Page images
PDF
EPUB

these duties will be so graded and classified as to give full incidental protection to industries natural to our country, and for which we have the raw material. It is settled that, as the difference between the price of labor in this country and in Europe is the chief cause of the difference in the cost of production here and there, it is not good policy, by permitting too close a competition between foreign and domestic production, to reduce the wages of American labor, engaged in producing any article essential to our wants, below the standing of other similar labor in this country. It is agreed that, to secure certainty and avoid undervaluation, all duties should, as far as practicable, be specific instead of ad valorem. These principles are the basis of the American system of protection, embodied in the act of March, 1861. The rates of duty have been much increased by the new demands for revenue caused by the war, and may now be reduced as these demands diminish; but these protective principles will, I trust, be maintained as the essential foundations of our national prosperity.

On the other hand, it is equally well settled that there is a multitude of articles in which the traffic should be as free as our domestic trade. All raw productions of nature, which are the gift of Providence, ought to be as free as the hand that gave them; but if they can be made available by labor, and yet are abundant in our country, the rate of duty should not be higher than will compensate for the bare difference in the wages of such labor here and in the place of exportation.

There is a great number of articles, the product of tropical climes, or which for other causes are not readily producible here, that ought to be admitted free, or at such moderate revenue rates of duty as our wants demand. Where the amount imported is small, the articles should be free; for a multitude of duties creates expense. When the quantity is large, as in the case of tea, coffee, and sugar, the only question should be whether the tax proposed is less burdensome than other taxes imposed. As this class of articles enters largely into the consumption of all, it has been the general policy of the country to admit them free, or at low rates of duty. We taxed them heavily during the war, for purely revenue purposes. We reduced those taxes two years ago, and now propose to reduce further the taxes on tea and coffee, but we are not yet prepared for their entire repeal.

I come now to consider the duties imposed on textile and metallic fabrics. These constitute the great bulk of foreign articles that come into competition with the domestic fabrics. It is said that the present duties are not too high; that under them our industries are prosperous, and labor is well paid; and that, if the duties are undisturbed, domestic competition will reduce prices as rapidly as increased foreign competition can do so; that any change disturbs the business of the country by deterring new enterprises, and that it reduces the wages of labor. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the present duties, taken together, are far in excess of what they ever were before the war, and that they have been three times largely increased since the passage of the Morrill tariff act of 1861.

After a careful examination, in detail, of all the duties and the industries affected by them, it does not appear that the reduction proposed

will seriously affect these industries. During the war these duties were increased to counterbalance the internal taxes levied upon domestic productions. The last shred of those internal taxes will now be repealed, and no article of home industry will be taxed except whisky, tobacco, and beer. Our manufacturers have now to compete with their foreign rivals, with no disadvantage but higher-priced labor, and this is met by a duty of from thirty-five to one hundred per cent., or an average duty on the whole list of fifty per cent. This very bill repeals or reduces duties on raw materials for domestic fabrics to an extent which is fully equal to a reduction of ten per cent. on the finished product. This is admitted to be so as to many industries. The general lifting off of the burdens of internal taxation, and the repeal of taxes on raw materials, will enable our home industry to enter into a fairer competition. Shall, then, the protective duties be maintained without diminution, when all internal taxes are repealed, when raw materials are admitted free or at reduced rates, when our currency is appreciated near to the gold standard, and when the present duties are not needed for the support of the Government? Will the producers in other forms of industry consent to the maintenance of excessive rates of duty on mechanical fabrics?

[ocr errors]

The result of such duties is to secure to mechanical industries higher wages than can be earned in other kindred employments. Such excessive protection not only ceases to diversify production, but forces labor into protected employments. If the present rates of duty were high enough during and since the war, when home industry was burdened with heavy internal taxes--with stamp duties, income taxes, and high rates on raw materials-then surely they are now too high, when all these taxes are removed.

