Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 March 1890 — REFORM THE TARIFF. [ARTICLE]

REFORM THE TARIFF.

AND EQUALIZE THE GREAT BURDEN OF TAXATION. A Rousing: Meeting Murks an Epoch in till Movement in Indiana —The People Awakening; to a True Understanding; of the Imposition. [From the Indianapolis SentineL] The mass meeting of the Indiana Tariff Reform League attracted more than five hundred intelligent men and women to Masonic Hall Tuesday night. It was held to commemorate tho first anniversary of the organization, and the enthusiasm that was displayed demonstrated the great interest that is being taken in the movement. Notwithstanding the vicious attacks that a partisan press has been making on the League, representatives of all parties and political affiliations were in attendance. The several prominent speakers who addressed the meeting were interrupted by outbursts of applause at frequent intervals. Mr. Edgar A. Brown, President of the League, In calling tho meeting to order, made an eloquent address. At the conclusion of his speech Mr. Brown introduced the Hon. D. P. Baldwin, of Logansport, one of the most prominent Republicans in Indiana, and at one time Secretary of State. Mr. Baldwin prefaced his address with a few remarks. He said that immediately upon his arrival in the city he read an editorial in a Republican paper warning him that he was in danger of being captured by the Democratic politicians. The same papers had hinted that it was the intention of the meeting to turn the administration over to the Democracy. He said that he had been a Republican for thirty-five years, and was still one. It had usually been bis habit to make extemporaneous speeches, but in view of the fact that his political death had been predicted, he thought it well to put it in black and white. He thereupon proceeded to read his address, which was as follows : Both of the great political parties have now, for the last twenty years, resolved and reresolved that the present tariff should be reformed. and pledged and repledgod themselves at the first opportunity to remedy its inequalities and terminate its hardships. These repeated resolutions, always a feature of every platform, indicate a guilty conscience. These pledges, up to date, are unfulfilled, the goods undelivered, and meantime the burden of the tariff is still Increasing. Both parties have alternately tempered and laid the blame of their shortcomings upon the other side. A useless surplus has been accumulating for years, which surplus each party vigorously denounces as demoralizing and un-American. Thi purpose of this tariff-reform movement to-night is to compel one or the other or both of these parties to make good their promises. This association is not, as charged by Republicans, a Democratic aid society, or a half-way house between the two parties, or a sanitarium for sore-heads, but a non-partisan organization, like the Civil-Service Reform Association, the purpose of which is purely reformatory. There are as many Democrats u’s Republicans in the Civil-Service Reform Lc ague at the United States, and civil-service reform reached its highest point under Rresident Cleveland. The Executive Committee of this association authorizes me to say that no man or pan y will bo c-’lowed to make use of it as a stoue to grind its or his political ax. If the forthcoming report of tho Ways and Means Committee or Congress shall be a real tariff reform, and a real tariff reduction, every man belonging to this organization is pledged to sustain it. We are not particular wliether,the relief comes from the party in or out of {lower, but the time has come for relief. When a man is drowning he grasps the first friendly hand, and does not wait to be introduced to or inquire into the ancestry or social standing of its proprietor. This league i 3 accused of being a free trade organization. Of all the living humbugß and scarecrows that of free trade is the thinnest. If a man dares to think for himself and differ in his conclusions from the high tariff people, or high tariff is worsted in an argument, free trade iB the cry. Free trade is a jack-o’-lantern with big, flaming eyes and nose ; and tbe smoko of a tallow candle coming out of its mouth to terrify ignorant and weak-knoed invertebrates. There is no more probability of free trade in the United States than of reviving the secession ordinances of 1801. So long as we have .'5500,000,000. per year revenue to raise with a thousand million of debt to pay in the near future ; so long as we have $5u0,000,,*“J worth of manufacturing plants, a tariff we must and will have. The baby is not born to-day that will see-free trade in the United States. But this tariff may be made at least a. tariff equal and just to all interests. If our manufacturers constituted our entire population they could make it as high as they pleased, but they must remember that there are ten farmers to one manufacturer and, remembering this, they must be satisfied to take less profits and give their neighbors a better chance. They should not forget the fact that 75 per cent, of all tho exports of the United, States are furnished by the farmer that is seeking justice at their