Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 35, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 September 1892 — Page 1

VOLUME XVI

REPUDIATING HIS VOTE.

Shockney, the Demogogne, Denounces the Tax Law, But voted for It on Final Vote in the Senate. Forced to Repudiate His Legislative Record by a Millionaire Candidate for the United States Senate—What Official Records Disclose. The Republican candidate for lienten ant governor, ex-Senator Shockney, is stumping the state, confining himself chiefly to the tax question, denouncing the|new tax law and the Democratic members of the legislature for having enacted it. If Senator Sherman should go about the country denouncing the McKiijley tariff law, he would be no more inconsisttent than is Mr. Shockney for his present opposition to the new tax law. “Why did you vote for the McKinley bill, then ?” would be asked of John Sherman.

Mr. Shockney was a prominent member of the last senate. He was one of the principal speakers on the Republican side; he never allowed his voice to remain silent when any measure came up that he did not approve. The Indianapolis Sentinel, Journal and News reported the proceedings of the legislature fully. On all important questions, synopses of the speeches were published by those papers. If there was a time for Mr. Shockney to oppose the law, that time was when house bill No. 487 came up in the senate for final disposition. Yet a reference to the files of the Indianapolis papers does not show that Mr. Shockney uttered a word in the opposition of the passage of the Oppenheim bill (tax law). What does the senate journal show? It discloses the fact that Mr. Shockney voted for the bill on the final roll call, the vote that sent the bill to the governor. Mr. Shockney can not dodge at the official records.

By turning to page 939 of the senate journal for 1891, the Republicans who have heard Mr. Shockney denounce the tax law, will find the following records: The special order for this hour (11:36 a. m.), the consideration of the report of the conference committee on engrossed house bill No. 487 (tax bill). Senator Howard moved that the report of the committee be Concurred in, and on that motion he demanded the previous question. The question being, Shall the senate second the demand for the previous question? The demand was seconded by the senate. The question then being, Shall the main question be now put? The question recurring on the adoption of the report of the conference committee on engrossed house bill No. 487, and the ayes and noes being demanded by Senators Burke and Howard. The roll was called, which resulted as follows: Those voting in the affirmative were: Senators Akin, Boyd (R.), Carver (R.), Caster (R.), Chandler, Clemens (R.), Ellison, Ewing, Foley, French, Gilman (R.), Grose (R.), Hanley (R.), Harlan (R.), Hayden, Hays (R.), Hobson (R.), Howard, Jones, Kennedy, Kerth, Kopelke, Loveland (R.), McGregor, McHugh, Mcgee, Morgan, Moore. Mount (RJ, Shanks, SHOCKNEY (R.), Smith, Thompson of Marion, Thompson of Huntington, Thompson of Pulaski and Wiggs. Total 37. Those voting in the negative were: Senators Burke, Holcomb, Lynn and Sweeney. Total 4. So the report was concurred in.

The four negative votes were cast by Democrats. All the Republicans, Boyd, Carver, Casters, Clemans, Gilman, Grose, Hanley, Harlan, Hays, Hobson, Loveland, Mount and Shockney voted in the affirmative. The tax bill originated in the house and it passed the senate with Various amendments. The house refused to accept the amendments and under the rules a conference committee was appointed, composed of three members from the senate, and three from the house. The conferrees on part of the house were: Beasley, Oppenheim and Claypool; and on part of the senate, Magee, Howard and Hubbel. On Feb. 28, this committee agreed and reported to each house, recommending the bill with various changes. One being the pay of tax commissioners; another, changing the appointment of the tax commissioners by vesting the power in the governor; another, by leaving out the treasurer and attorney general from the board of tax commissioners. The conference report in the senate was made a special order for March 2, at 11:30 a. m. This report had to be adopted by both houses and the vote on |ts adoption was virtually the test vote pn the final passage of the bill. No parliamentarian will dispute this statement. Without the adoption of this report by both houses the tax bill would have died in the conference committee.

