Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 19, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 June 1883 — FISHBACK-PEELLE-NO. 10. [ARTICLE]

FISHBACK-PEELLE-NO. 10.

At Kentland, Sunday night, a staole belonging to James T. Saunderson, Esq, was set on Are and totally de etroyed together with two valuable horses. By persistent efforts adjolnirg buildings were saved.

John P. Car , jr., editor of the Oxford Tribuae, was married last week to Alias Mattie Bell, of tbnt I lace May the Car-r prove substantial unil true, and tho Bell give forth no uncertain sound on their journey thro life.

The strike of the iron workers did not take place last week, as was expected, the owucrs signing last year’s rode. Evidently the monopolists concluded they could better afford to pav the unprotected workmen living • wages, rather than lose tho great profits guarranted t lem by protection.

Great excitement was caused in La fayette Monday, by the esdape from jail of “Windy Dick” alias Richard Preston, a noted confidence man and pickpocket awaiting trial for robbing the Hon. Thomas B. Ward, on a train, some weeks ago. Preston’s wife had been there for several days and it is supposed took an impression of the look and had a key made.

The Turple Bros., of Monon, have commenced a suit against A. K. Bills, attorney, of that place, in the White Circuit Court, for SIO,OOO damages- ; It is claimed that Sills, as commercial reporter for the town of Monon, reported the Turpie Bros, as below par and then began to press the collection of acoounts against them obtain' ed from their creditors. So says the Monticello Herald.

Republican papers say “Of course it is right to impose a tax on the liquor traffc, and being right the Republican party favors it.” But then John Sherman and other leaders o f the God and morality party advocate and secure a reduetten of the tax on liquor, tobacco, etc., to relieve the treasury, and heap it on necessities t 0 relieve the pookets of the people, and diverts the money from the treasury and the people into a channel which leads to the coffers of distillers and monopolists.

The tpro original focomotives buil by Stephenson & Watt arrived a New York from London the other day, and are now in the railway ex position, at Chicago, having been loaned for that purpose by the South Kensington museum. One of these looomotives is Stephenson’s famou3 •Rockett,” which lays claim to precedence over all others In the loeemot ive world. Remember the Great Exon reion to Chicago to-morrow. Fare only $1 50 from Rensselaer to Chicago and return. Train will leave Rensselaer at 7:Bi;a, m., and arrive at Chicago at 10:80 a. m. Returning, leave Chicago at 7:0o p. m. Go and see the “Beoketi” Go and see “Jumbal”

We And the following, said to have originated with a farmer in lowa named Samuel Peebles, going the rounds of the radioal papers, and las week our neighbor musterod sufficient courage to give it space in his colg umns as a clincher io the advocate of a tariff for revenue only. We recognize in the quoted points, and oth ars do the same, the mottoes which embellished the banners of the oppoeition to the Democracy in the cam paign of 1844, in the oontest between James K. Polk and Heary Clay for the Presidency. They were also kept standing at the head of the editorial columns of the Whig journals of that day* They failed to convince the people then, as their re-production will fail now. But read what is said to be the production of t>~e astvto Peebles:

“A tariff for revenue only, if it means anything, implies the tallowing effect: “A general reduction of the existing duties on imparts. “To be followed by a larger imports' ton of foreign-made fabrics. “Te be followed by a falling off'in the demand for these made at home. “To be followed by the closing ot American work-shops. “To be followed by a relative greater number of men engaged in agriculture. “To be lbllowedby an increase in the supply of farm products, with no corresponding increase in the demand. “To be followed by a reduction of the Armor’s profits. On the other hand “a tariff for revenue only, if it means anything, implies the following effect: “A general reduction of the existing duties on imports, and the transfer of duties fixed by the tariff into the government revenues instead of the coffers of the monopolists* “To be followed by a larger importation of foreign-made fabrics,' etc., and vast decrease in the cost of Hying to the consumers. “To be followed by au increased consumption and demand by virtue of decreased cost of the articles. “To be followed by an increase in the number of American work-shops. To be followed by an increase of the number engaged in agriculture. “To be followed by au increase In th# iuoplv <»f tom products, with a corresponding increase in the demand. *«To be followed by more general prosperity of the masses instead of the favor, edfbw. “To result in the explosion of the false theory that tbe government should take «are of the rich, and the rich take care of the poor. “To be followed, by a suspension es 4he legislation which hat made the rich richer and she poor poorer ; which creates millionaires of a favored class and oppresses the masses* ’ This result followed tbe election Of 1844, and the repeal of the tariff of 1842 <g>hs same result will follow the election 1884, and the repeal of the present fidiesl tariff, and we like to contemplate It, We commend this statement to the uryqers of Indiana.

