Crawfordsville Review, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County, 20 September 1890 — Page 5

BROOKSHIRE.

He Discusses the Issues Now Before the People. How the Present Congress Was Organized and What it Has

Done.

Congress Ruled by One Man.—Speaker Reed's Purposes.

A Clear Presentation of the Tariff Question in Many Phase*.

Taxation of the Masses For the Benefitof the Classes.

Blaine's Keciprocity. Scheme How it Will Work.

and

Tt Will Ttill Further Impoverish, the West For the Benefit of the Manufacturers.

A. Masterly Praaentati on of Live Is «*ues by Congressman Brookshire.

The Court House at Terre Haute woe crowded Wednewday night, Sept. 10th, to hear Congressman Brookshire, notwithstanding the rain. A number of ladies were in the audience. Nor was the •capacity of the court room a measure of the size ol the crowd." After filling the •court room full the crowd overflowed into the corridors and the room adjoining while quite as many as those who listened to the speaker, finding it iinpospossiblo to get near enough to either see or hear him, stood about in the corridors for awhile exchanging greetings and then went home. It was a splendid audience, attentive, in earnest, quick to catch the points with which the speech fairly bristled and liberal in its applause. The greatest enthusiasm of the evening was evoked when the speaker praised the ad-, ministration of President Cleveland.

Donn M. Roberts, chairman of the Democratic county committee, presided. It had been expected that Dr. B. F. Swafford would act as chairman and introducethe speaker but he was unable to be present and Judge J. C. Robinson introduced the speaker briefly but gracefully.

When the applause which greeted his appearance on the rostrum had subsided Mr. Brookshire began his address. His npeech was frequently applauded. He said: Mr. Cliainhau, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I would not be here tonight, but I feol that I owe it to the people to tell them trankly what I am for and what I am against. Men who are candidates for legislative offices I think should go before the people and state candidly their views upon public questions, and especially with reference to those questions about which they may be called on to legislate.

Congress met, as you know, on the second day of last December. The House „:of Representatives organized oy electing is Mr. Tiios. 1$. Heed, of Maine, Speaker. It is fair to say that the Speaker of the House of Representatives more fully represents the ideas and principles of his party than 'perhaps an.v other officer in pubfic life in

1? ^V 'V

the United States. Revenue and other measures affecting the pocket-books of the people originate in the House of Representatives. The Speaker appoints the various committees of the House. He appoints the Committee on Ways and Means, which revises our tax policy. Therefore, all bills that are reported to the House come from the various committees appointed by the Speeder. So he has more influence in shaping the legislation of thecountry than any other individual in an official capacity. Now, since many Republican conventions have resolved that Thomas B. Reed is the friend of the people, it would perhaps be well to examine into his official acts to see whether they have been in harmony with the best interests of our people. I again repeat the Speaker of the House of Representatives more fully represents the ideas and principles of his political party than any other man in public life.

It is a fact known to us all that Mr. Samuel J. Randall was a man of great parts. He was a great parliamentarian a man who was versed in all matters that made him formidable in polities a man who possessed that superb courage and great energy such as would have challenged the admiration of Napoleon Bonaparte, and such a man as men admire. He was a born leader of men. You had but to know him to love him. Notwithstanding the fact that he had' a great hold upon the hearts of the Democracy of the United States not withstanding that they admired and applauded his parliamentary ability notwithstanding the fact'that as a leader he had few equals in public life, yet when Samuel S. Randall put himself at right angles with his party upon the great question of the tariff reform, they very promptly said to him that he could no longer be the Speak^jl of the House ol Representatives. Samuel J. Randall was an excellent Democrat on most propositions, but upon the subject of the tariff, theDemocratsthough the had gone wrong. Now, this was entirely proper, for if he had been elected Speaker it wouldJhave been within his power to have appointed men upon the Ways and Means Committee who believed as he did, and who would have attempted to revise the tariff in such a manner as to meet with his approval. But whenit was determined beyond,doubtthatlie was not in harmony with his party with reference to this great reform, the Democrats turned away from him and elevated to the Speakership that angular, pale-faced man from Kentucky who has distinguished himself throughout the earth as a parliamentarian, and for the logic of his rulings, and for his high judicial fairness. John G. Carlisle was in touch with his party concerning all of its reform policies. He believed in the restoratiou of the public domain to the people that had not been earned by railroad corporations. He believed iu radical and genuine revision of the tariff, so as to place its burdens more upon the rich and less upon the poor. He believed in local selfgovernment and home rule. In a word he believed in everything upon which his party was united. So, I again repeat, the Speaker of the House of Representatives is, in a sense, the exponent of the principles of his party.

