Campaign Address in Boston, Massachusetts

Economic questions have over the past 50 years grown to a larger and larger proportion of our national issues. Today these questions are more dominant than ever. Upon their sound solution depend our prosperity, our standards of living, and the opportunities for a fuller life to every home. I make no apologies, therefore, for speaking to you tonight on economic questions, as they are affected by the tariff and our foreign trade, including our merchant marine. Obviously, the policies of our government bear the most important relationship to the maintenance and expansion of foreign trade, and the Government is the sole origin of the tariff.

I have been told that traditionally these subjects are of less interest to the women of our country than to the men. This I do not believe. Not alone are women today a large part of the army of industry, but they are also the treasurers of the household, and the security of the family income is to them of primary concern.

There are no more important questions to the people of New England than this. Nature has given you no coal mines, no oil wells, no vast expanse of prairie—in fact, no great possessions of raw materials. Your transportation relations, both inland and overseas, do not present to you the economic opportunity for basic raw material industries.

But New England has something even more important than all this. It has from the very beginnings of our history provided industrial and commercial leadership and skilled workmanship in the United States.

The courage, genius, and lofty integrity of that leadership have for 200 years carried New England through a score of those inevitable crises that come from invention, from change in demand.

New England began with a shipping industry as her dominant commercial occupation. She succeeded in it because she built better ships, because she was more skillful in ship construction, and because she developed greater skill in operation. She spread her ships over all the seas. She was the first part of our country to develop the factory system. She trained the first skilled workers, erected the first machinery, and set up the first equipment of modern industry. Her people have developed not only a great industry and commerce but a great inheritance of method and skill. It is not simply a great past; it is a great present.

Today, with her reservoir of skilled artisanship, of able technologists and administrators, with her own capital, with access to the markets of our own country and of the world, New England is, and will continue to be over many generations to come, the great American center for production of those articles where we require quality rather than quantity. But the very nature of her location, the character of her industry, and her resources make New England on one hand dependent upon the tariff to protect certain of her industries in the American market, and upon the other hand the development of foreign trade to find world markets for others.

And today the whole Nation has more profound reasons for solicitude in the promotion of our foreign trade than ever before. As the result of our inventive genius and the pressure of high wages, we have led the world in substituting machines for hand labor. This, together with able leadership and skilled workers, enables us to produce goods much in excess of our own needs. Taking together our agriculture and our manufactures and our mining, we have increased our production approximately 30 percent during the last 8 years, while our population has increased only about 10 percent. Much of this increase of production has been absorbed in higher standards of living, but the surplus grows with this unceasing improvement. To insure continuous employment and maintain our wages we must find a profitable market for these surpluses.

Nor is this the only reason for lending high importance to our foreign trade, either for New England or the country as a whole. Our business ideal must be stability—that is, regularity of production and regularity of employment. We attain stability in production, whether it be in the individual factory or in the whole industry, or whether it is in the Nation at large, by the number of different customers we supply. The shock of decreased demand from a single customer can be absorbed by the increase from another, if distribution be diffused. Consequently our industries will gain in stability, the wider we spread our trade with foreign countries. This additional security reflects itself in the home of every worker and every farmer in our country.

The expansion of export trade has a vital importance in still another direction. The goods which we export contribute to the purchase from foreign countries of the goods and raw materials which we cannot ourselves produce. We might survive as a nation, though, on lower living standards and wages, if we had to suppress the 9 percent or 10 percent of our total production which is now sold abroad. But our whole standard of life would be paralyzed and much of the joy of living destroyed if we were denied sufficient imports. Without continued interchange of tropical products with those of the temperate zone, whole sections of the world, including our own country, must stagnate and degenerate in civilization. We could not run an automobile, we could not operate a dynamo or use a telephone, were we without imported raw materials from the tropics. In fact, the whole structure of our advancing civilization would crumble and the great mass of mankind would travel backwards if the foreign trade of the world were to cease. The Great War brought into bold relief the utter dependence of nations upon foreign trade. One of the major strategies of that hour was to crush the enemy by depriving him of foreign trade and therefore of supplies of material and foodstuffs vital to his existence.

