But even so scanty a measure of justice to our landless people "half a loaf"-was, June 22, vetoed by President Buchanan.-He in effect denounces it as unconstitutional, unjust to the old States, unequal in its operations and pretended benefits-as a measure which "will go far to demoralize the people," or, in the language of Mason of Virginia, "fraught with mischief of the most demoralizing kind." PART VII. The President's veto sustained by the Democracy in the Senate. In the Senate, in which the bill originated, this veto was sustained by a vote of 19 to 9, the question was: Shall this bill pass notwithstanding the objections of the President? YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitch, Foot, Foster, Gwinn, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, King, Lane, Latham, Nicholson, Polk, Pugh, Rice, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, and Wilson-19. NAYS-Messrs. Bragg, Chestnut, CRITTENDEN, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Green, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Tennessee, Johnson of Arkansas, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Powell, Sebastian, Wigfall, and Yulce-9. Accordingly, the Republicans, now in control of both Houses of Congress and of the Executive, hastened to redeem this pledge early in 1862 by the enactment of the Homestead Act, which has been such a blessing to our people and our country. It grants 160 acres to every actual settler 21 years or more of age, or head of a family who is, or has declared his intention to become a citizen. That is its main feature, independent of the grant of 160 acres to every person, whether naturalized or not, and whether of age or not, who enlisted in the military service to crush the rebellion. This noble Republican provision for actual settlers met with considerable Democratic opposition in 1862 before it could be put upon the statute book. The vote by which it passed the House, February 28, 1862, was 114 yeas to 18 nays. Of the yeas there were 92 Republicans and 22 Democrats, a proportion of over 4 Republicans to 1 Democrat in favor of the bill; of the nays there were 3 Republicans and 15 Democrats, a proportion of 5 Democrats to 1 Republican against the bill. The vote by which it passed the Senate, May 6, 1862, was eva more significant. It stood, yeas 33 to nays 7. Of the yeas 30 were Republican to 3 Democratic; of the nays All the nays from the South, and all Dem-6 were Democratic to 1 Republican. Thus the ocrats except Mr. Crittenden of Kentucky. So vote showed a proportion of 10 Republicans the bill failed, not having received the re- to 1 Democrat in favor of the Homestead Bill, quisite two thirds vote to pass it over the and 6 Democrats to 1 Republican opposed to President's veto. All the Republicans present it. not paired with Democrats on the question Had they the power of numbers, it is hardvoted solidly for the bill, but were not strongly necessary to say the Democrats would have enough to effect its passage. It was defeated killed the Homestead Act of 1862, as they had by the Democratic slave-holding vote. done in previous years to similar measures. PART VIII. "The Sceptre falls from the hands of the Landed Democracy-The Slave-holding Aristocracy of the South - Homesteads Triumph in Republican success. On the 4th of March, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated President of the United States. A little latter the Democracy, the landed aristocratic slave-holding Democracy, seceded, and through four years of unparalleled slaughter and crime warred to build up a Southern confederacy with "slavery as its corner stone," in which free labor, the free white laborer, would have been forever excluded from its lands whether public or private. PART IX. Extending the Homestead Act- In the House, February 8, 1866, a bill was passed extending the provisions of the Homestead Act to the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida. The vote by which it passed was 112 yeas to 29 nays-all the nays being Democrats except two. The names of these Democrats are: Chanler, John L. Dawson, Chas. A. Eldridge, Wm. E. T. G. Bergen, B. M. Boyer, James Brooks, John W. The Democracy as hostile to-day as before : In their platform at Chicago in 1860, the Republicans had adopted the following plank: Resolved, That we protest against any sale or the rebellion to the homestead principle— alienation to others of the public lands held by actual to "public lands to actual settlers." settlers, and against any view of the free homestead policy, which regards the settlers as paupers or sup- That is demonstrated