Democratic Sentinel, Volume 15, Number 32, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 August 1891 — Not a Fabric hion. [ARTICLE]

Not a Fabric hion.

Early in the year lists of reductions of wages were printed in many papers. At the time no general denial of these reductions was attempted, since many of them had been printed in protection organs themselves. Recently, however, an obscure organ in Kansas has printed what purpoited to be a denial from many of the manufacturers concerned. Ona prominent Republican has evidently forgotten that such denials were being printed and circulated broadcast over the country by nearly all professional high-tariff organs. This is John L. Wheeler, of Red Bank, N. J., who has recently written a defense of the McKinley law. In this defense Mr. Wheeler has something to say about wage?, and among other things he says: “The potters of Trenton have accepted a reduction of 10 per cent ” Yet this case of the Trenton potters was one of those which were denounced by the protection organs as “free trade fabrications ” The continued jubilation of the protection organs over the low price of sugar leads the Boston Herald to remark: “If our high tariff friends continue in this state of enthusiasm over the fall in the price of sugar from the removal of the duties upon that article, isn’t there danger that they will implant a desire in the minds of the public to try this experiment of reduction upon some other articles? We really fall to see how there is any possible escape from this logic. Thus a broad avenue may be opened to that fearful free trade which has before not been mentioned without a shuddering apprehension. ” It is said that a fund is being raised among the manufacturers of Pennsylvania to aid in the election of McKinley as Governor of Ohio. In this renewal of fry-the-fat methods “the Republican magnates know where pro ection piles up fortunes and where it makes people poor. They turn naturally to the protected manufacturers for “soap;” but they cannot get up enough cheek to pass the hat around among the farmers. Should not the farmers be asked to pay something for McKinley’-s higher duties on wheat and corn? The high-tariff people need to be cautioned that the more they talk about the beneficence of free sugar, the greater the danger that there will be a popular demand for other things to be free which aie now made costly by tariff taxes. The average person is so densely ignorant that he cannot see why, ir it is a blessing for a poor man to have cheap sugar, it would not be q good thing for him to have cheap clothing, cheap provisions, and cheap everything else.— New York Times.

The consumption of wool in Great Britain and in the United States in 1885 and 1889 was as follows: 1885. 1889. , Great Britain. .366,000,009 469,000,000 Inc. 28 p.c. United 5tate5..409,001,000 885,009,009 Dec. 4 p.c. Why is it that our high protection does not help us to outgrow England in manufacturing woolen goods. Some silly protection organs have the “gall” to say that “free trade” is selfish, and to claim that it is protection only that takes a large and unselfish view of the common good. But only one person in twenty ;s interested in protection. How can the interest of that one be claimed as the “common good” of the nineteen? We produce more iron and copper in the United States than is produced in any other country. How much longer will the people in this country who consume iron and copper submit to a policy which keeps those metals dear for home purchasers and cheap for foreign pqrchasers?—Philadelphia Record. All of the 63,000,000 people in th„ United States are consumers, but not moie than one-twentieth of them are protected producers Legislation for the consumer is therefore legislation for all the people; legislation for the producer is legislation for one man In every twenty. Major McKinley is still harping on thAxpreservation of the home market, but hb falls to tell hi* hearers that the home market is preserved for a few millionaire manufacturers at the expense of the remainder of the people.—M JsOUi* PH-DispatCh.