Trade in its true sense is not commercial war; it is a vital mutual service. The volume of world trade depends upon prosperity. In fact, it grows from prosperity. Every nation loses by the poverty of another. Every nation gains by the prosperity of another. Our prosperity in the United States has enabled us in 8 years to make enormous increases in the purchase of goods from other nations. These increasing purchases have added prosperity and livelihood to millions of people abroad. And their prosperity in turn has enabled them to increase the amount of goods they can buy from us.

Realizing these essentials, one of the first acts of the Republican administration when we came into power 7½ years ago—confronted as we were by millions of unemployed—was to devise measures to vigorously restore and expand our foreign trade. It was evident that we must sell more products abroad if we would restore jobs, maintain steady employment for labor and activity for our industries. It was clear that we must dispose of the farmer's surplus abroad if he was to recover stability and an ability to buy the products of our labor. As an aftermath of the war we were confronted with a total disorganization of our export trade. Our exports of war materials had been brought suddenly to an end. But, more than this, the trade of the entire world was demoralized to the extent that the actual movement of commodities between nations was less than before the war. We set out on a definitely organized campaign to build up the export of our products. To accomplish this we reorganized the Department of Commerce on a greater scale than has ever been attempted or achieved by any government in the world. We mobilized our manufacturers and exporters, and cooperated with them in laying out and executing strategic plans for expanding our foreign trade with all nations and in all directions.

The Republican administration by this action introduced a new basis in government relation with business and, in fact, a new relationship of the Government with its citizens. That basis was definitely organized cooperation. The method was not dictation nor domination. It was not regulation, nor subsidies, nor other artificial stimulants such as were adopted by foreign nations in similar plight. It was the Government, with all its prestige, interested solely in public welfare, acting through trained specialists in voluntary cooperation with committees of businessmen to promote the interest of the whole country in expansion of its trade and its ultimate expression, which is increased and stable employment. It was the promotion of initiative and enterprise which characterize our businessmen, and nowhere greater than in New England.

In the year 1922 our foreign trade upon a quantitative basis was almost the same as it was before the war, that is, if we reduce the values by the amount of inflation of the dollar. Since that time our trade has increased steadily year by year until in the year 1927 our exports amounted to the gigantic sum of $4,865 million—or a billion dollars increase under Republican rule. Our imports increased in the past 7 years by over $1,675 million to a total of $4,185 million. There never have been such increases in a similar period before in our history. Today we are the largest importers and the second largest exporters of goods in the world. Our exports show on a quantitative basis an increase of 58 percent over prewar, while our imports are 80 percent above prewar. The other combatant nations are only now barely recovering their prewar basis. All this has a very human interpretation. Our total volume of exports translates itself into employment for 2,400,000 families, while its increase in the last 7 years has interpreted itself into livelihood for 500,000 additional families in the United States. And in addition to this, millions more families find employment in the manufacture of imported raw materials. The farmer has a better market for his produce by reason of their employment.

Nor has New England failed to participate fully in this great advance.

With perhaps pardonable pride I may point out some indication of the assistance which the Government has given to this great expansion of our export trade through searching out opportunity for American goods abroad. I know of no better index of what the Federal Government's contribution has been in this enormous growth than the number of requests which come constantly to the Department of Commerce from our manufacturers and exporters for assistance and service of one kind or another. During the year before we undertook this broad plan of cooperation the Government at its various offices over the world received less than 700 such requests per day. These demands have increased steadily until this last fiscal year they exceeded the enormous total of over 10,000 daily. Unless these services to individual manufacturers and exporters were bringing positive results in dollars and cents, we should never have seen this phenomenal growth.