by its persistent and plicants for public bounty and we demand the pas-systematic efforts to cripple, if not to wholly age by Congress of the complete and satisfactory homestead measure, which has already passed the House. destroy the efficiency of the General Land Office. Appeals made again and again by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, supported by the Secretary of the Interior, to Congress, for larger appropriations with which to secure more room and an increased clerical force absolutely demanded by the prompt and efficient execution of its increasing business, have been denied by the Democratic majorities of the two Houses, while, but recently, during reconstruction, in the reports of the generals commanding the several military districts, this hostility was developed in the violent expulsion of settlers, who, under the Homestead Act, attempted to locate the lands of the South. CHAPTER XVI. The Tariff Question. "A Tariff for revenue only."-Declaration 3, Democratic National Platform, 1880. PART I. they should promote such manufactures as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly for military, supplies." Protection essentially the “AmerThe very first act of the First Congress-as ican System”—Among its Illus- pointed out in the able and exhaustive. trious Advocates : Washington, speech of Mr. Hubbell of Michigan, in the Franklin, Hamilton, Clay, Jack-House, March 21, 1876, from which this part. son, Madison, Adams, Webster, amble declaring its object in this language: is mainly condensed-was prefaced by a preLincoln and Grant. "Whereas it is necessary for the support of the GovStates, and the encouragement and protection of manufacturers, that duties be levied on goods, wares and mer George Washington, in his first message to ernment for the discharge of the debt of the United Congress, declared that: "The safety and interest of the people require that chandise imported." Alexander Hamilton, in 1779, wrote: "To maintain between the recent establishments of Brief History of Tariff' Legisla one country and the long matured establishments of another country a competition on equal terms, both as to quality and price, is in most cases impracticable. The disparity in the one or in the other, or in both, must necessarily be so considerable as to forbid a successful rival-ship without extraordinary aid and protec tion from the government." Henry Clay, in 1824. in the course of one of his great speeches, said: * "It is most desirable that there should be both a home and a foreign market. But with respect to their relative superiority, I cannot entertain a doubt. The home market is first in order and paramount in importance. *** But this home market, desirable as it is, can only be created and cherished by the protection of our own legislation against the inevitable prostration of our industry, which must ensue from the action of foreign policy and legislation. **If I am asked why unprotected industry should not succeed in a struggle with protected industry, I answer: The fact has ever been so, and that is sufficient; I reply, the uniform experience evinces that it cannot succeed in such a struggle, and that is sufficient. If we speculate on the causes of this universal truth, we may differ about them. Still the indisputable fact remains. *** The cause is the cause of the country, and it must and will prevail. It is founded on the interests and affections of the people. It is as native as the granite deeply embosomed in our mountains." General Jackson, in 1824, wrote: "It is time that we should become a little more Americanized, and, instead of feeding the paupers and laborers of England, feed our own." James Madison, in 1828, said: "Afurther evidence in support of the constitutiona power to protect and foster manufactures by regulations of trade-an evidence that ought in itself to settle the question-is the uniform and practical sanction given in that power, for nearly forty years, with a concurrence or acquiescence of every State government throughout the same period, and, it may be added, through all the vicissitudes of party which marked that period." Mr. Adams, in 1832, in a report from the Committee on Manufactures, said: "And thus the very first act of the organized Congress united with the law of self-preservation, by the support of the Government just instituted, the two objects combined in the first grant of power to Congress; the payment of the public debts and the provision for the common defense by the protection of manufactures. The next act was precisely of the same character: an act of protection to manufactures