Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

humbug, is increasing in popularity. It is the fairest kind of trade, as it enables countries whose products are dissimilar to exchange their goods on terms of advantage to both. European merchants and manufacturers do not like our reciprocity, as it enables us to place our products in the markets of Central and South America at a duty considerably lower than is charged on similar articles of European origin.

The reciprocity agreement with Spain as to Cuba went into effect, so far as the duty on wheat flour was concerned, on Jan. 1, 1892. In May the exports of wheat flour to Cuba from the United States amounted to 39,361 barrels, valued at $197,992, as compared with 4076 barrels, valued at $20,217, in May, 1891. The exports of wheat flour from the United States to Cuba during five months ended May 31, under the reciprocity agreement, amounted to 245,401 barrels, valued at $1,208,250, as compared with 34,453 barrels, valued at $174,499, in the corresponding period of 1891, before the reciprocity agreement was made.

In the four months ended May 31 Germany received from the United States 9,371,645 bushels of corn, valued at $4,796,770, as compared with 600,295 bushels, valued at $393,372, in the corresponding four months of 1891. In the four months ended May 31 Germany received from the United States 2,100,636 bushels of wheat, of a total value of $2,201,930, as compared with 139,588 bushels, of the total value of $155,950, in the corresponding period of last year. In the same period the United States exported to Germany 21,541 barrels of wheat flour, valued at $105,506, as compared with 1680 barrels, valued at $9,583, during the corresponding period of 1891.

It appears, therefore, that the exports of the three articles of breadstuffs mentioned, in four months, under the reciprocity agreement, amounted to $7,104,106, as compared with $558,900 in the corresponding four months of 1891, when no such agreement was in force.

Again, under the reciprocity agreement with Germany, butter and oleomargarine from the United States are admitted at reduced rates of duty. In May, 1892, Germany received from the United States 2,074,709 pounds of butter and oleomargarine, of total value of $207,502; in May, 1891, Germany received 782,329 pounds, valued at $78,685. In the four months ended May 31, 1892, the exports of butter and oleomargarine from the United States to Germany amounted to 6,328,098 pounds, of the total value of $630,738, as compared with 3,067,857 pounds, valued at $301,543, in the corresponding period of 1891.

Prof. Harriman, the author of an interesting and forcible pamphlet entitled

"American Tariffs from Plymouth Rock to McKinley," from which we have quoted freely, gives as follows the reasons why he is a Protectionist:

"First. Because, having tried free trade, or a free trade tariff, four times since 1783, it (free trade) has never once failed to cause excessive imports and decreased exports; heavy loss of specie, suspension of our manufactories, low wages and enforced idleness of our laborers, general inability to pay our debts, widespread bankruptcies, universal distress, and financial ruin.

"Second. Because, having also tried protection four times since 1783, it has never once failed to cause increasing demand for labor; high wages for our workmen and lower prices for their family and household necessities; general and growing agricultural prosperity, varied and multiplied industries, strong development of our educational and benevolent institutions, and an increase of national wealth unprecedented in the history of any other nation.

"Third. Because, the foregoing results in each case having been uniform, unfailing, and invariable, I am compelled to believe that the said evil results are inherent in the free trade system; and that the said good results are no less inherent in the protective system.

"Fourth. Because, these things being so, I must prefer that system, that brings universal prosperity, rather than the one that causes general and unavoidable adversity."

To these might be added another reason: Because our manufacturing rival, England, wants us to throw off our duties, admit her goods, and see our industries destroyed by her cheap labor. That many a Free Trader is thoroughly American at heart there is no doubt, but how a patriotic American can be anything else than a Protectionist the writer of these lines cannot understand.

B. F. Jones of Pittsburgh says: "I am a Protectionist because our country has prospered with protection and languished without it. Because revenue can more easily, more surely and with less objection be raised by judicious protective tariff laws than otherwise. Because protection diversifies employment and largely relieves wage earners from foreign competition, thereby enabling them to be liberal consumers as well as producers. Because, as has been demonstrated, the effect of protection is the cheapening of products. Because defense against injurious importations is as necessary and justifiable as is an army and navy. Because the theory of free trade between nations is as fallacious, impracticable and utterly absurd as is that of free love between families."

