Newspaper Page Text
and child employed, after paying for
all the material consumed, there re
mains a net profit to the manufacturer
of $1,929,000,000, a clear profit of near
ly 30 per cent upon the capital in
vested. That was the year, as you
will remember, when in agricultural
pursuits, 8,500,000 people toiled all the
year, representing a capital invested
of $16,000,000,000, and the gross prod
uct sold for not enough to pay wages,
but left a deficit of $498,000,000.
Let us take the year 1900, as shown
in Uncle Sam’s Statistical Abstract.
The amount of capital invested in
manufactures has been increased un
til it has reached $10,000,000,000. The
number of employes has increased un
til it is nearly 6.000.000; the gross
product sells for $13,000,000,000. After
deducting wages and cost of materials,
as above, we have remaining, as noted,
$2,888,000,000, nearly 29 per cent on
the enormous investment of ten bil
lion dollars. That was the year, the
comparatively prosperous year, in
which the agricultural classes had
nearly twice as many workers engag
ed, had more than twice as much cap
ital invested, and did not make, after
allowing for taxes and repairs, more
than 2 per cent upon the amount in
vested.
Let us carry these comparisons a
little further. Between the years 1880
and 1890 the census reports show that
the one little manufacturing state of
Massachusetts gained greater increase
of wealth than nine of the great agri
cultural states of this republic. Group
ing four of the great western agri
cultural states with five of the great
southern agricultural states, we find
that Massachusetts, the manufactur
ing state, outstripped the nine agricul
’"’al states by a tremendous sum of
00,000,000. Is that sufficient to show
id convince you that the tariff sys
em is eating the life out of the farm
er? Is that sufficient to put you upon
inquiry as to whether the manufactur
ing classes are not devouring the ag
ricultural classes?
But let us apply the probe once
again. In 1880 the amount of capital
invested in agricultural pursuit in
New England was practicallv the
same as that invested in manufactur
ing industries. In other words, they
started upon the decade equal. At the
end of the ten year period, let us take
note of the relative conditions of these
two runners of the race of material
prosperity. Discarding the mere sys
tem of numerals, I simplv tell you
that in these ten years, the census
renorts reveal the fact that the manu
facturing classes of New England had
doubled their estate, whereas, the
Yankee farmers had not onlv NOT
earned one penny of net profit, but
had lost one-fourth of their capital,
and had abandoned 4,160 of their
homes and farms.
Coming on down another decade to
study their condition in the year 1900
as revealed in the census reports. I
find that the manufacturing classes
of New England have again doubled
their estate, whereas the Yankee farm
er has worked ten years without earn
ing one dollar of net nrofit and has
barely been able to hold his estate at
a stand-still.
How different it was before these
tremendous burdens of privilege were
thrown upon the backs of the agricul
tural classes! In 1850 the entire
wealth of the country, as above stated,
was $7,000,000,000. in round numbers.
Os this, the south had almost exactly
half, while the north held the other
half. Tn 1860 the north had been en
abled to increase her estate a few hun
dred millions, but she still owned
only $3,460,000. whereas, the south
possessed $4,620,000. Thus, it appears
that if the south only had to carry a
handicap of twenty cents on the dol
lar, if she only had to pay a tribute
to the north to the extent of twenty
cents on the dollar, she could give the
north that much the start and beat her
to the goal.
George McDuffie used to say that or
every one hundred bales of cotton pro
duced in the south, the north took
twenty under the tariff laws. The
statement is true or not according to
the amount of the tariff. At the time
McDuffie made the statement, it was
absolutely true. Under the Walker
tariff 20 per cent. McDuffie s state
ment, while true in substance, was
misleading as to amount under the
Morrill tariff, which was enacted in
1861. McDuffie’s statement again be
came true, and tariff dues began to
climb with the Morrill tariff of 1861,
which made a discrimination in favor
of the north against the south of about
30 per cent. With the enactment of
the infamous McKinley bill began a
new era, an era of madness, of harsh
ness, of favoritism and class law which
ruins the victim of those special priv
ileges granted under the law. In the
days of Calhoun, and Clay and Web
ster, there was no dream of such tar
iffs as we have today; there was no
dream of passing laws for the sole
purpose of allowing the trust to glut
its monstrous appetite upon the unor
ganized industries cf the country or
the organized masses of the people.
Consider for a moment some of the
monstrosities of our present tariff
system. Suppose you go to buy a pair
of blankets. For convenience sake,
let us say the price of them is $4.60.
