Page images

need of communication between people at less cost of time and labor. It is useless to multiply instances. It can be seen what it is to create an industry.” It takes brains and energy to do it. How can taxes do it?

Suppose that we create an industry even in this sense. What is the gain of it? The people of Connecticut are now earning their living by employing their labor and capital in certain parts of the industrial organization. They have changed their “industries" a great many times. If it should be found that they had a new and better chance hitherto undeveloped, they might all go into it. To do that they must abandon what they are now doing. They would not change unless gains to be made in the new industry were greater. Hence the gain is the difference only between the profits of the old and the profits of the new. The protectionists, however, when they talk about “creating an industry,” seem to suppose that the total profit of the industry (and some of them seem to think that the total expenditure of capital) measures their good work. In any case, then, even of a true and legitimate increase of industrial power and opportunity, the only gain would be a margin. But, by our definition, “ a protective duty has for its object to effect the diversion of a part of the capital and labor of the people out of the channels in which it would otherwise run.” Plainly this device involves coercion. People would need no coercion to go into a new industry which had a natural origin in new industrial power or opportunity. No coercion is necessary to make men buy dollars at 98 cents apiece. The case for coercion is when it is desired to make them buy dollars at 101 cents apiece. Here the statesman with his taxing power is needed, and can do something. What? He can say: “If you will buy a dollar at 101 cents, I can and will tax John over there two cents for your benefit; one to make up your loss and the other to give you a profit.” Hence, on the protectionist's own doctrine, his device is not needed, and cannot come into use, when a new industry is created in the true and only reasonable sense of the words, but only when and because he is determined to drive the labor and capital of the country into a disadvantageous and wasteful employment.

Still further, it is obvious that the protectionist, instead of “creating a new industry,” has simply taken one industry and set it as a parasite to live upon another. Industry is its own reward. A man is not to be paid a premium by his neighbors for earning his own living. A factory, an insane-asylum, a school, a church, a poor-house, and a prison cannot be put in the same economic category. We know that the community must be taxed to support insane-asylums, poor-houses, and jails. When we come upon such institutions we see them with regret. They are wasting capital. We know that the industrious people all about, who are laboring and producing, must part with a portion of their earnings to supply the waste and loss of these institutions. Hence the bigger they are the sadder they are.

But the factories and farms and founderies are the productive institutions which must provide the support of these consuming institutions. If the factories, etc., put themselves on a line with the poor-houses, or even with the schools, what is to support them and all the rest too? They have nothing behind them. If in any measure or way they turn into burdens and objects of

VOL. X.-4

care and protection, they can plainly do it only by part of them turning upon the other part, and this latter part will have to bear the burden of all the consuming institutions, including the consuming industries. For a protected factory is not a producing industry. It is a consuming industry! If a factory is (as the protectionist alleges) a triumph of the tariff, that is, if it would not be but for the tariff (and otherwise he has nothing to do with it), then it is not producing; it is consuming. It is a burden to be borne. The bigger it is the sadder it is.

If a protectionist shows me a woollen-mill and challenges me to deny that it is a great and valuable industry, I ask him whether it is due to the tariff. If he says no, then I will assume that it is an independent and profitable establishment, but then it out of this discussion as much as a farm or a doctor's practice. If he says yes, then I answer that the mill is not an industry at all. We pay 60 per cent. tax on cloth simply in order that that mill may be. It is not an institution for getting us cloth, for, if we went into the market with the same products which we take there now and if there were no woollen-mill, we should get all the cloth we want, but the mill is simply an institution for making cloth cost per yard 60 per cent. more of our products than it otherwise would. That is the one and only function which the mill has added, by its existence, to the situation. I have called such a factory a “nuisance.” The word has been objected to. The word is of no consequence. He who, when he goes into a debate, begins to whine and cry as soon as the blows get sharp, should learn to keep out. What I meant was this: A nuisance is something which by its existence and presence in society works loss and damage to the society-works against the general interest, not for it. A factory which gets in the way and hinders us from attaining the comforts which we are all trying to get-which makes harder the terms of acquisition when we are all the time struggling by our arts and sciences to make those terms easier—is a harmful thing, and noxious to the common interest.