Nor is the Government solely concerned with the sale of our products abroad. We are deeply interested in many ways in our imports. One of the most intricate questions has been to secure the supply, at reasonable prices, of raw materials which we do not produce. Beginning soon after the war, certain foreign governments possessing practical monopoly of such materials, began the organization of controls designed to establish prices to the rest of the world, and especially to us, the largest purchaser. These controls increased in number until they embraced nearly one-third of our imports and the undue tax upon our consumers reached hundreds of millions of dollars. We regarded such controls to be in the long run uneconomic and disastrous to the interests of both producer and consumer. We, however, felt we had no complaint except in cases where these methods resulted in speculation and consequent unfair prices to our people. We wish to pay fair price for what we buy just as we wish to secure a fair price for what we sell. It was necessary for us to demonstrate that the consumer has inherent rights. Our government used its influence to assist American industry to meet this situation, by encouraging the use of substitutes and synthetic products, and by recommending public conservation at times of absolute necessity. Happily the trend in the creation and management of these monopolies has reversed itself, and I believe this question will present no further difficulty.

The Government bears other direct responsibilities in promoting and safeguarding our foreign trade. It can prosper only under sound financial policies of our government; it can prosper only under improving efficiency of our industry. In fact its progress marches only with the march of all progress, whether it be education or decrease in taxes. Foreign trade thrives only in peace. But, more than that, it thrives only with maintained good will and mutual interest with other nations.

One of these mutual interests lies in the protection of American citizens and their property abroad, and the protection of foreign citizens in our borders. The world's trading operations are by necessity largely carried on through the agency of their own citizens who migrate to foreign countries. So that in the pursuit of foreign trade we have an exchange of citizens as well as of goods. Furthermore our citizens who go abroad to develop foreign countries, or our citizens who loan their savings to develop foreign countries, are contributing to the advancement of trade. But they do much more. They build up the standards of living and the prosperity in other countries. Unless there can be constantly evidenced amongst all nations that the lives and property of all citizens abroad shall be protected, the foreign trade and the economic life of the world will degenerate instead of thrive. This does not imply that our citizens going abroad are not subject to the laws of the country where they reside. They must be subject to such laws unless these laws are a violation of international obligation. This implies no imperialism. It is the simple recognition of the principle of comity and mutual interest among all nations. Confidence in this principle is a necessity to the advancement of civilization itself. Fortunately the occasions where it has been necessary to send armed forces to preserve this principle are diminishing. Aside from the Great War the Democratic administration found it necessary to take such action on nine occasions, while during this administration only four such incidents have arisen. Every American must hope that they will not again arise.

Government cooperation in promoting foreign trade is even more important for the future than it has been for the past. It is more important to New England than it has ever been before. With the assurance of peace for many years to come, the world is upon the threshold of great commercial expansion. The other great nations of the world have been slowly recovering from the war. They have attained a very large degree of economic stability. They are developing increased efficiency in production and distribution and promotion of trade. Almost every month brings some deputation from abroad to study our methods and processes, which they soon translate into their own use. We do not begrudge them all of our technical and other information. We search with equal diligence to translate their methods of progress to our own use. We have the intelligent self-interest to realize that it is in the prosperity and progress of the world as a whole that we must seek expansion in our foreign trade. Nevertheless, as the stability of foreign nations becomes greater and their methods improve, their competition for neutral markets will become sharper. To receive our due share of prosperity in these markets we must continue an increasing vigorous cooperation from our government.

One of the most important economic issues of this campaign is the protective tariff. The Republican Party has for 70 years supported a tariff designed to give adequate protection to American labor, American industry, and the American farm against foreign competition.

Our opponents, after 70 years of continuous opposition to this Republican doctrine, now seek to convince the American people that they have nothing to fear from tariff revision at their hands. The Democratic platform states that they will revise the duties to a basis of "effective competition." They did this once before. When the Underwood Tariff Bill was introduced to Congress in 1913 the Democratic Ways and Means Committee of the House presented it to the country as a "competitive tariff." That measure was surely not a protective tariff. It greatly reduced the tariffs on American manufactures and it removed almost the whole protection of the agricultural industry. The competition which it provided was competition with foreign wages and standards of living. The Democratic tariff was subjected to test for only a few months prior to the outbreak of the war. Those few months showed the beginnings of disaster in both industry and agriculture. The production of goods abroad competing with our goods ceased during the war and tariff rates became relatively unimportant. It was not until peace was restored that its ill effects were completely disclosed to the American people. It would seem fair to assume from the declarations of the authors of the measure at the time the Underwood Bill was passed that it was the ideal of an "effective competitive" tariff. Be this as it may, competition, to be effective, must mean that foreign goods will have opportunity of successfully invading our home markets. The effect of the formula there set forth means a reduction of the tariff and a depression in American wages and American farm prices to meet foreign competition. It means a flood of foreign goods, of foreign farm produce, with the consequent reduction of wages and income of not only workers and farmers but the whole of those who labor, whether in the field, at the bench, or at the desk.

