benefit derived
from an opportunity to buy in the markets
of the world. When the people of this
country, with their inexhaustible resour
ces, have any opportunity to buy raw- ma
terial at the lowest price, then only may
England tremble for her commercial su
premacy.
AT TO GEORGIA MANUFACTORIES,
There can he no doubt that the tariff
checks their growth. The policy of protec
tion has forced manufacturing interests in
this country to locations where they do not
properly belong. When the natural laws
are allowed to control the location of cot
ton milis, you will find them situated near
to the fi-lds where the cotton grows. With
out stopoing to argue this question at
length, I will read to you a letrer written
Angust 4th, 1888, by Mr. W. H. Young, the
largest and most experienced manufacturer
of our state:
“I am really an out and out free-trader,
with a conviction that our people by and
by will accept it, though not ready for it
yet, as there is a latent feeling that iirotec-
tion is a policy we must in a measure ad
here to. So I favor the Mills bill because
it will tend to educate ihe people in the fu
ture. As regards the Mills hill, so far as I
have read it and understood it, it favors the
uuiry of raw -material free, and reduces iu
a small degree northern manufacturers’
profiis; I say northern manufacturers’
profits, hut it is only prospective even
there. At pi .-.sent, and I may say for
all time to come, the south eau produce all
standard goods t.hev are making at less
cost than New England or old England
can, and if the tariff on all material eu .-r-
iug into the cost of manufacturing in this
country was removed, the north could
drive out in all foreign countries the same
productions that they make and sell there,
auu the south could drive ihe north as well
rs England out, so fer as this country could
produce the required goods, especially all
goods that require heavy weight of cotton
aud wool The writer h is visited
Europe three times, each time spending
his time among manufacturers iu England
and on the continent, aud has compared
wages for all the different classes of man
ufacturing work, aud there was literally no
average difference, and my observation led
me to conclude our labor was less cost to
the manufacturer, as our laborers were more
active and produced more in the same time
than the slow methodical laborer in Eng
land, and I have found that I could
sell goods and make money, if
I adopted their style
. ... It is my opinion ii wool is made
free in this country, it would not reduce
the price of wool grown in this country.
Of course it would reduce the price of for
eign wools to those that can use it, say for
carpets, etc. This company lias bought
some foreigu wool at seemingly low prices,
hut we found it uot suited to our wants aud
have ceased to buy it, and could ouly use
it by mixing it with our own native wool. . .
I sum it all up by saying that the Mills
bill, only so far as reducing duties on ma
chinery, and all things, dyes, etc., etc., that
go to swell up the cost of producing goods
to us, helps the southern manufacturing
interests; hut in fact, so far as the south is
concerned, they can now without any Mills
hill, or other hill, make all such goods as
we are making, and whip out the north
and England. The Mills bill, so far as it
reduces the cost of raw material, of course
helps the southern manufacturers, and will
make goods cheaper to the consumers and
yet retain fair return to the manufactu
rers.”
It is difficult for me to supplement by
argument the powerful way in which this
distinguished Georgian presents our side
from the standpoint of manufac
turing interests. I can, how
ever, urge that the natural tendency of the
money drawn from Georgia by reason of
the tariff to-day, if left here, would he
towards the development of our manufac
turing interests. We lose £24,<J00,000 each
year as tax and tribune by reason of the
present tariff- How long would it take
such sums to build Georgia into a
manufacturing as well as an agricultural
state? It is more each year than our entire
value of property invested to-day in indus
tries nominally protected.
I beg your attention to the population of
Georgia, to the capital invested, and to the
product from the investments in agricul
ture and nominally protected industries.
POPULATION, INVESTMENT. PRODUCT.
The entire population of Georgia occu
pied in industries largely agricultural, and
other than protected industries, was, in
1880, by the census reports, in round num
bers, 1,500,00a. Of these not more than
75,000 were engaged in industries which
the Tariff would seem to protect. The capi
tal invested in agriculture in Georgia was
£138,519,137, while the agricultural pro
duct was £51,373,214. The capital invested
iu the protected industries was £16,000,000,
while the product was only £8,535,976. I
have already shown you that the indus
tries .in Georgia which might be classed
protected industries, are really not bene-
fitted by the tariff, with the ex-
cption, possibly, of the iron product
of the state, which is tritiing. You there
fore must see that twenty times as many
people in Georgia are engaged in enter
prises not henefitted by the tariff as there
are in enterprises possibly henefitted.