J. P. Dolliver, United States Congressman from Iowa, says: "I believe in

the doctrine of protection because the facts of our national experience thoroughly exemplify its truth. No great American statesmen, except the half-forgotten leaders of the Slave Power, have disowned the protective system. The Importers' Trust and the Slave Trust have been alone in their hostility to that system, each for obvious reasons peculiar to itself. If the doctrine of protection is not true, our people have blindly followed a blind leadership. If the policy of protection is not wise, it indicates that the human race, outside of England, has not sense enough to take care of itself. I will not thus disparage the average common sense of our own country, nor thus discredit the average common sense of mankind.”

XVII.

Chinese Immigration-Bill to restrict it in Hayes's Administration-Discussion and Result-President Hayes's Veto and Reasons therefor-Subsequent Legislation on the Chinese QuestionRestriction of Immigration from Europe-Views of prominent Politicians-Campaign of 1880Movement to nominate General Grant for a third Term-Popular Opposition-General Grant's Action-Technicalities of the Situation-Grant's Nomination for a third Term advocated by Roscoe Conkling-304 Votes for Grant-Long Balloting-Gen. Garfield nominated-Platform of 1880-Action of the Democrats-General Hancock nominated-First appearance of "The Solid South "-Assassination of President Garfield-President Arthur-Events during his Administration.

URING the latter part of President Hayes's administration a bill was presented in Congress for the restriction of the immigration of the Chinese. It was referred to the Committee on Immigration and Labor, and when reported back to the House was briefly discussed and passed by a vote of 155 to 72. It was debated more extensively in the Senate, where it passed by a vote of 39 to 27. The chief feature of the bill was a provision which prohibited any vessel from bringing more that fifteen Chinese passengers to any port of the United States, except in case the vessel was driven to seek a harbor from distress. The bill further demanded that the President should give notice to the Emperor of China of the abrogation of Articles 5th and 6th of the Burlinghame Treaty of 1868. A considerable share of the debate touched on this feature of the bill, it being contended on one side that the treaty contained no provisions for its amendment or termination, and therefore either party had a right to terminate it any moment; while to this view was opposed the contention that a fair notice with sufficient time for negotiation should be given to the Chinese government. The arguments against the immigration of the Chinese were pressed with great earnestness: that they caused a cheapening of the labor market; that they did not come here to remain as citizens; that they mixed as little as possible

[graphic]

in the life of the people of the United States, and adhered with great pertinacity to all their home customs, ways of life, religion, dress or anything else; they could live upon much less than would support a white man, and, consequently, they were willing to work for lower wages than any of their white competitors. Of course, the bill was in the interest of the labor element, and there was very little division upon party lines.

After the passage of the bill it was returned by the President, who vetoed it on the ground that it abrogated the Burlinghame Treaty without notice; but he did not press in his veto any points as to the effects of Chinese labor upon America. He had no doubt that Congress would supersede the terms of the treaty, but thought it was not judicious to disturb our relations with China in that very summary manner. Since that time a much more severe restriction upon the importation of Chinese has been passed, and the question of reducing and restricting immigration from Europe has been under serious consideration. A prominent politician, while talking upon this subject, said: "I think the leaders of the two parties will very soon agree upon a system of suppression or restriction of the immigration from Europe. Formerly, the Democratic party was able to control the Irish immigrants, and therefore was favorable to immigration; the Republican party was able to control the great bulk of the Germans, and therefore favored immigration from Germany. Now there are very few Irish and very few German immigrants coming here. The class that we are getting—Hungarians, Poles and Italians—are under the control of no party, and it is about time that we should put an end to the whole business." Measures have been discussed, and at the time of writing it is said that a bill is in course of preparation which will make a very severe restriction upon the number of immigrants coming to this country from whatever section of the globe. England and several countries of Europe have been for years pouring upon our soil their paupers and criminals, and it is high time that a stop should be made to the whole business. The first steps have been made in the laws which are now in force, but there are many loopholes in the latter, and much more severe measures are requisite than those at present in force.

As the time approached for the Convention of 1880, there was a renewal of the talk of a third term for General Grant. During the latter portion of his second term there had been considerable talk about his election for a third terin; many of his friends were zealous in the belief that he could and should be elected, and some of them boldly stated that he should not only have a third term, but

« FöregåendeFortsätt »