_Question_. What, in your opinion, is the significance of the vote
on the Mills Bill recently passed in the House? In this I find
there were one hundred and sixty-two for it, and one hundred and
forty-nine against it; of these, two Republicans voted for, and
five Democrats against.
_Answer_. In the first place, I think it somewhat doubtful whether
the bill could have been passed if Mr. Randall had been well. His
sickness had much to do with this vote. Had he been present to
have taken care of his side, to have kept his forces in hand, he,
in my judgment, taking into consideration his wonderful knowledge
of parliamentary tactics, would have defeated this bill.
It is somewhat hard to get the average Democrat, in the absence of
his leader, to throw away the prospect of patronage. Most members
of Congress have to pay tolerably strict attention to their political
fences. The President, although clinging with great tenacity to
the phrase "civil service," has in all probability pulled every
string he could reach for the purpose of compelling the Democratic
members not only to stand in line, but to answer promptly to their
names. Every Democrat who has shown independence has been stepped
on just to the extent he could be reached; but many members, had
the leader been on the floor--and a leader like Randall--would have
followed him.
There are very few congressional districts in the United States not
intensely Democratic where the people want nothing protected.
There are a few districts where nothing grows except ancient
politics, where they cultivate only the memory of what never ought
to have been, where the subject of protection has not yet reached.
The impudence requisite to pass the Mills Bill is something
phenomenal. Think of the Representatives from Louisiana saying to
the ranchmen of the West and to the farmers of Ohio that wool must
be on the free list, but that for the sake of preserving the sugar
interest of Louisiana and a little portion of Texas, all the rest
of the United States must pay tribute.
Everybody admits that Louisiana is not very well adapted by nature
for raising sugar, for the reason that the cane has to be planted
every year, and every third year the frost puts in an appearance
just a little before the sugar. Now, while I think personally that
the tariff on sugar has stimulated the inventive genius of the
country to find other ways of producing that which is universally
needed; and while I believe that it will not be long until we shall
produce every pound of sugar that we consume, and produce it cheaper
than we buy it now, I am satisfied that in time and at no distant
day sugar will be made in this country extremely cheap, not only
from beets, but from sorghum and corn, and it may be from other
products. At the same time this is no excuse for Louisiana, neither
is it any excuse for South Carolina asking for a tariff on rice,
and at the same time wishing to leave some other industry in the
United States, in which many more millions have been invested,
absolutely without protection.
Understand, I am not opposed to a reasonable tariff on rice, provided
it is shown that we can raise rice in this country cheaply and at
a profit to such an extent as finally to become substantially
independent of the rest of the world. What I object to is the
impudence of the gentleman who is raising the rice objecting to
the protection of some other industry of far greater importance
than his.
After all, the whole thing must be a compromise. We must act
together for the common good. If we wish to make something at the
expense of another State we must allow that State to make something
at our expense, or at least we must be able to show that while it
is for our benefit it is also for the benefit of the country at
large. Everybody is entitled to have his own way up to the point
that his way interferes with somebody else. States are like
individuals--their rights are relative--they are subordinated to
the good of the whole country.
For many years it has been the American policy to do all that
reasonably could be done to foster American industry, to give scope
to American ingenuity and a field for American enterprise--in other
words, a future for the United States.
The Southern States were always in favor of something like free
trade. They wanted to raise cotton for Great Britain--raw material
for other countries. At that time their labor was slave labor,
and they could not hope ever to have skilled labor, because skilled
labor cannot be enslaved. The Southern people knew at that time
that if a man was taught enough of mathematics to understand
machinery, to run locomotives, to weave cloth; it he was taught
enough of chemistry even to color calico, it would be impossible
to keep him a slave. Education always was and always will be an
abolitionist. The South advocated a system of harmony with slavery,
in harmony with ignorance--that is to say, a system of free trade,
under which it might raise its raw material. It could not hope to
manufacture, because by making its labor intelligent enough to
manufacture it would lose it.
In the North, men are working for themselves, and as I have often
said, they were getting their hands and heads in partnership.
Every little stream that went singing to the sea was made to turn
a thousand wheels; the water became a spinner and a weaver; the
water became a blacksmith and ran a trip hammer; the water was
doing the work of millions of men. In other words, the free people
of the North were doing what free people have always done, going
into partnership with the forces of nature. Free people want good
tools, shapely, well made--tools with which the most work can be
done with the least strain.