■ \ ■ The Protective Policy—Taxation of Raw Materials—Some Kindergarten Instruction forß Benighted Mind. [The Indianapolis News.] Hon. Stanton J. Ptele: Uuable to famish an apology for the oppressive provisions of the law to which I have been calling yoar atfention, your •assumed friends embark upon a sea of speculation as to the general utility of a protective policy. It is hard indeed to frame an excuse for a vote which shuts op our rail mills, stops work in our shoe factories, raises the price of the P<>or man’s iood, clothing and shelter, while it deprives him of the opportunity to woik. If things go on for a few months 1 Btcr asjthey a e going now, our streets will be infes ed wit* 4“ tramps,” men wfa.j become tramps not from inc.imtion, but cause jour legislation drives them to beggary, why do men tramp? Bacauee nobody will hire them to work, why do

men carrying on the protected industries refuse to give men employment? "Because there is no market for the product of their labor. How so* The product*of our factories must .be sold at home < r abroad, and our home market is glutted. Our capacity to produce is greatly in excess of the home demand, and the cost of production is so much increased by the tariff on raw materials and articles used by ourTkiauufacturers, that we ate undersold in foreign markets where our goods come in competition with foreign goods, what must we do in order to sett onr goods in foreign markets ( we must produce them at less eost, that is, must get the material at less prices than we now pay or we must lower the wages of the laborer. That is clear, whic.t do you pteier? I say cheapen the cost of raw material and raise the wages of the workman. By your law you Increase the cost of raw material and not only lower the wages of American workmen, but you throw them out of employment altogether, why is it that thousands of laborers are nat now employed in the steel rail mills in this and other Btates * iiinply because you tax the material necessary to be used iu the mills so highly hat it will net pay to run them. It is so in other branches of the irou and steel industry, word comes to us that many of the great iron mills will shut down in a lew days. The News, on Tuesday last, called attention to this and quoted from a Philadelphia paper its remarks on the demand of the iron workers for higher wages. That paper said:

“with a decrease of over 40 per cent' i this year,) in the demand of the single article es rails. It is easy to see that a general suspension of manufacture for a few months will be a godsend to the mill owners Hence their refusal to accede to the workmen’s demands ” _

while these mill owners are at Saratog H and Long Branch during the summe r months, what will become of the unemployed workmen, with their scantily fed wives and childrea? These mill ewners, who turn their laborers out with about as much compunction as a Mexioan feels when his orippled burro falls toy the wayside, spend their summers at Saratoga and their winters in Washington. You saw them thera last wintar, and you will aee them again when you go back, clamoring tor more protection. As it is with the iron mills so it.is with our shoe fsetoriss which are closed because the tariff makes ihe cost of material so high that we can not make shoes for foreign markets. If we depend on home consumption, poor crops or a season of depression from any cause will k shut our factories. But if we have foreign markets to supply, and the shackles were removed from American labor, American entarpriae would maka a bold push for tbe commercial supremacy of the world. The fact seems to be lost eight of by your triends who clamor for protection that the kind of protection yoa givp by law is stifling and destroying American manufactures At a low estimate fourfifths of the imports upon which you place tbe taxes are raw material or uniin ished products which are imported by American manufacturers. Hew long can sane men be deluded into the beliet that such laws help and protect the men who work in our factories and shops? Excuse me for a moment whild I turn - aside to fillip the impertinence of one of vour friends, who sneaks into the columns es the Journal and assails me from the cheap defense of a cowards nom de plume. Neither candor nor veracity is to be expected from one who adopts that method of discussing public questions.— “Inquirer” says: » “Will Mr. Fishback explain how the tariff, which is such a nice thing for the Pennsylvania monopoly (as he terms it), is so destructive to the rail mill here, on which he says several hundred* of thousands of dollars have been expended?— Why do not the ponderous machinery in splendid condition, under skilled workmen protected equally with the ponderous machinery in the Pennsylvania mills, glide as smoothly in favor of monopoly as the Eastern relative?”