Hence, once more, starting from the protectionist's hypothesis, and assuming his own doctrine, we find that he cannot create an industry. He only fixes one industry as a parasite upon another, and just as certainly as he has intervened in the matter at all, just so certainly has he forced labor and capital into less favorable employment than they would have sought if he had let them alone. When we ask which “channels" those are which are to be “favored or created by law,” we find that they are, by the hypothesis, and by the whole logic of the protectionist system, the industries which do not pay. The protectionists propose to make the country rich by laws which shall favor or create these industries; but these industries can only waste capital, so that if they are the source of wealth, waste is the source of wealth. Hence the protectionist's assumption that by his system he could correct our errors and lead us to greater prosperity than we would have obtained under liberty, has failed again, and we find that he wastes what power we do possess.


[Andrew Jackson as a Public Man. 1882.]


FACTION arose in New York City in 1834–35, which called itself the

“equal rights party,” or the “ Jeffersonian anti-monopolists.” The organization of the Tammany Hall democrats, under Van Buren and the regency, had become rigid and tyrannical. The equal rights faction revolted, and declared that Tammany was aristocratic. They represented a new upheaval of democracy. They took literally the dogmas which had been taught them, just as the original Jackson men had done ten years before, only that now, to them, the Jackson party seated in power seemed to have drifted away from the pure principles of democracy, just as Monroe had once appeared to the Jackson men to have done. The equal rights men wanted “to return to the Jeffersonian fountain" again, and make some new deductions. They revived and extended the old doctrines which Duane, of the “Aurora," taught at the beginning of the century in his “Politics for Farmers," and similar pamphlets. In general the doctrines and propositions might be described as an attempt to apply the procedure of a township democracy to a great state. The equal rights men held meetings at first secretly, at four different places, and not more than two successive times at the same place. They were, in a party point of view, conspirators, rebels—"disorganizers," in short; and they were plotting the highest crime known to the political code in which they had been educated, and which they accepted. Their platform was: No distinction between men save merit; gold and silver the only legitimate and proper circulating medium; no perpetuities or monopolies; strict construction of the Constitution; no bank charters by States (because banks of issue favor gambling, and are “calculated to build up and strengthen in our country the odious distribution of wealth and power against merits and equal rights”); approval of Jackson's administration ; election of President by direct popular vote. They favored the doctrine of instructions. They also advocated free trade and direct taxes. They had some very sincere and pure-minded men among them, a large number of overheated brains, and a still larger number of damagogues, who were seeking to organize the faction as a means of making themselves so valuable that the regular managers would buy them. The equal rights men gained strength so rapidly that, on the 29th of October, 1835, they were able to offer battle to the old faction at a primary meeting in Tammany Hall for the nomination of a congressman and other officers. The "regular" party entered the hall by the back entrance, and organized the meeting before the doors were opened. The anti-monopolists poured in, nominated a chairman and elected him, ignoring the previous organization. The question of “equal rights” between the two chairmen was then settled in the old original method which has prevailed ever since there has been life on earth. The equal rights men dispossessed the other faction, and so proved the justice of their principles. The non-equal rights party then left the hall, but they “caused” the equal rights men “ to be subjected to a deprivation of the right” to light by turning out

the gas.

The equal rights men were thus forced to test that theory of natural rights which affirms that said rights are only the chance to have good things, if one can get them. In spite of their dogma of the equality of all men, which would make a prudent man no better than a careless one, and a man with capital no better than one without capital, the equal rights men had foreseen the emergency, and had provided themselves with capital in the shape of candles and loco-foco matches. They thus established their right to light, against nature and against their enemies. They duly adopted their platform, nominated a ticket, and adjourned. The regular leaders met elsewhere, nominated the ticket which they had previously prepared, and dispensed, for that occasion, with the ornamental and ceremonious formality of a primary meeting to nominate it.

