Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 31, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 29 August 1884 — THE WIDOW’S REPLY. [ARTICLE]

THE WIDOW’S REPLY.

MRS. DUNCAN’S ANSWER TO MAJOR CALKINS. e She Defends Herself From Fals Statement*. In the Chicago Inter-Ocean, of the 23d of August, appears tha following letter from Mrs. Ducan: Chicago, Aug. 22 • Please do me the favor to publish my statement of the facts concerning my retnova from the Westville (In 1) postoffice. In your Sunday issue of the 17th Inst , there appeared a matter, purporting to coiuo from the Hou. Wm. H v Calkins, that does me great iu ju“tice. He says that I was remov' cd from the Westville post office for “irregularities In conducting ibe office and in answer to a p* tition from tie leading citizens , ” etc. In regard Ito the irregularities chirged, it eliould be understood that a person-

al enemy or mine made complaint against me. The Wa hingtou authorities sent S»e?lal Inspector Turner to investigate tae matter, and after making a full examination he s taied publicly *hat tny office was unusually well conducted, and that bis report to the department would b-< such as to preclude the possibli - ity of my removal from spit-, he being convinced that there was no ether reason. They did not again attempt to secure my removal until Mr. Turner was transferred to another district.

As to a “petition from leading citizens,” there was none. The patrons of the office will testify that there was no petition circulated among the citizens for my removal. A few enemies, inspired chiefly by motives of revenge, secretly plotted for my removal and wrote letters to Washington. When this became known it created great surprise. Three of my friends, all professional men in high standing, immediately wrote to headquarters a statement of my cir» cu instances and the general wish of the peop e to have me remain in the office. A reply soon came from Coo gressman Calkins that “the matter had gone beyond his control,” end that “the petlti n for my removal was from j ersoos whose desires in tne matter be could not disregard." My friends t co forwarded a remonstrance signed oy 206 patrons of the office who were amply competent *o judge of their 'dedr-s," and the work was all done In one day, and without removing the remonstrance from the counter in the of fice. Many more desired to sign it, but time could not be glv ui them to come iu, and it was hastily m died to First Assistant Post Masl?r General, the Hon. Frank Hatton, accompanh d by two more urgent private letters in my favor, Mr. Calkins further stated that my successor “is the wid ow of u soldier who died of his wounds.” The war wife and daughter of this soldier were living at the time of bis marriage with the pres-, ent Postmistress, and Mr. Miller did not die “of wounds received in the army.” The statement that be did will be a surprise to bis physiol ins as well us to the people who knew him as an unusually strong and vigorous men. The further statement that 1 was in good health and hud two übli bodLd soos-ln-biw to help me, is not trim. I w.is neither

“strong” nor " healthy.” My has hand s son, the hopi of our übl age , was killed at 'he battle of Atlanta, and his death so shocked ills father, who was in feeble health.that he nev er rallied, and both wets s.ieriiii ed to uur countiy’s causa. With the aid of my family I faithfully performed the duties o* the office, alihougn we weio afflicted with much illness As lo ihe statement that I. bad an income outside of my salary. I would say that my earnings nev. r amounted to over SSO per year, and timt duilrg onlv the last three year?.

Mr Calkins says ihat my appointment was made without, me “Koo ’* ie ig” or consent of but a lew o' <lie patrons of the office," utri cnarges that I came fiom “uuo'iii< r (Stale ” in 1870 1 moved to Wes v 'die, wiiefe I liiu.l formerly taught f.cu > >1 ;m th id nlaiiy friends and relative nd hid 01’tei.i joined 1" Hi dr chui m •iv;vi'ii. Mr. Allen Warnock, .hen hie Postmaster, wa te.i mu to buy ids iion.u and take the office. .tie k- i/ii“<i in my favor and .- ent a petit . a signed by a dozen prominent .-utz.-us io Congressman Jasper I’m , ■ id, sayirg that Mr. Packard’s ucq inlutuuce with them would be sunki-nt," I disapproved of his plan mid was greatly relieved when the houorable member of Congress refused to take action without a general vol •£ of the community in.erested. Mr Join Warnock then took a petition and visited every business house in the village and returned it in three hours’time signed by 104 patrons of the office asking for ray up,.ointment. G nier.il Packard will remember that he accepted the petition and recoinmendt.d me with pleasure. The fact tell. 1 icl.ii:.eu mu position thirteen yeuis and leaving it .d’v biv, fen days’ nolle- without ind btedness to H e d« j- ,rtmeat or tioublc to my bondsman is nil tn-- comrueut neeesM scry.

In iiis ihtervhiv, Major* Juikliu >s<.y.s, “us i’.ir as the assasstueut is I «(uaiTii“tV Mis- uufieun probably ; did receive a circular letter-us all U. e db.l, u-l I uuueJ?BlMiid why! did pay $lO of the $12," Mr. Calkins knew rh.it I was paar and uad uu aged mother, n t invuiid daughter and two graLdichildrun to support; he knew that 1 otfgf t not a d did not; pay one penny of the assessment; he

knows thatfhis letter to me was not a ebcalar, out that it was a written letter on government writing paper. He says my “money cut no figure in my removal,* but states that “before he would remove me he had biseom mittee send me $lO * About four months after I received the assessment letter a letter came to me from LaPorte, containing $lO, with a statement that It was sent to me as a pait of the surplus of the campaign fund.* I was surprised, but as It was said to be “a surplus campaign fund* I retained it and replied that I would hold it in trust for use in the next campaign. It seems that the supposition that I had been as sessed created conscientious difficulties, and lor this reason the $lO was sen* io me. and really did “cut some figure, • I Q conclusion I m:<y say that th»- only part of M.. Calkins’ statement that is true is where he commends Mr- M., the present P. M. She i« a worthy lady, and has thi ee children. If Major Calkins has any thing mor° to say about this postoffice matter I hope fee will be careful to tell the truth. If he bad done . this in his inter view I would not have j felt obliged to defend myself from 1 hU false statements.