Therefore, in a degree Mr. Thomas B. Reed is the Republican party, for he is supposed to be in touch with all of its ideas and in perfect harmony with its policy. I now propose to discuss his public record, which is a matter of proper public concern. Much has been said in the last few years by our agricultural people about the restoration of the public domain and this is a matter that should interest everybody, for there is a very large part of our population who cannot secure homes unless they procure them through the friendly assistance of their government by its landed policy as administered under its homestead laws.

REED'S COURSE ON PUBLIC LANDS. In the Forty-seventh Congress, of which Mr. Warren J. ICeifer was Speaker, an attempt was made to restore to the people some 34,000,000 acres of unearned land, estimated to be worth $100,000,000. A bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee of which Thomas B. Reed was chairman. This land was held by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, which was building its road from Lake Superior on through Bismarck, in North Dakota, to Puget Sound. Under the terms of tho grant the railroad was to be built by the Fourth day of July, 1879. At that time they had only constructed their road from Lake Superior as far west as Bismarck, North Dakota. It was claimed by the Democrats that all of that part of the land voted to the railroad between Bismarck and Puget

Sound

was subject to forfeiture but Thomas B. Reed came back into the House with a report in which ho said that the land should not be forfeited, a:.d that the people of the United States had no right to the land, and that, therefore, the bill should not pass. Of the 54,000,000 acres of land which the Democrats in the House ol Representatives passed bilis to forfeit in the Forty-ninth and Fiftieth Congresses, 34,000,000 acres of it was land to which I have called your attention.

Thomas B. Reed has been constantly opposed to the restoration of those lands. He stcM by like a stone wall against giving Dock to the landless poor ol the country those lands which had been extravagautly and unjustly voted awar to those great corporations. Seven men on the Committee on the Judiciary in the Forty-seventh Congress with Mr. Reed, able men, and able lawyers, brought in a minority report,which conclusively showed that the lands in question should have been restored to the people. But Thomas B. Reed is the friend of corporations, and saw fit to resist this restoration and so that valua­

i&alliiiSl mm

ble area of land, once and a half times as large as the State of Indiana, and sufficient to furnish homes to millions of our people, and worth an incomprehensible sum of money, is lost to our landless citizens. It is true that a bill has passed Congress at this session which will restore to the people some 2,000,000 acres of land granted to the Northern Pacific railroad but the land restored by this bill is the poorest part of the land voted to that corporation, and by forfeiting 2,000,000 acres of this land, is to concede that the railroad is entitled to all the balance, because if the government was entitled to forfeit more than 2,000,000 of the 34,000,000 acres, it should have dene so.

THE SPEAKER'S COURSE ON THE TARIFF.

Now, what has been hiB course with reference to the tariff. Has his course been such as to meet with the favor of the people of the West, Southland great Northwest? I submit that he has been in favor of every proposition looking to an increase of taxes npon the necessaries of life. When the McKinley bill was brought into the House it increased taxes upon the shelter above our heads, the clothes upon our backs, and the edible substance upon our tables. It was proposed by members coining from the west, south and northwest to so amend the bill as to give the people cheaper necessaries of life. It is known that Thomas B. Reed, as chairman of the Committee on Rules, composed of five members, brought into the House a special order which only gave four dayB for general debate with reference to the bill, and that when the House finally voted upon the measure over 200 amendments looking to a reduction of the tax on the people perished and it passed the House when only 16 pages of the 156 had been considered ana Senator Plumb, a Republican, comments on this fast in the Senate. Then, again, what has been his course with reference to our financial policy?