Mr. Shockney-will, perhaps, dodge the question by quoting the roll call on the passage of the bill when it first came up |n the senate. On that vote Mr. Shockpey is recorded in the negative. But it paust be understood the bill as it finally passed with Mr. Shockney’s vote was far different from the bill as originally passed against his vote. When it originally passed the senate it was loaded down with amendments; one was especially obnoxious to Mr. Shockney, which |ook the power of appointment of the fax commissioners from the governor. ’This amendment was dropped by the conference committee and Mr. Shockney then voted for the bill as^already

The Democratic sentinel.

THE ASIMIME BLOW-HOT-AND-COLO TARIFF

The Campaign Jackass—" What! Replace the tariff on sugar! Tax the poor man’s luxury of the breakfast table! Perish the thought!”

“.The tariff cheapens iron and gives the farmers cheap plows and other farm machine- ”

?hown by the record. However, only a pettifogger would’resort to such a dodge. In the house the conference report was adopted without a division. The report on part of the house was signed by Beasley, Oppenheim and Claypool—the same Claypool who has written so much for The Journal against the tax law recently. If Mr. Claypool had been opposed to the law then, why did he not bring in a minority report? If there were two Republican members in the house opposed to the bill, why did they not avail themselves of Section 12, Article 4 of the constitution, which says: “The ayes and noes on any question shall at the request of two members he entered together with the names of the member demanding v'ne same.” Governor Hovey will long he remembered as a “veto governor” of Indiana. Every bill that met his disapproval was promptly vetoed. But the tax law he fully indorsed with his signature, as will be seen by consulting page 1422 of the house journal, which contains the following message:

Executive Department, I Indianapolis, Ind., March 7,1891. j Mr. Speakers: I aid directed by the governor to inform the house that he Las signed house bill No. 487, the same being “an act concerning taxation.” Very Respectfully, W. B. Roberts, Private Secretary. No doubt if Governor Hovey were living he would be proud of his action on the tax bill. And the time will come, too, when Mr. Shockney and the other Republicans who voted for it, will refer to this vote with pride, for the new tax law does not levy a cent of taxes but compels the railroad corporations to pay taxes on full values. As the new tax law, as heretofore stated, does not levy taxes, it simply provides how property shall be assessed. Separate bills of the legislature in 1891 levied two special taxes. One of six cents for the support of the benevolent institutions, and one of five mills for the completion of the soldiers’ monument. Both, these tax levies are temporary and only for the years 1891 and 1892. Next year this extra levey amounting to sixand one-half cents will not be made. The twelve cents levy for the support of the state, which has been in existence since 1877, and the one-half cent levy for the state university endowment fund, the sixteen cent levey for the support of commm schools, the fifty cents a poll for the common school fund, and fifty cents on each poll for the general state fund will remain on the statute books the same as they have been for years. The extra six cent® tax levied by the last legislature to stop the increase of the state debt contains just one section, and was approved by Governor Hovey, March 7, as will be seen by reference to the house journal, page 1410. Why is Mr. Shockney denouncing the

JANUS-FACE D M’KINLEY.

“The tariff puts up the price of iron and increases wages correspondingly.”

law which he helped to place on the statute books ? Because the Republican state platform dictated at Fort Wayne by the richest man in Indiana, C. W, Fairbanks, owner of three railroads, denounces the law—because Mr. Fairbanks has been compelled to pay more taxes on his railroads.