On the next day the “Courier and Enquirer” dubbed the equal rights party the loco-focos, and the name clung to them. Hammond quotes a correspondent who correctly declared that “the workingmen's party and the equal rights party have operated as causes, producing effects that will shape the course of the two great parties of the United States, and consequently the destinies of this great republic.” The faction, at least in its better elements, evidently had convictions and a programme. It continued to grow. The “Evening Post” became its organ. That paper quarrelled with the administration on Kendall's order about the mails, and was thereupon formally read out of the party by the “Globe.” The loco-focos ceased to be a revolting faction. They acquired belligerent rights. The faction, however, in its internal economy ran the course of all factions. It went to extremes, and then began to split up. In January, 1836, it declared its independence of the Democratic Republican party. This alienated all who hated the party tyranny, but who wanted reform in the party. The faction declared itself opposed to all acts of incorporation, and held that all such acts were repealable. It declared that representative institutions were only a practical convenience, and that legislatures could not create vested rights. Then it went on to adopt a platform of “equality of position, as well as of rights."

In October, 1836, Tammany made overtures to the equal rights men for a reunion, in preparation for the Presidential election. Some of the loco-focos wanted to unite ; others refused. The latter were the men of conviction ; the former were the traders. The former called the latter “rumps”; the latter called the former “buffaloes.” Only one stage now remained to complete the old and oft-repeated drama of faction. A man named Slamm, a blatant ignoramus, who, to his great joy, had been arrested by order of the Assembly of New York for contempt and breach of privilege, and who had profited to the utmost by this incident to make a long “ argument” against the “privilege" of an American Legislature, and to pose as a martyr to equal rights, secured his own election to the position of secretary of the equal rights party. He then secured a vote that no constitutional election could be held unless called by the secretary. He never would call one. There were those who thought that he sold out the party.

Thus the faction perished ignominiously, but it was not without reason that its name passed, a little later, to the whole Jackson-Van Buren party; i.e., to the radical anti-paper currency, not simply anti-United States Bank, wing of the national Democratic party. The equal rights men maintained impracticable doctrines of civil authority and fantastic dogmas about equality, but when these were stripped away there remained in their platform sound doctrines and imperishable ideas. They first put the Democratic party on the platform which for five or six years it had been trying to find. When it did find that platform it was most true to itself, and it contributed most to the welfare of the country. To-day the Democratic party is, by tradition, a party of hard money, free trade, the non-interference theory of government, and no special legislation. If that tradition be traced up to its source, it will lead back, not to the Jackson party of 1829, but to the loco-focos of 1835.

Amelia Talstien Carpenter.

BORN in Stephentown, Rensselaer Co., N. Y., 1840.


THE homely country scent of musk The day's long toils cease, one by one

Was in the air that past her blew; She hears the passing laborers greet; The sunflower seeds fell from their husk, “Lord ! Lord !” her hands in pleading Black moths and white about her flew;

meetThe gentlest life! O sweet and true, “Save her! and yet—Thy will be done!

The sweetest soul earth ever knew Left here, lone in the lonely dusk! “Lord ! should she come to me once

more, She pins her faded knitting sheath

To-night,-come from her darkened With wrinkled hands that tremble still;

wayBelow her white hair's crowning wreath

Yea, should she pause here at my door, Her aching eyes with slow tears fill;

Wouldst Thou not bid me bid her stay? Slow gathered tears that drop until

(Lord-Lord-for this I pray) — They seem like other words that breathe Shepherd, Thy word went long before, The cry—“ Lord! Lord! do thou thy

"I seek for them that stray

Far from the fold away!'”
Again she lifts the sacred book-
She holds it to her aching eyes:

The moth above the sunflower wheels, What stress was e'er that He forsook?

The lingering light drops from the “Lord! Lord !” the sufferer cries

skies, (The Lord that he denies

The village bell in music peals, The Lord he crucifies).

While in the west the sunset dies. Down from his cross He turns his look

But lo! what shape is this that steals “ To-night-in Paradise ! ”

From out the dusk?—that comes and

kneels Still in the long slant of the sun

And peers into the glazing eyes? The watcher keeps her lonely seat;

Oh late! too late! Oh woful cries! Farther the darkening shadows run

O faitbful soul! Oh true and wise!And closer gather at her feet.

“ To-night!-to-night-in Paradise! ”

« PreviousContinue »