Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 36, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 September 1892 — ANOTHER M’KINLEY MIRACLE. [ARTICLE]

ANOTHER M’KINLEY MIRACLE.

Stow the McKinley Law Employed 0,000 Laborers Without Raising the Duty. The following letter wae sent to the New York Press by a manufacturer who came over to this country from London some years ago to reap a portion of the tariff spoils: Sir— By the inclosed pamphlet you may learn something to the effect of the MoAlnley tariff law on tiie down quilt business. Three years ago down quilts were a luxury. Ninety-eight per cent, were manufactured in England for us. There are now in America six factories, creating employment for 2,000 people. The average price of a down quilt of the cheapest kind was 112. It is now (6. The average price of one of the finer grade was SBO, ana is now sl7. We take orders now for 1,000 quilts from concerns who two veal’s ago gave orders for twenty. It should be added that the designs and colorings are more suitable for this country than the English ones. A. J. Mclntosh. Commenting upon this letter The Press said editorially: “The McKinley tariff made the profitable manufacture of down qnilts possible in the United States. Previous to its enactment down quilts were a luxury used only by people who had plenty of money. Ninety-eight per cent, of theee goods were imported from England. Only one small factory for their manufacture existed in the United States. Today there are six American down quilt factories doing a prosperous business.” To get at the truth in this case a reporter took a copy of The Press to Mr. E. H. Merrill, who has charge of the down quilt business for the great wholesale house of Arnold, Constable & Company, New York. Although Mr. Merrill is a good Republican his indignation rose as he read Mclntosh’s letter, and when he had finished it he exclaimed with energy: “It’s a monstrous lie! The whele thing is rot! Well, I’m a good Republican, but I must say that our fellows can beat the Democrats lying tins year.” Mr. Merrill went on to say that Mclntosh had called on Arnold, Constable & Company to offer them some of his down quilts; “but,” said Mr. Merrill, “we could not handle his stuff.” But if The Press had taken the trouble to examine the “comparison of the customs law of 1883 with the new law of 1890,” “prepared under the direction of the committee of finance, United States senate,” it would never have been led into indorsing Mclntosh’s silly lie. That “comparison” gives manufacturers of down at 50 per cent, in both laws I Thus the McKinley law employs 2,000 laborers without the slighest change of duty! Alas for the Republican editor who assumes that all blessings flow from the MoKinley law, and who is too lazy to open his books!

It Works Both Ways. “The American fanner has been protected from competition, and now has more complete command of the home market, which belongs to him. He has had good crops and has obtained far better prices for them than he would have done if he had been subjected to the competition of Canadian farmers.” So says the New York Tribune, but when The Tribune comes to speak of manufactured articles it can show with equal glibness that the McKinley law has reduced prices. The two contrary effects of the McKinley law, as stated by its champions, reminds one of the story told of Lord Melbourne, who, at the end of the cabinet session which agreed to propose a fixed duty on com, put Mb back to the door and said: “Now, is it to lower the price of com, or isn’t it ? It is not much matter which we say, but Blind we must all say the same.” The Foreigner Pays the Tax. John S. Maclean writes from Columbus, O.: I have been having no little fun out of a lot of Canadian pine lumber, which I bought late for use in our factory. First, the dealer from whom I bought is a Republican. In the customary dickering before the deal he stated that among other items of expense he had to pay SI,OOO duty. “Well, but,” said I, “you don’t mean to try to make us pay that. You’re a McKinley man, and McKinley says the Canadian pays the tariff?” “McKinley be blowed,” said he. “Let him try to bring over some lumber, and he’ll find out who pays the tariff.” “Well, the short and long of it is we E'd the tariff, and alt I '. • ;n nly partner e head of the firm . strong Repubm, he he been mis..is to devise any means of getting it back from the Canadian. 1 have referred the matter to dozens of turiffitee, but begin to think that my only hope is to nave our governor tdmsclf show how the trick is done. In the meanwhile I few we shall have to charge it up to the protected carpenters and builders of this city and Yicinity. “Great God!” exclaimed Mr. McKinley in his debate with Campbell at Ada last fall, “does a man need a chart to see who pays the duty T Not at all, my dear governor. Just buy a car of Canadian pine, and you’ll have some “tariffic” knowledge that’ll stick to you better than “Jimmie Campbell’s chart."

