FOOTNOTES
[1] February 4, 1884, Mr. Robinson of New York proposed, in the House of Representatives, an amendment to the Constitution, so as to allow Congress to lay an export duty on cotton for the encouragement of home manufactures. (Record, 862.)
[2] Philadelphia American, August 7, 1884.
[3] Taussig: “History of the Existing Tariff,” 78 ff.
[4] The wool growers held a convention at St. Louis May 28, 1885, at which they estimated their loss by the reduction of the tax on wool in 1883, or the difference between what they got by this tax before that date and after, at ninety million dollars (New York Times, May 29). If that sum is what they lost, it is what the consumers gained. They are very angry, and will not vote for any one who will not help to re-subject the consumers to this tribute to them.
[5] Broderick, “English Land and English Landlords,” p. 194.
[6] Since the above was in type, I have, for the first time, seen an argument from a protectionist, that a tariff between our states is, or may become, desirable. It is from the Chicago Inter-Ocean, and marks the extreme limit reached, up to this time, by protectionist fanaticism and folly, although it is thoroughly consistent, and fairly lays bare the spirit and essence of protectionism:
“In the United States the present ominous and overshadowing strike in the iron trade, by which from 75,000 to 100,000 men have been thrown out of work, is an incisive example of the tendency of this country, also, to a condition of trade which will compel individual states and certain sections of the country to ask for legislation, in order to protect them against the cheaper labor and superior natural advantage of others.” The remedy for the harm done by taxes on our foreign trade is to lay some on our domestic trade. (See §§ [26], [95].)
[7] Since the above was in type, a treasury order has subjected all goods from Canada to the same taxes as imported goods, although they may be going from Minnesota to England. Nature has made man too well off. The inhabitants of North America will not simply use their chances, but they divide into two artificial bodies so as to try to harm each other. Millions are spent to cut an isthmus where nature has left one, and millions more to set up a tax-barrier where nature has made a highway.
[8] 62, Niles’s “Register,” 132.
[9] Journal des Economistes, March, 1885, page 496.
[10] Paris correspondent of the New York Evening Post, February 9, 1884.
[11] Economist, Commercial Review, 1884, p. 15.
[12] The Vienna correspondent of the Economist writes, June 15, 1885, “The representatives of the sugar trade addressed a petition to the Finance Minister, asking, above all things, that the premium on export should be retained, without which, they say, they cannot continue to exist, and which is granted in all countries where beet-root sugar is manufactured.”
[13] Bradstreet’s, July 25, 1885.
[14] Economist, 1884, p. 1052.
[15] A friend has sent me a report (Barbados Agricultural Report, April 24, 1885) of an indignation meeting at Bridgetown to protest because the English Government refused to ratify the commercial treaty with the United States. The islanders feel the competition of the “bounty-fed” sugar in the English market; a new complication, a new mischief.
[16] Economist, Commercial Supplement, February 14, 1885, p. 7.
[17] Since the above was in type, a report from the “South American Commission” has been received and published. This Commission submitted certain propositions to the President of Chili on behalf of the United States. The report says:
“The second proposition involved the idea of a reciprocal commercial treaty between the two countries under which special products of each should be admitted free of duty into the other when carried under the flag of either nation. This did not meet with any greater favor with President Santa Maria, who was not disposed to make reciprocity treaties. His people were at liberty to sell where they could get the best prices and buy where goods were the cheapest. In his opinion commerce was not aided by commercial treaties, and Chili neither asked from nor gave to other nations especial favors. Trade would regulate itself, and there was no advantage in trying to divert it in one direction or the other. So far as the United States was concerned, there could be very little trade with Chili, owing to the fact that the products of the two countries were almost identical. Chili produced very little that we wanted, and although there were many industrial products of the United States that were used in Chili, the merchants of the latter country must be allowed to buy where they sold and where they could trade to the greatest advantage. With reference to the provision that reduced duties should be allowed only upon goods carried in Chilian or American vessels, he said that Chili did not want any such means to encourage her commerce: her ports were open to all the vessels of the world upon an equality, and none should have especial privileges.”—(N. Y. Times, July 3, 1885.)
If this is a fair specimen of the political and economic enlightenment which prevails at the other end of the American Continent, it is a great pity that the “Commission” is not a great deal larger. They are like the illiterate missionaries who found themselves unawares in a theological seminary. We would do well to send our whole Congress out there.
