_Question_. Do you take much interest in politics, Colonel
Ingersoll?
_Answer_. I take as much interest in politics as a Republican
ought who expects nothing and who wants nothing for himself. I
want to see this country again controlled by the Republican party.
The present administration has not, in my judgment, the training
and the political intelligence to decide upon the great economic
and financial questions. There are a great many politicians and
but few statesmen. Here, where men have to be elected every two
or six years, there is hardly time for the officials to study
statesmanship--they are busy laying pipes and fixing fences for
the next election. Each one feels much like a monkey at a fair,
on the top of a greased pole, and puts in the most of his time
dodging stones and keeping from falling. I want to see the party
in power best qualified, best equipped, to administer the
Government.
_Question_. What do you think will be the particular issue of the
coming campaign?
_Answer_. That question has already been answered. The great
question will be the tariff. Mr. Cleveland imagines that the
surplus can be gotten rid of by a reduction of the tariff. If the
reduction is so great as to increase the demand for foreign articles,
the probability is that the surplus will be increased. The surplus
can surely be done away with by either of two methods; first make
the tariff prohibitory; second, have no tariff. But if the tariff
is just at that point where the foreign goods could pay it and yet
undersell the American so as to stop home manufactures, then the
surplus would increase.
As a rule we can depend on American competition to keep prices at
a reasonable rate. When that fails we have at all times the
governing power in our hands--that is to say, we can reduce the
tariff. In other words, the tariff is not for the benefit of the
manufacturer--the protection is not for the mechanic or the capitalist
--it is for the whole country. I do not believe in protecting silk
simply to help the town of Paterson, but I am for the protection
of the manufacture, because, in my judgment, it helps the entire
country, and because I know that it has given us a far better
article of silk at a far lower price than we obtained before the
establishment of those factories.
I believe in the protection of every industry that needs it, to
the end that we may make use of every kind of brain and find use
for all human capacities. In this way we will produce greater and
better people. A nation of agriculturalists or a nation of mechanics
would become narrow and small, but where everything is done, then
the brain is cultivated on every side, from artisan to artist.
That is to say, we become thinkers as well as workers; muscle and
mind form a partnership.
I don't believe that England is particularly interested in the
welfare of the United States. It never seemed probable to me that
men like Godwin Smith sat up nights fearing that we in some way
might injure ourselves. To use a phrase that will be understood
by theologians at least, we ought to "copper" all English advice.
The free traders say that there ought to be no obstructions placed
by governments between buyers and sellers. If we want to make the
trade, of course there should be no obstruction, but if we prefer
that Americans should trade with Americans--that Americans should
make what Americans want--then, so far as trading with foreigners
is concerned, there ought to be an obstruction.
I am satisfied that the United States could get along if the rest
of the world should be submerged, and I want to see this country
in such a condition that it can be independent of the rest of
mankind.
There is more mechanical genius in the United States than in the
rest of the world, and this genius has been fostered and developed
by protection. The Democracy wish to throw all this away--to make
useless this skill, this ingenuity, born of generations of application
and thought. These deft and marvelous hands that create the
countless things of use and beauty to be worth no more than the
common hands of ignorant delvers and shovelers. To the extent that
thought is mingled with labor, labor becomes honorable and its
burden lighter.
Thousands of millions of dollars have been invested on the faith
of this policy--millions and millions of people are this day earning
their bread by reason of protection, and they are better housed
and better fed and better clothed than any other workmen on the
globe.
The intelligent people of this country will not be satisfied with
President Cleveland's platform--with his free trade primer. They
believe in good wages for good work, and they know that this is
the richest nation in the world. The Republic is worth at least
sixty billion dollars. This vast sum is the result of labor, and
this labor has been protected either directly or indirectly. This
vast sum has been made by the farmer, the mechanic, the laborer,
the miner, the inventor.
Protection has given work and wages to the mechanic and a market
to the farmer. The interests of all laborers in America--all men
who work--are identical. If the farmer pays more for his plow he
gets more for his plowing. In old times, when the South manufactured
nothing and raised only raw material--for the reason that its labor
was enslaved and could not be trusted with education enough to
become skillful--it was in favor of free trade; it wanted to sell
the raw material to England and buy the manufactured article where
it could buy the cheapest. Even under those circumstances it was
a short-sighted and unpatriotic policy. Now everything is changing
in the South. They are beginning to see that he who simply raises
raw material is destined to be forever poor. For instance, the
farmer who sells corn will never get rich; the farmer should sell
pork and beef and horses. So a nation, a State, that parts with
its raw material, loses nearly all the profits, for the reason that
the profit rises with the skill requisite to produce. It requires
only brute strength to raise cotton; it requires something more to
spin it, to weave it, and the more beautiful the fabric the greater
the skill, and consequently the higher the wages and the greater
the profit. In other words, the more thought is mingled with labor
the more valuable is the result.
Besides all this, protection is the mother of economy; the cheapest
at last, no matter whether the amount paid is less or more. It is
far better for us to make glass than to sell sand to other countries;
the profit on sand will be exceedingly small.