The Republican Party stands for protection, and on coming into power in 1922 it enacted again a protective tariff to both agriculture and industry.

Every argument urged by our opponents against the increased duties in the Republican Tariff Act has been refuted by actual experience. It was contended that our costs of production would increase. Their prophecy was wrong, for our costs have decreased. They urged that the duties which we proposed would increase the price of manufactured goods—yet prices have steadily decreased. It was urged that, by removing the pressure of competition of foreign goods, our industry would fall in efficiency. The answer to that is found in our vastly increased production per man in every branch of industry, which, indeed, is the envy of our competitors. They asserted that the enactment of the tariff would reduce the volume of our imports. Yet, during the last 7 years, our total imports, particularly of goods which we do not ourselves produce, have greatly increased. They predicted that with decreasing imports it would follow that our sales of goods abroad would likewise decrease. Again they were wrong. Our exports have increased to unprecedented totals. In fact every single argument put forth by our opponents against us at that time has proved to be fallacious.

The tariff written by the Republican Party in 1922 has been accompanied by everything which our opponents predicted that the tariff would prevent. It has been accompanied by employment and prosperity.

The Tariff Commission is a most valuable arm of the Government. It can be strengthened and made more useful in several ways. But the American people will never consent to delegating authority over the tariff to any commission, whether nonpartisan or bipartisan. Our people have a right to express themselves at the ballot upon so vital a question as this. There is only one commission to which delegation of that authority can be made. That is the great commission of their own choosing, the Congress of the United States and the President. It is the only commission which can be held responsible to the electorate. Those who believe in the protective tariff will, I am sure, wish to leave its revision in the hands of that party which has been devoted to establishment and maintenance of that principle for 70 years.

No tariff act is perfect. With the shifting of economic tides some items may be higher than necessary, but undoubtedly some are too low. This is particularly true so far as New England is concerned. New England has many protected industries. One important branch of them, the cotton and wool industries, have not for the past few years been in a satisfactory condition. They comprise about 26 percent of New England's industrial life. Their depressed condition has not been peculiar to New England. The same situation has prevailed throughout the world and is due largely to the same factors—style changes, production in new areas, and decided changes in the trends of consumption. There has been less hardship in the United States than abroad, and that fact has been due to the partial protection afforded in the tariff against inundations of foreign goods.

Any change in the present policy of protection would, without question, result in a flood of foreign textile products which would mean no less than ruin to New England industry, both manufacturers and workmen.

That our American textile industry and its workers need solid protection is clearly demonstrated by a comparison of wages, and it must be remembered that our most severe competition from abroad always comes in those types of cloths in which the element of labor represents the chief item of cost. A woolen and worsted weaver in the United States earns an average of 65 cents an hour, in Great Britain 30 cents, in Germany 20 cents, in France 13 cents, and in Italy 8 cents. The American cotton weaver earns an average of 40 cents an hour, the German 17 cents, the Frenchman less than 11 cents, and the Italian 7 cents an hour. And New England wages are higher than these averages for the whole country. The American protective tariff is the only insurance to our 600,000 families who earn their livelihood in the cotton and wool manufacturing industries against the wages prevalent abroad and the conditions and standards of living which necessarily result from them.

The prospects for the textile industry are today much more favorable than for some time past. Both the world situation and the domestic situation are improving. I believe these industries have turned the corner. And there are omens of much broader significance which sustain me in my beliefs. As never before in the industry there is demonstrated a will to pool its best brain resources in the solution of present and future problems in order that there shall be mutuality of benefit to manufacturer, worker, and consumer. Elimination of waste in production and distribution are in progress. Security and steady employment are more assured than for a long time past.

During this campaign some of our opponents have asserted that it is inconsistent to support the protective tariff and at the same time expect a greater expansion of our foreign trade. Their presentation of this theory at least indicates that some of them have not departed from their long-held free trade theories.

