Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 26, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 15 July 1892 — Page 1 Advertisements Column 2 [ADVERTISEMENT]

SMOKED OUT. Our Republican neighbor has at last been smoked out. Some Weeks ago an anonymou scribble: undertook the job, for the Republican, of “showing up" the republican view of the so-called tax law, referring to nn isolated case or two to show to what extent the law had Increased taxes. In one of the oases oited John •Mukeevci was interested, but as he un-

derstnnds the intent of the law to be to regulate the metnodof assessment oniy, and tho duty of the county board to fix the levy, it was no matter how high the assessment, the levy should have been proportionally reduced, and the responsibility rested with the board; and If the valuation was exoessiva the assessor was responsible for that, and ha ia cerreot- —' As wo said on a former ocoasion—if th# J assessed valuation for 1891 doubled that for 1890, to raise the same amount of money it waa simply neoeasary to reduoothe levy one-half. Our neighbor con easaa this when he says the County Commissioners reduced the 764 oents levy on the I f 100 valuation, oounty revenue, for the tax year 1890, down to 46 oents for the tax year 1891. The trouble ia there sho’d have been a greater reduction.

We have from time to time furnished facts and flgureß to bear oi.t our statements. We insist our neighbor do the same. Hlb wild assertions are wide of the mark and amount to nothing. His assertion (hat “The Demoooatshave piled up an enormous debt, for the people to pay interest upon,” from a reoord history of the state debt we; have proven false. About $6,000,000 of the debt waa created by tho opposition to the Demoo racy. About $3,000,000 was created by the Democrats in oarrymg out the requirement of laws enaoted by a republican legislature,—and poiut to the state house, aavluma, etc., as vouchers for the expenditure. The opposition furnish no vouchers for the $6,000,000. Ills assertion that the Democrats have “shifted the heaviest burden of taxation upon the property least able to bear it,” is refuted by the fight against it being confined to railroads, banking institutions ami other corporations.

Tho law was designed to inorease tbs stato revenue, by increased valuation with Ite existing 12 cent levy for the purpose of meeting expenditures and to provide a fund for payment of the state debt. A law was: enacted making a levy of C oents on the SIOO for the maintenaoe of the benevolent and reformatory instltututions of the state. This is the 50 per cent, inoieased slate levy referred to by onr neighbor. If he objects to It we desire that he should go on record. Yes, or ] No? The prosperous condition of our treasury, as portrayed by our neighbor, is a matter of congratulation. But why should it be otherwise in the face of increased local revenues made possible by the levy fixed by the county l oard? If local tuxes are higher than required for local purposes tho power which laid the levy is sponsibleHon. Johu W. Bookwalter, of Ohio, a wealthy manufacturer and a low tariff Democrat in commenting ou the Homestead affiilr says: “The Democratic party could not have prayed for u better illustration of the sham of protection than that whiob is , now bold us to view tHo estoad. Mr. | Carnegie has gone before Congress for j the past twenty years with bis dootrine of protetioc, and like a good, subservinent body, congress has always given him What he dusirod. He hnß advocated ! and reoeived protection ad uausem, out; his theories, instead of proving a bless* j ing to the workmen who were first and foremost in his philanthropic mind, have ; found their pratioal answer in the bullets of Pinkerton’s Winchesters. I, too am a manufacturer on a large scale, and I send my products to compete with the markets of the world. lam not staggering udder tao cp.iresslon of a pro tective tariff, but I um obli-.-ed to pay heavy duties ou my raw material. Still I am not called upon to enforce reduced wages, simply because I am satisfied with reasonable profits."

The fact that the Csrnegies and others are enabled to make enormously laige profits is a tribute to the Republican pol icy of protection oi Americ n industries; the fact that they will not pay their employes as much as they can afford or as much as the men uio reasonably entitled to receive, are ques ions at issue with which the government has nothing to do and tor which it cannot be made responsible.—Lafayette Courier (rep.) What a frank yet bruta "admission While the Courier admits that the Republican policy of promotion enables the Carnegies and others to makerenormouely large profits," it insists that the laboring people who make these ’enormously large profits" possible, have no rights th t the government is bound to respect. Co’d there be a stronger oone'emna: ion of the system of protection? Conld there be a stronger refntation of the claim that high tariff taxation is po pstuated in the interest of the laboring classes?—Logansport Pharos.

Pittsburgh (Pa ) Post: Almost every Democrat in Allegheny oountv remembers these two m >tt es, scattered broadcast in a presidential eampajgn, and shoved into the hands of every one who entered the Exposition on a crowded Saturday: “Vot< the Democratic Ticket—Qou will have free t ade, pauper wages, idleness, lock-outs and the poorhonse.” “Vote the Republican Ticket- You will have protection, higher wages, steady work and prosperity." Mies Mary Uhilcote ist at the sanitarium, Buttle Creels, Mich., jeoeiving me i\cal treatment.