still more than of taxation for revenue." Daniel Webster, in 1833, said: "The protection of American labor against the injurious competition of foreign labor, so far, at least, as respects general handicraft productions, is known his-. torically to have been one end designed to be obtained by establishing the Constitution; and this object, and the constitutional power to accomplish it, ought never to be surrendered or compromised in any degree." Abraham Lincoln, in 1832, said: "I am in favor of the internal improvement system and a high protective tariff." tion-1824 to 1860. A careful and conscientious writer thus condenses the history of the American Protective Tariff and the Democratic opposition to it in a few brief lines: "After the war of 1812 closed, there came a series of hard years in this country. Business was prostrated, wages were low, and employment was hard to get. A protective tariff was adopted in 1824, and strengthened in 1828, which revived our industries and brought good times. Town and country prospered alike, and the mechanic and farmer were equally benefited. The South hated this tariff, which made it pay tribute, its statesmen said, to the Yankees of New England. South Carolina tried to nullify it, and prevent the customs officers from collecting the duties at her ports. "In 1832 the Democrats struck down this tariff by a law reducing duties on a sliding scale for ten years. Prosperity was immediately checked. Times grew harder and harder, until the great crash of 1837 came. No one whose memory does not go back to that time can imagine the misery which came upon the country. Flour sold as low as $2.50 per barrel, and in many localities laboring men worked for thirty cents a day. "In 1840 the people put into power the new Whig party, pledged to re-enact a protective tariff. The result was the tariff of 1842, which gave fresh life to the manufacturing and agricultural interests, and put business upon its feet again. "In 1844 the Democrats carried the Presidential election by cheating the Pennsylvania voters into the belief that they would not disturb the protective. tariff. Their campaign cry in that State was: Polk, Dallas and the Tariff of 1842.' As soon as they got possession of the government they proceeded to pass a low tariff bill at the dictation of the South. The vote on it was a tie in the Senate, and Vice President Dallas, a Pennsylvanian, pledged to protection, gave the casting vote to destroy the protective system. The bill established what was known as the tariff of 1846. It seriously crippled the manufacturing interests of the country. The growing industries of New England, New Jersey and Pennsylvania received a heavy blow. The worst effects of this Democratic revenue tariff were not immediately felt throughout the country, however, because of the stimulus which came from the discovery of gold in California. But in spite of that great gain to the national wealth, the crash of 1857 came, and swept business, labor and agriculture away into a common disaster. "In 1860 the Republicans came into power and passed the Morrill Tariff Bill, which was based on the principle of protection. Many changes have been made in the law since, but in no case has this principle been abandoned. The Republican party has steadfastly defended all the great national industries, and their flourishing condition to-day is directly attributable to the long period of Republican ascendency." PART III. The Morrison Tariff Bill-Its proposed iniquities-Analysis of the Democratic monstrosity. The first attempt made by the Democrats proposed [Morrison] tariff goes into operation, the poor "Aside from the tax proposed to be levied on tea and coffee the increased duties amount to only $821,879.71, while the decrease for the year is over $26,000,000Practically, however, even if tea and coffee should not be taxed, there will be little or no decrease in the ag when they gained control of the House of Representatives to tinker the tariff, was in 1876, under the lead of Mr. Morrison of Illinois, then chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means. He introduced a tariff bill-known as the Morrison tariff billwhich had been drawn for him by the Free Traders and others interested in breaking down protection, ruining Home manufacture, and depriving our American home labor of a chance to earn an honest living, which ex-gregate receipts. The duties from the increase of im. cited great alarm at the time, and had its portations, now unusually large, will overcome the reshare in leading up to the succeeding panic ductions proposed in the tariff, and in