MRs. M. M DUNCAN

Chicago Times: Mr. Rlulne’s great census argument iu favor oi ti e system of licensed rapine by classes specially favored by the government, has been riddled again and aga’n, until there is not left a piece of it big enough to make a hole in. The rail of Mr. Blaine’s ticket does not seem to have found this out, He repeated the argument in substance, with some additions which were anything but improvements, in Lis speech last Saturday evening. He slated that the wealth of the country according to tte census of 1860—the accumulations of the country, exclusive of slaves, since its first settlement amounted to sl4 000,000 000. In 1880 the accumulated wealth of the country was $44,000,000,000. The Increase was more than double the previous accuiii'i ations “iu twenty years under the llepubliean-American ariff Jolley/ as contradistinguished from the English-democratic free-trade or tariff for revenue policy.”

SincA Mr. Blaine Stated substan daily the same thing in his letter of acceptance, his attention has been sharply called to two or three things. One is tl Ht he omitted to state that the accumulations of wealth from 840 to 1860 were more tbon double the previous accumulations. He omitted to to state t .at it would be mpossible to name any period of twenty years in which the accumulations were not mote than double the previous accumulations. But this is undoub cdly true. It is undoubtedly true of any country pos sesslng considerable jnaturai resources that have teen settled within the past tour hundred years, with the exception, perhaps, of countries occup.ed by a compuia ively feeble population. itvliig under the Blaine economic system, such as Blaine’s special pets, the Spanish-American countries.

Another thing to whi ?h Mr. Blaine’s attention has been galled is tho fact that he like the tall of his ticket, assumes that all the rapid growth in wealth since 1860 h is been made under the American system of licensed rap tie, while all the previous slow growth or what is assumed by Jthe republican chieftains to have been slow growth, was made under “Enggll«h Democratic free trade.” Mr. Blaine’s attention has been called to the fact that thero is no truth whatever in this assumption. The very first tariff was avowedly fram 'd for protection” as well us for Ye.eniie. It would, Indeed have been very unsatisfactory to one if Mr. Blaine’s partisans of the present day. But rapid progress was mads in the practice of the Blaine’s system of econ omy, and from the outbreak of the war of 1812 to 1847, with brief intervals of relief, the country was favor* cd with the Blaine system in about nil the porfe .tiou of whi nit is capable. Thus tor thirty-live years, with bu> brief interruptions, the country was showered wit all the blessings attending the system of licensed rapine, and we have the word of Mr, Blaine and his followers fur it thui the country accumulated IcjjS than hit f us much during those and all other years up to 1860 as ii Ims accumulated slime than. Another thing to which Mr. Blaine's attention has been called is nls assumption that the rate of material progress L. this country mis been grei’er since iB6O than it was during tho immed lately preceding yard of comparatively free trade. His attention lias been called to the i.icl that this assumption is hs untrue us the one lust commented upon. I* is pi etty fair to presume that he knew tho usautup’.iou was fulse when he mads it. as he took special pains to discredit tho censm returns of 1850 in relation to wealth, which are tho only census returns affording data for comparisons. Mr. Blaine will not be permitted to accept e tch data as suit Ins purpose, and at the same time reject such its do not suit his purpose. When bo appeals to the census, lie must stand or full by the census Now, taking the very sta tisticsjto whlci’ he appeals, without re. jeuti g any to sup a special purpose, we find that the increase in acoumulat"d wealth from 1850 to 1860, under com i ar.itively free trade, was 126, per cein. During the next dec de, under the .Maine system, ti e increase was only 52 per cent., after making due allowance for the deprn ■iuiiun of the currency in width the value of the property of the country was seabed.. During the next dec i ’c, under the same system, the increase was 70 percent. The increase per head of population during the decade of uo'nparatively free trade wtu 67| per cent; during the next it was less than 23j, und during the lust 37 per

cent. That doesn’t look as though all the prosperity of the country bad beeri reserved for the years since the republicans resuscitated the old whig tariff system, in 1861. When General Logan attempts to supplement Mr. Blaine’s statistics he makes a mess of it. For example, he says:* The advance in the wages of labor from 1860 to 1880 was 150 per cent,, and the increase in the muni er of bands employed 108 aer Cei t ” He Is speaking of bands employed and wages paid in the manufacturing Industries. From what source he getc his very remarkable figures does not appear. He certainly does not get them from the census, tor the census figures show that the increase in the wages on the average to each hand employed was only 4 per cent, from 1860 to 1870, and only 11 per cent from 1870 to 1880, How these flgsres can be combined so as to mane the increase 150 per cent, in the twenty years p sees comprehension. Accordirg to the censu > the increase from 1850 to 1860 was

17 per cent, or fully as much as durtng double the length of time under j the Blaine economic pulley. • General Logan also speaks of the increase of capital invested in manufacta re since I 860; but e omits to state that, the increase from 1850 to 18 60 was 90 j»er cent., and only 67 during the next ten years, and only 64 per. cent during the ten from 1879 to 1880. The tail of the ticket, like the be d, seems not to have heard of the cen sue of 1850, or to have heard of it on ly from some manufacturing monop olists who told him it was a humbug, and he had better not say anything about it.