Democratic Sentinel, Volume 17, Number 37, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 29 September 1893 — WHERE ARE THEY AT? [ARTICLE]

WHERE ARE THEY AT?

THERE’S MUCH WORRY IN THE REPUBLICAN CAMP. The People Bin Become Thoroughly Convinced that Republicans Have Foolish Ideas Favorable Time to Revise the Tariff—The Pension Blight. “Where Are They At?” For four years the Republicans have been trying to convince the people that they were fools. Twice the people have become convinced that the Republicans were fools. The result of a third experiment is scarcely doubtful. In 1890 the Republicans spent the two months after the passage of the McKinley bill and before the election, in telling the people that high prices was what were needed because “cheap coats made cheap men.” The people said “nonsense,” and voted accordingly. In 1892 the Republicans had found out to a certainty tnat protection cheapens goods and lowers prices, besides, of course, raising wages—which is always a, part of the regular business of protection. Fearing that the people might be skeptical so soon after 1890, the Republicans got Labor Commissioner Peck of New York to make some brand-new statistics for their especial use. They also accused the foreigner of paying our tariff taxes. Aided by Davenport they supposed they had a “lead-pipe cinch” on New York State. But they didn’t. Nor would New York have saved them. Now, in 1893, with a financial panic on hand due to Republican compromise legislation they have concluded they have just what is needed to save them in 1894. They will call it “the Democratic panic of 1893 due to the fear of free trade.”

But now, just as Republicans had come to the unanimous conclusion that this shall be their war cry for 1894, the panic begins to peter out, even while they are practicing up on their war cry, and substantial prosperity is again at hand. As the Democrats have not changed their position on the tariff question, the people have nothing else to credit the prosperity to except the practical certainty that the senate will pass the unconditional repeal bill. Consequently there is much worry in the Republican camp. They are wondering if they must return to the “British gold" and “bloody shirt” which did such effective work previous to 1890. They are undecided and are wondering “where they are at.” Some have already taken to the woods; others are burrowing holes in the ground.

Favorable Time for Tariff Revision. The principal remaining national question affecting business is tariff revision. A right attitude toward this whole subject on the part of manufacturers and all business classes, assumed at the outset of this discussion, would be a great preventive of friction in bringing trade under the new tariff conditions which 1891 will witness. In the first place it should be remembered that no question will remain settled until it is settled right. To aid in determining what a right settlement of this matter is, in the judgment of the American people, it must be kept in mind that the successful party in 1888 was elected upon a pledge of substantial reductions of tariff duties, and that these pledges were disregarded in the passage of the McKinley bill, the opposition party swept the country upon a platform of a revenue tariff. It is settled, then, that tariff revision must come, and that it must be what we have not seen for more than a generation, to wit, a revision downward. There is no use in resisting this tendency. The most that could be done in that direction would be to obtain some delay in the enactment of the new law. But such delay would be a mistake, for the reason that the country has rarely, if ever before, been in as good shape as it is now for the change that is contemplated. We have just received a check in the matter of national and individual extravagance and in a movement towards financial unsoundness. As a result of this sudden holding up, manufacturing and importing have been reduced substantially to their lowest terms. Prices of all commodities are so low that further declines are hardly to be looked for under any circumstances. Stocks in hand, whether of domestic or imported goods, are below the normal, and everything is snug and ship-shape, and well prepared for any necessary changes. So far from resisting the change in the tariff, therefore, all interested should join in hastening it as much as is consistent with careful and intelligent legislation. Day Goods Economist.

A Silly Outburst. Because some producers of perishable Bermuda vegetables testified before the Wayand Means Committee that they had sometimes sold their produce here less the duties, the protection organs break out with the silly old claim that “ the foreigner pays the duty, ” This is Gov. McKinley’s favorite bit of demagogic dishonestv when he is on the backwocds stump, but for a newspaper printed within sight of the Custom House to repeat it is a poor tribute to the intelligence of its readers. It is only necessary to repeat the inquiries which we addressed in vain to the Republican speakers and journals last year: Why, if the foreigner pays the duty, did your Fifty-first Congress stop at a billion dollars in appropriations? Why not spend a billion and a half and fructify the favored land with the tribute of effete despotism? If the foreigner pays the duty why not abolish the internal revenue taxes, which our own people iudisputably pay, and raise all our revenues from the helpless producers of the Old World? The duty on- pearl buttons is 146 per cent. Does the foreigner pay the duty—in other words, give us the buttons and 46 per cent, in addition in cash? The duty on some grades of cheap flannels is 107 per cent.; on cheap wool yarns 133 per cent.; on cheap blankets 104 per cent.; on cheap hats 105. Does the foreigner pay the value of these goods and a bonus besides for the privilege of giving them away here? Why do the monopoly-defenders repeat this rubbish? Do they not know that the tariff fight is over, for three years at least, and that McKinleyism is bound to go?—New York World. The Tariff Hearings Farce. The ways and means committee granted a few days’ hearings on the tariff, and the same old chestnut industries are on hand to tell the committee how necessary it is to continue protection, and what direful things would happen if protection should be abolished and their industries lost to the country. A man up in Connecticut—Mr. W. O. Witcomb—became convinced, three vears ago, that the increasing demand ior metallic bedsteads \yould warrant their manufacture here. He formed a company and began to manufacture them. He tells the committee that he pays his workmen three or four times as much as the workmen are paid abroad and asks that McKinley proteotion be continued—ndt lor his benefit.

of course, but for ths benefit of his j workmen and of the people who purchase metallic bedsteads. His case is very plain. We can continue his protection and allow our poor people to sleep on the floor; or wo can drop his protection and permit them to sleep on good and cheap beds. Next comes a New York man, a manufacturer of macaroni. He wants the duty of 2 cents per pound to remain on macaroni so that he can continue to pay his sixteen men four times, and his twenty-three girls five and fiveeighths times, as much as they would get in Italy. This all looks plausible and the committee doubtless appreciates the unselfish interest which he takes in his thirty-nine employes; though it may have some doubt as to the advieability of continuing to tax our poor people 40 per cent, on all of their macaroni for the benefit of these thirty-nine employes. Next!

