they could be made in this country, Congress put a duty of $27 per ton upon them which at once reduced the price to about $80, and no one ever heard of their selling for $106 plus the $27, but on the contrary they went down, and have continued to go down, until we are able to sell them to Great Britain for $30 per ton, notwithstanding a duty of $27. Can it be that the consumer pays this duty, or is it possible price in Europe for a ton of steel rails is only $3? all know is not true. But it is true that under the American policy of protection, American Capital became interested in the manufacture of steel rails, and American competition sprang up and prices gradually lowered in proportion as the industry succeeded under the fostering care of protection, until the tariff became non-effecting or passive.

that the This we

Mr. Garrison: If it has become useless why not remove it entirely?

Mr. Hannum: If it is useless under present circumstances why meddle with it? Let it remain for the good it has done, and may do in the future. Another infant industry may be born into this great Commonwealth family needing a father's protection, could you be so cruel a son as to desire the destruction of your father as soon as you found you were self-sustaining? Or would you want in any way to cripple or injure him so as to reduce his power to protect, if needed?

You said, "hurtful as a tariff is it cannot restrain the native vigor of the young giant." This is an expression I cannot understand, to me it appears much mixed. If I should hear a boastful free trade Englishman, say in England, "hurtful as a tariff is it cannot restrain the native vigor of the old Tyrant England," I think I would understand his meaning, but your expression is contrary to all history which clearly proves the "young giant" owes its vigor largely to the tariff, and that the only restraint upon the giant's vigor, is where there is no tariff or protection, as I will show by the history of the tin plate industry in America. Between the years 1873 and 1878 tin plate sold in this market for $12 to $15 per box under a rev

enue tariff, not protective. This very high price which had always prevailed in our markets, induced some enterprising workingmen, who had been workers in a tin plate works in Wales to go into the business. Works were built at Wellsville, Ohio, and Leechburg, Pa., and put in operation early in 1873. Samples of their product were sent to England where their beautiful finish and excellent quality created surprise.

In 1875 the price was reduced to $9 to $12 per box. Still at these prices reasonable profits were made by the American makers, while paying over 100 per cent. higher wages than are paid in England. Fearing a growing American competition English makers aided by a low tariff rapidly reduced prices and crushed out the American makers, and have kept them out ever since. Experience teaches us that in all cases, without exception, when the tariff has been high and protective, industries have been firmly established in this country. There is no reason but that under like circumstances the same result would have been realized with tin plate. What protectionists advocate, or what I claim we want, is a duty imposed upon all articles which it is possible to produce in this country, and a duty high enough to protect the manufacturer, by raising wages in Europe to an equivalent with American wages; "not a revenue tariff," which will degrade American labor to the level of European. We all know there are certain factors which enter into the composition of every product, the principal of which is labor or wages and that a larger proportion of that factor enters the American product than the English.

MR. GARRISON :-Will you please give the proportionate share received by labor in each country?

MR. HANNUM:-I will, as I happen to have it right here, if the audience will indulge me a few moments while I run over this pamphlet. Yes, here it is. The London Times, a Free Trade advocate (I suppose the gentleman will not object to the authority), published a statement last August in which, in regard to the remuneration of labor, it was shown that, assuming the produce to be 100, in Great Britain 56 parts go to labor,

21 to capital, and 23 to government. In the United States 72 parts go to labor, 23 to capital, and 5 to government. By some statistics given here I think I can show up some other Free Trade fallacies, such as "Protection in legislation is in the interests of the few and against the many," "It tends to protect capital and not labor," "It makes the rich richer, and the poor poorer," and many others of like character.

Let us look at this matter after an examination of these figures and see who gets the most from the product, the Protected American or the Free Trade foreigner.