THE SILVER BILL,

which was reported from the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures, was one of the most unsatisfactory bills that was ever reported to the House of Representatives. The bill was unjust in all of its provisions. It provided for the demonetization of silver, putting a great discretion in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, and putting it within his power to prevent the coinage of silver. It was known to all men who had felt the public pulse that a very great majority of the people of the United States, and especially the laboring people and the agriculturalists were in fav or of the free and unlimited coinage of silver. They believed in restoring silver to that time-honored position which it had held for more than eighty years prior to 1873 but Mr. Thomas B. Reed was opposed to the free and unlimited coinage of silver. His rulings showed chat he refused to recognize men upon the floor of the House who were seeking to have the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures instructed to bring into the House a bill favorable to the free coinage of

Bilver

and when it

came to the final passage of the bill as it had been amended in the Senate and sent back to the House, he refused to recognize Mr. Bland, ol Missouri, who stood up and appealed to him in a tone of voice that could have been heard two squares asking to be recognized that he might move that the measure be sent back to the Committee on Coinage. Weights and Measures, and a bill brought forth which would provide for the free and unlimited coinage of silver. When the confereeswere appointed on the part of the House to confer with the conferees on the part of the Senate us to agreeing upon a bill to regulate the use of silver as money, whom did he appoint? He appointed along with Mr. Conger, who was known tc be against free coinage of silver. Mr. Walker, of Massachusetts, who, in speaking on the silver question, said that "more money meant more misery'" and that we have as much money today as we need. So I say that Thomas B. Reed iB against the enlargement of our circulating medium. He favors the demonetization of silver. He favors the bill which passed Congress, which, in a sense, demonetizes silver, and puts it within the power of the Secretary of the Treasury to say whether we shall have one dollar of coin silver after the 1st. day of July, 1891. Now, I am in favor of the freo and unlimited coinage of silver, and I so voted at every opportunity I had. I believe the enlargement of the circulating medium. It is a known fact that we had nearly $2,000,000,000 in circulation in 1866 but by the year 1874, we had less than $1,000,000,000 in circulation. As shown by the National Economist Almanac for 1888, we had a circulation of $52 per capita in 1866 and but little over $6 per capita in 1888. I have always regarded the demonetization of silver as a great wrong, and in fact, I regard the law recently passed as inferior to tho law passed in 1878, which provided that the Secretary of the Treasury should purchase not less than $2,000,000 nor more than $4,000,000 worth of silver bullion each month and coin it into standard silver dollurs. In fact, if the Secretary of the Treasury had not abused his discretion under the old law he could have given thepeople some $58,000,000 worth of coin silver each year provided silver bullion could have been purchased at the price at which it was soiling when thel^te act was passed, and it is not asserted thefr the present law, if it

iB

carried out to

fullest extent, would give more than $50,000,000 per year of silver Treasury notes.

Then, I might also remark iu this connection, there is another feature in this new silvor law which seems threatening. We have to pay the principal and interest on our bonds in coin, nud these Treasury

notes that axe proposed to be issued are not coin. Since in all probability we wil have no coinage of silver after the 1st, day of July, 1891, we will not have silver coin coming forth from the mints with which to pay the interest and principal on bonds becoming due. Suppose that the gold coin of the country should be largely carried abroad, and, in fact, suppose the great banking houses of New York City should run a large amount of gold coin to the Old World, as has been done upon a few occasions so as to cramp the money market, and it being obligatory upon the National Government to pay the principal and interest on its bonds in coin, would it not increase the value of gold and bonds, and perhaps precipitate the country in a great money panic? $250,000,000 of 4% per cent bonds are payable Sept. 1st. 1891. It would ruin thousands and tens of thousands of our people who ore largely in debt if a panic should occur. They could not raise the necessary means to meet their obligations and there is not a labor organization or a farmers' aUiancejthat has not declared for free coinage, so far as 1 know.

