Although not equally interesting to the Negro Congressmen as matters
of political import, to not a few of them problems essentially
economic in character, or at any rate, of economic significance, made
a forceful appeal. Measures designed to provide superior facilities
for the trade and commerce of their communities constituted, in some
instances, the most valuable service rendered by these legislators.
With the interests of his constituency ever in mind, Benjamin S.
Turner of Alabama, a member of the Forty-second Congress, proposed
various measures to effect local improvements.[82] He urged a
distribution of the public lands, proposed a bill to erect a public
building in Selma, sought to increase the appropriation for rivers and
harbors from $50,000 to $75,000, and made efforts to secure
improvements in navigation in Alabama waters.
Of all the Congressmen, Josiah T. Walls of Florida was perhaps the
most persistent in the effort to secure improvements for his district
and State.[83] He introduced numerous bills to erect in his district
custom houses and other public buildings, and to improve the rivers
and harbors of his State. Walls introduced also bills to provide a
lifesaving station along the coast of Florida, to amend an act
granting right of way through public lands for the construction of
railroad and telegraph lines through Florida, and to create an
additional land district. He sought further to amend an appropriation
bill to the end that $50,000 be made available for the establishment
of a navy yard at Pensacola.
James T. Rapier, who succeeded Turner in Congress, continued, to some
extent, the policy of the latter to secure local improvements.[84] Of
two measures introduced by Rapier, one proposed to erect public
buildings in his district, the other to make improvements in the
rivers and harbors of the State. He succeeded in having enacted into
law his measure to constitute Montgomery, Alabama, a port of entry.
The policy of John R. Lynch of Mississippi in the matter of local
improvements[85] did not differ materially from that of Rapier. Lynch
proposed measures for the construction of the Memphis and New Orleans
Railroad, for the construction of public buildings and custom houses,
and for the improvement of rivers within the State of Mississippi.
Smalls, of South Carolina, likewise concerned himself with the matter
of local improvements.[86] He endeavored to secure an appropriation
for the restoration of the Beaufort Library which was destroyed during
the War. He proposed measures to establish in his district custom
houses, docks, warehouses, a weather observation station, and other
public buildings. He was interested also in the redemption of lands
held by direct taxes and sought to promote a measure for the
construction of telegraph lines in the State. Similarly concerned was
James E. O'Hara of North Carolina, whose chief measures for
improvements[87] embraced bills to erect public buildings in his
district, and to improve the rivers and harbors in his State. Murray,
of South Carolina, was some years later advocating the exemption of
the Young Men's Christian Association from taxation and the relief of
cyclone sufferers in Beaufort, South Carolina.
The Negro Congressman, too, had an interest in the more important
economic questions. On the question of the tariff several Congressmen
expressed opinions. In the Forty-second Congress, Josiah T. Walls
sought to amend the tax and tariff bill relative to certain
commodities produced in the State of Florida.[88] He favored a tariff
for protection as opposed to one for revenue only. During a similar
discussion, in the House, John R. Lynch, a member of the Forty-seventh
Congress, urged a protective tariff[89] for cotton, lumber, and
sugar. His argument was that the cotton producers of the South were in
favor of a protective tariff. When its producing class (meaning labor)
was slave, when all of its products were exported, when all of its
wants were supplied from without, and when cotton was its only
interest, the South favored cheap labor and free trade. At this time,
however, labor was free as distinguished from slave, and it therefore
added to the cost of production, while jute, sugar, rice, lumber, and
manufactures in the embryonic stage, shared with cotton the interests
of producers. These changed conditions, he maintained, demanded for
the South a policy of reasonable protection.
Regarding protection as a panacea for all the economic ills of the
South, Lynch asserted that it would foster the growth of industries,
permit the manufacturing interests to develop, and prevent the
recurrence of a situation in which the whole output of raw material is
shipped to a foreign market and sold at a price fixed by market,
whereas goods manufactured from this same raw material are shipped to
the South and sold at a price dictated by the sellers. He said,
moreover, that a protective tariff would effect a decrease of American
imports in cotton goods and at the same time an increase of employment
among the folks at home. With reference to tariff on sugar and lumber,
Lynch held that the South needed diversified industries, that the
investment of capital in the South was essential to a diversification
of industries, that a reasonable interest must be guaranteed to
attract the capital, and that inasmuch as protection afforded the only
way whereby the interest could be assured, protection for these
industries was nationally demanded.
Any consideration of the merits of the arguments advanced by Lynch
must not overlook the fact that protection has been the policy of the
nation during its periods of remarkable growth. Two arguments largely
supported this policy. In the first place, it was early conceived that
protection was essential to the development of infant industries; in
the second, the belief was accepted that to an agricultural country a
home market is the only guarantee of a regular market. Because,
however, of the unprecedented growth of the country and its final
achievement of economic independence, other reasons were sought to
support the protective policy. It was contended, therefore, that the
high wages paid in the United States would discourage producers from
introducing new industries which, without protection, must compete on
equal terms with the products of low waged Europe. Finally, it was
pointed out that the owners of great wealth must suffer tremendous
loss of capital if protection were withdrawn from certain industries,
compelling them to compete on equal basis with the industries of like
kind of foreign countries.
In addition to these economic arguments, moreover, a political
argument was not lacking. Ambitious statesmen have ever dreamed of a
policy with which to cement the bonds that unite the different
sections of the country, making them mutually dependent and, at the
same time, independent of Europe. Protection, it was said, would do
this. In full justice to Lynch, therefore, it must be said that his
doctrine, whether or not sound, was not without basis. His firm stand
for a protective tariff conformed to the policy that has recently
controlled in the nation.
Sometime thereafter, White, in the Fifty-fifth Congress, had occasion
to speak on the Wilson Tariff Law enacted in 1893. This measure[90] he
held to be responsible for the unemployment among mill workers in his
community and the loss of contracts by the Southern producers. He
advocated, therefore, protection for the industries and labor of
America against the pauperism and cheap labor of foreigners.
Several other subjects of economic character were discussed by the
Negro Congressmen. During his terms in the Forty-eighth and
Forty-ninth Congresses, James E. O'Hara discussed at length the
measure on labor arbitration.[91] Shortly thereafter, in the
Fifty-first Congress, John M. Langston made informing remarks on the
shipping bill.[92] Presenting in support of his position
communications from the chambers of commerce of the principal cities
of his State urging his support of the pending bill, facts and figures
exhibiting recent progressive development of trade in Newport News,
and information showing the growing dependence of world trade upon the
development of an American merchant marine, he urged the passage of
the shipping bill, with legislation to subsidize an American marine
that would assist this nation to recover her former position upon the
sea. While pointing out causes underlying the decadence of the
merchant marine, he enumerated also the conditions which at that time
favored its certain development.... He was, therefore, committed to a
vigorous prosecution of any constructive plan leading in that
direction.
In the Fifty-second Congress, H. P. Cheatham logically discussed the
anti-option bill,[93] a measure defining "options" and "futures,"
imposing special taxes on dealers therein, and requiring such dealers
and persons engaged in selling specified products to obtain a license
to do so. Speaking in the behalf of the agricultural class of people
whom he represented, Cheatham set forth the disastrous economic
effects that dealing in "futures" and "options" has always had on the
farming class in fixing the price of cotton and other commodities. As
a measure contemplating an adjustment of this most portentous evil in
the industrial life of the nation, he urged the passage of the bill
then under consideration.