“Summing it all up in a word: the struggle now pending in the House is on the one hand to make the greenback better, and on the other to make it worse. The resumption act is making it better every day. Repeal that act and you make it infinitely worse. In the name of every man who wants his own when he has earned it, I demand that we do not make the wages of the poor man to shrivel in his hands after he has earned it; but that his money shall be made better and better, until the plow-holder’s money shall be as good as the bond-holder’s money; until our standard is one, and there is no longer one money for the rich and another for the poor.”
With these bits of marble chipped from the temple of his arguments on the currency question, we must content ourselves. Upon this question Garfield was undoubtedly ahead of his generation. The resumption bill which he introduced in 1868 was better than the one adopted in 1875. He presented the fundamental principles as he understood them in 1868. From them he never changed. All subsequent efforts were but their elaboration, and, at this writing, history itself is their fulfillment and demonstration.
It is easy to see that his style of speaking changed somewhat. He became more terse and epigrammatic. He condensed the philosophical parts of his speeches, and enlarged the practical parts. He became more direct in address, more sparing of ornament, and simpler in language. But this was all. He was never known to be on but one side of a question. He took his position only after the most laborious investigations and careful thought. Once taken, nothing could drive him from it. In his answers to the riddles propounded by the Sphinx of American currency and finance, James A. Garfield is entitled to a place in the gallery of fame, beside the greatest financiers known to our national history. In the future, no authority will be, or can be, higher than Garfield.
Our next inquiry relates to Garfield’s record upon questions affecting the Revenue and Expenditures of the United States. Owing to his long service on the Committees of Ways and Means and on Appropriations, these twin topics of surpassing importance continually lay like couchant lions right in his political pathway.
Of the question of revenue, the tariff is the most vital branch. On the subjects of free-trade and protection, Garfield had made up his mind while at Williams College. Professor Perry, the instructor in political economy, was an unqualified free-trader. After his usual careful investigation, Garfield took the opposite view. He formulated the following proposition: “As an abstract theory, the doctrine of Free-Trade seems to be universally true, but as a question of practicability, under a government like ours, the protective system seems to be indispensable.”
Into the defense of that proposition he threw all his energies. In his speeches on the tariff we will find but one continual elaboration of this view. The speeches are moderate and conservative, avoiding either extreme. His object was to legislate for the whole country and not for any locality or class alone. On April 1, 1870, he delivered a speech on the tariff, which is of the first rank among his earlier efforts.
It presents an interesting history of England’s tariff policy toward the colonies, a brilliant discussion of the trend of prices since the war, and closes with a review of the eventful history of tariff legislation in this country, not omitting the South Carolina nullification. The high tariffs required by the high prices prevailing during the war, he thought, should be gradually reduced. Every one knows that the advantage of a high tariff on imports is the protection it gives to American industry by keeping up the prices here, and preventing competition with the cheap labor of Europe. But it is equally true that, while keeping prices up is good for the seller, and indirectly for the laborer whom he employs, it is bad for the buyer. Free-trade makes low prices. Avoiding alike the Scylla on the one hand and the Charybdis on the other, Garfield chose a medium. He closed his speech of April 1, 1870, by an appeal against either extreme:
“I stand now where I have always stood since I have been a member of this House. I take the liberty of quoting, from the Congressional Globe of 1866, the following remarks which I then made on the subject of the tariff:
“‘We have seen that one extreme school of economists would place the price of all manufactured articles in the hands of foreign producers by rendering it impossible for our manufacturers to compete with them; while the other extreme school, by making it impossible for the foreigner to sell his competing wares in our market, would give the people no immediate check upon the prices which our manufacturers might fix for their products. I disagree with both these extremes. I hold that a properly adjusted competition between home and foreign products is the best gauge by which to regulate international trade. Duties should be so high that our manufacturers can fairly compete with the foreign product, but not so high as to enable them to drive out the foreign article, enjoy a monopoly of the trade, and regulate the price as they please. This is my doctrine of protection. If Congress pursue this line of policy steadily, we shall, year by year, approach more nearly to the basis of free-trade, because we shall be more nearly able to compete with other nations on equal terms. I am for that protection which leads to ultimate free-trade. I am for that free-trade which can only be achieved through a reasonable protection.’”
As the representative of General Garfield’s tariff speeches in these pages, we select the one of February 4, 1878. Of this speech a gentleman of high abilities and information, says: “Having read and re-read it carefully, and having read all the great speeches made in Congress for forty years before the war on this difficult question, it is my deliberate conviction that the sound American doctrine of protection has never been stated with equal clearness, breadth, and practicality.”