Bynum Proposes to Meet Him in Joint Discussion. The following correspondence will explain itself: Anderson, Ind., Aug. 29,1892. Mr. John H. Terhune, Chairman Republican Committee, Madison County: Sir— The issues that divide the parties in the present campaign are clearly defined and of paramount importance. Whether the present protective policy of the Republican party tends to promote the industrial prosperity of the country or is injurious to the interests it is supposed to benefit; whether it has a tendency to furnish employment to idle labor at increased wages or restricts production, causing in many protected and heretofore r-osperous industries a reduction of wag- -ikes and lockouts, are questions wh : ucern the prosperity, the eontentmec 4 welfare of the people. Learning that ue Horn William McKiuley, of Ohio, the reputed author of the present law, will deliver a speech at Elwood under the auspices of your committee on the 13th of Sep tern iter in support of the high protective policy of your party, and believing that a public discussion of the questions, pro and con, would not only §rove interesting but highly instructive to ie people, I address you in the hopes that an arrangement can be made by us for a joint discussion between Mr. McKinley and the Hon. W. D. Bynum. Democratic member of congress from this district, at the time and place mentioned. Hoping that this proposition may meet the approval of your committee, and that I may receive a favorable response at any early date, I am very truly yours, J. J. Nettkrville, Chairman Democratic Central Committee Madison County. Mr. Terhune replied that the Elwood meeting would be under the control of the state committee and referred Mr. Netterville’s letter to Chairman Gowdy. Then Chairman Taggart, of the state committee, addressed the following communication to Chairman Gowdy: Indianapolis, Ind., Sept, l, 1893. The Hon. John K. Gowdy, Chairman Republican State Committee, Indianapolis. Dear Sir—l have been informed that the proposition of J. J. Netterville, chairman of the Democratic committee of Madison county, to John H. Terhune, chairman of the Republican committee of that county, that' the Hon. W. D. Bynum shall meet and discuss the tariff with the Hon. William McKinley at the town of Elwood on the 13th day of September, has been referred to you for answer, If you propose to accept the challenge I will be pleased to have you notify me in writing at an early date, so that ample time may be allowed to arrange the preliminaries for the joint discussion. A matter of such great interest to the people of this state and the whole country will doubtless receive your early and favorable considers tion, and I heme to receive your answer in a few days. Very respectfully, T. Taggart. Chairman The Democrats are in earnest and will insist cm a joint debate. J. N. Onley, a Republican councilman of Rockport, has declared for Cleveland and the entire Democratic ticket

RENSSELAER JASPEB COUNTY. INDIANA FRIDAY. SEPTEMBER 16 1892

M’KINLEY CHALLENGED.

•‘A FIRM ADHERENCE TO CORRECT PRINCIPLES.”

3ATJSE ENORMOUS INCR EASE OF REVENUES IN ETERY DEPARTMENT

Unnecessary Local Taxes Impos by Republican Commissione mittee—A Table Showing and Miscellaneous Taxes an The accompanying table presents a partial statement of the specific increases of local taxes in the Republican counties of Indiana. The first five columns include the taxes that are levied everywhere, and the last column includes more irregular taxes, such as bridge, sinking fund, corporation, etc. Poll taxes and dog taxes are omitted, and the list of miscellaneous taxes does not include all of th« corporation taxes because many county auditors do not report corporation taxes in their abstracts. Persons using this table should therefore note the following facts: Of the counties named, the corporation taxes are not included in Decatur, Delaware, Fayette, Huntington, Jasper, Jefferson, Jennings, Lawrence, Monroe, Montgomery, Ohio, Porter, Rush, Spencer, Vanderburgh, Vigo and Wabash. In the counties of Boone, Clinton, Daviess, Elkhart, Howard, Jay, Tippecanoe and Wayni the report of corporation taxes is partial only, and does not include the cities of Lebanon, Frankfort. Washington, Goshen, Elkhart, Kokomo, Portland, Lafayette, Cambridge and Richmond. In using the table locally the increases for the towns and cities tHus omitted should be added to the column of miscellaneous taxes. The last column shows the amount that taxes should have been decreased in the several counties on account of increased distribution of tuition money by the state. In each class of these local taxes the Republican counties show a heavy increase, the aggregate being $1,093,686.75. The total increase of local taxes in them is about $175,000 more ($1,969,249.25), but this addition;d portion is omitted as explained altite. There are two th e local taxes everywhere should •»W , biswa treduced. (1) The inoreasajl dlsjgibwion of school money tty the state', which is