Suppose the South had been in favor of protection; suppose that
all over the Southern country there had been workshops, factories,
machines of every kind; suppose that her people had been as ingenious
as the people of the North; suppose that her hands had been as deft
as those that had been accustomed to skilled labor; then one of
two things would have happened; either the South would have been
too intelligent to withdraw from the Union, or, having withdrawn,
it would have had the power to maintain its position. My opinion
is that is would have been too intelligent to withdraw.
When the South seceded it had no factories. The people of the
South had ability, but it was not trained in the direction then
necessary. They could not arm and equip their men; they could not
make their clothes; they could not provide them with guns, with
cannon, with ammunition, and with the countless implements of
destruction. They had not the ingenuity; they had not the means;
they could not make cars to carry their troops, or locomotives to
draw them; they had not in their armies the men to build bridges
or to supply the needed transportation. They had nothing but cotton
--that is to say, raw material. So that you might say that the
Rebellion has settled the question as to whether a country is better
off and more prosperous, and more powerful, and more ready for war,
that is filled with industries, or one that depends simply upon
the production of raw material.
There is another thing in this connection that should never be
forgotten--at least, not until after the election in November, and
then if forgotten, should be remembered at every subsequent election
--and that is, that the Southern Confederacy had in its Constitution
the doctrine of free trade. Among other things it was fighting
for free trade. As a matter of fact, John C. Calhoun was fighting
for free trade; the nullification business was in the interest of
free trade.
The Southern people are endeavoring simply to accomplish, with the
aid of New York, what they failed to accomplish on the field. The
South is as "solid" to-day as in 1863. It is now for free trade,
and it purposes to carry the day by the aid of one or two Northern
States. History is repeating itself. It was the same for many
years, up to the election of Abraham Lincoln.
Understand me, I do not blame the South for acting in accordance
with its convictions, but the North ought not to be misled. The
North ought to understand what the issue is. The South has a
different idea of government--it is afraid of what it calls
"centralization"--it is extremely sensitive about what are called
"State Rights" or the sovereignty of the State. But the North
believes in a Union that is united. The North does not expect to
have any interest antagonistic to the Union. The North has no
mental reservation. The North believes in the Government and in
the Federal system, and the North believes that when a State is
admitted into the Union it becomes a part--an integral part--of
the Nation; that there was a welding, that the State, so far as
sovereignty is concerned, is lost in the Union, and that the people
of that State become citizens of the whole country.
_Question_. I see that by the vote two of the five Democrats who
voted for protection, and one of the two Republicans who voted for
free trade, were New Yorkers. What do you think is the significance
of this fact in relation to the question as to whether New York
will join the South in the opposition to the industries of the
country?
_Answer_. In the city of New York there are a vast number of men
--importers, dealers in foreign articles, representatives of foreign
houses, of foreign interests, of foreign ideas. Of course most of
these people are in favor of free trade. They regard New York as
a good market; beyond that they have not the slightest interest in
the United States. They are in favor of anything that will give
them a large profit, or that will allow them to do the same business
with less capital, or that will do them any good without the
slightest regard as to what the effect may be on this country as
a nation. They come from all countries, and they expect to remain
here until their fortunes are made or lost and all their ideas are
moulded by their own interests. Then, there are a great many
natives who are merchants in New York and who deal in foreign goods,
and they probably think--some of them--that it would be to their
interest to have free trade, and they will probably vote according
to the ledger. With them it is a question of bookkeeping. Their
greed is too great to appreciate the fact that to impoverish
customers destroys trade.
At the same time, New York, being one of the greatest manufacturing
States of the world, will be for protection, and the Democrats of
New York who voted for protection did so, not only because the
believed in it themselves, but because their constituents believe
in it, and the Republicans who voted the other way must have
represented some district where the foreign influence controls.
The people of this State will protect their own industries.
_Question_. What will be the fate of the Mills Bill in the Senate?