But again resuming my argument with reference to the official conduct of Mr. Thomas B. Reed. It is known that he is one of the originators of the present

FORCE BILL,

now pending in the Senate. Very early last summer he was writing magazine articles in which he stated that an election bill should be paraed clothing the Federal Government with power to manage congressional elections. He said at the Republican banquet in Pittsburg not long ago: "Let us cut loose from the State (Sections, do oun own registration, own counting and our own certification. It might be well to examine into the record of the gentleman from Maine to see if at all times he has been doing the proper thing, and as to whether his district has been holding fair elections. He contends that in some parts of the United States the people do not hold fair elections, and that the Federal Government should interfere in the local self-government of the people, and should interfere with home rale. It is asserted upon high authority that as great wrongs have been perpetrated in his own congressional district as in any part of the United States. Between two and three hundred thousand dollars has been appropriated in the naval appropriation bill to be used in the Kittery Navy Yard, situated in his congressional district. A good part of this money is to be used in the repair of the Lancaster and the Monongahela, two old worn out vessels. More than fifteen years ago the Monongahela was declared to be rottonandunseaworthy. It also appears that the Monongahela has been brought recently from San Francisco around Cape Horn towed into the Battery Navy Yard for the purpose of there being repaired. It is also shown that immediately before the elections in Mr. Reed's district, whenever the Republicans have been in control of the Navy department, many hundred men have been employed, and that always immediately after the election there is but a small number of men employed. It is a notorious fact that the Kittery Navy Yard has been used for political purposes, and it is a place of great political corruption. I hold in my hand the Congressional Record which contains the speech of Senator

HiBCock,

of New York, a good Republican Senator, delivered on the 23rd of May, in which he said, when speaking of the appropriation for the Kittery Navy Yard:

I desire to enter my protost against it, and I desire to say and emphasize it, that in my judgement the Republican party, now in power in both branches of Congress and in the executive department, can not afford to enter upon this policy. It is not in the interest of good government it is not in the interest of economy and it is not in the interest of the Navy.

The people of this country are in favor of a navy-yard but, when by the maintenance of these yards, as would be the case judging by the past, it is exhibited that it iB not being builded economically, that the yards are maintained for political purposes as a source of patronage to a party for its effect upon local elections, when that

Bcandal

is brought

to view the people of this country will look with distrust upon every effort and every attempt mude for the building of a navy.

The legislation to which I have alluded was adopted in 1882, looking to the closing of these

yardB,

and it is to the

credit of the Democratic party that no suggestion emanated from the late administration or from its Secretary of the Navy to reverse this policy for political effect, or for political influence, or for a political purpose.

Mr. Blair. .May I ask the Senator what he means by this allusion? Mr. Hiscock. I mean precisely what I have said.)

In the light of these facts it ia quite evident that there is as much political corruption today in the district represented in Congress btv Thomas B.Reed as in any district in the United States. But Thos. B. Reed is heart and soul in favor of the force bill. He is in favor of the force bill because it will aid tho Republican party to forever demonetize silver he iB in favor of the force bill because it would place upon the statute-books a tariff law that would meet the approval of Andrew J. Carnagie he iB in favor of the force bill because it would prevent the restoration of 49iOOO,oOO acres of land to which the people wereentitied in the West now held by railroad corporations he is in favor ot the force bill for the same reason that the New York Tribune, which is the great national organ of the Republican party, is in favor of the force bill. On the 15th day of last month tho duily Tribune in an editorial article said: "The ejection bill carries within itself tho assurance of future tariffhills by the hundreds."

ltB

Yes, pass the election bill, and it will give the Republican party the power to

pass future tariff bills by the hundreds. So a vote for a Republican member of Congress is a vote for Thomas B. Reed for Speaker, fend a vote for Thomas B. Reed for Speaker, is a vote against tariff reform, the free and unlimited coinage of silver, the restoration of the public domain, and the exercise of local self-gov-ernment and home rule.

THE TARIFF.

The Great Issue of the Present Campaign. The greatest question involved in the present campaign, and one that challenges our best thought, is the tariff. Over a quarter of a century ago there was a tax laid upon manufacturers which yielded annually to the Federal Government $120,000 there was a tax laid upon the incomes of the rich which yielded to the Government annually $70,000,000,there was a tax laid upon the gross receipts of railroads and express companies which turned into the public coffers of the Federal Government annually $11,000,000: there was a tax upon bank checks ana legacies, Ac., which yielded about $5,000,000 dollars annually, but all these taxes, which fell upon the wealthy, have beeivwiped from the statue books.

