Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie
close, I can never fail to feel and evince the liveliest
interest in the welfare of such as have been identified with
the Pittsburgh Division in times past, and who are, I trust,
for many years to come to contribute to the success of the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and share in its justly
deserved prosperity.
Thanking you most sincerely for the uniform kindness shown
toward me, for your zealous efforts made at all times to
meet my wishes, and asking for my successor similar support
at your hands, I bid you all farewell.
Very respectfully
(Signed) ANDREW CARNEGIE
Thenceforth I never worked for a salary. A man must necessarily occupy
a narrow field who is at the beck and call of others. Even if he
becomes president of a great corporation he is hardly his own master,
unless he holds control of the stock. The ablest presidents are
hampered by boards of directors and shareholders, who can know but
little of the business. But I am glad to say that among my best
friends to-day are those with whom I labored in the service of the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company.
In the year 1867, Mr. Phipps, Mr. J.W. Vandevort, and myself revisited
Europe, traveling extensively through England and Scotland, and made
the tour of the Continent. "Vandy" had become my closest companion. We
had both been fired by reading Bayard Taylor's "Views Afoot." It was
in the days of the oil excitement and shares were going up like
rockets. One Sunday, lying in the grass, I said to "Vandy":
"If you could make three thousand dollars would you spend it in a tour
through Europe with me?"
"Would a duck swim or an Irishman eat potatoes?" was his reply.
The sum was soon made in oil stock by the investment of a few hundred
dollars which "Vandy" had saved. This was the beginning of our
excursion. We asked my partner, Harry Phipps, who was by this time
quite a capitalist, to join the party. We visited most of the capitals
of Europe, and in all the enthusiasm of youth climbed every spire,
slept on mountain-tops, and carried our luggage in knapsacks upon our
backs. We ended our journey upon Vesuvius, where we resolved some day
to go around the world.
This visit to Europe proved most instructive. Up to this time I had
known nothing of painting or sculpture, but it was not long before I
could classify the works of the great painters. One may not at the
time justly appreciate the advantage he is receiving from examining
the great masterpieces, but upon his return to America he will find
himself unconsciously rejecting what before seemed truly beautiful,
and judging productions which come before him by a new standard. That
which is truly great has so impressed itself upon him that what is
false or pretentious proves no longer attractive.
My visit to Europe also gave me my first great treat in music. The
Handel Anniversary was then being celebrated at the Crystal Palace in
London, and I had never up to that time, nor have I often since, felt
the power and majesty of music in such high degree. What I heard at
the Crystal Palace and what I subsequently heard on the Continent in
the cathedrals, and at the opera, certainly enlarged my appreciation
of music. At Rome the Pope's choir and the celebrations in the
churches at Christmas and Easter furnished, as it were, a grand climax
to the whole.
These visits to Europe were also of great service in a commercial
sense. One has to get out of the swirl of the great Republic to form a
just estimate of the velocity with which it spins. I felt that a
manufacturing concern like ours could scarcely develop fast enough for
the wants of the American people, but abroad nothing seemed to be
going forward. If we excepted a few of the capitals of Europe,
everything on the Continent seemed to be almost at a standstill, while
the Republic represented throughout its entire extent such a scene as
there must have been at the Tower of Babel, as pictured in the
story-books--hundreds rushing to and fro, each more active than his
neighbor, and all engaged in constructing the mighty edifice.
It was Cousin "Dod" (Mr. George Lauder) to whom we were indebted for a
new development in our mill operations--the first of its kind in
America. He it was who took our Mr. Coleman to Wigan in England and
explained the process of washing and coking the dross from coal mines.
Mr. Coleman had constantly been telling us how grand it would be to
utilize what was then being thrown away at our mines, and was indeed
an expense to dispose of. Our Cousin "Dod" was a mechanical engineer,
educated under Lord Kelvin at Glasgow University, and as he
corroborated all that Mr. Coleman stated, in December, 1871, I
undertook to advance the capital to build works along the line of the
Pennsylvania Railroad. Contracts for ten years were made with the
leading coal companies for their dross and with the railway companies
for transportation, and Mr. Lauder, who came to Pittsburgh and
superintended the whole operation for years, began the construction of
the first coal-washing machinery in America. He made a success of
it--he never failed to do that in any mining or mechanical operation
he undertook--and he soon cleared the cost of the works. No wonder
that at a later date my partners desired to embrace the coke works in
our general firm and thus capture not only these, but Lauder also.
"Dod" had won his spurs.
The ovens were extended from time to time until we had five hundred of
them, washing nearly fifteen hundred tons of coal daily. I confess I
never pass these coal ovens at Larimer's Station without feeling that
if he who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew before is a
public benefactor and lays the race under obligation, those who
produce superior coke from material that has been for all previous
years thrown over the bank as worthless, have great cause for
self-congratulation. It is fine to make something out of nothing; it
is also something to be the first firm to do this upon our continent.
