Sunday, July 24, 2016


William Clark.

The Cortland Democrat, Friday, October 14, 1892.

The Standard Corrected.
To the Editor of the Cortland Democrat:
   The Cortland Standard in its issue of September 27th, has the following editorial:
   "Mr. Franklin Pierce, in common with other free traders, has a great deal to say about the 'Walker tariff,' which he and his associates call a 'low tariff,' as opposed to the McKinley law which they style 'high tariff,' 'robbery,' 'war taxes,' etc., etc. In making these charges they show themselves either densely ignorant or maliciously wicked. The fact is that the average duties on all imports under the McKinley law are about the same as the average duties under the Walker revenue tariff from 1844 to 1855, which is alleged by all free traders, Democrats or Mugwumps, to have been the most prosperous period in the history of the United States. The pay of skilled labor is 150 per cent higher than it was during the Walker period, and the pay of unskilled labor is from 35 to 50 per cent higher. Mr. Pierce ought to know these facts, and if he doesn't the best thing for him to do is to retire from the stump till he can learn something. The whole of Pierce's recent speech at the Democratic club was based on assumption and false statements of which his references to the Walker and McKinley tariffs are fair samples. When he used to write Republican articles, Mr. Pierce stated facts, but since he cut loose from the party he has seemed to cut loose from the truth also, and has developed a recklessness of statement which is only equaled by his intemperate zeal and hot-headed and indiscriminating partisanship."
   Now, the difficultly with Mr. Clark's editorial is that it deals in glittering generalities and shows an economy in the use of facts and an extravagance of denunciation. What are the facts?
   The average rate of duly on imports paying duty, under the Walker tariff for 1847, was 25.85 per cent, and upon all imports 22.98 per cent. The average rate on imports upon which duties were paid, from 1847 to 1857, was about 35 per cent, and upon all imports about 33 per cent. Under the amendments to the Walker tariff passed in 1857, the average rate of all dutiable imports was reduced to 19.86 per cent in 1859 and to 18.64 per cent in 1861. On all imports in 1858 the average duty was 17.32 per cent., and in 1861 the average duty on all imports had been reduced to 14.21 per cent. As I stated in the speech referred to in the above editorial, under the tariff of 1883 about 30 per cent of imports were upon the free list, and the McKinley bill added about 20 per cent of the remainder of our imports to the free list. But the duties upon the remaining 50 per cent are increased from an average duty of about 45 per cent in 1889 to an average duty of 57.70 per cent, upon the basis of the imports for 1889.
   As a matter of fact, the duties were raised by the McKinley bill to such an outrageous extent upon hundreds of the commodities of life as to become practically prohibitive. During the last fiscal year a famine in Russia and an abundant harvest at home caused a market in England for hundreds of millions of our farm products, and the necessary result of such great exportation was a corresponding importation of foreign commodities. But so high were the duties upon dutiable imports that there was an actual decrease in our dutiable imports during the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1892, of $154,240,979. The McKinley bill, by imposing duties ranging all the way from 75 to 500 per cent upon the articles manufactured by the pet manufacturers, actually prohibits the importation of the same competing foreign manufactured articles, and then the American trust, secure from foreign competition, plunders our people.
   The editor of the Standard complains because I speak of the McKinley tariff as "high tariff," "robbery," etc. A few examples of the manner in which duties were raised by the McKinley bill will show whether these terms are extravagant. I quote from Mr. Schoenhof in his work on the "Economy of High Wages," just published, the following:
   [Here four paragraphs of detailed statistics and references were omitted by CC editor.]
   On all knit fabrics the duty was increased from 70 per cent to about 150 per cent by the provisions of the McKinley Bill. During the year ending June 30, 1892, $267,751 worth of pearl buttons were imported into this country, and the purchasers in this country paid a duty thereon of $388,864.79, being nearly 150 per cent. During the same period about $5,280,841 worth of dress goods were imported into this country, and they paid a duty of about $5,423,422 a duty of 102 per cent, or about $140,000 more than the whole cost of the goods abroad.
   Such high duties have tended to decrease largely the importations of the articles upon which such duties exist, and thereby the average duty upon dutiable imports for the year 1891 was reduced to 46.28 per cent upon actual imports, as against the 18.64 per cent, the average duty upon all dutiable imports under the Walker tariff for the year 1861. The average duty upon all imports, both dutiable and free, for 1891, was 25.26 per cent, while the average duty upon all imports both dutiable and free, in 1861 under the Walker tariff, was only 15.21 per cent.
   Now candid reader, judge who is "densely ignorant" or "maliciously wicked," and determine who indulges in "hot-headed and indiscriminating partisanship."
   Again, the editor of the Standard says the pay of skilled labor is 150 per cent higher than the Walker tariff, and the pay of unskilled labor is from 25 to 50 per cent higher. Why is it Mr. Clark, that skilled labor has increased from three to six times as fast as unskilled labor? Your very statement shows the fallacy of attributing the rise of labor to a protective tariff. Skilled labor manufactures to-day, by means of machinery, a hundredfold more than it did in 1860 by hand labor, and it does not receive one-tenth as much per article now as it did then, when compared with the largely increased amount of its product. Are we to attribute the inventive genius of the mechanic, the skill of the machinist and the brain of the chemist to our high protective tariff? Will the wise editor of the Standard kindly explain to his readers the following facts taken from the census reports?
   In 1859 the average annual wages of labor was $248 in gold. In 1860 it was $290 in gold, an increase of twenty per cent. In 1870 it was $377 in paper money worth in gold $260, a decrease in ten years of a high protective tariff of [18] per cent, and bringing the price of labor back to about where it was in 1850.
   Will Mr. Clark also explain to his readers how it happened that the price of labor in England has increased with nearly equal step during the last forty years in this country?
   Mr. Clark has always professed an anxious interest in the welfare of the people of Cortland county. The present time affords him an opportunity to show whether he loves his party more than the people of his county. There is not a manufacturing interest in the county which would not be largely benefited by free raw material. Higher wages for operatives, larger profits to carriage makers would surely come to its wagon industries, if their owners could buy their iron, wool, broadcloth and corduroy at the low prices which a low tariff would bring. There is not an industry in Cortland County that receives a penny's benefit from our high proactive tariff. The farms and farmers of the county were worth more 33 years ago than they are to-day. There is not a single man in Cortland County who can demonstrate the fact that he receives any advantage whatever from our tariff. If such a man exists, by all means, Mr. Clark, have him stand up and tell the people wherein such benefit accrues to him. And, Mr. Editor of the Standard, if for love of the party, you are advocating that which is opposed to the interests of every man, woman and child in your county, are you not recreant to your duty and disloyal to your county?
   Dated, Oct. 8th, 1892.

