1S94 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



575 



triio of honey than any otlicr product of the 

 United States. This being true, what protec- 

 tion have we against the products of nations 

 where labor receives one-half to two-thirds the 

 wages paid for similar work in the United 

 States'? I say we have no protection but the 

 tariff of 20 cents which the IMcKinley law levies 

 on every gallon of honey brought over the 

 border. Friend Ilewes laughs at the idea that 

 there is lots of honey waiting to be dumped 

 upon our helpless bee keepers. But this is 

 nevertheless a fact: Cuba can produce 4 gal- 

 lons of honey at the cost of one gallon in the 

 United States, both by reason of more favorable 

 climate, and cheap and even slave labor; and 

 even now, with 20 cts. a gallon duty, she sends 

 shiploads of honey to our shores. In proof of 

 these ubseivatioiis. let me remind you that, in 

 the tiscal Y^ar ending June 30. 18'.)4, 97,70(5.29 

 gallons of honey were imported into the United 

 States. This honey was valued at §13..590.85, or 

 4.") CIS. a gallon; add to this a duty of 20 cts. per 

 gallon, and you have a price of 65 cts. per gal- 

 lon set you hy foreigners for your honey, 

 whether you have large or small crops of it in 

 California. Here, under the McKinhy law, 

 you see only ►SG3, 133. 10 taken from the laborers 

 and bee-keepers of our country. This is but a 

 smull sum to be lost by the large number of 

 bee-keepers in America: but suppose this duty 

 of 20 cts. a gallon were reduced to 10 cts. a gal- 

 lon, as proposed by the Wilson bill; does any 

 Ottv doubt that the importation of honey would 

 be increased ten times during the following 

 12 months, and the loss to American bee-keepers 

 be half a million dollars yearly? Let us look 

 thesi' things in the face squarely, and not be 

 blinded to the facts. 



The small number of Americans raising hon- 

 ey on Mexican soil is not to be considered or 

 weighed against the large number of resident 

 citizens of the United States who would be in- 

 jured irreparably by free trade. 



Friend Hewes says that "when any country 

 produces a large surplus, England and not New 

 York is its destination." Let us examine the 

 facts. The New York Tribune is authoiity for 

 the statement that " the railroads of the United 

 States in 1889 carried $13,930,587,840 worth of 

 freight, not mentioning that carried by water. 

 More than 92 per cent of this was consumed in 

 the I'nited States." The total vaiue of the 

 imports of Great Britain and 33 other leading 

 nations was only §6,0.50,468,409, or less than 

 half the value of the freight carried on our 

 own railroads. The leaders in Parliament 

 have recognized this as a fact, that our market, 

 the United States, is the best in the world. Mr. 

 Edward Atkinson, the eminent statistician, in 

 1890 published figures and tables in Bradstreet's, 

 which show that, while our home trade 

 amounts to .50,000.000,000 annually, our foreign 

 trade amounts to only 1,600,(X)0,0(X), or less than 

 3J^ per cent of our home trade. Our Newhall 



friend seems to lose sight of the main question 

 in his discussion of free trade. The burning 

 question of the day is the same as it has been 

 for the last hundred years; viz., shall Ameri- 

 can manufactures prosper under protection, or 

 be destroyed under free trade ? for this is the 

 declared policy of Great Britain toward our 

 country, Lord Brougham declaring, in the 

 House of Commons, in 1816, "It is well worth 

 while to stifle in the cradle those infant manu- 

 factures in the United States which the war 

 has forced into existence, though we may incur 

 a heavy loss on our first exportations in the 

 effort so to do." In pursuance of this policy, 

 England has poured goods into our markets far 

 below cost; bought and slaughtered great 

 numbers of sheep; bought our best machinery 

 and shipped it off to England; hired our best 

 mechanics, to get them away from us, solely to 

 hinder and destroy our existing and prospective 

 manufactures. 



Friend Hewes arraigns our manufacturers be- 

 cause, forsooth, he is taxed to support them. 

 How contrary this assertion is to the facts! 

 Free-traders have been using this same phrase 

 for a hundred years— "The tariff is a lax, and 

 is paid by the consumer." Under free trade, 

 steel cost us fl07 a ton. Then when a duty of 

 ^J8.00 a ton was imposed in 1870, according to 

 our free- trade friends the price should have 

 been $135 a ton. But as a matter of fact the 

 price has constantly declined to $30 a ton, or 

 even less. Take the case of steel nails. In 1883 

 we manufactured very few steel nails, duty 1 

 ct. a pound; price 8X cts., all imported. In 

 1883, duty increased to 4 cts. a pound; price 

 should be 8X plus 3 =11X cts. a pound, according 

 to our free- trade friends. As a matter of fact, 

 the price declined to less than 2 cts. a pound, 

 and in 1890 we produced 3,900,000 kegs. Wili 

 friend Hewes tell us what manufacturer he 

 was taxed to support when he paid 2 cts. to 3 

 cts. a pound for steel nails, even in small lots, 

 when, under free trade in 1882, the price'was 

 8X cts. a pound ? 



The English price of calico is 5 to 7 cts. a 

 yard. The duty is 100 per cent. According to 

 the free-trade theorists, the cost to the Ameri- 

 can consumer should be 10 to 14 cts. a yard; 

 but it is only 5 to 7 cts. a yard here to the con- 

 sumer, and sometimes less. 



Similar illustrations almost innumerable 

 might be given; but. enough. Many leaders 

 may desire to know why these things are so. 

 The principal reasons are as follows: 



First, our American market is the largest 

 and the most diver.-ified of any on earth, and it 

 is the market the nations of the earth seek to 

 obtain and control. 



Second, under free trade, American capital 

 fears to invest in great enterprises, employing 

 thousands of men and paying tens of thousands 

 of dollars in wages, in view of the fact that 

 foreign manufacturers will spend dollars like 