hands. Furnishing only 25 per cent, of our exports and putting into their pockets hundreds of millions of dollars per year in profits that in theory the farmOT is led to believe goes to the United States Government, the manufacturers who now own the Fiftieth Congress ought at least to be willing to. take less profits and make the burden lighter, i If they do not, then remember that Walpole had his Pitt, Disraeli his Gladstone, and that 1 the President and administration of the United States should profit by their example. Within the last year the shrinkage of our farm lauds ” has been something enormous. You can buy a farm in any county in Indiana outside of tbe gas and coal belts for $5 per acre less than twelve months ago. The farmer gets less for his wheat and meat and gram than at any time for the last forty years, and yet wi h wheat at 70 cents, corn i at 25 cents, oats at 20 cents per bushel, beef at $2 and pork at $3 per Hundred, he is compelled ! to pay duties upon all the necessities of life that he buys from the manufacturers, ranging from 50 to 100 per cent, and averaging 47 per cent. While ihe farmer is losing on even- side, while his laud is depreciating and ruin begins to stare him in the face, our great, cities are prospering as never before. They prosper because they are great manufacturing centers. Our Mississippi Valiev cities last year drew from the country to their midst 100,000 young men and women who, seeing no future for them in agriculture, swarm thither to try a life for which they have neither aptitude nor education. Let the present state of things continue three years longer and we shall have a crash to which that of 1873 was mere child’s play. Let farm lands continu.©-to depreciate for three years more as they have within the three years past, and the great loan and insurance companies who hare invested their millions in farm mortgages, will go to the wall. Let half a dozen of these companies fail or become crippled by reason of being compelled to take land for their- debts,, and our whole commercial system wild, retd. When the farmer suffers it is only a. question of time, aud a short time at that, for the. entire industrial and commercial system to become diseased. What causes the present agricultural depression? A potent fact is excessive tariff, and ill-judged laws that compel the farmer to pay high prices for what he buys and depresses the market and the price for what he produces. High tariff advocates tell us with great unction that home markets caused bv high duties is the farmer’s true salvation. When asked to explain, they tell us that those farmers are the most prosperous that are nearest to the factories. They tell us that the reason for this is the demand by the factories for tho farmer’s meat, and grain and truck, aud the saving of transportation and middlemen. Let ub put this doctrine to the proof. New England is the paradise of protection. For the last seventyfive years the Yankees have had the lion’s share of the benefits Of o,nr high tariff laws. How about tile New England farm and farmer of 1890? He is never out of sight of the factory. He essays the highest possible benefits of home markets, for the factory is just outside of his gate-post. How about land in New England? You can go anywhere and buy land for less than the fences cost. The traditional puritan village, too, has been swept away by the cheap labor of high tariff in the land of the pilgrims. As much rotten whisky is consumed in Massachusetts by ihe imported cheap factory hands of high tariff as irr sny benighted Democratic State north or south of the Ohio River. High tariff apologists say that the ruin of the New England farm and tillage comes from the Western competition. How does that help the home market argument? How does that help the high-tariff advocate, who points with pride to our internal trade and the fact that we nave free trade between every State in the Union? Besides, you will find in Kansas about as bad a state of things for the farmer as in New En-

! gland. In Kansas to-day corn can be bought by the million bushels at 10 cents; hay at 42 I per ton; cattle and hogs at $2 and $3 per fiundred. (If there is anything that the Kansas j fanner wants, and wants bad, and wants right I off, it is to sell out.) The truth about home markets 1h that the boot is on the other leg. Home markets are an injurious and very sucI cessful attempt to create a market for the goods I of one class at the expense of another olass. It j is a flue thing tot the manufacturers to have j the United States Government force peoi pie to take . their wares at a heavy j advance because of that mnch duty on for- ! eign goods. But how about the poor farmer i who is forced to takdr the goods and. do the paying, and who, when In brings his products to market, must sell at a price fixed by the markets of the world? We are glibly and unctuously told that the cause of Ihe present depression in farming is over-produotion. That is the same thing as saying the farmer is suffering for want of markets. What is over-production but lack of markets. The American farmer produced in 1889 food sufficient lor 100,00j,090 mouths, but there are only 65,10),0.0 to