When you lay down the $4.60 and take
over to yourself the bundle in which
your blankets are wrapped, how much
of your money is represented by act
ual blanket and how much by tariff
tribute? Two dollars is the amount
of actual blanket you get. The other
$2.60 represents the amount of tri
bute which you pay to the manufact
urer to protect him from imaginary
competition from across the big water,
and the awful irony of the situation
is that this very foreigner across the
big water can buy these blankets from
the American manufacturer at a lower
price than the home consumer can get
them. The same monstrosities occur
all along the line, un and down the
entire scale of more than three thou
sand articles which have their place
in the protected list. Dress goods of a
certain grade are protected bv a duty
of 157 per cent, dress goods of another
grade. 165 ner cent, blankets of a cer
tain grade 125 ner cent, blankets of an
other grade 159 per cent, cloths, wor
sted and wollen, 151 per cent; other
manufactures of wool 143 per cent;
flannels for underwear 130 ner cent,
yarns 138 per cent, shoddy, the neces
sary material in the manufacture of
those cheaner goods which are de
signed and intended for the use of the
poor people, 250 per cent.
To demonstrate the outrageous in
justice of such a system as this, con
sider the Steel Trust. In 1904 it sold
abroad $32 000.000 of its product.
These goods were sold to South Amer
ican farmers. Central American farm
ers and consumers in Europe, in Asia,
in Africa, at lower prices than they
sold for at home. Anywhere from 20
per cent to 40 ner cent lower than we
can get the goods here at the door of
the factory, your competitors in rais
ing cotton and wheat and other agri
cultural products c=n secure them
abroad. the officials of the Steel
Trust admit that they had a clear nrof.
it of $4,000,000 upon the $32 000 000
worth of goods which they sold
abroad. The Chicago Chronicle, the
mouthpiece of the cvctem. savs that
the profit on the $32 000 000 worth of
goods sold abroad was 40 per cent. It
further savs that the net profit on the
domestic trade is 80 ner cent to the
Steel Trust. No wnnder the benefi
ciaries of class legislation have built
a plutocracy the I'ke of which has
never been seen before in the history
of the wo r ld.
Now, my friends, Tam going to give
you a common sense talk, without any
effort at rhetoric as to what you
should do to be saved.
Tn the first place, you must organ
ize a strictly Farmers’ Union. Your
organization must reoresent your class
interest. Every other interest is or
ganized in just that wav. Unless you
want to be the victims of their organi
zations you have got to fight the devil
with fire. At present, as compared to
the organizations which represent
other interests, you are a mob at the
mercy of a disclaimed army. Labor,
as such, has its federations. The farm
er has not been invited to enter it.
The banker has not been invited to
enter it. The manufacturer is not an
expected guest, the railroad boss
might knock very long and very loud
indeed before he got in. Tn like man
ner, the banks have their organiza
tions. How manv farmers have they
taken into it? Don’t you think it a
very cheeky thing for the bankers to
be taking the lead of the cotton grow-
THE WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN.
ers’ organization when they them
selves confine their organization to
bankers? The manufacturers have
their organization, and a few years
ago they so far forgot themselves as
to tell the real truth as to the purpose
of their union. In 1898 —as I remem
ber it —they declared in one of their
published statements that their object
is to monopolize the domestic market.
In other words, no American citizen
shall buy any article of necessity, com
fort or luxury without doing so upon
the terms dictated by the Manufactur
ers’ Association. The Manufacturers’
Association has been taking farmers
into their family, and yet every one of
Harvie Jordan’s conventions have
been more or less dominated by mem
bers of the Manufacturers’ Associa
tion. Now, if it be such a good thing
for the manufacturers and the bank
ers to come into the cotton growers’
association to direct its movements,
why should not we have some reci
procity about it? Why should not
some of you farmers be taken into the
bankers’ and manufacturers’ associa
tion, and why should not they put
you up as speaker at their national
conventions to tell them how to man
age their business? It is all nonsense
to say that spinner and grower must
get together. The interests of the
two are competitive. Tn the very na
ture of things, there is a struggle be
tween the two. When the
urer comes into the cotton growers’
association, he has the cotton growers
at a disadvantage. Why? Because
the manufacturer will be looking into
your hand and seeing what cards have
been dealt to you, whereas he never
lets you see his cards. He will always
know what is in your hand, and you
will never know what is in his. Do
you think you can win the game if
you play it that way?
Systematize your buying and sell
ing. Bring into the business the co
operative principle which has worked
such wonders in certain parts of Eu
rope. Let each buyer and each seller
among the farmers have behind him
the strength of all the buyers and all
the sellers. Learn to move with pre
cision, like soldeirs of an army march
ing under uniform orders to a com
mon objective, rather than as detach
ed individuals moving without plan or
purpose, never accomplishing what
would be so easily done if you would
do just as the other classes have done
—organize along the line of class in
terest.
Study the labor problem. Watch
these negro secret societies. Compel
the legislature to pass a law requiring
each society, white or black, to take
out a license from the ordinary. Re
quire each society to make a sworn
statement of its purpose. Give to the
ordinary visitorial power. Let it be
within his province to supervise these
societies and to call in the aid of the
sheriff and a posse whenever it be
comes necessary to break up night
meetings of suspicious character.
