Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

’'»***“* ■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.