The Pension Blight. “There is one evil about the pension business that I have often noticed, but for which there is no legal remedy,” remarked an old pension examiner. “That is that whole families often depend upon a small pension, received by some one in the family, for their entire support. Now pensions are not given to encourage idleness, and yet such seams to be the fact in many instances I have noticed myself, and in perhaps thousands of cases that I know nothing about. Widows receiving pensions struggle to support themselves and eons and daughters upon the meager income, when the latter ought to have employment. I have often seen a whole family go to draw the quarterly pension, showing the interest they take in the matter. I have often been amazed at the sight of boys and girls who are growing up in idleness, because their fathers are dead and their mothers are weak and indulgent and do not have the proper influence over them. You would be surprised to know how many families depend upon pensions,, and how many members of families only seek work when the pension is withdrawn “I know of a particular case where an old soldier, with several sons and daughters, some time ago got a pension, and also about $2,000 back pension money. The family regarded that amount as a small fortune, and began to live at an extravagant rate. Three, of the sons and one daughter lost their places on one pretense or another, and depended on their father for support. The two sons and the daughter at work married, and then the family was indeed in bad shape. The boys had grown to be la*y and trifling, and the daughter at home was not much better. When places were secured for them they would not hold on to them, and the consequence was a family of six persons lived on an income of not much over S2O a month. They lived in four small rooms, and from all accounts were continually quarreling and running in debt. When the boys were asked why they did not work more, they would remark that ‘the old man drew a pension and kept the family.’ This is only one instance of many. Now pensions are not given to encourage idleness, and there ought to be a remedy somewhere for such a condition of affairs. The legal remedy, if any, lies with the state, and yet it cannot interfere except in extreme cases.” —Cincinnati Times Star (Rep.) Pearl Button Men Active. The fact that the Democratic party means business on the tariff question is coming home as never before to high protectionists. The “National Association of Pearl Button Manufacturers” is giving some strong advice to pearl button manufacturers. It tells them to “Prepare your figures,” and adds: “We have already stated, and we repeat, that a reasonable request for protection, sufficient to cover the difference between the cost of labor here and in Europe, will doubtless be listened to by the’ present Congress, but no excessive duties, the necessity for which is founded on careless and extravagant management of any industry, are likely to have a place in the now tariff. Any efforts to obtain such protective duties will be energy misdirected and time wasted, and the pearl button industry is in no condition to pay for indulgences in such costly mistakes. ” We think they are right in regard to excessive duties, though they insult the Democrats by saying that a reasonable request for protection will be listened to, after that party has denounced protection as a fraua and robbery. If the Democrats fulfill their pledges, as is probable, the pearl button men may also waste time and misdirect their energies in the collection of figures relating to cost of production. The people don’t ask, and don't care, what it costs to produce goods here or abroad. They ask for low prices, that is all.

To Increase Our Trade. Senator Sherman says: “We ought to encourage in every possible way the exportation of our products, although I do not see precisely how it can be done. * Two or three ways of increasing our foreign trade ought to be obvious. It is an old saying that “those who want friends must show themselves friendly.” If we want more trade we must show a disposition to trade on fair terms. No nation in Europe will buy of us if it can get what it wants elsewhere on anything like as favorable terms. This disposition has been created by our hostile tariff laws, which were avowedly framed to keep out foreign products' It takes two to trade. Commerce between countries is based on mutual advantage in the exchange of commodities. How can we expect to “increase the exportation of our products, ” except as foreign nations must have food, while we raise high the barriers of our prohibitory tariffs, based on the idea that "commerce is war”—that trade must be like a jug handle, “all on one side?” One other way to increase our exports is to untax the raw materials of our manufacturers, placing them on equal terms with their foreign competitors as to the cost of production. Unshackle commerce and it will lake care of itself.—New York World.

McKinley’s Neglect. It is quite evident that McKinley has failed to take advantage of experience. He is still prating of the tax-paying foreigner, who ought to be sued, if the McKinley theory is correct, ior permitting our customs revenues to fall off. Can Cnllom Explain? Senator Cullom says the McKinley law is a prosperity producer, but neglects to state why it is not doing business at the present time. It is still on the statute books, and is sure to be there for nearly a year to come. A BUSINESS man of Colfax, Wash., proposes to stock that country with Chinese pheasants. A large poultry house has been built at his home and he has hatched out forty young birds on the place. Many more eggs are now in his incubator. His hens have laid over 300 eggs since last fall, but none of them has yet offered to sit. Diocletian, after his abdication, spent his leisure in gardening. “If you could see the cabbages I raise,” he said to a deputation, “you would not ask me to resume the crown.”