We are confronted with a singular tax ByBtem. It lays all of its burdens, not upon the wealth of the country.but upon the necessaries of the people—a high tax upon the materials of which our houses are constructed, and everything that goes to furnish' our houses a high tax upon o^r clothes, and upon many tilings that wb eat *nd drink. The burdens of our national tax system are not laid upon the wealth of the country, but on the necessaries, and I say that such a tax system is monstrous. I want to say here and now in this honorable presence that I am in favor of laying

A GRADUATED INCOME TAX

upon the ^^alth of the rich. When our skldl^«' went forth to battle, the basis for these great fortunes were laid It is a fact of common information that perhaps there were not half a dozen millionaires in the United States when the war came on but today it is estimated by prudent persons that there are ten thousand millionaires in the United States. It is albo stated that 25,000 people own over half of this nation's wealth. We have, as I now remember, three classes of millionaires—the bankers and bondholders, who have received hundreds of millions of dollars due to the bad and ungracious legislation of the Republican party, which contracted and destroyed our circulating medium in a frightful manner after the war. Wo have another class of millionaires whose wealth is invested in railroads. To those people Congress has voted over 200,000,000 acres of the public domain —on area of land ten times as large as the state of Indiana and there areHundreds of millionaires who have had millions given them under our so-called protective policy. So I say these millionaires, who have been the especial favorites of class legislation, and who have been made wealthier than kings by tho legislation of the past, twenty-five years, should, and ought to be willing to contribute to the support of their government. This government ia not only constituted to protect the lives of its citizens, and to try to

Becure

to tiiom hap­

piness, but it is constituted for the purpose of guaranteeing to our citizens property rig hts, and to

preserve

to a

man his earnings. No class nf men receive so much protection at tin* hands of their government as these millionaires. Therefore, I am in favor of ''ailing on them to contribute towards the government's support.

DIFFERENT TARIFF BILLS.

Thomas B. Reed is against taxing the incomes of the rich, because his associates are among the wealthy and aristocratic classes in the

Hist.

The McKin­

ley bill which has passed the House of Representatives does not propose any relief for the tax-ridden people. Instead of decreasing the burdonB of tho people, it increases them. Tho average rate on dutiable goods under the Morrill tariff that was passed in 1864, and which was then declared to be a war meausure, was 86 per cent. The present tariff law lays a tax of 47 per cent on all dutiable goods imported, and it is now proposed to increase the rate to over 50 per cent. This increase is not only proposed generally in the schedules of the McKinley bill, and not only increases taxes on the people all along the line, but it discriminates against that class of people who are least able to pay taxes, and who consume the coarser and plainer garments. It is now proposed to tax the •oarse blankets 106 per cent, and fine blankets 72 per cent coarse wool hats 111 per cent, and fine hats 66 per cent children's and woman's cheap drees

goodB

of 30 cents a bushel on flaxseed. Tho manufacturer of linseed oil imports his flaxseed, paying a tax of

only

30 cents

on the buBhel, and extracts two gallons and a half of oil, thereby importing his linseed oil *n flaxseed with

only

a tax of

12 cents on the gallon. Therefore, one PAH readily see that every advantage is given the manufacturer as against the man who buys the linseed oil to paint his house. Many instances of this character might be cited. Perhaps, it does not require the expenditure of a cent per gallon to extract the linseed oil from the flaxseed. I might dwell for a moment on some of the burdens imposed under this tax system. One hundred pounds of hoop iron can be bought in the Old World tor one dollar, and the tax on this dollar worth of hoop iron is $1.08, and the laboring man who workB for a dollar a day has to work one day for the hoop iron and a little over one day for the protection of the manufacturer of that commodity. Four pounds of worsted underwear can be bought in Europe for one dollar, and the tax OR this under the McKinley bill would ba $1.75. So he would have to work OH day to buy the worsted goods, and one and three-quarters days in order to put money into the pockets of the manufacturers of this class of goods. You

pnn

buy in England three pounds of woolea hosiery for one dollar. The tax proposed on this class of goods is 200 per