Increase of Increase of Incrume of Inu offciw" Increase of Increase of Inc.of Bdh’l county. cou’ty tax. Twnp Tax Tuit’nTax ShwH& Mlccmlse *rt i**? Mo S>/ rom Decrease. ‘Decrease. ‘Decrease. "Decrease. increase. Decrease. State. gen* oll 15,079 2(1 WJwTIT $5 511 15 anjwk' IW m r,r ' *3,138 75 Boone « 127 89 1 VlO 59 *5 879 20 1 837 S , J}>2S 'J 4 - 878 15 0,882 00 Clinton' 11,082 85 1 108 53 *l'M) 97 '(DW 40 4 > i; 0,631 17 0,750 00 Daviess 23,223 70 k jojj 49 HO 7 m Decatur *0,086 07 1 037 07 *’722 in l’diu <ui J? 18,648 64 6,087 25 Delaware W 22 4® 41 6,380 & lo'S. M M 97 I'''!! 7 !] 8 1 420 50 Elkhart 2,131 37 740 38 *1 571 17 7 140 nr 2 > 878 51 4 > 6al 27 0.585 75 Fayette 453 07 1 ms so Vts au , 00 078 45 1,830 91 2,948 26 Fountain 6,197 73 !07 600 2,246 38 2 438 23 12 6,365 50 Gibson 6,122 24 2 351 05 *4 042 36 2 75‘> 24 7 ** 11,<(5 15 6,008 (X) Grant *7 L 52 72 i’™ 7,1 s’jer ,■« moil? ft *5511 04 15,208 55 8 400 75 Greene 11!..!!!!!!! I \m 96 1’412 65 W 5 3 'Z n 8 - 4 f l 4 6,81. 17 00 Hamilton., *909 55 1 ’766 29 *1 (ua k* Iu 44N . 7,118 38 0,70125 Hendricks *Ol5 28 7’gw og ntl-n if *4,888 82 13,489 13 5,319 25 Hdhry *722 16 2 394 72 3 4fW 77 A H ’ 7(W 2!i 7 ' ]| o 23 5,3-li oil Howard 8,381 81 *, ’.w, S o A ~7 tt 863 64 *1,603 81 6,887 00 Huntington *1,966 83 o’'lß2 23 5’795 88 nu 2,884 53 *1,258 14 8,573 30 Jasper 1618 m fgg | 4’281 53 i'm £ «.«» » *8,852 89 2 894 25 Jefferson 883 38 1997 99 ♦Ol5 eg , h™ >J UM 43 7,333 00 Jennings 4,114 02 Vl4o 40 2 092 10 2 848 (K) *1,224 97 4,438 50 Kosciusko 13 782 88 m a 1 407 ‘272 82 , ? » » 18,:337 43 6,975 00 Lagrange 528 67 t'wl 46 414 23 2 845 92 *•£? a4 ' 471 75 *!»« SO Lawrence 5,201 04 2MI U 2 719 04 5 444 « f-gj 44 2,04(8 25 Monroe 5,150 52 1 128 99 I'2H4 83 7 835 80 o’lTir 1.664 11 4,518 75 Montgomery *18,210 55 S 021 35 *4 766 75 *j 331 to J 844 *’} h',003 53 8,037 75 Morgan *2,190 02 2 477 77 *1 602 81 m ?,984 91 2,397 89 4.791 (H) Newton *LISS 88 fn & 2m 74 {'3o9 41 * 77 L 491 80 2,339 50 ??nble *13,415 33 1,85-1 79 1 977 58 IfVWI 16 !i- 2 8 <N ’ 6.457 00 Ghlo 5:’9'40 595 31 ’317 62 536 56 1 or' 953 81 1,345 70 Orange 930 84 3 079 08 792 76 8 205 30 .. 621 38 8,918 75 Parke *1,809 70 2'131 05 *5 705 72 ’97 54 5,234 99 4.893 00 Porter .. 5,232 02 4 221 80 4 882 59 15 713 84 L 2 7,847 68 8,551 00 Randoiph *4,078 90 %\ m 4 ) 4,725 46 8;627 57 f-J 18 27 ™ Ire-::::::::::::::::::::: 4’ms “ 7 « Steuben *3,049 61 DnSm* 1106 “ 459 441 *«sl 08 8,666 03 f} 87 l( ?‘^ Vermillion *678 89 g 71 6 649 42 5 100 04 a 8,482 fHj XJfcp .* *6,984 88 71 2* 112 20 H 280 21 J’JJJ 9,676 84 16,882 25 Wabash 13,641 91 2 716 91 4 116 69 BT»6 34 ?? 1 80 7,295 25 Warren 11,060 72 2 780 41 5*854 H 2 0 863 24 VtSSI 2,990 27 2,550 75 Wayne ......... 7,836 11 2,237 02 1,728 01 11 872 M) 3,00.3 87 J 7,925 20 9,905 25 Deer easci rtaSCS *100,875 50 *«8,255 75 $211,366 80 decreases 65,978 53 2,777 34 42,211 07 4,098 51 ,u W Net increases ’ 0 9g j,; Wtji WW 11391361 61 ® , Grand tot»sl ,003,080 75 .