consume it. What has caused this scarcity of mouths ? Why do not foreign people take our farm products ? What has shut up the fanner’s market that he used to enjoy? There is but one answer ; High tariff has provoked retaliatory tariffs all over the world. The American farmer and manufacturer should at least be the granary and workshop of the new world. How much of our manufactured goods go to Central or South America or Mexico? South America last year imported $40,000,003 of g00d5—536,000,003 from Europe and $4,000,C0J from the United States. South America, Mexico, and Central America, with their 50,000,000 people, are -within less than a week’s journey from the United States. Yet Peru, Chilli, and the other Pacific states go around Cape Horn 7 000 miles away and supply their needs in Europe. Why ? Because we have angered them as well as all the nations of Europe with our excessive high-tariff duties. No nation will trad,© with another where it ife all sell and no buy. We are told that the English farmer is in the same boat. Assuming that the distress of the English farmer is any satisfaction for the distress of his American neighbor, there is a most excellent reason to account for it. In England agriculture is purposely made a subordinate industry. All the land in Great Britain combined is not equal to that of Indiana and Illinois. This land is mainly owned by lords and rich men. The British Isles contain 35,000,000 people. Not being able to feed her people through her lack of land, which is mainly owned by her rich, Englaud wisely makes agriculture a subordinate Jnterest, and, by shrewd legislation, compels the world to feed her by the simple device of making horgelf the world’s work-shop. If you want to be fair in this matter, why not compare the England of to-dav, paupers and all, with the England of 184)? If you want to be fair, instead of comparing American wages with the English wages, why don’t you compare American wages with the wages of France, Germany or Italy, or some other high tariff country? If you will compare the high tariff wages of Germany, France, or Italy with the wages of the United States you will not only find that tne wages of these countries are lower than those of England, but that very high tariff is found hand in hand with starvation wages. What eau bo done for the farmer? Two things :we can make this meat and grain by reducing tho cost of that which he is compelled to buy of double value to him. We have got to the time -when we must double the Eurchaslng power of his produce or the farmer i rumed. How is this to be done? By reducing the 75 per cent, duties on manufactured articles that the tanner is compelled to purchase; this reduction must 1 e male carefully, gradually, conservatively, and slowly. We can own up by judicious legislat ion the markets of our neighbors, commencing with those of South Ametica and Mexico, and finally reaching those of the old world. No man knows the limitations of high tariff better than James G. Blaiue. Mr. Blaine knows enough to know that the production of gwids is only half the battle; that the remaindir of the battle is to find a market to sell the goods. Mr- Blaine is making a powerful aud praiseworthy effort to improve our markets by reciprocity treaties ; - we welcome him in the attempt. We second the motion. But reciprocity is only another name for lower tariff duties., and reciprocity treaties give the whole argument for higH tariff away. Overproduction means lack of markets ; reciprocity means endeavor to supply that market. It appears to be the plain of Mr. McKinley and the Ways and Means Committee to retain high tariff by cutting off the tobacco amd alcohol tax and cajoling the farmers into-sup-porting the manufacturers' high duties by establishing beet sugar, flax, orange and other citrous fruit industries through the medium of similar high tariffs and bounties. In all fairness we are bound to wait until, the report is made. I doubt whether this will bring relief. It it wiK we will welcome it;, we are so earnest about this matter that we do not care which party the relief comes from, for we desire to treat the whole subject from aai economical and not from any party or partisan standpoint. But I have no right to occupy more time. Distinguished speakers are here from abroad—speaikers tnat we seldom have-an opportunity to hear, and I must give way to them. Let it be understood that the farmers of Indiana, who produce $650! 