The laboring man will hare to

labor one day to pay for the goods, and two days fcr the benefit of the protected manufacturer. One dollar will buy «IT pounds of woolen dress goods, abroad and the tax upon the same would be 135 percent. Again the laboring man would have to work a day to pay for the goods and about one and one-third days for the benefit of the manufacturer. A two pound blanket can be purchased for one dollar in Europe. The tax upon the same under this bul would be 110

Eave

ercent. Again the laboring man would to work one day to pay for the goods, and over one day to pay the tax npon the same. We Democrats claim that such taxes are entirely too burdensome, and that they should be laid much lighter upon the laboring people. In the short time which I will address you tonight, I will not be able to enter upon an explanation of many of the features of the tariff.

THE HOME MARKET FALLACY!*^

A great deal has been said with reference to a home market. As early as 1832 Henry Clay was discussing the great benefits to be delivered from a home market. We have been protecting the manufacturers and laying on the rates of duty now for"thirty years for the pretended purpose of building up a home market and in order that our farmers might have a perfect market for all their produce, and the protectionists argue that this high tax is laid for the benefit of the agricultural people and vjret we are confronted with the

seriouB

and^uS

happy fact that the agricultural people who owned one-half of the wealth in"! 1860, do not today own perhaps one* fourth of the wealth of the United States and the agricultural lands are more largely mortgaged than ever before.

A recent statistical report of the state of Michigan shows that about 47 percent of the farms nre mortgaged to about 47 percent of their value. Statistics also show that the formers in the Eastern States, in near proximity to the great manufacturing institutions, thathaveabsorbed the wealth of the South, and of the west and northwest, are being abandoned, and that the land in many instances does not pell for as much as the improvements t-h it have been placed upon it. It is also contended by the protestionists that the tariff' is not a tax, but this argument is so false and so visibly untrue that it is an insult to tho intelligence of an audience to dwell upon it. The very fact, that the laboring people and consuming people upon which the heavy burdens of our tax system are laid, have in many instances notwithstanding their industry become poor and much in debt under its exactions is conclusive evidence that the great masses of our people do suffer much and grieviously under this so-called protective system. HOW COST OF PROTECTION HA8 BEEN SE­

DUCED.

106

per cent, and the finer goods 73 per cent. The low grades of wool will be taxed under the McKinley bill 125 per cent, and the highest grades 86 per cent. Cheap and plain underwear will bo taxed by the McKinley bill from 112 to 138 per cent, and the finer gradeH but 78 per cent. It is proposed to tax the woman's coarse shawl 185 per cant, and the finest but 9 per cent, why should this McKinley bill discriminate against the poor? Why should wo go on laying taxes upon the people who are least able to pay them? No man can read this bill who is a friend of the poor without feeling a just spirit of resentment.

DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST THE POOR.

This bill is full of discriminations against the laboring people. For instance it Lays a tax of 30 cents on a gallon of. "linseed oil. It also lays a tax

A

..Jtt

1

\*ri

There is another argument to which I desire to call attention, and that is the OHe we heard so frequently made, that high protective tariff lowers the cost of production of manufactured articles. There is not a more deceptive or fallacious proposition advanced by the protectionists. Let us analyze this proposition. Suppose I intend to bocome a manufacturer what will I have to do in order to produce a manufactured article? I will first have to borrow the capital necessary to construct my plant. Then I would have to purchase the raw materials out of which to manufacture my goods and I will also have to employ labor. These three things enter into the cost of a manufactured article—interest on capital,the value of the raw materials, and the wages of labor. The raw materials will cost whatever they are worth in the market, and the labor will cost what it is worth in the market, and the capital will demand its usual rate of interest. So how are we to reduce the cost of the manufactured articles? We sub* mit that it has to be done in some one or more ot three ways, by reducing the interest on capital, by reducing the labor cost of production by inventipn, or by reducing the coat of the raw materials, and since the interest on capital and the wages of labor are in the main fixed by the great law of supply and demand, I contend in all sincerity, that the princi-

Eas

al part of tho reduction that occurred in the value of manufactured articles in tho last thirty years has not been due to the pro-