Nearly ten times as much money is invested
in agriculture as is invested in such possi
bly protected industries—while the annual
product from the agricultural pursuits of
the state is ten times as much as that from
the possibly protected enterprises. How
long would ii take for Georgia to change
from being a state which pays tribute ou
account of consumption, to one which
receives tribute ou account of her
manufacturing pursuits? The time
could not come until the amount
produced by our manufactories was so far
in excess of the amount produced
by our farmers that the balance,
j f,y reason of the protective tariff,
would come to Georgia, and not go from
! her. It would be necessary for us to
| change our investments from £16,000,000
1 iu manufactories, possibly protected, to at
least £250,000,000. During all tins time
i that the change is taking place, we will
1 yearly he drained of over £20,000,000, by
reason of the tax, which in the possible'
future is to help us as a manufacturing
state. Before that time could come our
grandchildren would be gray headed, if
not laid away in their graves; and the
tribute that we would in the meantime
have paid to the protected monopolies else
where would have amounted to more than
the entire sum then invested iu manufac
tories, and the truth is, at la-T, our manu
factories would not be helped. They are
not helped to-day; they certainly would
not he helped then. To whom vih we
' sell when our manufactories grow to the
enormous propoitious that I have *<--
sciibtd? Alongside of our minnfacturiru
progress will come the manufacturing pro-
: gress of other states, and tue utilize
this country will not be euong . b l e d
I the product. .4 Iter Georgia has been .
for years upon 1 er agricultural h' irs ‘ .j]
reason of a tiil ute-causing tariff, s
! reach the time wmn aer own manufaUin-
ing interests have developed, * ml
; would he no consumers in the Un
Srates to pay her tribute; her products
would he compelled to seek the raarn.e s o
! the world in which to find places for sale,
• and the tariff, instead of then helping her
I manufactories, would check them.
Georgia wishes manufactories; if the farm-
‘ ers oi Georgia wish a home market from
i manufactories located in Georgia, free the
j agricultural interests of our state from a
i system of tariff taxation, which can jus.. \
he termed robbery, and the profiis
iu the hands of the farmers and
i merchants in Georgia will be
amply sufficient, to build the manufactories
for Georgia, with money saved within
Georgia’s own limits.
To me mind the home market idea is m-
tensely ridiculous, not only for the reasons
that I have already given showing that the
manufactories of Georgia would prosper
by reason of a redurtipu of the tariff, but
! because by examination of the history of
1 other states I find that the growth of the
manufactories under a protective system
of taxation at the expense of the f-inm-is
j has failed to build up the agricultural in-
! terests of the states where the manufactor-
ies are located. Ours is a broad land,
j Quick transportation enables the consumer
I to find v. hat he needs, if it is within the
limits of t he United States, and producer
aud consumer will come together without
regard to state lines. There is no better
illustration of this fact than the history of
Massachusetts.
MASSACHUSETTS.
is considered the typical manufac
turing state of the country. From
1866 to 1850 the capita! invested in maiiu-
I faeturing industries increased from 3133,-
792.327 to £303,806,185; the number of hands
i employed, from 217,421 to 352,255, ami the
j value of the annual product from £255,545,-
; 922 to £631,135,282. I* will he a long time,
; under the most favorable auspices, before
the Georgia manufacturing products can
he expected to be worth so much .money.
But. how fared the agricultural interests of
Massachusetts in the meantime?
In 186'I there w«-re 35,105 farms valued at
£123,255,948; in 188 there w. r • 38,406 farms
! valued at. £146,197,415. Sbere were 3,338,-
I 724 acres in farms in I860, and 3,359,079 acres
in 18S0. There were raised iu I860, in ilie
state, 3,103,109 bushels of barley,
i buckwheat, corn, oats, rye and wheat;
! i Q 1880 only 2,819,656 bushels
i were raised, the amount of each ciop fall-
1 ing off from 56,000 bushels in buckwheat to
! over 500,000 in oats.
I In 1860 there were 509,838 horses, mules
oxen, cows, other cattle, sheep and swiue;
in 1880-the number had been reduced io
409,0-5.
In 18GO the farmers of Massachusetts
made 13,592,627 pounds of butter and
cheese; in 1880 they made ouiy 10,4-85,115
pounds.
j In 1860 they raised 3,201,901 bushels of
■ Irish potatoes; iu 1880 the.v raised ouly
| 3,070,389 bushels.
