wheat, and of the United States Government for $6, will all be satisfied by an aggregate of forty-six days' labor. But the great iron resources of Pennsylvania are not protected; they must be developed, and the Government is induced to put a protective duty of $12 on a ton of iron; but $12 represents twelve days' labor for the Pennsylvanian, who wants iron, and therefore it is better for him to give thirty days to making a ton of iron, rather than twenty to wheat, and twelve to the tax. He does so, and gets his iron. The Englishman, having no market for his iron, and wanting wheat, must give thirty days. to raising a ton of wheat. The desires of the Englishman and of the American are both met by an aggregate of sixty days' labor. But the United States has no revenue; it wants $6, but, having been deluded into imposing a protective tariff, it did not get it, and must now impose a direct tax on the Pennsylvanian equal to six days' labor. The three desires are therefore satisfied only by an aggregate of sixty-six days' labor. To sum up: The Revenue Tariff satisfied the three desires with..... Waste of labor..... Disregarding all comity with the Englishman, the Pennsylvanian's desire is tisfied. And he pays $6 tax to the Government, under a Revenue Tariff, with..... 26 days. Under the Protective Tariff, with.. 36 10 days Any one who has read Prof. Perry's admirable book will see that I owe this demonstration to him. If we wish to understand how the great iron deposits of Pennsylvania would be developed in a natural manner, we have to take the case in a little different form. Suppose twenty men working one day can make a ton of wheat and thirty men a ton of iron; with free trade, ten men have leisure-ten men are unemployed on wheat. Will they not be sure to be trying experiments on the iron which they want? Will they not slowly but surely learn the trade? But, if the whole thirty men are forced by protection into making iron without ever serving an apprenticeship at it, are they as likely to achieve success? Let me suppose another extreme case: I am a farmer in St. Lawrence County, N. Y., understanding my business; and with one day's labor I can produce a bushel of wheat; in three days' time I, not having learned the trade well, can cobble together a pair of shoes with great waste of leather. On the other side of the river is a poor, ignorant cobbler sent out from England and placed upon a Canada farm; he can make my shoes in a day, but he requires three days to make a bushel of wheat wherewith to feed his family. Shall I not be protected against pauper labor? If I allow his shoes to cross the river, shall I not be reduced to his level? Shall I ever learn shoe-making and become independent of these foreigners who flood us with their shoes, unless Government compels me to employ three days of hard work on shoes, instead of two days of leisure in cutting up leather and trying to learn at my ease. But suppose this cobbler moves one mile and comes into the United States in what respect has his labor changed in its relation to mine? As a consumer he now pays a small portion of the United States taxes, which he must add to the price of the shoes he inakes, in precisely the same manner as a moderate revenue duty would have been added to the price of the shoes if he had continued to make them in Canada; do I any longer demand such a tax upon the shoes made by him as shall force me to make them myself? Far from it, I scout the idea of a heavy tax on shoes, and hasten to avail myself of the benefit of his cheap labor; yet in England or in Canada he was a pauper, or so near it as to be called so. To be consistent in the doctrine of protection to American labor, we should impose the very highest rate of duty in our schedule, upon the laborer, and not upon his product; we ought not to permit this flood of immigration; the immigrants can make great many things which we can make ourselves. Let this duty by all means be ad valorem and on a home valuation, so that we may as far as possible exclude the most skillful and intelligent workmen; we don't want the result of their skill when it is exerted abroad, and we shall never prosper if they come here and prevent our attaining it ourselves. rk es. There is danger in the abundance of things. We are flooded with foreign commodities-flooded with comforts and luxuries. Protect us, in order that we may labor: it is a privilege to labor; we want to barder, to get what we consume, than our natural condition req Create an artificial scarcity, so that we may enjoy our full right to labor. Is it the right to labor for which we should so strive? Is labor the end? Is it not rather what labor will give us that we seek? And if we can get what we want with little labor, instead of much, do we regret it? "But," says the protectionist, "you will never establish manufactures unless they are protected in their infancy." I believe all baby-jumpers and other devices to aid or protect children in their efforts to walk have been discarded, as it has been found better that they should now and then have a tumble, and possibly one occasionally break its neck, rather than that all should grow up with weak legs, even though their legs should get as strong as they ever would have been by the time