I have already made this sufficiently clear to persons of ordinary comprenension, but I fear that a mind capable of constructing such sentences as I have quoted above is hopelessly befuddled. — Nevertheless I will make an effort to enlighten “Inquirer.” Reducing his gibberish to plain Ingllsb, he means to ask. I suppose, why the tariff law shuts the Indianapolis steel rail mill and does no ; shut the Pennsylvania mills? I hope you and other intelligent persons will pardon me while I devote a few moments to the kindergarten instruction oi this seeker after light and knowledge. If “Inquirer” will go down to the steel rail mill, where everything is Quiet, he will see all the machinery ready for rolling stael into steel rails. If he asks why the mill is not running he will be told that they have no machinery there for converting iron into steel, and that the tariff ou steel is so high that they cannot buy steel and make rails at a profit. If *‘lnquir« r” will go to tbe mills es the Pennsylvania monopoly he will find that they are running, have machinery for converting iron into steel, and are not compelled to go into the market and bay steel blooms. If “Inquirer” had been in Washington last winter he would have seen the owners of the Pennsylvania mills lobbying for a high tariff on steel blooms, so that all the rail mills of the country would be compelled to shut up or buy blooms ip Pennsylvania. If he had remained in Washington he wpulg have seen you vote for a law which does exactly what the Pennsylvania monopolists asked you to do. If “Inquirer” asks why the owners of the mill at Indianapolis do not put up machinery to convert iron into steel, he will be told that it requires au outlay of capital beyond their means, and also that the Pennsylvania monopolists have the exclusive right to use that kind of machinery—a right which is not granted to others except on payment of a royalty which renders steel making unprofitable. So “Inquirer” sees, I suppose, that when you passed a law putting a high tariff on steel blooms you shut up the Indiana mills and kept the Pennsylvania mills running. Now as to the shoe business “inquirer” asks*.

“will he cite tbe section of the tariff act which taxee kid-skins at 26 per cent. Yee. I cite Section 8,604, United States Revised Statutes, page 477, which is lo force until July 1. 1882. After that date, by the new law, the tax is to be 20 per cent., a lowering of the duty 8 per cent. I quoted what Mr. Howard M. Newhall had'safd when examined before a Committee of the Massachusetts Legislature last winter. He then said that the average tariff on the kid skins used by the manufacturers of shoes was 28 per oent. As Mr. Newhall has been payinß this tariff he probably knows what it is. The laws which I have cited shows he was correct. Mr. Newhall said also wka I repeat here in his own words, that: “A removal of duty from all articles used in the manufacture of a shoe would be an advantage to the employer and employed. J

“Inquirer” proceeds: “If as be says “the world tatfwrtbfcj American shoemakers are the beat in the world,” there is one other thing that 1 de-1 gire to suggest to him, that is the world knows equally well that the American shoemakers get higher wages than any other shoemakers in the world. That is a “curious fact,” too, is it not V Yes. But bless your poor benighted mind, don’t you know that the American shoemaker has won hi# place and gets bis wages without a particle of protection? — I see nothing in the tariff law which prevents the importation of foreign made shoes duty free, what the sboemaaers ask is that Congress shall give them material free of duty so that unfettered and unaided they may take their products to foreign market, and still further increase the wages of the workmen. Nothing prevents these things but the tariff law.

W. P. FISHBACK.