To illustrate these free trade statistics in their application to the quantity of tin plate we imported last year, in foreign and home production, we would have the following result: Foreign value of tin plate imported in 1884, English labor, 56 per cent,

$18,182,637

$10,182,277

3,818,354

4,182,006

$18,182,637

In home production of same quantity of tin plates, according to ratios given, the value, basing labor 84 per cent., higher here than in England would be:

While American labor is, according to these tables, 84 per cent. higher than English labor, American capital is but 54 per cent. higher than English capital, thus, even accepting free trade statistics, it will be seen that wages to labor are really the principal factor involved. It is true that the rate (23 per cent.) for American capital is higher than the rate (21 per cent.) for English capital, but the proportionate share received by capital in each country, as compared with that received by labor, shows that English capital is higher, it being 38 per cent. against 32 per cent. for American capital. Thus it is that the free trader is condemned out of his own mouth.

I want to say one word more about the claim that farmers are not protected, that they represent the largest and most important industry of the country, that of agriculture and yet have no protection. Now I will give you a few of the articles produced by the farmer which appear on the tariff list. The first we have here is wool at 30 cents per pound or less 10 cents duty, over 30 cents per pound 12 cents duty. It is strange our friends do not know wool is produced by the farmer and is on the tariff list. It may not appear so strange that they do not know there is upon this same list beef, pork, hams, bacon, lard, butter, cheese, grapes, wheat, corn, oats, rye, barley, hay, honey, vinegar, beeswax, apples, milk, hops, potatoes; potatoes bear a duty of 15 cents per bushel which was not high enough to keep them from coming into our market this spring and breaking down the price.

MR. GARRISON:-Was not that an advantage to the consumer?

MR. HANNUM:-I cannot say it was, if the factory was stop. ped and he was without employment owing to a free trade policy he would have no means to buy with no matter how low the price. He would be in just the same position the old Irish woman was; she said "potatoes were cheap enough in Ireland, only fifty cents per bushel, but devil the fifty cents could she get." And now friends, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, I still hold that this country needs protection, a tariff to protect, let it be high or low, it must protect or it will fall short of the American policy and become English, a "tariff for revenue only."

After a short discussion the Chair announced the following Committee on Memorials for the coming year: Fred. M. Pennock, Anna R. Cox, Mrs. Albina Chambers. The congregation then joined in singing and a recess was taken until 2 P. M.

SEVENTH-DAY AFTERNOON.

Music by MISSES TURNER and LAW and MR. Law.

The Presiding Clerk read the report of the Treasurer for the

year ending Sixth-month, 6th, 1888, which had been audited by the committee appointed for that purpose, and found to be correct. The report showed balance on hand, at the beginning of the financial year, $10.46; receipts, $182.75; total, $193.21; expenses, $170.50; balance on hand $22.71. On motion, the report was adopted. Aaron Mendenhall was then elected Treasurer for the ensuing year.

The Business Committee then submitted Testimonials upon the subjects, "Our work for Humanity," "The Indian," and "Woman Suffrage," which were read by the Recording Clerk and, on motion, adopted.

THE PRESIDING CLERK.-We will now take up the question of "Free Trade versus Protection" and listen to a paper in behalf of Protection from our friend, Mr. T. P. Galvin, of Germantown.

PROTECTION.

MR. GALVIN said :-"Protection to American Industry" while it is of the greatest interest to all classes of people in our nation, is of much greater advantage to all who labor than to any other specific class, capitalists, manufacturers, or other traders. The capitalist invests his capital in a diversity of interests. If he invest in his own country, he encourages and sustains all of the productive interests including labor; he takes the risks of all investments which are great. An abundance of money can now be obtained at four per cent. good security, hence, capitalists do not realize but small interest on their investments. The manufacturer may build his factory, put in his machinery, stock it with material and turn out his product; then he goes upon the market and disposes of what he has manufactured on best possible terms, losing the interest perhaps for one year on his cost of building, on his raw material from the commencement of purchase, and after disposing of any of his product for the length of credit which he has given. You will observe that labor composes the larger portion of all that is produced, often eighty to ninety per cent. of the production. The ores in the land, the trees in the forest, the