proposed [Morrison] tariff goes into operation, the poor
man's family will be taxed heavily for these two im-
portant articles of daily consumption.
Outside tea and coffee, increased duties
only $821,879, while decrease for the
year over $26,000,000.

"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 share in leading up to the succeeding panic and hard times. By Republican efforts, however, this Morrison tariff bill was so effect-facturers to surfeit our markets with imported wares, ually 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 protec tion, 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%1⁄2 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.

On lead and manufactures of lead from 30 to 50 per

cent.

portations, now unusually large, will overcome the reductions proposed in the tariff, and in a very few years return a larger custom revenue than that now collected.

The Morrison tariff is an invitation to foreign manu

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."

PART IV.

The Wood Tariff Bill-How it unsettled Business Interests and injured Manufactures, Traders and Workingmen — Infamous Intentions of the Democrats— The 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 in

On copper in plates, bars, ingots and pigs the duties are reduced from 5 cents per pound to 2 cents. Cop-dustries, to make capital timid of investment, per ore transferred to the free list. On silk and silk goodsOn goods paying

35 per cent. reduced to 25.
40

50 and 60

30.
40.

Wools, first and second class reduced about 50 per
Marble, in blocks and slabs, reduced from 50 to 30

cent.

cents per cubic foot.

Pencils and pens, &c., &c., &c.,

Analysis of the Morrison bill.

"An analysis of the Morrison tariff, under a comparison with the rates of duty in 1876, gives the following

results:

$18,454,081.72

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;

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 a 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, Crittenden, 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. S. Hewitt, G. W. Hewitt, Herbert, Hooker, House, Hunton, F. Jones, J. T. Jones, Kenna, Kimmel, Knott, G. M. Landers, Ligon, Lockwood, Lutrell, Lynde, Manning, Martin, Mayham, McMahon, Mills, Money, Morgan, Morrison, Morse, Muldrow, Muller, Phelps, C. 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, Throcmorton, R. W. Townshend, Tucker, Turner, R. B. Vance, Veeder, Waddell, Warner, Whitthorne, Wigginton, A. S. Williams, J. Williams, J. N. Williams, A. S. Willis, B. A. Willis, F. Wood, and Young.

The panic it occasioned-Gallant fight by the Republicans for the laboring man— How they killed the Democratic tariff

bill-Democrats who voted for the bill.

The Republicans, however, continued to fight the monstrous iniquities proposed by this bill, and finally, after a long and doubtful contest-during which many of our most important industries languished, hundreds of business houses were forced to suspend operations, hundreds of others were forced into bankruptcy, and thousands upon thousands of our laboring people were deprived of the chance to earn their daily bread-succeeded in killing this baleful Democratic measure. On the 5th of June, 1878, the enacting clause of the bill to the intense chagrin of Mr. Wood and his Democratic colleagues-was stricken out, and the bill defeated by a vote of 134 yeas to 120 nays. Of the 134 yeas, 115 were Republicans and only 19 Democrats. Of the 120 nays, 113 were Democrats and only 7 Republicans. The Democratic vote in favor of the bill was there'fore in the proportion of about six for it, to every one against it! The Republican vote against the bill was in the proportion of about sixteen against, to every one for it! The names of the Democrats who voted against killing the bill were as follows:

NAYS-Messrs. Acklen, Aiken, Atkins, Banning, Beebe,

R. W. Townshend, Tucker, R. B. Vance, Waddell, G. C.
Walker, Warner, Whitthorne, Wigginton, A. S. Williams,
J. Williams, A. S. Willis, B. A. Willis, F. Wood, Yeates,
Young.

Fernando Wood's admissions as to the in-
famous intentions of the Democratic tar-
iff policy-Proposed reduction of duties
by his bill 15 per cent.-Further reduction
of 35 per cent. contemplated.

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 The bill reported affects manufacturing interests. 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 The only their daily bread by them, arrive. 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, 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. Cald-ed 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 A. 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 F 3ones J. T. Jones, Kenna, Kimmell, Knott, Ligon, Luttrel Mar and not for protection, the vote stood: yeas, tin, Mayham, McKenzie, McMahon, Mills, Money, Morgan, 67; nays, 76. Of the 67 yeas, 60 were DemMorrison, Muldrow, Muller, T. M. Patterson, Phelps, Cocratic, and only 7 Republican, Of the 76 N. Potter, Pridemore, Rae, Reagan, A V. Rice, Riddle, W. M. Robbins, Sayler, Shelly, Singleton, W. E. Smith, nays, 54 were Republican, and only 12 DemSouthard, Springer, Steele, Stephens, Swan, Throckmorton, ocratic.