[18] This is the case for which the Inter-Ocean proposed the remedy described in § [71] note.
[19] I except those of Mr. Carroll Wright. He has sufficiently stated of how slight value his are.
[20] Bk. V, ch. 10, § 1.
[21] It has been developed mathematically by a French mathematician (Journal des Economistes, August and September, 1873, pp. 285 and 464).
[22] See a fallacy under this head: Cunningham, “Growth of English Industry,” 410, note.
IMMIGRATION IN 1884
| Males | Females | Total | |
| Professional occupations | 2,184 | 100 | 2,284 |
| Skilled occupations | 50,905 | 4,156 | 55,061 |
| Occupations not stated | 19,778 | 11,887 | 31,665 |
| No occupation | 75,483 | 169,904 | 245,387 |
| Miscellaneous occupations | 160,159 | 24,036 | 184,195 |
| Total | 308,509 | 210,083 | 518,592 |
Under miscellaneous were 106,478 laborers and 42,050 farmers.
[24] See a fallacy under this point: Cunningham, “Growth of English Industry,” 410 note.
[25] See an interesting collection of illustrations in an article on “Lords of Industry” in the North American Review for June, 1884. The futile criticisms at the end of the article do not affect the value of the facts collected.
[26] Cunningham, “Growth of English Industry and Commerce,” 316, note 2. (See also §§ [114], [134].)
[27] Mill, “Political Economy,” Bk. I, ch. 5, § [5]. Cairnes, “Leading Principles,” ch. I, § [5].
[28] “Political Economy,” 491–492.
[29] I published a criticism of this case in the London Economist, December 1, 1883.
[30] Quoted by Taussig: “History of the Existing Tariff,” 73.
[31] Illustrations of this are presented without number. Here is the most recent one: “The [silk] masters [of Lyons, France] look to the government for relief by a reduction of the duty on cotton yarn, or the right to import all numbers duty free for export after manufacture. With the present tariffs, they maintained, which is no doubt true, that they cannot compete with the Swiss and German makers. But the Rouen cotton spinners oppose the demand of the Lyons silk manufacturers, and protest that they will be ruined if the latter are allowed to procure their material from abroad. The Lyons weavers assert that they are being ruined because they cannot.”—(Economist, 1885, p. 815.) The cotton men won in the Chamber of Deputies, July 23, 1885.
[32] Independent, August 16, 1888.
[33] In Good Cheer for April, 1886, p. 7.
[34] Address at a dinner of the committee on Tariff Reform of the Reform Club in the city of New York, June 2, 1906.
[35] Leslie’s Weekly, August 20, 1896.
[36] Leslie’s Weekly, September 3, 1896.
[37] Leslie’s Weekly, September 10, 1896.
[38] Leslie’s Weekly, September 17, 1896.
[39] Pp. 161–162.
[40] Leslie’s Weekly, September 24, 1896.
[41] Harper’s Weekly, September 15, 1883
[42] Popular Science News, July, 1887.
[43] The Independent, April 19, 1888.
[44] “Earth Hunger, and Other Essays,” pp. 217–270.
[45] The Independent, June 13, 1889.
[46] Falke, “August von Sacheen.”
[47] The North American Review, Vol. CXXXII, pp. 559–566. (June, 1881.)
[48] The North American Review, vol. cxxii, pp. 47–87. (January, 1876.)
[49] Address before the Kent Club of the Yale Law School.
[50] Statistics means here, what it ought to mean, much more than tables of figures.
[51] Niles, XLVI, 407.
[52] Niles, VIII, 246.
[53] Niles, XXIV, 247.
[54] Niles, XLVI, 101.
[55] For Clay, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland.
[56] Niles, March 1, 1834.
[57] Some counterfeiters were arrested at New York in a garret where they had $20,000 in notes of the “Ottawa Bank” and $800 in specie. They were very indignant—said they were a “bank” and were printing their notes at New York for economy. They came so nearly within the definition of a “bank” current at this time that they escaped on this plea.
[58] Speech at the Farewell Banquet to Herbert Spencer, held November 9, 1882.
[59] Address delivered in Hartford.
[60] These initials, as will be seen below, mean Grand Passed Master Coöperator, while G. C. indicates the lower grade of Grand Coöperator.