Grover in November. [Air—'“The Girl I Left Behind Me.’’] O Ben, do you know to the polls we’ll go For Grover in November? O Ban, do you know you will have no show With Grover in Novemlier? CHORUS. No G. O. P. nor tariff high; That force bill we remember. No tin McKin can ever win With Grover in November. O Ben, do you know that the cock willow?: For Grover In November? P Ben, do you know you are all top slow For Grover in November? d, Ben, do you know we are all in tow For Grover in November? So, Ben, here’s a go; let the good cheer flow For Grover in November. Under the McKinley bill the government lost during the year 1891, inor? that? •19, 00P, P00 through the uot?-oollecting of duties on the clothing of protected Republican monopolists and their f y m * | i | T*i imported into the V nlte d Mate* without payment of duty, Every man who fired a shot into the Homestead wage workers was a Republican. He was shooting in the interest of the robber tariff tax law.—Anderson Democrat

Punctured by "Parmer” Kiscock. Some of the protectionists of the more silly sort are parading lists of the prices of agricultural products during the past year, and are putting forth the absurd claim that these are ‘‘McKinley prices,” caused by the so-called “farmers’ tariff.” But Senator Hiscock, the Republican senator from New York, in his attempted reply to Senator Carlisle’s great speech, made the following frank admission that the McKinley law had nothing to do with the matter: “This vast sum of $285,000,000 of increased cost of living to the families in the United States is due to the increased value of the agricultural products of the United States, and no one claims that they were affected by the provisions of the McKinley act.” Vote with Both Eyes Open. The Chicago Tribune says: “Let every man vote on this great question with both eyes open as to its effect upon himself, for it is a question of business with him. Let him figure out whether he will gain ,in cheaper imported goods enough to offset about, one-third of his wages, for that is the final outcome of the adoption of Cleveland’s scheme as laid down in the Democratic platform.” Yes, this is the way to get at the question: Look at prices with one eye and wages with the other. The Tribune here admits that goods imported free of duty wonld be cheaper. Hence, free goods wonld make the purchase eyes of 65,000,000 people twinkle and sparkle. Now, how wonld it be with >eir wage eyes? In the first place, less than 2,000,000 people are employed in industries benefited by protection, and three-fourths of these industries wonld thrive better with free raw materials and without any protection. And then, too, come to think of it, how does “protection” benefit the wage-earner in any industry? It doesn’t keep out the cheap foreigner who is free to come over here as soon as he thinks he can improve his condition. There is then absolutely nothing in protection for the wage-earner. If he will remove the bandage from his wage eye he may see that with free raw materials our manufacturers woflld soon lead the world, and also that if our fanners could save the 60 per cent, duty they now have to pay on goods taken in exchange for farm products their business would prosper and increase. And does he think that increasing business all around means low wages and lees work? “VoteVith both eyes open !” Relying Upon the people<» Party, ■The Democrats to 1888 had a margin qnly. 80 votes in U?a First district, 524 hi thp Fifth, 155 in the Eighth, 430, iq the Eleventh and 331 in the Thirteenth, These are narrow margins, and with the oompheations that the People’s party and Farmers’ Alliance will create, the Republicans have hopes of reclaiming anywhere from four to six districts,— United States District Attorney Chamber’s interview in Cincinnati Commercial Gazette Aug. 25.

nie RapaMioan Sahara*. Why is it that the Republican managers want to elect the legislature upon tn apportionment made thirteen years ago? Since the apportionment of 1879, the population of the state has sMfted to a large extent. Some counties have had an enormous increase, while others have remained stationary; and for that reason alone the apportionment of ’79 would be grossly unjust if revived by a partisan court at the command of the campaign committee. But it is not justice that the Republicans are looking for. It is a United States senator from Indiana. They know very well that under the apportionment or 1879, they would not fare better than under the present apportionment. Two years ago on the apportionment of 1885, the Democrats elected twentyone senators, a number of whom were elected in Republican districts on the “tidal wave.” The object of the suits to have the apportionment of 1885 declared unconstitutional, as well as the apportionment of 1891 for the purpose or brushing away with a court decision these hold-over senators by taking the revolutionary ground that they were elected on an unconstitutional apportionment and their election rendered null and void. By electing the whole senate over this year, they believe that they could regain some of the senatorial districts captured by the Democrats on the tidal wave of 1890. Another object of these suits is for the purpose of diverting public attention from national issues—the tariff, trusts and force bill. They expect also that the agitation of the apportionment question will prevent a thorough exposure of the Republican conspiracy so increase the taxes by local levies.