Following are the names of the Democrats who voted for this anti-protective resolution: Messrs. H. P. Bell, Bicknell, Blackburn, Bland, Boone, Bragg, Buckner, J. W. Caldwell, W. P. Caldwell, J. B. Clark, Jr., Cobb, Cravens, Culberson, Dibrell, Dickey, Douglas, Durham, Eden, Elam Felton, Forney, Franklin,

Fuller, Garth, Gause, Giddings, Glover, Goode, A. H.
Hamilton, Hartzell, Hatcher, House, J. T. Jones, Kenna,
Knott, Ligon, Luttrell, Martin, McKenzie, Mills, Morri
son, Pridemore, Reagan, Riddle, Robertson, Sayler,
Scales, Singleton, Slemons, W. E. Smith, Springer, Steele,
Throckmorton, R. W. Townshend, Turner, R. B. Vance,
Waddell, Whitthorne, J. N. Williams, A. S. Willis.

CHAPTER XVII.

Greenbacks, Public Credit, and Resumption.

*

* "Honest money-the strict maintenance of the public faith-consisting of gold and silver, and paper convertible into coin on demand; the strict maintenance of the public faith, State and National." * * -Declaration 3, National Democratic Platform, 1880.

PART I.

Indiana, Pendleton, and Vallandigham, of Ohio, and Voorhees, of Indiana, some of whom at this late day profess to be advocates and The Republican Party the Father, friends of the greenback! In the Senate the Friend, and Guardian of the bill was passed hy an affirmative vote of 30, Republican Greenback Hisof whom 25 were Republicans-only three The bill betory of the Greenback's Birth Republicans voting against it! came a law February 25, 1862. The Legal Tender Act — Reason for its Being-Democratic Opposition and Votes-Secretary Chase's Letter.

66

green

To ascertain the position in which the two great parties of the country have hitherto stood on the legal-tender note, or back question, and the folly of the formation of a "Greenback party," when it is susceptible of positive proof that the Republican party has not only always been the best friend, but is the father and guardian of the greenback, while the Democratic party has been its bitter enemy, it may be well to look back into the history of its origin and its growth in public esteem.

It originated in 1862 as purely a Republican measure, suggested by a Republican Secretary of the Treasury, passed by a Republican Congress, approved by a Republican President as a means whereby a long and bloody war, brought on by the attempts of the rebel wing of the Democratic party to rule or ruin this Union of States, might end in a triumph of union and freedom.

February 6, 1862, under the management of that staunch "old commoner," Thad. Stevens, the bill first authorizing an issue of United States legal-tender notes were passed by the House. The vote was yeas 93, nays 59, the yeas (only seven Democrats) being Democrats) being almost entirely Republican, dnd the nays (which included twenty Republicans) mainly Democratic. Among the prominent Democrats who voted against the greenback on this its first appearance, will be found the names of S. S. Cox, Holman, of

The reason why the legal-tender clause was put into the act at the suggestion of the Republican Secretary of the Treasury, S. P. Chase, was because of the refusal of "some persons, and some institutions which refused to receive and pay" out United States notes and thus depreciated them. These "persons" and

"institutions

"

were of the Democratic faith

and their effort was to cripple the Government in its war on the Southern wing of the Democratic party for the preservation of the Union. This is the precise language of Mr. Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, which led to the Secretary Chase's letter of January 29, 1862, to enactment of the legal-tender measure:

***"But, unfortunately, there are some persons and some institutions which refuse to receive and pay ly to the unnecessary depreciation of the notes, but to them (U. S. notes), and whose action tends not mereestablish discrimination in business against those who, in this matter, give a cordial support to the Government, and in favor of those who do not. Such the provision making the notes a legal tender, in a discriminations should, if possible, be prevented; and great measure at least, prevents it by putting all citizens, in this respect, on the same level both of rights and duties.

*

*

*

The Democratic opposition was intended to help the rebellion and cripple the Union Treasury. That was the motive. It was founded upon the pretense that the issue of legal tender greenbacks was unconstitutional. That was the pretext. The Democrats hated the greenback before its birth, at its birth, and until by Republican legislation it grew strong and beautiful. They still hate it. But with devilish cunning they now pretend to love it, and, with fond caresses, would embrace it only to its destruction and undoing.

PART II.

sumption Act of 1875-Official Votes showing the Democrats solidly against them.