We had another valuable partner in a second cousin of mine, a son of
Cousin Morrison of Dunfermline. Walking through the shops one day, the
superintendent asked me if I knew I had a relative there who was
proving an exceptional mechanic. I replied in the negative and asked
that I might speak with him on our way around. We met. I asked his
name.
"Morrison," was the reply, "son of Robert"--my cousin Bob.
"Well, how did you come here?"
"I thought we could better ourselves," he said.
"Who have you with you?"
"My wife," was the reply.
"Why didn't you come first to see your relative who might have been
able to introduce you here?"
"Well, I didn't feel I needed help if I only got a chance."
There spoke the true Morrison, taught to depend on himself, and
independent as Lucifer. Not long afterwards I heard of his promotion
to the superintendency of our newly acquired works at Duquesne, and
from that position he steadily marched upward. He is to-day a
blooming, but still sensible, millionaire. We are all proud of Tom
Morrison. [A note received from him yesterday invites Mrs. Carnegie
and myself to be his guests during our coming visit of a few days at
the annual celebration of the Carnegie Institute.]
I was always advising that our iron works should be extended and new
developments made in connection with the manufacture of iron and
steel, which I saw was only in its infancy. All apprehension of its
future development was dispelled by the action of America with regard
to the tariff upon foreign imports. It was clear to my mind that the
Civil War had resulted in a fixed determination upon the part of the
American people to build a nation within itself, independent of Europe
in all things essential to its safety. America had been obliged to
import all her steel of every form and most of the iron needed,
Britain being the chief seller. The people demanded a home supply and
Congress granted the manufacturers a tariff of twenty-eight per cent
_ad valorem_ on steel rails--the tariff then being equal to about
twenty-eight dollars per ton. Rails were selling at about a hundred
dollars per ton, and other rates in proportion.
Protection has played a great part in the development of manufacturing
in the United States. Previous to the Civil War it was a party
question, the South standing for free trade and regarding a tariff as
favorable only to the North. The sympathy shown by the British
Government for the Confederacy, culminating in the escape of the
Alabama and other privateers to prey upon American commerce, aroused
hostility against that Government, notwithstanding the majority of her
common people favored the United States. The tariff became no longer a
party question, but a national policy, approved by both parties. It
had become a patriotic duty to develop vital resources. No less than
ninety Northern Democrats in Congress, including the Speaker of the
House, agreed upon that point.
Capital no longer hesitated to embark in manufacturing, confident as
it was that the nation would protect it as long as necessary. Years
after the war, demands for a reduction of the tariff arose and it was
my lot to be drawn into the controversy. It was often charged that
bribery of Congressmen by manufacturers was common. So far as I know
there was no foundation for this. Certainly the manufacturers never
raised any sums beyond those needed to maintain the Iron and Steel
Association, a matter of a few thousand dollars per year. They did,
however, subscribe freely to a campaign when the issue was Protection
_versus_ Free Trade.
The duties upon steel were successively reduced, with my cordial
support, until the twenty-eight dollars duty on rails became only one
fourth or seven dollars per ton. [To-day (1911) the duty is only about
one half of that, and even that should go in the next revision.] The
effort of President Cleveland to pass a more drastic new tariff was
interesting. It cut too deep in many places and its passage would have
injured more than one manufacture. I was called to Washington, and
tried to modify and, as I believe, improve, the Wilson Bill. Senator
Gorman, Democratic leader of the Senate, Governor Flower of New York,
and a number of the ablest Democrats were as sound protectionists in
moderation as I was. Several of these were disposed to oppose the
Wilson Bill as being unnecessarily severe and certain to cripple some
of our domestic industries. Senator Gorman said to me he wished as
little as I did to injure any home producer, and he thought his
colleagues had confidence in and would be guided by me as to iron and
steel rates, provided that large reductions were made and that the
Republican Senators would stand unitedly for a bill of that character.
I remember his words, "I can afford to fight the President and beat
him, but I can't afford to fight him and be beaten."
Governor Flower shared these views. There was little trouble in
getting our party to agree to the large reductions I proposed. The
Wilson-Gorman Tariff Bill was adopted. Meeting Senator Gorman later,
he explained that he had to give way on cotton ties to secure several
Southern Senators. Cotton ties had to be free. So tariff legislation
goes.
I was not sufficiently prominent in manufacturing to take part in
getting the tariff established immediately after the war, so it
happened that my part has always been to favor reduction of duties,
opposing extremes--the unreasonable protectionists who consider the
higher the duties the better and declaim against any reduction, and
the other extremists who denounce all duties and would adopt
unrestrained free trade.
We could now (1907) abolish all duties upon steel and iron without