66 advice, and Hewitt in his letter, which McKinley read, said that he did not believe in the reduction of duty on steel rails, and added: The only reason why we pay more for American steel rails is because we pay a higher rate for the labor which is required for their manufacture, but for no greater quantity of labor. Free trade will simply reduce the wages of labor to the foreign standard." "The only reason," continued Hewitt in his letter, "why a tariff is necessary, is to supply the laborer with such wages as will enable him to travel and consume, not merely the necessaries, but some of the luxuries of modern civilization." "And yet, the other day," said McKinley, "the gentleman declared on the floor of this House that protection had nothing to do with the wages of labor." Mr. Hewitt. "If the gentleman from Ohio will permit me to interrupt him, I will make the answer now; otherwise I will wait till he gets through." 66 Mr. McKinley. Does the gentleman deny the letters?" Mr. Hewitt. "On the contrary- they are genuine." Mr. McKinley. "That is all I want to know; the gentleman can reply to me later on.” The colloquy continued until McKinley made Hewitt admit that in the iron and steel business, in which he was interested, and in protected industries, protection was needed for the purpose of maintaining the rate of wages in the United States. In the debate on the bill submitted by the Ways and Means committee early in 1883, McKinley made a notable speech upon the tariff, which, read in the light of events, was a striking prophecy of what was to occur. He came out squarely for the principle of protection as a feature of duties on imports not simply a protective tariff, but a tariff for protection. It should be said that, before the tariff bill was taken up in the House, another Congressional election had been held that in the fall of 1882 and that McKinley had made another struggle against a new Democratic reapportionment, and that he was elected by a majority of only eight votes. Towards the close of his speech on the tariff bill he said: "Mr. Chairman, we can have the Democratic doctrine of free trade whenever the Democratic party can make slaves of our laboring men, but not until then. [Applause on the Republican side.] Why, if labor was degraded on this side of the Atlantic like the other, we might compete with the best manufactories of the world in any market. No lover of his race, no friend of humanity, wants reduced wages. I do not speak for capital. Capital can take care of itself. Rob it of its profits in any of the so-called protected industries, and it will seek other avenues of investment and profit. I speak for the workingmen of my district, the workingmen of Ohio and of the country." Mr. Springer. They did not speak for you very largely at the last election." 66 Mr. McKinley. "Ah, my friend, my fidelity to my constituents is not measured by the support they give me. [Great applause.] I have convictions upon this subject which I would not surrender, or refrain from advocating, if ten thousand majority had been entered against me last October [renewed applause]; and if that is the standard of political morality, and conviction, and fidelity to duty which is practiced by the gentleman from Illinois, I trust that the next House will not do, what I know they will not do, make him speaker of the House. [Laughter and applause.] And I trust another thing, that that general remark interjected here, coming from a man who has to sit in the next House, does not mean that he has already prejudged my case which is to come before him as a judge." "Your constituents have done that Mr. Springer. for you." Mr. McKinley. "For if he has, then he would be subject to be taken from the panel of jurors, because he had already expressed an opinion in the case which was to be tried before him." Mr. Springer did not have the chance to act as judge in McKinley's case in the next Congress. |