This thing of holding night meetings
among the negroes, with armed senti
nels on the watch-out, should be
stopped. No civilized community
should tolerate conspirator-like meth
ods of .this kind. Comoel the negroes
to do their political talking in public,
just as we do ours.
Study the immigration question. Do
not allow the steamship companies to
make of the south a dumping ground
for the pauperism, anarchism and the
criminality of Europe. Rather than
have certain kinds of immigrants
come here to the south, to make w r ar
upon all established order and to de
moralize our social organization, I
would rather see one-half of the south
grow up in old field pines to enrich
the generation which shall walk over
our graves. Bring as many industri
ous, sober, honest Swedes as you can
get to come. Bring as many Danes
and Norwegians of good character as
will come. Bring as many thrifty
Germans and Dutchmen as will come.
Bring the better class of English and
Irish laborers, when they will come;
but for God’s sake, beware of the low
er orders and lawless classes of Eu
rope, especially of Southern Europe,
represented by the lower class immi
grants of Southern Italy, Hungary and
Poland.
Waste no time and effort in try
ing to limit the amount of the cotton
crop. That is all childish dribble.
There are eighty million people, and
more, in this country today, and it
would be an extremely moderate esti
mate to say that the average amount
of cotton goods which they should be
enabled to use every year is $lO
apiece. God knows that is a small
allowance, but yet if we could so
change conditions that the purchasing
power of the people could be increased
so that they can buy $lO apiece of
cotton goods, you will see at a glance
that we could consume here at home
16,000,000 bales of cotton, to say noth
ing of Great Britain, to say nothing
of continental Europe, to say nothing
of Central and South America, to say
nothing of the five hundred millions
of people in China, Japan and the isl
ands of the sea. Instead of making
too much cotton we are not making
one-half enough. The trouble is that
the market has been destroyed, as fast
as you have been increasing the goods
that go to market. Bend every ener
gy of your mind and soul to the great
indispensable task of controlling your
market. How can this be done? By
lowering those high tariff walls which
seal you up within a monopolized mar
ket and deliver you an easy victim to
the monstrous rapacity of the trusts.
Let me give you an example. A few
years ago President McKinley saw the
necessity of making treaties with for
eign countries which would enable the
producers of the country to escape
some of the awful conditions which
had resulted from his own act. James
G. Blaine, perhaps the broadest mind
ed Republican which this country has
ever seen until the era of Roosevelt,
was in favor of reciprocity treaties.
Hon. John A. Kasson was appointed
to go abroad and to agree with for
eign nations upon commercial treaties
which would be reciprocally beneficial
to the treaty making powers. One of
these treaties was made by Mr. Kas
son with France. France asked a
slightly reduced tariff on cotton stock
ings. In return she agreed to better
terms for cotton seed oil. It is esti
mated by those who have examined
the subject carefully that the Kasson
treaty would have increased the mar
ket for cotton seed oil, there
by benefiting every cotton grow
er in the market to the ex
tent of $20,000,000 per year. Did the
treaty go into effect. No. Why? .Be
cause a little cotton mill in New Eng
land, which was engaged in manufac
ture of cotton stockings, saw that it
would not make its 50 per cent profit
if the duties were reduced, and would
probably have to content itself with
the net gain of only 30 per cent. It is
the disposition of the stand patter to
keep all that he has got, and to grab
everything else that is left, so that
he will hog the whole situation. The
New England cotton mill which was
engaged in the manufacture of hosi
ery, applied, of course, to the manu
facturers’ association. The manufac
turers’ association heeded the wail
and the prayer of one of its members,
and the consequence was that a pow
erful pressure was brought to bear
upon congress. Obedient to this pow
erful organization of manufacturers,
the senate rejected the Kasson treaty.
Thus, one little New England mill by
organization knocked out all the mil
lions of cotton growers who were not
organized, and who had no powerful
associations to tell congress to kill
that treaty at its peril. The cotton
growers of the south lost annually a
trade of $20,000,000, and it was be
cause one little New England cotton
mill objected to the treaty.
Where were the senators of the
south, that they did not h ed your in
terest? Where were the great leaders
of the Democratic party of the south,
that they did not stand up and demand
the passage of that treaty on the prin
ciple of the “Greatest good to the
greatest number”? The mighty voice
of the manufacturers’ association
spoke for the little New England cotr
ton mill —not a single vcice spoke for
you.
If the tariff duties were lowered
there would be a reduction in the
price of manufactured goods. There
fore a greater number of people could
buy a greater amount of goods, there
fore, as a child need not be told, there
would be a greater demand for raw
cotton, and thus of course, the price
(Continued on page 12.)
5