a very few years and hard times. By Republican efforts, how-return a larger custom revenue than that now collected. ever, this Morrison tariff bill was so effectually exposed that it dared not afterwards show its head. From Mr. Hubbell's speech, a few extracts will suffice to show what was intended by this Democratic bill: The so-called Morrison tariff, manufactured in New York city, by order of the Free Trade League, under the inspiration of the American members of the English Cobden Club, strikes directly at the policy of protection, and aims a death blow at many of our important industries, while none of them are allowed to escape its crippling influences. Rates of reduction of duties. "On cotton, unbleached, from 5 cents to 21⁄2 cents per square yard. On cotton, bleached, from 51⁄2 cents to 3% cents per square yard of the ordinary sizes and forms. On iron, rolled, one-half, bar iron being placed at onehalf cent per pound. Pig iron reduced from $7 to $5 per ton, or about 30 per cent.; or in other words, on iron and steel from 30 to 50 per cent. cent. On lead and manufactures of lead from 30 to 50 per 35 per cent. reduced to 25. 50 and 60 6 Wools, first and second class, reduced about 50 per cent. cents per cubic foot. Pencils and pens, &c., &c., &c., Analysis of the Morrison bill. facturers to surfeit our markets with imported wares, and the opportunity will be promptly embraced. The extent of its evil tendencies can scarcely be measured, and the country now appeals to the wisdom of this Congress to save the people from a practical realization of its fearful consequences." The Morrison tariff is an invitation to foreign manu PART IV. The Wood Tariff Bill-How it unsettled Business Interests and injured Manufactures, Traders and Workingmen — Infamous Intentions of the DemocratsThe Democratic Vote to consider it—The Republicans Kill it. The Wood Tariff Bill of 1878 undoubtedly did more than any other one thing to unsettle values, to destroy confidence in our industries, to make capital timid of investment, and to react with cruel effect upon the mechanic and laboring men and women throughout the country. At first the industrial interests of the land proceeded us as usual, under the belief that it was merely one of the usual clap-trap devices of Democracy, to secure some little political strength in certain localities, and that there was no serious purpose in it. But after a while apprehension was aroused and petition after petition came in from the bone and sinew of the land, deprecating and protesting against any change in the wise tariff act which had been given to the country by the Republican party. Deaf to these appeals, and refusing to give audience to the delegations which came to Washington in the interests of the trades and of labor, Mr. Wood and his Democratic friends continued defiantly to press his iniquitous, illy-digested tariff bill in the interests of foreigners and for$7,705,001.52 eign importers, and against the interests of our tradesmen and workingmen, and the $26,159,083.24 20,038,580.85 people generally. Republicans did all they could to refuse the measure any considera$6,120,502.39 tion whatever, but at last, on the 26th March, 1878, Mr. Wood succeeded in bringing the bill before the House. Upon his motion a resolution was adopted making his bill the special order for Thursday, April 4, and to continue from day to day until disposed of. The vote by which this resolution was agreed to was 137 yeas to 114 nays. Of the yeas there were 122 Democrats and only 15 Republicans; "An analysis of the Morrison tariff, under a comparison with the rates of duty in 1876, gives the following results: $18,454,081.72 Taxing the poor man's breakfast table. "It will be observed that the increase of duty is not upon goods now paying duties, but mainly upon tea and coffee, which are now admitted free of duty, and ever ought to be, so long as they do not come into competition with home products of the same articles. The amount of duty proposed to be collected from those two items is $19,216,701.14. So in future. if the of the nays 104 Republicans and only 10 Democrats. Thus, in spite of the almost solid Republican vote against giving this crude bill a hearing, an almost solid Democratic vote brought it before the House, and gave it a chance of being enacted into a law. The Democrats who voted to make the bill special order are as follows: Messrs. Acklen, Aiken, Atkins, Banning, H. P. Bell, Benedict, Bicknell, Blackburn, Bliss, Blount, Boone, Bouck, Bright, Buckner, Cabell, J. W. Caldwell, W. P. Caldwell, Carlisle, Chalmers, A. A. Clarke, J. B. Clarke, J. B. Clark, Jr., Cobb, Cook, Covert, S. S. Cox, Cravens, Crit. inden, Culberson, Davidson, J. J. Davis, Dibrell, Dickey, Douglas, Durham, Eden, Eickhoff, Ellis, Felton, E. B. Finley, Forney, Garth, Gause, Gibson, Giddings, Gunter, A.H. Hamilton, Hardenbergh, H. R. Harris, J. T. Harris, Harrison, Hart, Hartridge, Hartwell, Henkle, Henry, A. &. Hewitt, G. W. Hewitt, Herbert, Hooker, House, Hunton, F. Jones, J. T. Jones, Kenna, Kimmel, Knott, G. M. Lan ders, Ligon, Lockwood, Lutrell, Lynde, Manning, Martin, Mayham, McMahon, Mills, Money, Morgan, Morrison, Morse, Muldrow, Muller, Phelps, O. N. Potter, Quinn, Rea, Reagan, A. V. Rice, Riddle, W. M. Robbins, Roberts, Robertson, Sayler, Scales, Shelley, Singleton, Slemons, W. E. Smith, Southard, Springer, Steele, Stephens, Swan, Throcorton, R. W. Townshend, Tucker, Turner, R. B. Vance, Feeder, Waddell, Warner, Whitthorne, Wigginton, A. 8 Williams, J. Williams, J. N. Williams, A. S. Willis, B. A. Willis, F. Wood, and Young. our The panic it occasioned-Gallant fight by R. W. Townshend, Tucker, R. B. Vance, Waddell, G. C. Fernando Wood's admissions as to the in- In order to see that the object of Fernando Wood's Tariff Bill and of the Democratic party is ultimately so to reduce the present rates of customs duties as to completely destroy the principle of protection, it is only necessary to glance at his speech, delivered in the House, April 9, 1878, in support of that monstrous measure. Speaking of the present rates of duties, this Democratic leader airily said: "I recognize an implied moral right to a little longer continuation of the favor which they afford to the manufacturing interests. The bill reported affects them, so far as the rates of duties are concerned, but little. Its reductions are trifling as compared to what they should be, and, in my opinion, they could well afford to bear. If I had the power to commence de novo, I should reduce the duties 50 per cent. instead of less than 15 per cent. upon an average, as now proposed... Here is an admission that his Tariff Act-for which, as we have seen, the Democrats voted so strongly-contemplates an average reduction of about 15 per cent., with a further future reduction of more than twice that amount, when, if ever, the administration, as well as both branches of Congress pass under Democratic control. The little longer continuation of the "favor" of the 15 per cent. reduction plainly refers to that period, should it ever, unfortunately for our manufacturing industries and the people who get their daily bread by them, arrive. The only hope then for our home industrial interests, to avoid the widespread ruin, not alone contemplated, but thus directly avowed by the Democratic party as a part of their policy, is to remit their Presidential and Congressional candidates to private life. Another vote showing the antipathy of Democracy to manufacturers and working men At Another very instructive vote was that which was cast in the House, December 1, 1877, than which nothing could more forcibly prove the real antagonism of the Democratic leaders to the artisan, the mechanic, and the laborer, Nars-Messrs. Acklen, Aiken, Atkins, Banning. Beebe, and their dislike of that system of protection Bicknell, Blackburn, Bland, Bliss, Blount, Boone, Bragg, which the Republican party has always affordBright, Buckner, Cabell, J. W. Caldwell, W. P. Calded to the American workingman, by protecting well, Candler, Carlisle, Chalmers, J. B. Clark, Jr., Cobb, the manufacturing interests which employ Cook, Covert, S. S. Cox, Cravens, Crittenden, Culberson, him, against the foreign manufacturer. Davidson, Dean, Dibrell, Dickey, Eden, Eickhoff, Elam, Ellis, Ewing, Felton, E. B. Finley, Forney, Franklin, that date, upon a resolution offered by Mr. Fuller, Garth, Gause, Gibson, Giddings, Goode, Gunter, Mills, a Democrat, instructing the Committee 4.H. Hamilton, H. R. Harris, J. T. Harris, Harrison, on Ways and Means "to so revise the tariff as to Hart, Hartridge, Hartzell, Hatcher, Henkle, Henry A S. make it purely and solely a tariff for revenue," Hewitt, G W. Hewitt, Herbert, Hooker, House Fones J.T. Jones, Kenna, Kimmell, Knott, Ligon, Luttrel Mar and not for protection, the vote stood: yeas, Mayham, McKenzie, McMahon, Mills, Money, Morgan, 67; nays, 76. Of the 67 yeas, 60 were DemMorrison, Muldrow, Muller, T. M. Patterson, Phelps, C. ocratic, and only 7 Republican, Of the 76 N. Potter, Pridemore, Rae, Reagan, A V. Rice, Riddle, .M. Robbins, Sayler, Shelly, Singleton, W. E. Smith, Days, 54 were Republican, and only 12 DemSuthard, Springer, Steele, Stephens, Swan, Throckmorton, ocratic. |