Their theory is that if by a tariff wall against competitive goods we reduce the sales of goods to us from foreign countries, we thereby diminish the resources of those foreign countries with which to buy goods from us and thus in turn our sales abroad are decreased. It is still further asserted that if we by the tariff reduce the shipment of goods into our markets, then we diminish the ability of foreign countries to pay principal and interest on the debts which they owe us. This theory was sound enough in the old days of direct barter of goods between nations. The trouble with it is that it has lost most of its practical application in a modern world and especially as applied to the American situation. Economic theories and hypotheses must stand the test of fact or experience or show application to new circumstances. Responsible men cannot dally with critical policies which affect the well-being of peoples on the sole basis of a theory. The birth of modern science was the realization by the scientists that every theory and every hypothesis must be placed upon the scales where the weights were in quantities, not arguments.

One primary fault of this economic theory is that foreign trade is no longer a direct barter between one single nation and another. World trade has become more of the nature of a common pool into which all nations pour goods or credit and from which they retake goods and credit. Let me give you an example: We ship more goods to Great Britain than we receive from her. But we buy vast quantities of tropical goods and she in turn supplies the tropical countries with her manufactures. In this way the settlement of international balances and obligations is lifted entirely out of the category of direct barter.

The first answer, however, to this theory is that 65 percent of our $4,185 million of annual imports are admitted free of duties because they are raw materials, tropical products, and other articles which we do not ourselves produce. Of the remainder, from 6 percent to 7 percent are luxuries upon which duties are levied for revenue and which are bought by our people irrespective of price. The purchasing power of foreign countries is certainly undiminished to the extent of this 70 percent.

A further answer is that 30 percent, or $1,250 million, of imports came in over the tariff wall and paid duties to the useful revenue of the Government of about $470 million. The purchasing power for our goods was undiminished by this amount.

A still further answer to this theory opposed to the protective tariff is the enormous increase of what are usually called the "invisibles" of foreign trade, that is, the expenditures for freights, for insurance, by tourists, by immigrant remittances, for interest, and a hundred other items. Some years ago, believing that these transactions were of vastly more importance in the determination of our national policies than had been credited to them, I instituted an annual determination of the facts. These determinations show that foreign nations now receive from us about $2 billions per annum for services, including such items as $770 million paid out in foreign countries by our tourists and $240 million remitted by immigrants in our country to relatives abroad. This sum of 2 billions can be applied by foreigners to the purchase of goods or to payments on debts or for services in the United States just the same as the money which they receive from the sale of goods to us. If we add this 2 billion to the $4,185 million of goods they sell us, it makes their purchasing power over 6 billions. So that the proportion of the foreigners’ buying power which is affected by the protective tariff diminishes to even a smaller ratio.

Still another answer is that the volume of imports is in fact determined by the degree of prosperity of nations. Our domestic prosperity has been greatly increased by the building up of wages and standards of living, to which the protective tariff has greatly contributed. By the very result of the tariff we have been able vastly to increase our imports of luxuries, raw materials, and things we do not produce. With our domestic prosperity we require more raw materials, and by that same prosperity we have the resources with which to buy them. By our prosperity we have been able to go abroad as tourists and also to remit to our relatives in Europe. This I believe finally extinguishes the already depleted importance of this theory that our tariff seriously damages the buying power of foreign countries and thus diminishes our export trade.

But if any more answers are needed to this theory there is that of actual practical experience. I have already observed that we have increased our imports during the last 7½ years under the present tariff act by over $1,675 million annually, or to an amount at least 80 percent above prewar average after allowing for the higher prices. The exports of five leading manufacturing nations of Europe to the United States have increased 75 percent since 1913, whereas the sales of these same nations to the rest of the world have only increased 27 percent. Certainly that does not indicate any great destruction of their ability to sell us something despite our tariff. In short, there is no practical force in the contention that we cannot have a protective tariff and a growing foreign trade. We have both today.