The Democrats Directly Responsible for Contraction-The Act of April 12, 1866-Analysis of When, in July last, at the Academy of Music the Votes by which it Passed. in New York, Samuel J. Randall declared to The act of April 12, 1866, first session, the assembled multitude, that "It (the Democratic party) made easy the path to the resumption Thirty-ninth Congress-providing for a contraction of the volume of greenbacks-may of specie payments, etc.," he exhibited a density of fairly be claimed by the Democrats as their ignorance or a faculty for falsification absoown measure. Under that act it will be re- lutely astounding! Let us see with what remarkable persistency the Democratic party membered, the Secretary of the Treasury fought the public credit, the resumption of actually retired $44,000,000 legal tenders, reducing the volume of greenbacks in circu- specie payments and the greenback, which lation to $356,000,000, although subsequently that resumption has made as good as gold. after the panic of September, 1873, the Secretary issued (or reissued) more than half of what he had previously withdrawn. This contraction act passed the House March 23, 1866, by a vote of 83 yeas to 53 nays. There In the House January 20, 1869, Mr. Schenck were 55 Republicans voting yea, while 53 introduced a bill (H. R. 1744) to "strengthen Republicans voted nay. There were 28 Dem- the public credit" which subsequently passed ocrats who voted yea, and only one Democrat the House, was amended in the Senate, and who voted nay. The Democrats had the bal- out of the disagreement between the two ance of power, and under the lead of Samuel Houses came a bill, reported by a Conference J. Randall, James Brooks, Michael C. Kerr, committee, which passed both Houses, but Samuel S. Marshall and Charles A. Eldridge, was pocketed" by President Andrew Johnthrew their united strength for the bill, leav-son. The vote upon that "public credit bill," ing only one poor Democratic straggler-Ed- as reported by the Conference Committee, win N. Hubbell-among the host of Republicans who fought the bill.

So, in the Senate. There the bill was passed April 9, 1866, by a vote of 32 yeas to 7 nays. The seven nays were all Republicans, and all the Democrats who voted, voted for the bill. Thus it appears that on the passage of the bill in both Houses the aggregate Democratic vote against contraction was a solitary one !

The Act of February 4, 1868, suspending contraction-Vote analysed-The same old story.

Again, there is the case of the act of February 4, 1868, passed during the second session of the Fortieth Congress, which reads in part as follows:

"Be it enacted, etc., That from and after the passage of this act the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to make any reduction of the currency, by retiring or canceling United States notes, shall be, and is hereby suspended."

*

*

*

This act passed the House December 7, 1867, by 127 yeas to 32 nays; and of the 127 yeas only 24 were Democratic votes, while 103 were Republican.

Thus again and again do we see that while the Republicans did all they possibly could for the greenback, the Democrats did all they possibly could against it, and whenever they were strong enough did effectual harm. And as if to point the case still more strongly, the Democratic President, Andy Johnson, allowed the measure to become a law by the lapse of time (because he knew it was useless to veto it), but refused absolutely to sign it.

PART III.

The Public Credit Bill of 1869-
Public Credit Act of 1869-Re-

Public Credit and Specie-Contract Bill of 1869-Only 34 Democrats in Congress vote for it.

was, in the Senate: 31 yeas to 24 nays-30
Republicans voting "yea" to 14 Republicans
voting "nay," and only one Democrat voting
to 10 Democrats voting "nay." In
"yea
the House the vote upon the bill reported by
the Conference Committee was 117 yeas to 59
nays. There were of these, 107 Republican
"yeas to 26 Republican " 'nays," and only
10 Democratic 66
"yeas" to 33 Democratic
"nays." In other words the Senate Republi-
cans were more than 2 to 1, and the House
Republicans more than 4 to 1, in favor of it
while the House Democrats were more than 3
to 1, and the Senate Democrats exactly 10 to 1
against it.

The bill upon which these votes were taken comprised only two sections-the first section being word for word the same as the "Public Credit Act" of 1869, hereafter quoted in full, and the second or specific contracts section. being as follows:

SEC. 2. That any contract hereafter made specifi-cally payable in coin, and the consideration of which. may be a loan of coin, or a sale of property, or the rendering of labor or service of any kind, the price of which, as carried into the contract, may have been adjusted on the basis of the coin value thereof at the time of such sale or the rendering of such service or labor, shall be legal and valid, and may be enforced according to its terms; and on the trial of a suit brought for the enforcement of any such contract, proof of the real consideration may be given.

And the vote upon its passage was as fol- States, limiting the aggregate amount of circulatinglows: