more than if there was no duty upon them. (Of course the price of many articles is increased.)

In proof of the reduction of certain articles that are protected by a duty of fifty per cent. I will read the remarks of John Sherman, made in the United States Senate a few days ago.

"Prior to 1863 there was no white earthenware made in the United States, so that this might be properly spoken of as an infant industry. The best materials for this kind of manufacture were to be found in abundance in Texas, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states, and, under the operation of the tariff and the high price of gold, an enormous industry for this kind of work has sprung up within the last twenty years. In East Liverpool, O., there were over 100 furnaces engaged in producing this beautiful ware, and he understood the production in New Jersey was large. The result was that the price of ordinary China ware had been reduced to one-half, and in some cases to onethird, what it was before. In glassware still more remarkable results had been achieved, mainly by the capital and ingenuity of a gentleman in Indiana. The price of ware had been greatly reduced, while in quality it was superior to French plate glass; such had been the results of home competition under the tariff. But now these industries were languishing, and in New Jersey and Ohio, and Indiana glass manufacture was struggling for existence."

If the price of our manufactured and imported goods are increased by the present tariff 40 per cent., which is less than the average of the duties imposed, taking the estimate put upon our manufactured goods for the last year at $6,500,000,000, and imports at $500,000,000, in all seven billions, the increased value would be $2,800,000,000. The amount is so enormous that it is too ridiculous for any sensible man to believe.

"My friend," cried a western demagogue from the stump to a farmer in his audience, "do you know that these tariff monopolists make you pay six cents a yard more for the shirt on your back than you ought to pay?" "I suppose it must be so." replies the farmer, "since you say it; but I can't

quite understand how it can be, since I gave for it only five cents and a half a yard."

The question may be asked, "Why have a tariff if it does not increase the price of home made goods?" I answer that foreign goods sent here are to a large extent surplus, which the foreigner cannot sell in his own country at fair prices without breaking down his own market. They are sent here and sold by auction at forced prices to a large extent without profit, because it is better to incur a loss than to glut the home market.

Again, a large class of foreign goods are bought by luxurious and exclusive classes, without reference to their cost; their cost even enhancing their desirableness as a token of wealth on the part of the purchaser.

The fact is notorious, that these classes in our large cities will pay for foreign clothes, at a fashionable tailor, double the price for which equally handsome articles of domestic manufacture may be procured.

The import of foreign goods is therefore no test of their cheapness in the country of production.

In conclusion I wish to give a few of the many reasons that can be given why farmers should favor protection. It increases the price of our lands; gives a better market and higher prices for our produce. It gives higher wages to laborers.

Henry C. Carey, whose reputation is co-extensive with the world as a teacher of protection, has more than once asserted that protection is a universal remedy for all social evils. "Adopt it universally," he said, " and with the bettered condition of mankind, ignorance, intemperance and vice generally will disappear."

Under free trade, or a low tariff, the balance of trade will be against us, as it was from 1847 to 1860. Under the low tariff of 1846 nearly all the gold produced in California during that period was sent abroad, which might have been retained at home under a protective tariff, and thereby enriched the country to the amount of many billions of dollars; and with our factories and furnaces in full blast, and plenty of money, we would have been much better prepared to crush the most gigantic rebellion the world ever saw.

DISCUSSION.

Mr. J. M. Fish, Springfield - I would like to ask the gentleman with his long list of exports, how it is that we can manufacture goods here and export them in the face of that pauper labor of the old country that he speaks of.

Mr. Anderson - I do not know that I am able to explain to the gentleman more than this, that we can manufacture cotton goods, of the kind I mention, as cheap as they can anywhere in the world, except on account of wages. There is another reason. When these goods are manufactured here, and we have a surplus, it is better for these manufacturers to ship that surplus of cotton goods, and even sell them at a loss in Europe than to glut our home market, and reduce the price. It would be the same with the farmer who, rather than glut the home market which takes ninety per cent. of his surplus, had better ship the surplus to Europe and sell at a loss the ten per cent. There are several reasons why we ought to have a protective tariff. In the first place, it is the easiest way to raise a revenue, and it costs nearly twice as much to build a factory in this country as it does in Europe. In the second place, coal which costs ninety cents a ton there, costs in this country four dollars a ton. Gas costs there ninety cents a thousand feet, and here it costs double. When we have a surplus on hand we must sell somewhere. If a farmer has a surplus on hand, if he cannot get a high price he will take a low price, and it is the same with a manufacturer. I do not say that we do not always ship them at a profit, because there are some kinds of goods that can be manufactured in this country cheaper than in the old country.