The interests of this country are united; they depend upon each
other. You destroy one and the effect upon all the rest may be
disastrous. Suppose we had free trade to-day, what would become
of the manufacturing interests to-morrow? The value of property
would fall thousands of millions of dollars in an instant. The
fires would die out in thousands and thousands of furnaces,
innumerable engines would stop, thousands and thousands would stop
digging coal and iron and steel. What would the city that had been
built up by the factories be worth? What would be the effect on
farms in that neighborhood? What would be the effect on railroads,
on freights, on business--what upon the towns through which they
passed? Stop making iron in Pennsylvania, and the State would be
bankrupt in an hour. Give us free trade, and New Jersey, Connecticut
and many other States would not be worth one dollar an acre.
If a man will think of the connection between all industries--of
the dependence and inter-dependence of each on all; of the subtle
relations between all human pursuits--he will see that to destroy
some of the grand interest makes financial ruin and desolation.
I am not talking now about a tariff that is too high, because that
tariff does not produce a surplus--neither am I asking to have that
protected which needs no protection--I am only insisting that all
the industries that have been fostered and that need protection
should be protected, and that we should turn our attention to the
interests of our own country, letting other nations take care of
themselves. If every American would use only articles produced by
Americans--if they would wear only American cloth, only American
silk--if we would absolutely stand by each other, the prosperity
of this nation would be the marvel of human history. We can live
at home, and we have now the ingenuity, the intelligence, the
industry to raise from nature everything that a nation needs.
_Question_. What have you to say about the claim that Mr. Cleveland
does not propose free trade?
_Answer_. I suppose that he means what he said. His argument was
all for free trade, and he endeavored to show to the farmer that
he lost altogether more money by protection, because he paid a
higher price for manufactured articles and received no more for
what he had to sell. This certainly was an argument in favor of
free trade. And there is no way to decrease the surplus except to
prohibit the importation of foreign articles, which certainly Mr.
Cleveland is not in favor of doing, or to reduce the tariff to a
point so low that no matter how much may be imported the surplus
will be reduced. If the message means anything it means free trade,
and if there is any argument in it it is an argument in favor of
absolutely free trade. The party, not willing to say "free trade"
uses the word "reform." This is simply a mask and a pretence.
The party knows that the President made a mistake. The party,
however, is so situated that it cannot get rid of Cleveland, and
consequently must take him with his mistake--they must take him
with his message, and then show that all he intended by "free trade"
was "reform."
_Question_. Who do you think ought to be nominated at Chicago?
_Answer_. Personally, I am for General Gresham. I am saying
nothing against the other prominent candidates. They have their
friends, and many of them are men of character and capacity, and
would make good Presidents. But I know of no man who has a better
record than Gresham, and of no man who, in my judgment, would
receive a larger number of votes. I know of no Republican who
would not support Judge Gresham. I have never heard one say that
he had anything against him or know of any reason why he should
not be voted for. He is a man of great natural capacity. He is
candid and unselfish. He has for many years been engaged in the
examination and decision of important questions, of good principles,
and consequently he has a trained mind. He knows how to take hold
of a question, to get at a fact, to discover in a multitude of
complications the real principle--the heart of the case. He has
always been a man of affairs. He is not simply a judge--that is
to say, a legal pair of scales--he knows the effect of his decision
on the welfare of communities--he is not governed entirely by
precedents--he has opinions of his own. In the next place, he is
a man of integrity in all the relations of life. He is not a seeker
after place, and, so far as I know, he has done nothing for the
purpose of inducing any human being to favor his nomination. I
have never spoken to him on the subject.
In the West he has developed great strength, in fact, his popularity
has astonished even his best friends. The great mass of people
want a perfectly reliable man--one who will be governed by his best
judgment and by a desire to do the fair and honorable thing. It
has been stated that the great corporations might not support him
with much warmth for the reason that he has failed to decide certain
cases in their favor. I believe that he has decided the law as he
believed it to be, and that he has never been influenced in the
slightest degree, by the character, position, or the wealth of the
parties before him. It may be that some of the great financiers,
the manipulators, the creators of bonds and stocks, the blowers of
financial bubbles, will not support him and will not contribute
any money for the payment of election expenses, because they are
perfectly satisfied that they could not make any arrangements with
him to get the money back, together with interest thereon, but the
people of this country are intelligent enough to know what that
means, and they will be patriotic enough to see to it that no man
needs to bow or bend or cringe to the rich to attain the highest
place.
The possibility is that Mr. Blaine could have been nominated had
he not withdrawn, but having withdrawn, of course the party is
released. Others were induced to become candidates, and under
these circumstances Mr. Blaine has hardly the right to change his
mind, and certainly other persons ought not to change it for him.
_Question_. Do you think that the friends of Gresham would support
Blaine if he should be nominated?
_Answer_. Undoubtedly they would. If they go into convention they
must abide the decision. It would be dishonorable to do that which
you would denounce in others. Whoever is nominated ought to receive
the support of all good Republicans. No party can exist that will
not be bound by its own decision. When the platform is made, then
is the time to approve or reject. The conscience of the individual
cannot be bound by the action of party, church or state. But when
you ask a convention to nominate your candidate, you really agree
to stand by the choice of the convention. Principles are of more
importance than candidates. As a rule, men who refuse to support
the nominee, while pretending to believe in the platform, are giving
an excuse for going over to the enemy. It is a pretence to cover
desertion. I hope that whoever may be nominated at Chicago will
receive the cordial support of the entire party, of every man who
believes in Republican principles, who believes in good wages for
good work, and has confidence in the old firms of "Mind and Muscle,"
of "Head and Hand."
--_New York Press_, May 27, 1888.