Ghostly Wit.

   Some weeks ago the Cortland Standard published what it characterized as an immensely funny article "too good to be lost," the gist of which was, that an elderly lady of this village, who kept herself immured within the walls of her own home and relied upon a certain village paper she was taking to furnish her the news, had not learned of the death of an acquaintance until long after the sad event had occurred. Of course, it was plain enough to everybody who read the wonderfully funny article that the paper alluded to was the DEMOCRAT, and it is barely possible that the story told may have had some foundation in fact. We are willing to admit at least, that it was as true as anything to be found in the Standard.   Where the funny part came in however, it was not so easy to see, and only the fact that the writer said that it was very funny and "too good to be lost,'' would have led any one to suspect that it came from any other source than the graveyard.
   The same purveyor of ghostly wit wrote something awful funny last week in regard to the Democratic banner that was flung to the breeze on Main Street. The banner was painted by a Republican and the fact that he could not spell the word "Illinois'' correctly, proves that he had missed his calling, and that instead of trying to be an artist, he ought to be writing obituary jokes for the columns of the Cortland Standard.

Normal School Notes.
   The first Issue of the Normal News for the 49th term was delivered Monday; it is a neatly gotten up school paper and should receive the hearty support of all the students.
   On Monday the permanent chapel seats were assigned to the students, the A. classes occupy the south row of seats and the classes of lower rank occupy the rows of seats in regular order from the south toward the north side.
   Mr. M. H. Ford ‘92 visited his friends Monday.
   The Debating Societies have followed the plan of "boarding round" and probably will for some time yet; both ladies' societies meet at the home of some of their members, the gentlemen's societies meet in some of the class rooms.
   The state black-boards being placed in the different class rooms are "out of sight" as far as smooth surfaces are concerned.
   The cement side-walk is to be continued in front of the old building.
   The drawing classes in the Intermediate Department met for the first recitation on Tuesday.

In Memoriam.
   The death of Col. William S. Gaylord which occurred at his home in this village on Sunday morning last, is another reminder that the early settlers of our county are fast passing away. Born in Norfolk, Connecticut, May 16, 1809, he came with his parents when but five years of age, and settled in the neighborhood of the brick school house just west of the village; where, with the exception of the last few years residence in this village, he resided all his life.
   For the last four or five years his falling health and declining years kept him at home most of the time, and from taking an active part in business, political or church affairs, in all of which he had for many years been an active and energetic participant.
   In business affairs his promptness and thorough reliability were well known. His promise was never violated nor delayed. His word was ever his bond.
   In politics from his earliest manhood to his last days he was a staunch, aggressive, unchangeable, democrat of the old school.
   In his religious views he was an ardent, consistent Baptist, and for more than fifty years he was a member of the church of that denomination in our village, where he was noted for his benevolence, consistency and faithfulness.
   In his early years he was an active participant in public affairs, particularly so in military matters in which he took great pride, and in which he was an efficient organizer and a thorough disciplinarian. He rose to the rank of colonel and was in command of a regiment for several years.
   He has lived to a good old age, in fact, out lived his own generation. More than fifty years ago he was married to Jane E. Gee, daughter of the late John P. Gee who was well known to most of our old residents. She and their only son Mr. C. H. Gaylord are his only survivors.
   He was the contemporary of General Roswell Randall, Horatio Ballard, Judge Shankland, Lyman Reynolds, Dr. Frederick Hyde and John S. Samson all of whom have long since passed away.
   His death was painless and quiet, his last hours peaceful. His passing away was like falling to sleep, and we have to note another and one of the last of the old land markes [sic] gone from among us.

A Good Appointment.
   Mrs. Charles E. Crouse of this city has been appointed by Governor Flower a Trustee of the State Asylum for Feeble Minded Children in place of Benton B. Jones, declined. Mrs. Crouse is the first lady to be appointed on this board, and is eminently qualified to fill the position. The trustees of the asylum are charged with its management through a superintendent. At present there are on the board ex-Senator George B. Sloan of Oswego, Rt. Rev. F. D. Huntington, Bishop of Central  New York, Dr. Robert Aberdein, Col. J. W. Yale, Alva W. Palmer and ex-Mayor Nathan F. Graves of this city. Judge George F. Comstock, who was buried Friday, was also a member.--Syracuse Sunday Times.

No comments:

Post a Comment