Protection Drives Money Oat of the Country.

In the “tariff for revenue only era” be-, tween 1850 and 1860 our imports of gold exceeded our exports by $5,238,239 and our production was $600,000,000, adding to our gold $605,238,239. In the same time our imports of merchandise exceed, •d our exports by $384,913,005, showing a total increase in our national wealth by foreign trade of $390,151,244, In the last eleven years of the protection era our exports of gold and silver exceeded our imports by $103,121,303, and of merchandise by $769,054,373, showing a net loss of national wealth by foreign trade of $872,175,676 which has been invested abroad by the American owners. The object of protection is the robbery of the American farmer by the American mill owner. The means taken drives our wealth out of the country, and it is McKinley’s proudest boast that protection drove out of the country in tep years over $1,000,000,000 worth of gold, silver and other labor products in excess of those received. A few days ago the Republican press announced with great flourish of headlines that L. N. Littaner, a large glove manufacturer of Gloversville, N, Y. had bolted Cleveland. It turns out that Littaner has always been a Republican, but in 1884 he voted for Cleveland because he could not vote for Blaine. Littaner was in Washington during the billion-dollar congress and assisted McKinley to frame the glove schedule in the tariff bill. Having obtained all he wanted it would be only natural for him to support the tariff bill now.

THE REPU BLICAN TAX CONS TIMS

[Non-Conformist Peoples.) The Hendricks County Republican earnestly urges its readers to send to Congressman Johnson for copies of Henry George’s “Protection or Free Trade.” It is hoped that this advice will be followed and that every misguided Republican may be induced to read that superb work on political economy. It seems impossible for any reasoning man to read George's argument without being convinced that the doctrine of a protective tariff is the biggest humbug ever inflicted or the people. Whatever one may think of George’s other theories, and they have nothing to do with this question, he certainly surpasses all these in knowledge of the tariff system and proves conclusively that his operation is wholly and irredeemably bad. Appropriation last year by Republican congress $541,230,672.53. Appropriation this year as they passed the Democratic house $485,596,931.67. Proposed saving by the house $55,683,758.88. The bounty paid to the Louisiana sugar growers last year amounted to $10,000,000. The cost of distributing this bounty amounted to $230,890. Colonel James H. Rice, of Indianapolis, has been appointed by the national comnrttee to assist the sub-com-mittee on sneakers.

ed to firing tlie New Law in Dto rs and Trustees by Instruction the Increase of the County, T d the School Money from the St seventy-five cents to each school child, and the local tuition taxes should have been reduced to that extent. The superintendent of public instruction gave due notice of this, but the Republican officials generally disregarded it. Am appears from the table the net increase in the Republican counties is $51,044.68, whereas there should have been a decrease of $274,057.40. (2) In the second place local taxes should have been decreased on account of the large increase in the assessment of corporate property. The theory of the new tax law was that an equitable assessment at fair cash value would so increase the relative value of corporate property that the entire burden of increased state taxation would fall on corporations. The 1-0811118 prove that the theory was correct, for tho increase of taxes on railroads alone is $987,208.28. But how is this increase of money paid by corporations to be got into the state treasury. The state levy alone brings to the state only an increase of $206,155.29 from railroads, and the remaining $781,047.99 of increased taxes paid by them the local treasuries. NowwMPjbe* you to get that money from top local treasuries to the state The only way to do It is to increase your state tax on all property enough to produce that amount, and decrease your local taxes in the same amount.