In a controversy like this between opposing theories, the highest wisdom often lies between them. While protecting home industry we ought not, in any case, to levy a duty so high as to exclude the foreign fabric, but only such as will secure fair but not excessive wages, and as will induce a competition between the foreign and domestic fabric that shall secure to the consumer the lowest prices consistent with the maintenance in our country of all the industries for which we have equal natural facilities. We must not compel our laborers to compete with the poorly paid labor of Europe; but we ought not, by our protection laws, to secure to them higher wages than can be earned in kindred employments.

Another series of causes is now slowly but surely operating in favor of American labor. The laboring men of Europe, by trade associations, and by laws prohibiting the employment of minors and women and limiting the number of apprentices, are raising the general rate of wages among all Christian nations. This is especially so in Great Britain. It is adding to the cost of foreign production, and so operates as a protection to our domestic labor.

For these reasons, and many others that will be stated in the course of the debate, the Committee on Finance is of the opinion that now, when so many taxes have been repealed, there ought to be a general reduction of the duties on textile and metallic fabrics; and that this

reduction should be at the rate of ten per cent., which is about the rate of the aggregate reduction of tariff duties. We expect to encounter the opposition of those who favor the maintenance of the highest duties on foreign competing fabrics, and of those who would abruptly disturb our industries by a sudden and radical reduction of duties to what they term a free-trade standard; and perhaps both classes of opponents will unite in repealing the purely revenue duty on tea and coffee. If this is done, we can repeal no other taxes with safety to the public service, and I shall then vote for striking out the ratable reduction on textile and metallic fabrics.

Indeed, Senators, the only question about which there is much controversy in this tariff bill is, whether you will let all the present duties upon textile and metallic fabrics stand, after we shall have given their producers the raw material free of duty, repealed all taxes upon them of an internal character, and reduced the purely revenue duty on tea and coffee; or whether you will also reduce the taxes on textile and metallic fabrics. My friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Scott] has, at the outset, very properly presented by his amendment the only question in this whole tariff debate; and if that question were settled, we could arrange the details of the entire bill in one day. If, therefore, Senators unite-I do not speak of parties in this matterbut if Senators who represent different constituencies unite in repealing the duty on tea and coffee, it will be utterly impossible for us to go one step further; because, as I have shown, the utmost limit to which we can go in the repeal of tariff duties, if we propose to reduce our internal revenue, is $21,000,000. We dare not go beyond that; and if you repeal the duty on tea and coffee, you will have surrendered all the revenue we can afford to surrender. I hope, therefore, that Senators, when they come to vote on this final question, though all would like to vote to repeal the duty on tea and coffee, so as to give some relief to every family in the country, will remember that by such a vote we preclude ourselves from the power of repealing the duties on textile fabrics.

I have listened with patience, day by day, to the statements of gentlemen who are interested in our domestic productions. I am a firm believer in the general idea of protecting their industries; but I assure them, as I have assured their representatives here, that if the present high rates of duties, unexampled in our country and higher by nearly fifty per cent. than they were in 1861, are maintained on metallic and textile fabrics, after we have repealed the very internal taxes which gave rise to them, and after we have substantially given them their raw materials free of duties, we shall have a feeling of dissatisfaction among other interests in the country that will overthrow the whole system, and do greater harm than can possibly be done by a moderate reduction of the present rates of duty. And I am quite sure that intelligent men, engaged in the production of various forms of textile and metallic fabrics, feel, as I do, that it is wiser and better to do what is just and right, to make a reduction on their products at least to the extent of the reduction in this bill on their raw material, rather than to invite a controversy in which I believe they will be in the wrong.

I have now, Mr. President, stated the general features of this bill. I will end, as I commenced, with the congratulation that we are able so soon again to throw off burdens cheerfully assumed by our people during the great civil war. No man can candidly review the dangers we have passed, the difficulties we have overcome, the burdens we have borne, and the success, growth, and prosperity that attended us amid all our difficulties, without a reverent feeling of thankfulness to Almighty God. Our honorable name and admitted rank among the nations of the earth, the general intelligence and comfort of our people, the rapid spread of our civilization over the Western plains, the diversity of our industry, and the vast increase of our productions-all these are accomplished results, which, if properly preserved and utilized, will realize the highest good that can be derived from human government.

