Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 15, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 April 1894 — WEALTH GOES TO FEW [ARTICLE]

WEALTH GOES TO FEW

ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FRAUD EXPOSED. Oar Par Capita Wealth Increased 10 Per Cent. from ISM to ISM, but Hm Mot Inereooed 1 Per Cent. SlnceConeeraiac "True Valuation*. ” Jagg liar with Cen*<u Btail*tic*. Mr. T. E. Wilson, the “tariff mule" of the New York World, has exposed another great fraud which the New York Tribune and other Republican newspapers are attempting to perpetrate upon the American people. Commenting upon the recently published census statistics of wealth the New York Tribune says that Mr. J. K. Upton, special agent in charge of these inquiries, places the “true valuation* of all tangible property in the United States, in 1890, at 165,037,091,197. While discussing “true valuations” the Tribune says: “During four prior decades the valuations shown by Census Office statistics were as follows: In 1850, $7,250,000,000; 1860, S 16,250,000,000; 000,000,000; 1880, 143,000,000,000. The per capita true valuation wealth of the country at these different census periods is placed at S3OB in 1850, at $514 in 1860, at S7BO in 1870, at SB7O in 1880, and at $1,039 in 1890.” Of course the Tribune loses no time in crediting all of this gain in wealth, since 1860, to protection. Probably its logic is convincing to three-fourths of its narrow-minded, mole-eyed readers. But the Tribune is juggling with statistics. It is comparing figures which represent different things—one set representing the true value of all property and the other the true value of taxable property only. Mr. Wilson says, in the World: The wealth of the country Is divided into taxed and untaxed—one-halt escaping taxation. The total taxed property is assessed at 75 per cent, of its value (average la forty-four States), so that the assessed valued the whole United States is the decimal.3B73 of the actual or true wealth. This was discovered in 1870 by Francis A Walker, proved correct by Robert P. Porter in 1880, and accepted by him in 1890. The third actual and first successful attempt to make an estimate of our national wealth was In 1850. The marshals In that year were instructed to report the assessed and actual value of taxed property only. They reported the actual value of taxed property as 87,135,780,228, and this was given in the census of 1850 as our “wealth.” We know now that It was but 51 per cent of It—but that does not matter so long as we compare similar figures. The assessed value in 1850 was $5,287,613.148. but these figures were not published, and are still In the archives, although the assessment for 1851 appears in the compendium. In 1860 the marshals were instructed, as In 1850, and both returns are published in the 1860 census. Their totals were $12,084,560,006. as the assessed value of taxed property and $16,159,616,068 as the actual value of the taxed property, this latter being about one-half our wealth and the assessment being 74 per cent In 1870, Francis B. Walker saw that the wealth of the country could not be properly measured by the value of the taxed property. Inquiry showed him that about one-half escaped taxation, and his estimate was that the assessed value was .3780 of the true wealth. The assessed value of taxed property for 1870 was $14,178,986,932 In currency, or $11,342,789,366 la gold. It was actually less (on a gold basis) than In 1860. The civil war had naturally cost more than the Increase in wealth would have been. But he estimated that the true wealth In 1870 was $30,068,518,507. This was the first estimate of wealth ever made that Included both taxed and untaxed property, and if the estimate was correct, or near correct, then the true wealth In 1860 was $31,201,910,676, or $993 per capita in 1850, against S7BO in 1870. In 1880 Robert P. Porter followed Mr. Walker’s lines, and, after very thorough Investigation, found that the correct decimal relation of assessment to actual wealth wa5.3873, the slight variation in 1870 being caused by the mixture of gold and paper valuations. The assessed value of taxed property in 1880 was $16,902,993,543. which was .3873 of $43,642,000,000, the true wealth, or SB7O per capita. In 1890 Mr. Porter reports the assessed value of taxed property at $24,249,589,804 just double what it was in 1860. He estimates the actual wealth of the country at $62,610,000,000, of which the assessment is .3873. Now note the protection swindle. In 1850 and 1860 the census under the head of “True Valuation” collected the figures for taxed property only. In 1880 and 1890 the census puts in this column, under this head, the figures for both taxed and untaxed property, adding them together. There was no intent to deceive the elect, for it is plainly stated and the reader fully understands that the