090,000 worth of produce per year, have no enmity against the manufacturers of Indiana producing $150,000,000 of goods per year. The farmers of our State outnumber the manufacturers twenty to one ; still, for all that, they propose to treat them with fairness. They simply say to them, “Divide; take leas profits; give your neighbor a chance." With malice toward none, with charity for all, with faith in the right as God gives us to see the right., without partisanship, knowing neither Democraticn or Republican party,.let us earnestly and candidly open up the discussion and solution of this great question. We have a tariff refor.4» league in every one of ninety-two counties of Indiana, and each of these leagues is a full debating school, to which we invite all high-tariff men to come and clean out the, free-traders and convert the lowtariff nten from the error of their ways. You must read both sides, or you areleft in the-darkness.of prejudice. Truth suffers nothing from discussion. Let the school house open, let the debate begin. If the farmers are prosperous, if the price of their produce is sufficient, let them understand it. If these low prices are not caused b v high tariff, tell us what caused them. If the price of our lands and farm produets will be bettered by continuing in the oM high-tariff rates, let that be demonstrated. If this Government be of protection, by pro tec*, tion,and for protection, ins. eaid of a Government of tho people, by the people, and for the people, let us understand that; we want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but tho truth about this matter. The truth hurts no man- We need only fear suppression through the needs and intolerance and years of excessive partisanship, Mr. Baldwin took his seat amid tremendous cheering. The meeting, before adjournment, prepared a very comprehensive and weU-considered programme for the work of thenext twelve months. Among the principal features of this work will be the systematic collection of statistical and other information showing the practical workings of the tariff system in its relations to the various industries aud interests of the people of Indiana ; also the distribution of literature and the promotion of popular investigation and discussion of the tariff question. LETTER PROM GROVER CLEVELAND. The Secretary real tho following communication from ex-President- Cleveland. It was received with much enthusiasm: Edgar A. Brown, President, etc.: My Dear Sir— Though my letters to Democatic and tariff reform assemblages have lately been very frequent, I cannot deny your request to say a word of encouragement to the tariff reformers who will meet at the first annual convention of the Indiana Tariff Reform League on the 4th of March. I am very much pleased with the plan upon which your league seems to be organized. It conveys a suggestion of practical work, in the field of information and enlightmeut. This, if persistently carried out, cannot fail of success. Of course we do not approach the American people assuming that they are ignorant or unpatriotic. But we know that they are a busy people, and apt to neglect, the study of public questions. In the engrossment of their daily vocations, they are too ready tp rely upon the judgment and avowed principles of the party with which they have affiliated as guides to the political actions. In this way they have become 'slow to examine for themselves the questions of tariff reform. If, in the light of reasonable and simple arguments, ancf of such object lessons as are being constantly placed before them, our people can be induced to investigate the subject, thare need be no fear as to their conclusion. The Democratic party, as the party of the people, opposed to selfish schemes which ignore the public good, aud pledged to the iatorestg of

all their countrymen, instead of the furtherance of the interests of the few who seek to pervert governmental powers for their enrichment, vras never nearer to its fundamental principles than it was in its contests for tariff reform. It certainly adds to the satisfaction with which we labor in this canse, to be assured that in our efforts we not only serve our party, but all the people of the land. Yours very truly. Geoveb Cleveland. Gov. Merriam, of Minnesota, Denounces the Tariff: [St. Paul special.; The 550 delegates to the State Farmers’ Alliance packed the House of Representatives at the Capitol on Wednesday. Ignatius Donnelly opened tne speech-making with a roasting for the Tailroads. His opinion of the treatment of Minnesota farmers by the big millers and railroad magnates was couched in unique language. “I believe," said Mr. Donnelly, “that there is 810,000,000 annually stolen from this t-tite, and in the last twenty-five years there has been enough money stolen from Minnesota farmers to pave with gold the floor of Hades." The remarks of Gov. Merriam were the subject of warm commendation. On the tori If the Governor said: “The expenses of administration have to be borne, but in my judgment the necessary revenue for the purpose should fall upon shoulders able to bear it. Tax the silks, the satins, the diamonds, the liquor and.tobacco, and remove the tax from those necessary articles most widely diffused in their uses. The tax levied upon articles of food of various kinds, as well as upon many staples of common requirement, is a burden upon every farmer of the State, and the laws governing these levies should be changed or modified at the earliest practicable moment. The tariff upon the one item of sugar, yielding a revenue of over $60,000,000 —nearly $1 for every person in this country, or almost $1,500,000 for our own State —could well be dispensed with. It is exceedingly difficult to prove to the farmer that it is to his interest to remove the tax from luxuries, like liquor and tobacco, and retain it upon sugar, clothing, hemp, from which binding twine is made, and the like, articles which he has to have.”