I spoke a few minutes ago of loans which our citizens make to foreign countries. It is an essential part of the sound expansion of our foreign trade that we should interest ourselves in the development of backward or crippled countries by means of loans from our surplus capital. They bring blessings both to the lender and to the borrower. When we make a loan abroad the amount of that loan is not ordinarily exported in gold but in goods or services either directly or indirectly. Most of them find their way out of our country in the form of farm products, of machinery, plant equipment, and supplies purchased of us. We receive the first benefit in markets for our farmers and for the making of these goods, and that gives additional employment to our people. The borrower receives the second benefit because the installation of American machinery and equipment, whether it be railways, power plants, harvesting machinery, or typewriters, brings greater productivity to the receiving country. Its prosperity is thus increased and the whole world trade benefits. Some of this new industrialization abroad may result in occasional competition with items here and there in our export trade; but the broad, general results of world betterment are as I have stated them. If foreign loans are applied to constructive development in foreign lands and if they are provided from capital beyond that which we require for our own needs, then they are necessarily beneficial.

Two assertions have been made in connection with our war debts and foreign trade that merit a word. The first is the one I referred to before, that tariff prevents the import of goods necessary to repay interest and capital upon these loans; and the second is that these payments must ultimately be made in goods and these goods will some day replace the output of our factories and reduce the employment of our workmen. This latter argument has been vigorously put forward as a reason for canceling our war debts. I deny its practical validity.

The whole of the weights which I have applied to the fallacy that the protective tariff ruins our export trade applies equally to this matter. As I have said, the tariff can affect but a small percentage of the buying power of foreign countries. In the end it probably increases imports because by increasing our domestic prosperity it enables us to buy far more goods of the raw material, tropical, and luxury type. All the facts I have stated showing the increased buying power of foreign countries apply equally to their ability to pay loans and interest. The $320 million annually due us upon war debt settlements represents today less than 5 percent of the present total annual buying power of foreign countries for our goods and other purposes. Of this 5 percent four-fifths would be paid through "invisibles" as duty-free goods, and only 1 percent, at the largest computation, in competitive goods. A hard, practical fact enters here also, which is that their buying power from us is constantly increasing. The fact is, the increase in our tourist expenditure alone in Europe since the war would enable them to take care of the entire amount of their annual payments on these debts. The increase in our imported goods alone since 1922 would pay the whole amount three times over. And the polyangular course of trade which I have mentioned does not require that these transactions be direct with any nation.

While I am on this subject of our war debt I should like to call attention to another current misrepresentation. That is the statement that we made a profit from the Great War and that these debts were wrung from the blood of other countries. This is absolutely untrue. While certain individuals may have profited, as a whole this country was a great loser by the war. We emerged from it with the loss of life of our sons, with the depleted health of others, with a huge debt, increased taxes, inflated currency, inflated agriculture, useless factories, with a shortage of housing and other facilities for the very basis of living, with suspended public works and inadequate communications, demoralized railways, and countless other national losses which will continue for a generation.

The increase in wealth and prosperity in the United States has come since the war—not during that time. It is due to the hard-working character and increasing efficiency of our people and to sound government policies. And in the largest measure the adoption and application of these policies were due to that great son of New England, Calvin Coolidge.

This great prosperity, this great increase in wealth, has been one of the greatest blessings that has ever come to the world. It has enabled us from our reservoir of wealth to contribute the force of our capital to the reconstruction of the war-torn countries. But for our aid South America and many other parts of the world would have been compelled to suspend their development and expansion for lack of capital. Had it not been for the industry and genius of the American people in the last 7 years, recovery of the world would have been delayed a quarter of a century.

A merchant marine under the American flag is an essential to our foreign trade. It is essential to our defense. There is only one protection of our commerce from discrimination and combinations in rates which would impose onerous charges upon us in the transportation of our goods to foreign markets—that is, a merchant marine under the control of our citizens. We have had need to revise our vision of overseas transportation during the past few years. It no longer comprises large numbers of tramp steamers going hither and yon. From the point of view of our commerce it consists of about 25 important sea routes which are the extensions to foreign destinations of our inland trade routes, upon which we need regular, ferry-like service of large cargo liner ships. This development of large units and repetitive operation fits with the character of our industrial development and opens wider hope for our return to the sea.