The theory can easily be illustrated by ten persons as follows: Let eight persons reprosent citizens, one the corporations, and the other the tax collector. Assess each one and give the eight citiMus ten beans each to pay their taxes and the corporation man twenty beans. Then levy 10 per cent, for state taxes and 90 i>er cent for local taxes, and each citizen will pay one bean state taxes und nine beans local taxes, while the Lmpor-c ation man will pay two beans state taxes

Protection Denounced by People’s Party Organ.

repute-Over $1,000,(K)0 Added , of the Republican State Comownship, Tuition, School, Road ate. and eighteen beans local taxes. There will then be in the local treasury ninety beans and in the State treasury ten beans. Now suppose you want to increase the money in the state treasury without affecting the citizens, how will it be done ? Double tho assessment of the corporations and give the man forty beans to pay his taxes. Then levy 20 per cent for state taxes and only 80 per oent. for local taxes. Each citizen will pay into the state treasury two beans, while the corporation man will pay into the state treasury eight beans and into the local treasury thirty-two beans. What is the result? You have in your state treasury twenty-four beans and in your local treasury ninety-six beans, and yet each citizen has paid just the same aiqount of taxes as before. The local treasury has lost nothing. It has six beans more than before. The state has all the revenue it needs, and everything is satisfactory. The Republican politicians saw that the new tax law would work out in exactly that manner, and they organized a conspiracy to prevent it by increasing the local taxes wherever they had the power. In the Republican counties, as has been shown, they made an increase of $1,209,249.25 and in the Democratic counties an increase of $853,768.85, or in all an increase of $1,628,048.80, This immense and wholly unnecessary 'fund goes into the hands of local Officials—most of them the same officials that increased the taxes—und creates a temptation to profligacy, extravagance and speculation with public funds. Thero is no excuse for taking this money from the pockets of tho people. It was done for the purpose of making the tax law unpopular on the supposition that the people would not have sense enough to distinguish between state taxes and local Sx.es. It deserves the emphatic rebuke the tux-payers.

How Workmen Are Protected.

From London one Henry Tuckley, who affixes D. D. to his names, writes syndicate letters for the national Republican committee on the labor question. In one of his letters published by the Indianapolis Journal, he says the wages paid to railroad men are, for engineers, $1.50 per day for twelve hours; firemen, $1.09; passenger guards, $6.80 per weekgoods guards, $6.32: watchmen, $5.34, and passenger porters, SB.BO. Countermen in dry guuds stores receive S2OO a year and policemen only $7.20 per week. Of course these figures are not correct. The report of the United States commissioner of labor, a Republican, tells a different story, however, The Journal, commenting uu the wages as “rejwrted” by thV committee’s hired “faker” says: ‘“What would a locomotive engineer in the United States t uink of $1.50 a day for twelve hours, or a conductor of less than $1.20 a day. What would a dry goods salesman think of less than SIOO a year or an American policeman of less than a dollar a day?” Yes, just think of it! Were it not for protection the American engineer would have to run his engine in competition with a “pauper” engineer of England and the American policeman would tie' reduced to SI.OO a day by the competition of the “pauper” policeman of England! Thq only trust smashed since the election of Harrison is the school book trust* which the Democratic legislature of Indiana wined out in 1889.

NUMBER 3^

riTo voto a straight Democratic ti< let stamp withm the square enclosing Us rooster at the top of the ballot, and nowhere else. If any other square is stamped in addition to the large sqnare tbs ballot will be thrown out. After stainding fold the ballot so as to leave the initials of the poll-olerk on the outside eni hand to the election offioere.

NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC TICKET

For President, orover Cleveland, of New fork. For Vioe-President, ADLAI STEVENSON, of Illinois. DEMOCRATIC STATE TICKET. Governor, CLAUDE MAT Til KWH, Vermillion. I.lentunant Governor, MORTIMER NYE, LaPortc. Secretary of Slate, WILLIAM It. MYKItS, Madison. Auditor of State, JOHN (). HBNDKHONM Howard. Treasurer of Slate, ALBERT (TALL, Morton. Attorney General, AI.ONZA G. SMITH, Jennings. Reporter of Supremo Court, SIDNEY R. MOON, Pulton. Superintendent of Public Instruction, HKRVKY I). VUKIKS, Johnson. State Statistician, WILL JAM A. PUBLIC, Jk,, Marion. Supreme Judge, Second District, JISPTUA.D. NEW', Jennlurs. Supreme Judge. Third Dletrict, JAM IS Mad ABE, Warren. Supreme Judge, PI th District, TIMOTHY E. HOW? HD, St. Joseph. Appellate Judge, Plrst District, OEOItUE L. REINHARDT, Spencer. Appellate Judge, Second Dls'ilct, PRANK E. GAVEN, Decatur. Appellate Judge, Third District, THEODORE P. DAVIS, Hamilton, Appellate } udgo, Fourth District, ORDANDO J. LOTZ, Delaware Appellate Judge, Fifth District, GEORGE IS. ROSS, Gass. For Congress, THOMAS HAMMOND. For Next United States Bojtafor, DAVID TtJIIPIE. -

Willis MoColly has been appointed nightwatoh. Our old Democrat o friend, Wm. Bull, a soldier of two wars, left on Tuesday for Washington. * Miss Angela Hammond and sisters left to-day for St. Mary’s college where Misses,Gene and Van will attend school. Ayes 37; nays I—is the vote by whioh the iew tax law passed the Senate—l 3 republicans voting aye, and Gov. Hovey approved the samo. - ■«#» After having voted for the new tax law Shockncy, repulioan candidate for lien-tenant-governor, has been denouncing ifc in this campaign. Shock-ney-ing! At the Woodsdale (near Cincinnati) Republican mooting, addreseed by RatJobber Reid, republican c ndidate for Vice President, litte Foraker and McKinley, Bill, th< re were but 2500 present, whereas Reid had been promised an audience of 20,000. ■ ——« On the night of Sept. 9th leading Bepublicans at Steubenville, Ohio, in the office of tne Mayor of that oity turned, a portrait of MoKinley fao. to the wall,, and denounced him as “the m >et notorious liar that ever occupied the Governor’tu chair.” *

The Carnegie managers still continue to cause ariestof their “look-outs" on charges of aggravated riot, murder, ate,, whioh intensifies the legrets of all tiuly patriotic people that said managersldidjnotoocopy important posts on the bargee when attempting to land the Pinkerton’s, In the Senate, on the final passage of the present tax law, whioh is being so bitterly denounced by the republican prose and speakers, but four votes are recorded against it. Thirteen republicen senators iuelu ting Senators Gilman, r roin this district, and Shockney, republican candidate for lieutenant-governor.— 1 he bill poesed— ayes 37; nave 4. In advocacy of the claims of Mr. Gilman to the r omination for ._ ongresa from tu is district the Rensselaer Republican irged as one of his strongest recommendations that favored the new school book law, a measure Which Brother Marshall opposed with th. same vehemence he now now opposes the so-called new tax law.— 1 f our neghbor had only added that Mr, , Mr. Gilman had voted for the new tax ; iuw it might have secured him the nornii cation. | «y ■ The Democratic meeting held in tfi» j ton t House last Saturd y had a larger ; .1 tendance than therepm lican gathering j hioh paid court to private Cheadle the I previous Saturday, and would have been. I doubly as large hart those who oong. egated | a. the stand in the|court house yard been , informed that tho meeting was progrt aging iiu uio court room. The audience, unlike I beadle's, com; r.sed chiefly voters. The j r marks of the speakers, Hon. T. J. Hud- | * o.i and ex-congressman Wood wen well i received uadTwquectly ajftiauded.