figures for 1880 and 1890 comprise both kinds of wealth, while the figures for 1850 and 1860 are for but one kind of wealth—only 51 per cent of that included in the later returns, The swindle lies in the way these figures are used and compared by the protectionists to gall the simple-minded and credulous Republican voters of the country—particularly by the New York Tribune. Here Is a table which it Is worth while studying carefully, for these figures are from the census and unimpeachable: Per Year. Assessed value. Population, cap. 1860512,084,560,005 31,448,821 $385 1890 24,249,589,804 62.622,250 387 There had been no Increase in the per capita value of taxed property as assessed. But the assessed property, as has been proven by Mr. Walker and Mr. Porter, is but . 3873 of the true wealth. Let us see what the true wealth should have been in 1860 and 1890: Assessed Dec. True Per Year. value. of. wealth. cap. 1860512,084,560,005 .3873 $81,201,910,676 $993 1890 24,249,589,804 .3873 62,610,000,000 990 There had been no Increase in the true wealth per capita upon an honest comparison of similar figures. The “true wealth.” as given in the census for 1890, Includes both taxed and untaxed property, while in 1860 the census only gives the true values for taxed property. Now let us take the basis of 1860 and deal with taxed property only: Assessed Per True Per Year. value. cent. of. value, capita. 1860. .$12,084,560,005 .74 $16,159,616,068 $514 1890.. 24,249,589,804 .75 32,332,786,404 516 In the thirty years of protection since 1860 there had been no Increase in our per capita wealth, and Robert P. Porter, an able statistician and economic investigator, but an utterly unscrupulous protection advocate, was placed in charge of the census of 1890 to so manipulate the wealth figures that the Tribune and other organs of the thieves could fool the people, while apparently appealing to the census for their facta In census bulletin 104 Mr. Porter makes a report which is absurd on its face. He gives this table as our wealth at decades: Assessed True Per Year. value. value. capita 1860512,084,560,005 $16,159,616,068 $514 1879 14,178,986,732 30,068,518,507 780 1880 16,902,993,543 1890.. That thia table is fraudulent, that these figures do not relate to the same things, is shown in the first two lines. The census of 1870 expressly says, and Mr. Porter in 1880 repeated the warning, that the assessed valuation for 1870 is reported in depreciated greenbacks: that the average inflation is 25 per cent.; that the true figures in gold are $11,342,789,366. Now compare these two lines in gold values: Assessed Per True Per Year. value. cent. of. value. capita. 1860.. $12,084,500,005 .75 $16,159.61,068 614 1870.. 11,342,789,366 .37 30,068,518,507 780 How can anyone with sense be asked to believe that our wealth doubled In the civil war decade, when the assessed value of taxable property actually declined? These two lines explain the fraud. Mr. Porter takes the “true valuation of taxed property only,” in 1860, because we bad nothing else then to compare with the “true valuation of all property,, both taxed

and vntaaod,* fas the three subsequent lines; and he does this deliberately, because he did not dare compare taxed property with taxed property, or true wealth with true wealth, for that would then show an enormous loss in our national wealth in 1880. And now that the reader may have before him a clear idea of our exact wealth at different decades I append first the correct tables of taxed property: Ratio of Year. True value. Taxed for tSTStion. 1860•97.1M.T80.228 $5,387,613,148 .740 1860•16,159,616,068 •12,084,560,006 ».741 1810 15,133,719.154 111,342,780,366 .760 UK21,126,241,928 *16,902.993,543 ».T» UK 32J32.T06.404 •34,343,566,804 .TOO •Census figures. IGold basis census estimate. Now, let us compare the correct tables of true wealth, which combine the taxed and untaxed, in accordance with the lately discovered measuring rods of Mt Walker and Mr. Porter: Year. True wealth. Ass. ratio. Taxed tor 1850513,662,000,000 .3873 $5,287,613,148 1860 31,202,000,000 .3873 *I3,OMJK,CO6 1870•30,068,000,000 ‘.3780 111,542,786,366 1880•43J42.000.000 ‘.SSTO •16,902,998,543 UK•62,610,000,000 *.3873 •34.269,669,804 •Census figures. IGold basis census figures. And now let us compare the per capita wealth at the five decades: 1860. 1860. 1810. 1880. 