Mr. Ford I would like to ask the gentleman if a manufacturer can afford to burn up twenty per cent. of his product and then make money, how it is that we need a tariff on that article?

Mr. Anderson - Under the tariff of 1846, the English imported iron into this country till they broke down our manufactories. There were at one time only two rolling mills in this country running that manufactured railroad iron rails. Then they put up their price from forty to fifty dollars a

ton. If we have not a duty they can destroy our factories by their cheap labor and low interest and coal and gas, and then control the market, and make such prices as they choose as they always have done in every country, and make up their losses.

Mr. I. C. Sloan-I do not rise to discuss this subject, but simply to enter my protest against the doctrine which this paper contains. In my judgment it contains as large an amount of error and fallacy as it would be possible to condense into the same space. Stripped of the formula in which it is stated, the proposition is that a high rate of taxation will produce a state of great prosperity, and the higher the taxation the greater the prosperity. There was one part of the paper which seemed to argue that duties upon imports do not increase the prices of the articles upon which they are imposed. So far the paper was wholly opposed to the theory of protection. The fundamental idea of protection is that you shall impose such a rate of duty upon articles manufactured abroad as will increase the price of the same kind of articles which are manufactured in this country so that our own people can manufacture and sell them with profit. It is obvious that so far as the foreign article pays a duty that duty must come out of somebody. I know it is a controverted question between the advocates of free trade and protectionists, whether it is paid by the foreign manufacturer or by the home consumer or paid partly by each, but the object is to increase the price of the article so far as protection is concerned. If this is not accomplished then there is no protection.

It may not be true, as far as revenue is concerned, that the price must be increased, but so far as protection is involved in a tariff, the object is to increase the price of the article upon which the tariff duty is laid, in the American market. If it does increase the price of the articles, it is obvious the consumer first pays the increased price of all articles that are brought in from foreign countries. The argument of the protectionists is that we cannot manufacture here in this country in competition with the pauper labor of Europe unless we put the tariff so high that it will increase the price of the articles imported and also those manufactured

here so that we can afford to make them here. As I said, then the consumer pays the increased price on the foreign article; but, according to the speaker, that is a very trivial matter, because less than ten per cent. of the manufactured articles consumed in this country are imported, and if we only pay the increased price created by the tariff upon the articles that we import, which are only ten per cent. of what we consume, it would not be much. But a protective tariff is intended to, and does also increase the price of the other ninety per cent. of articles which are manufactured in this country, and while the farmer is paying two hundred and twenty millions of dollars to the government for the increased price of the ten per cent. imported, he is paying in the same ratio, the increased price of the ninety per cent. made here to the manufacturers of this country as a premium to manufacture the articles here, instead of buying them in foreign markets. I do not say that the tariff increases the price of articles manufactured in this country in all cases to the full amount of the tariff duty, for articles of special character may be selected on which the tariff increases the price very little, but as a whole the duties largely increase the prices of all articles manufactured in this country as well as those imported. If this were not so there would be no protection. What compensation is to be given? The farmer and every other consumer who pays this increased price for every thread of clothing he wears, or buys for his family, for every nail that is driven into his house or his fences, for every article he consumes in his household, for the materials of every agricultural implement he uses. He is taxed on every hand and for everything he uses or consumes. It is true this is a hidden taxation. It is the hand of iron in a glove of velvet, but it is nevertheless the worst and most extortionate species of taxation that can be imposed upon the people. Far better, and according to the argument of the speaker, ninety per cent. cheaper, would it be, to let the tax collector come directly to the door and take the amount which the government derives from the tariff.

What is the compensation for this immense amount of increased taxation? It is said it creates a home market for