In 1860 the population of Massachusetts
was 1,231,066, and in 1880 it was 1,785.085.
Out of Massachusetts’ fourteen counties,
four of them, in spite of the general in
crease iu population from 1860 to 1880.
showed a less number of inhabitants in
1880; and it is a fact rhat there are deserted
farms in every part of Massaohusel ts, and
that the gain in population since 1860 has
been entirely confined to the large towns
and villages, the farming communities hav
ing either lost population or remained at a
stand-still.
If the enorifious growth of the manufac
tories in Massachusetts did nothing for the
agricultural interests in the state, liow can
itbe claimed that the farmers of Georgia
will he so wonderfully blessed by the
growth of our manufacturing interests?
! You have been told that the protective
i tariff system originated in 1789 and received
at first ihe approval of southern .statesmen,
and this fact is mentioned for the purpose
of making you bBliwve that a protective
tariff will advance your interests. You
should also have been told that the
first tariff bill, known as the ‘‘Ham
ilton tariff,” was a tariff which aver
aged only 8 per cent on imports, and the
bill itself provided that it should cease at
the eud of seventeen years, for it was be
lieved by the statesmen of those days that
an 8 per cent tariff lasting seventeen years
was all the subsidy needed for the benefit
of the manufacturing interests of this
country. Yet to-day the proposition to re
duce the 47 per ceut tariff to a 40 per cent
tariff is bitterly denounced as a free-trade
movement. Nor should you be misled by
the claim that your interests will be ad
vanced by the
GENERAL PROSPERITY
resulting from a protective tariff.
I have not the time to-day to discuss the
effect of the tariff upon the laborers en
gaged in protected enterprises. I am con
fident that for the work which he accom
plishes the average American laborer re
ceives no more pay than the European la
borer, hut of one thing I am sure, if he
receives more, the tariff does not affect the
amount, for while the laborer is prevented
from buying the necessaries of life at Eu
ropean prices, nothing prevents European
pauper labor from coming over to this
country to turn him out of his work or re
duce the amount of his pay.
To show that the general growth of the
country has not been produced by the pro
tective taTiff, I give you the following
statistical facts which are ohtaiued from an
authentic source:
Under a low tariff, our population,
as appears from the census, ■ in
creased from 1840 to 1850 36 per cent.;
from 1850 to I860, 35 per cent. In 1870, after
nine vears of a high protective tariff the in
crease of population was 23 per cent., and
from 18:0 to 18S0, 30 per cent.
According to the census of 1860, the value
of our manufactures was £1,885,861,676, an
increase for ten years under a revenue
tariff of 85 per cent. The commissioner of
the census, for the decade of 1860 to 1870,
estimated the increase of manufactures at
79 per cent., and the increase from 1870 to
1880 at 58 per cent. These facts show that
the increase of manufactures was greater
under the "Walker revenue tariff than un
der the high protective tariff of Morrill.
As to wages, which were extremely low
before the Warker tariff, under that tariff
thev rose steadily for fifteen years, until
1880. On account of a depreciated curren
cy wages were high from I860 to 1S70, yet
from 1S70 to 1880 they fell 40 per cent., and
to-day the wages of the most highly pro
tected industries are lower than ever
known. Tije failures from 1873 to 1878
were heavier than under all the years of a
lower tariff for a generation. In 1877 we
had more strikes, labor riots, lockouts—
mure enforced idleness—than in any’ ten
years under partial free trade. The follow
ing table, i>reparcd by Mr. editor
be Million, ‘-gS&SSil
try has grown most rapidly
tariff-
Lines of Progress.
^W57I7t r_ Average
loOncreus’ PJ-of
'census of
1 18G0.
Population
Total foreign commerce
Foreign commerce, per
capita
Miles of rai riads... --
R.breads, per capita...
Capital in manufactures
Total wages in manu
factures - - * •
"Wages i’i manufactures,
per h
■ Products
I Value of farii s
Farm tools and machin
ery
Live stock on farms..
2P.?
til.
45.6
15.2
69.
34.
66.
58.2
9.4
69.6
23.6
37.7
17.3
In conclusion, let me urge yon.neverto
be frightened from the support of pn
ples-right „mt justice-by the clamor of
those who may taunt J»" n"" ““‘A.
(treat struggle has been made for the hen
efit of the" masses of this entire country-
It has not been successful, but the^A
must still go on! There is an effort by the
combined monopolists to- concentra
power and the wealth of the Union into the
hands of a few, and they would snatch the
control of all things from the masses and
make ours a government by the
: powers of the laud, and the protective
I tariff is one of the most efficient mstru-
! ments bv which they hope to reach suc-
i cess. Steadily and fearlessly we must
! keep up our fight. It is one in behalf of
the masses of the entire country, and it es-
1 pecially concerns my hearers to-day.
Approach the examination of the ques
tion from any direction you please, investi
gate earnestly and honestly and the con
clusion must necessarily he that Georgia s
prosperity and progress are being ham
pered if not throttled by an insidious and
unjust system of taxation which robs us of
the profits of our labor.
The object which I have in speaking is to
appeal to each one of my hear
ers for an uu purchasable support
of tariff reform in times of political victory
and in times of poli'ical defeat.
(As Mr. Smith was about to leave the
stand he was asked to give his opinion of
the recent railroad deal in Georgia, and he
said):
I feel no hesitation in declaring my op
position to the temporarily successful com
bination which lias been made of the rail
roads of Georgia. The privileges which
railroad corporations are granted are
given for the good of thd
entire state.
Combinations to prevent competion by
railroad companies are forbidden by OUf
constitution. That great friend of thd
people,
ROBERT TOOMBS,
was in the c ustiturioual convention
of 1877, and provisions can there
he found whic. . h properly used,
will protect the people of Geor
gia from the effort to bottle up
merchants and farmers by consolidat
ing the entire railroad interests of the
state. The legislature is now in session.
With the aid oi the attorney-general a bill
can be prepared by which charters
can he forfeited unless combi
nations are abandoned, and if
Georgia is to he protected against this un-
hallowed ooalition, now is the time for
action. Don’t wait until your hands have
become tied and your legislators controlled
by the captivating inliuences that will en
deavor to ensnare them. You will hear in
Athens that although you found it neces
sary to inv sc £100,060 to Guild the Nort h
eastern railroad to protect yourselves
against the Georgia railroad, tUe
good gentlemen who have charge
of both these roads will favor
you, will arrange freights to suit
your merchants and build up Athens jU
preference to ary other city in Georgia.
The people of Savannah will hear that
theirs is to he the greatest port in the un
ion, New York city scarcely excepted; and
the'people of Brunswick will he thoroughly
satisfied that their city is to be made larger
than Savannah. So on through the entire
list ol cities of Georgia suggestions of in
tended preferences will he thrown out for
the purpose of leading astray the citiz - ns
by an expectation upon their part of
more than they are entitled to.
My friends, be not allured
to sleep by such deceptive influence.
There is a higher standard than gain which
should move each citizen of Georgia; it is
the standard of justice. No one city in the'
state should seek an unfair advantage over
her sister city, and all of the cities in Geor
gia should not be willing to combine to
seek an unfair advantage against, the asri-
cultural interests of the state. We should
all joiu hands to demand simple justice;
that justice which we will only obtain by
destroying the combinations unconstitu
tionally formed ond handled in the specu
lative marts of Wall street.
It is not my purpose to attack the pres
ent management, who have endeavored to
violate the laws of Georgia by the contracts
which they have sought to make, but to
call your attention to the fact that the
powers of to-day may uot be the powers
of to-morrow. Railroad managements
change rapidly on Wall street, and there is
no telling who will he your rai 1 road.mal
ters by the rising of another sun. The
combination which they" have made will
enable them to make and unmake the
cities of Georgia: it will enable them to
place speculative values upon our
property in Georgia, aud from
what we all hear about Wall street there
is reason *o fear that some of its business
men now and then engage in speculations.
They will endeavor to parcel out our state,
and to crush out all new railroad enter
prises; they wiil simply have us by the
throat and we will be helpless, except at
their will, unless we hurl them to the
ground. Inform your legislators that un
less they support measures which will pro
tect y hi from this railroad combinations
they can never expect to receive your sup
port again.
A Blockade Runner's Cargo.
New York, Nov. 12,—[Special.]— Ex
amination of the clearance papers of the
steamei S..ginaw, the supposed blockade
runner bound to Hayti, shows that she
carried 129 cases of rifles, 85 cases belts
3 cases of paper for cartridges 5 caies nt
drum S . 43 tars of load, TOaSis 3 JaS
triages and 1,100 kegs of gunpowder
Colorado.
Denver Col., Nov. 10.—[Special.],
he iepublicans claim 13,675 majorit
m the state—a gain of 5,006.
■■■ -”H
——■ — - if.