Tlic Tariff and the Hllver Miner*. The Montana Review, a publication devoted 10 the mining industries, in its last issue contained the following telegram sent to the president of the Heel a Consolidated Mining company at Indianapolis by Henry Knippenberg, general manager of the property: “In view of Silver mining conditions, the present ruinous price of silver, a certain further decline calls for an immediate and concerted counsel. Shall 1 ooncentrate my efforts, having in view the complete cloa-. ing down? To continue means ruin.” Tlie Revie commenting upon the condition of the mining industries, says: “To those who know anything about the mining industries, it has long been known that many of the best properties m Montana as well as in other states, have been kept in operajfcngt a sacrifice tor some time. Such been the caee with the Hecla, )&*. Knippenberg baa not been willing to abut down so long at it was possible to keep the mine open, Because his kind heart could not resist the pang which came to it, at the thought of throwing out so many men who. nve families dependent on them.” Yet', four years ago the silver miners were promised prosperity in the event of Harrison's election. All that was needed to make the mining camps boom was a tariff to shut out Mexican ore, which the Republicans promised to do in the event ts success. The mine owners of Color -do alone contributed SIOO,OOO to carry Indiana. It will be remembered

that John O. New, two weeks before the •leotion, made a special trip to Denver to oollect this fund from the syndicate that raised it. At that time, Mexican silver lead-bearing ere was admitted free upon a ruling of John Sherman, in 1877, while secretary es the treasury. New promised the mine owners that as soon as Harrison was inaugurated, Ms secretary of the treasury would modify that ruling so that Mexican ore would have to be entered as lead, and thereby pay a duty of one and one-lialf cents per pound. He made another promise, at the same time, to Senator W aieott, and that was that he should name the commissioner of the general land office. Walcott asdsted mm in collecting the campaign money from the mine owners, and was to lie rewarded with a laud office. Both pledges were broken, the secretary of the treasury did not modify the Sherman ruling f ana it was not until the McKinley bill was passed that the mine owners got what they bargained for—a tariff which has not benefited the miners. As for Senator Walcott, he never received his reward, which accounts for his hostilities against Harrison, even to this day. He first recommended for the land office a member of the supreme court from Colorado, but Harrison objected to him, and upon the alleged grounds that Walcott’s man did not have a national reputation, in other words, was not big enough for the place. Then Walcott substituted an ex-gov-emor of Colorado. Harrison gave Walcott to understand that the appointment would be made, and the young senator went back to his mountain state satisfied. But before he reached home another man had been appointed.

There is genera! dissatisfaction among the old soldiers regarding the present management of the pension office under Commissioner Raum. His administration of that office has been partial, dishonest and corrupt, and the veterans would hail with joy the return of General John C. Black to bis old poet of duty. Under his management the pensioners were protected from the sharks and gamblers who are now cheating them of their rights and delaying the Consideration of their claims. This condition of things will last until the 4th of next March, when Grover Cleveland will restore General Black to his odd place at the head of the pension office «od then the soldiers will receive just and honest treatment. They need not expect it sooner, The German-Americans Cleveland union, of New York, has issued an a&> dress to the of the country giving strong reasons why they should support Cleveland. The appea\ is signed by Carl Schura, Oswald Qttei* dorter, William Stein way, Henry VII-' tard, Louis Windmullar Gustav H. Schwab, all mentf ngfcoaai reputation. VTheat is down to the lowest point in It will be difficult to com t*bee the farmers of, the west that they any protection under tbS

QTo vote a straight Democratic tick stamp within the square enclosing t 3 rooster at the top of the ballot, andn< • where else. If any other square is stami • ed in addition to the large square Urn b|Uot will be thrown ont. After stami • ing fold the ballot so as to leave the initials of the poll-clerk on the outside an i hand to the election officers.