FRENCH SPOLIATION CLAIMS.

IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 17, 1872.

THE bill to provide for the adjustment and satisfaction of claims of American citizens for spoliation committed by the French prior to the 31st day of July, 1801, being before the Senate, Mr. Sherman said:

MR. PRESIDENT: My acquaintance with the French spoliation bill commenced with my entrance into the House of Representatives in the winter of 1855-56, when, being a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, this old and interesting class of claims was handed to me for investigation. At that time my mind was entirely unbiased upon the subject. The examination of the claims opened an interesting portion of American history, and, without much to do, I entered upon it, reading nearly all the public documents then already accumulated in great numbers of volumes. I informed myself in regard to all the points that had been made in the discussion of the question. After this examination I became entirely convinced that there was no ground either in law or equity why these claims ought to be paid by the United States. During that Congress there was no action upon them. From that time they have rested without any definite action by either House of Congress. Now they are pressed with a confident expectation of payment, and it becomes my duty, without much time for preparation, to give the reasons for my conviction why they ought not to be paid.

Mr. President, it is no bar to these claims to say that they are seventy-two years old; that the generation of men who knew all about the facts which gave rise to them did not recognize them as valid; that none of the actors of the period of 1800 who participated in the negotiations connected with the subject ever took any prominent or leading part in seeking to enforce them. A bill for paying these claims was never passed by the Senate of the United States until 1835. All the

men who participated in the historical events which gave rise to them had then disappeared. Seventy-two years have now rolled around, carrying away two or three generations of statesmen who knew of or acted here upon them; and yet these claimants are not discouraged, and still insist that they have a right to demand of the United States as a matter of law payment of $5,000,000, at least, for injuries suffered by American citizens by French spoliations prior to 1800.

Nor is it a conclusive reply to these claims to say that they arraign George Washington, arraign the course of the American Government at its foundation; that they are based upon the allegation that we violated our treaties with France; that they arraign the conduct of all the early officers of the Government. If they are just claims, they ought to be paid even if their payment compels us to change the popular view of the whole history of the first ten years of the American Govern

ment.

The claims are pressed upon us with a pertinacity unparalleled. From the daily papers I cut recently an advertisement signed by James H. Causten, who represents that he has been for forty-nine years at the head of an organized agency in this city to prosecute these claims. He invites the citizens of the United States who are interested in them, or who are the descendants of claimants, to send their petitions to Congress. He says that this organization has been maintained here year after year. It was founded in the city of Washington before either House of Congress recognized any equity in the claims, before any committee of either House had reported in favor of them, after committees had reported against them, and has been kept up for fortynine years. I will read, merely to show the character and nature of this claim, and how persistent and how enterprising has been its prosecution, a part of this public advertisement which is laid upon your table in every one of the daily papers in this city. It is dated

AGENCY OF FRENCH SPOLIATION CLAIMS, OFFICE No. 1246 F STREET, WASHINGTON, D. C., November 5, 1872. This institution was established forty-nine years ago, with the undersigned as agent and protector of the original claimants, all of whom are long since dead, as also their second generation. Their third generation are now living, but death and other casualties have rendered my record so far useless as to who and where they are to be found.

Then he gives notice to all these legal representatives who have not sent their petitions into the Halls of Congress to do so at once. He then goes on:

The delays of action on this case, occasioned by the late rebellion, impeachment of President Johnson, and the excitement just terminated in the presidential election, afford a free access to the attention of Congress; but, above all, the near approach of Congress, its short session, and much to be done by interested parties, point to the indispensable necessity for instant preparation by the claimants.

Printed blank memorials will be furnished by the undersigned free of cost; also, a printed pamphlet history and proceedings on the claims by both Governments and by Congress (at a trifling cost of printing) will be furnished those who desire it and shall so advise me by letter.

Mr. President, here is a claim, stated by the chairman of the Com

« PreviousContinue »