the children have become old inen. And I believe the same process is healthy for infant manufactures as well as for infant children. The most firmly established manufactures in the United States are those which have never been protected to any extent-such as the various manufactures of wood; of boots and shoes; of heavy machinery, such as locomotives; and, above all, of agricultural implements and tools, of clothing, of sewing machines, and so on, to the extent of the larger part of our home manufactures, some of which have grown up in spite of heavy duties on the raw materials of which they are composed. It may here be well to consider the meaning of the terms "raw materials" and "manufacturing." In the common use of the words, raw materials are things which are produced mainly by hand or manual labor, and are therefore true manufactures; but which are changed into finished commodities, not by the hand, but really by machines. We are led to much confusion of ideas by this inaccurate use of words. We call cotton a raw material, yet to the planter it is a finished commodity, produced by the hand labor of the cultivator of the field, and finished upon the cotton gin. To the so-called manufacturer, the cotton comes from the gin as a raw material, and in the mill it becomes finished product, as cloth. But, as cloth, it now goes to a real manu-facturer-the sempstress, to whom the cloth is raw material, and who by hand cuts it and makes it into garments; and the garment is now a finished commodity. But, as a garment, it goes to the farmer, to whom again it is a raw material, by means of which he is enabled to live in comfort, and without which he could not cultivate his farm. It does not cease to be a raw material and become a finished commodity until it is worn out; and even then it becomes the raw material of the paper-maker, and may not reach its final end until it has printed upon it an essay "upon the Collection of Revenue," and is put away upon a library shelf. In its course, whom shall we protect or give a bounty to? The manufacturer of the cloth? The manufacturer of the garment? The consumer of the garment? The paper-maker? or, finallyTo the writer of an essay upon the Collection of Revenue "-who may, at this present moment, really need personal protection more than any other? Shall we not rather seek to collect our revenue as impartially as possible, creating no artificial obstacles to commerce, and leaving each individual to WORK out his own material salvation, even as he works out his spiritual salvation? This claim for the protection of infant manufactures never ceases. Under its operation they never seem to grow to manhood, but the larger they grow the more urgent the demand for artificial support. The most urgent and imperative demand for protection now comes from the iron-masters and the wool-growers. American iron was born into the world more than a hundred years ago, when Pennsylvania was a colony. Great Britain was the mid-wife who presided at the birth, and endeavored to strangle the infant in its cradle; but he, being of a tough and fibrous quality, lived and grew apace, until he could stand alone, if he would only think so. But having been propped up with baby-jumpers and crutches, shoulder-braces, etc., he fears to stand lest he should fall, and demands now to be encompassed with a high wall over which no rude shove shall reach him. Where the demands of Pennsylvania ever more imperative? Yet what are the facts. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1866, a year of very large importations, the total import of iron and steel, and the manufactures thereof, was a trifle over..... ...... 19,000,000 The export of iron and steel, and the manufactures thereof, allowing twothirds the value of the agricultural implements and printing presses to have been iron and steel, was about.... 5,000,000 Leaving a net import of.... 14,000,000 During the same period, the internal revenue derived from iron and steel of home manufacture, in the forms which are specifically named by law, amounted to $13,728,133. The internal taxes alone upon this infant home manufacture were nearly equal to the total value of the importation. It is somewhat difficult to capitalize this tax, as the taxes upon iron and steel were duplicated, and even in some cases quadrupled, but the total value on which this tax was assessed cannot have been less than $200,000,000, and was probably nearer $300,000,000. The object in demanding a heavy duty on iron and steel, or any other commodity, can only be to maintain the price in an amount equal to the duty imposed. The demand of Pennsylvania is that the duties shall be raised to a still higher paint than they now are, in order to shut out the flood of $14,000,000 worth of foreign iron, by granting a bounty on over $200,000,000 of home production. We may well ask Pennsylvania' how much longer she will "plead baby?" I shall perhaps be charged with ingratitude by some of my friends in Pennsylvania, and I might have felt obliged to take another illustration rather than iron, had it not been for the most unreasonable demand of Pennsylvania for a duty on bituminous coal. If not infants in iron manufacture, the men who advocate this duty are infants in intelligence. Suppose New