_Answer_. I think that unless the Senate has a bill prepared
embodying Republican ideals, a committee should be appointed, not
simply to examine the Mills Bill, but to get the opinions and the
ideas of the most intelligent manufacturers and mechanics in this
country. Let the questions be thoroughly discussed, and let the
information thus obtained be given to the people; let it be published
from day to day; let the laboring man have his say, let the
manufacturer give his opinion; let the representatives of the
principal industries be heard, so that we may vote intelligently,
so that the people may know what they are doing.
A great many industries have been attacked. Let them defend
themselves. Public property should not be taken for Democratic
use without due process of law.
Certainly it is not the business of a Republican Senate to pull
the donkey of the Democrats out of the pit; the dug the pit, and
we have lost no donkey.
I do not think the Senate called upon to fix up this Mills Bill,
to rectify its most glaring mistakes, and then for the sake of
saving a little, give up a great deal. What we have got is safe
until the Democrats have the power to pass a bill. We can protect
our rights by not passing their bills. In other words, we do not
wish to practice any great self-denial simply for the purpose of
insuring Democratic success. If the bill is sent back to the House,
no matter in what form, if it still has the name "Mills Bill" I
think the Democrats will vote for it simply to get out of their
trouble. They will have the President's message left.
But I do hope that the Senate will investigate this business. It
is hardly fair to ask the Senate to take decided and final action
upon this bill in the last days of the session. There is no time
to consider it unless it is instantly defeated. This would probably
be a safe course, and yet, by accident, there may be some good
things in this bill that ought to be preserved, and certainly the
Democratic party ought to regard it as a compliment to keep it long
enough to read it.
The interests involved are great--there are the commercial and
industrial interests of sixty millions of people. These questions
touch the prosperity of the Republic. Every person under the flag
has a direct interest in the solution of these questions. The end
that is now arrived at, the policy now adopted, may and probably
will last for many years. One can hardly overestimate the immensity
of the interests at stake. A man dealing with his own affairs
should take time to consider; he should give himself the benefit
of his best judgment. When acting for others he should do no less.
The Senators represent, or should represent, not only their own
views, but above these things they represent the material interests
of their constituents, of their States, and to this trust they must
be true, and in order to be true, they must understand the material
interests of their States, and in order to be faithful, they must
understand how the proposed changes in the tariff will affect these
interests. This cannot be done in a moment.
In my judgment, the best way is for the Senate, through the proper
committee, to hear testimony, to hear the views of intelligent men,
of interested men, of prejudiced men--that is to say, they should
look at the question from all sides.
_Question_. The Senate is almost tied; do you think that any
Republicans are likely to vote in the interest of the President's
policy at this session?
_Answer_. Of course I cannot pretend to answer that question from
any special knowledge, or on any information that others are not
in possession of. My idea is simply this: That a majority of the
Senators are opposed to the President's policy. A majority of the
Senate will, in my judgment, sustain the Republican policy; that
is to say, they will stand by the American system. A majority of
the Senate, I think, know that it will be impossible for us to
compete in the markets of the world with those nations in which
labor is far cheaper than it is in the United States, and that when
you make the raw material just the same, you have not overcome the
difference in labor, and until this is overcome we cannot successfully
compete in the markets of the world with those countries where
labor is cheaper. And there are only two ways to overcome this
difficulty--either the price of labor must go up in the other
countries or must go down in this. I do not believe that a majority
of the Senate can be induced to vote for a policy that will decrease
the wages of American workingmen.
There is this curious thing: The President started out blowing
the trumpet of free trade. It gave, as the Democrats used to say,
"no uncertain sound." He blew with all his might. Messrs. Morrison,
Carlisle, Mills and many others joined the band. When the Mills
Bill was introduced it was heralded as the legitimate offspring of
the President's message. When the Democratic convention at St.
Louis met, the declaration was made that the President's message,
the Mills Bill, the Democratic platform of 1884 and the Democratic
platform of 1888, were all the same--all segments of one circle;
in fact, they were like modern locomotives--"all the parts
interchangeable." As soon as the Republican convention met, made
its platform and named its candidates, it is not free trade, but
freer trade; and now Mr. Mills, in the last speech that he was
permitted to make in favor of his bill, endeavored to show that it
was a high protective tariff measure.
This is what lawyers call "a departure in pleading." That is to
say, it is a case that ought to be beaten on demurrer.
--_New York Press_, July 29, 1888.