We have endeavored for two generations to find methods for restoration of that prestige on the ocean which New England at one time gave to us. During late years we have tried government ownership and operation. No one can now claim that government operation gives promise of either efficiency or permanence. But by government operation we have maintained our independence and our defense in the meantime. By it we have been able to pioneer the trade routes and to build up substantial flow of goods. Thus far it has been successful, but at heavy cost. As these routes have gained in strength many of them have been disposed of to successful operation by private enterprise. With the legislation passed by the last Congress through which a number of indirect aids are given to the merchant marine, there is real hope that the Government will ultimately be able to retire from competition with its own citizens in the shipping business, but it cannot retire until we are sure that private enterprise can carry the burden and grow in strength. It is a certainty that government operation will always be unsatisfactory. The Government cannot operate cheaply; it cannot rid itself of pernicious bureaucracy and policies; it cannot avoid the interminable difficulties and wastes which come from this kind of organization and direct or indirect political pressures. The hope of a substantial merchant marine lies ultimately in the new character of overseas shipping, in the energy and initiative of our citizens with assistance and cooperation of the Government. That assistance and cooperation is now being given and must be continued.

Now let me sum up the thought I should like to leave with you. I have talked to you about the tariff, about international trade, the merchant marine, and other economic forces which may, at first glance, seem far removed from our daily lives. I have tried to make the point that these subjects are no longer remote from any one of you. The time may have been, as someone once said, when the tariff was a local issue or foreign trade and shipping concerned only the local seaports. It is so no longer. Touch the tariff on textiles, and North Carolina feels the blighting influence as quickly as Massachusetts. Nor does it stop there. The farmer finds a diminished market in the lessened demand caused by lower wages. Unsettle the credit structure, and it is not Wall Street that suffers most; it is the little bank, the little factory, the little farm, the modest home. A shortage of shipping to the gulf ports at once decreases prices to the farmer in Kansas, for he must take more expensive routes to foreign markets. The old local decisive issues are largely gone. The present issue is the well-being and comfort and security of the American family and the American home. On that issue my party presents, as proof of its capacity, the record of growing comfort and security of the past 7 years.

I could not as a Californian conclude without a tribute to the large part which New England men have played in the advancement of my State. They pioneered its first commerce. A Boston man, Thomas O. Larkin, was one of the first American consuls in Mexican California, and in large part to his ability and courage was due the peaceful annexation of my State. It was Daniel Webster who moved California's admission to the Union. It was New England men who established our school system and our universities. Today the sons of New England are among the leaders in our public affairs.

Here in New England, American business began, and because the prosperity of industry and commerce affects the life of every man and woman, every boy and girl, I have dealt with it in this address. But there are other things more important. Because I talk of business it does not mean that I place material things above spiritual things. On the contrary, I see prosperity merely as the rich soil from which spiritual virtues as well as education and art and satisfactions in life can grow.

Your founders came to these shores not through lure of gold; not with the ambition to establish great mercantile enterprises; not with the thirst for adventure. Their first objectives were far different and more lofty.

When the necessities of life and of the spirit had been attended to, their first great desire was to advance learning and perpetuate it for posterity. Out of that lofty ambition came the creation of a score of institutions of higher learning. Later the same spirit inspired the establishment of other colleges in order that women might share equally with men in the opportunities of higher education. And from these institutions went forth the men and women who dotted our western country with colleges and universities which have now become great, and who carried a love of learning that has led our Central and Western States to endow their public schools and universities not with millions of dollars but literally with hundreds of millions.

New England taught us the ways of business. But you gave us something far finer and more precious. You sent us men and women on fire with the passion for truth and service. You set us the first example in patriotism. The early New Englanders cast their lot for liberty in words that can never die, when the people of Roxbury declared: "Our pious fathers died with the pleasing hope that we, their children, should live free. Let none, as they will answer it another day, disturb the ashes of those heroes by selling their birthright." These words did not spring from any consideration of material advantage. Those of our New England citizens who came in later times have caught the spirit and have carried it forward. It has spread its influence to all our country. As a westerner, I make grateful acknowledgement of our everlasting debt. Your example set the pattern for America's development.