England being without coal, and being obliged to use costly fuel, were to demand that a tax be imposed upon every steam engine used out of New England, and that her own should be exempt; would there not be an outery which would overwhelm us with scorn and derision? Should we not be charged with the most selfish designs? Yet such a claim would be far more reasonable, than that of Pennsylvania for a duty on coal, which is only a tax on the steam engines of New England, already working at a disadvantage. The impudence of this claim is only exceeded by the ignorance of all economic law exhibited by those who propose it, which ignorance is their only justification. It is alleged that because we have begun the manufacture of Bessemer steel rails in this country, the price has been reduced by the English manufactures from $150 to $110 per ton, or about in that proportion; but those who make this absurd allegation make no note of the enormous extension and improvement in this manufacture in England. If their allegation is true the trade in steel rails in England would be conducted in the following manner. Suppose the parties to be the English manufacturer, the Agent of the Pennsylvania Central Railroad, and the Agent of the Pacha of Egypt. Penn. Agent. What is the price of steel rails? Penn. Agent.-For the Pennsylvania Central. Manufacturer. The price is $110 per ton, delivered. Agent of the Pacha.-I want an equal quantity at the same price. Agent of Pacha.-Have you two prices? Manufacturer. Yes, sir; they are endeavoring to establish the manufacture of steel rails in Pennsylvania, and all the English manufactures have combined to break them down; we charge $110 to Yankees, and $150 to all others. Agent of Pacha.-But you make a profit at $110. Manufacturer.-Ob, yes, certainly: we don't make a pratice of selling at less than cost. Agent of Pacha.-Good morning, sir; I will get my rails in Prussia, or wait until the Americans get started. If you make a profit at $110, and charge me $150, Pennsylvania will soon supply me at less than $150, even if you supply her own railroads at $110. I believe that any business man must see that the alleged effect of the few small steel-rail establishments in this country is as nothing compared to the effect of the competition in England. We cannot cripple our whole railroad system, cause all our transportation to be more costly, and retard the development of our western country, by granting any higher bounties to a few rail-makers, than we now pay. Yet I do not ask Pennsylvania to cease at once to demand duties upon iron and steel, nor would I willingly submit at once to a great reduction in the duties upon cotton manufactures. Any such abrupt changes would destroy capital and reduce production. Our problem is to maintain capital, and increase production, and this can only be done by a judicious reduction or abatement of internal taxes, and then by a gradual reduction of duties; and I for one have always advocated the entire abatement, first and before all others, of the internal taxes upon metals and the manufactures of metal. The metals are at the foundation of all other industry, and any tax upom them is an impediment to the production of almost every commodity needed by men. It is to be hoped, that, whatever Congress may fail to do in the matter of amending our present onerous tax laws, they will not fail to abate all internal taxes upon metals, and the manufactures of metal, and to refuse all requests for an advance in the duties. The repeal of the cotton tax should immediately follow, if it should not precede. This tax was never justifiable, except as a temporary expedient; the least onerous method would have been to have collected it of the manufactures for the home consumption, and of the merchants at the port of export. To attempt to collect of the producers checks the change from the plantation to the small farm system, and checks production. It may be added, that the time is not far off, but will come probably within two or three years, when there will be a surplus of cotton in the world. (See appendix C). I think Boston to-day affords a good illustration of the evils of protection. The conditions of soil, climate and coast, indicated maritime pursuits as the province of New England men; and she engaged in them. chiefly until the South forced a protective tariff upon the country. As this destroyed commerce, New England developed textile manufactures before their time, and then, becoming converted to the doctrine of protection, continued to foster them by the same process. The result is, that a large amount of the capital, and a large amount of the business capacity of Boston which should have been applied to railroads, steamships and commerce has gone into manufactures; consequently, Boston commerce declines, and young men emigrate. Commerce would have employed the young men at home, or in voyages ending at home; but textile manufactures employ only a few treasurers, agents or commission merchants, and a very large force of operatives or laborers. There are too many young men for the number of places equal to their capacity, and they must migrate. I think the population of New England has not been improved by this forced estalishment of textile manufactures. |