1890. As assesseds229 »$385 **295 •$338 *sBB7 Taxed only•we *614 392 421 sl6 Untaxed 283 479 388 849 483 All wealth 691 993 *7BO »810 »999 •Census figures. These are the true tables of the census, showing correct comparison. Where figures are lacking in the census for proper comparison they are restored by the proper census ratios, and marked They show that not only the assessed value of taxed property, but the actual value of taxed property, as well as the true wealth and per capita wealth, decreased daring the civil war decade. The defenders of the protection thieves wish the Republican voter to believe that while the assessed wealth of the country declined between 1860 and 1870 from $385 to s29s—a loss of S9O per bead—there was an actual increase in the per capita wealth from $514 to S7BO, while the total wealth nearly doubled. The Tribune will assert that this is true—that Instead of a loss of S9O per head of assessed wealth, showing a loss of $213 in actual wealth. It naturally shows an increase of $266. And nine out of every ten of its readers will believe It to be true. They will see nothing illogical in It, nor in the Tribune substituting currency values for gold values. Based upon these and other census statistics, Mr. Wilson stated in the World that there has been no increase practically in the wealth in thirty years, although in the ten years between 1850 and 1860 the per capita wealth nearly doubled, rising from $591 to $993, of which only s2l was from the discovery of gold. In 1860 the wealth of this country was very evenly distributed; there were no multi-millionaires, very few millionaires, few large fortunes No special wealth statistics were collected, but the census of 1860 shows half the wealth in possession of half the people. There were no bonanza farms and no tenant farmers. One-half the male workers were on farms they owned, and the average land valne of each farm was $3,251, while few went much over or under. Poverty was confined to the cities, and to small sections of them. It is perfectly safe to assert that 91 per cent, of the people held in fair and even measure 91 per cent of the wealth, while 4 per cent of the people owned the remaining 9 per cent, leaving not more than 5 per cent practically paupers. The per capita wealth Is the same to-day as in 1860. Each man eats and drinks, and any great change that has come must of necessity have been by a reduction of wealth—by taking from many and giving it to one. The census of 1890 shows that the conditions of 1860 have been reversed; that 91 per cent of the people of the United States are to-day practically paupers, living from hand to mouth, dependent upon their dally bread, while 9 per cent are capitalistic employers, owning 84 per cent of the wealth The Senate Debate After two months of delay the amended Wilson bill came up for consideration in the Senate, and Chairman Voorhees made the opening speech in its behalf. No one can foretell the duration of the debate. The Democratic supporters of the bill hope to get through in six weeks. The Republicans and their assistants, the dissenting Democrats, talk of three months. If the Senate were moved by regard for the public interests and respect for public opinion its course would be substantially this: Each party would agree upon three of its members to present its side of the question in carefully prepared and elaborate speeches. They could say all that needs to be said upon the general policy involved. This might consume a week. There would then be a general discussion under a rule limiting the speeches to fifteen or twenty minutes. This would enable every Senator to get his views before the people of his State, which is the main object of most of the so-called debates. Upon a party question in a legislative body talk does not phange votes. A week should suffice for this, with “leave to print” for Senators who are constitutionally longwinded. The bill would then be open to motions to amend, under a rule for five-minute speeches. The purpose of every proposed amendment could be made clear m an hour or two of genuine debate under this rule. Two weeks of honest work in this way would test the sense of the Senate on every section of the bill. The final vote on the bill could then be taken by the Ist of May. It could be sent to a conference committee, agreed to and finally passed in a week more and go into effect on the 30th of June, the end of the fiscal year. This is the business-like way Of disposing of the tariff bill. It is also the patriotic way. The country waits and pleads for an early settlement of the question. It asks for and needs certainty. Instead of patriotism, is it to have more politics? Instead of business, is it to have needless delay?— New York World. Allison's Unsupported Assertions. Mr. Allison opened the debate on the tariff bill for the opposition without throwing great light upon the subject. He denounced the Democrats for seeking revenue only, which is an obvious exaggeration. He figured out the increase between 1880 ana 1890 of the manufactured products of the United States (69.27 per cent.) and declared that it was due to protection, which Is a proposition impossible reasonably to verify easy to refute, since a very large part of the increase is in industries for which there can be no foreign competition. He declared that all our industries, with few exceptions, would be paralyzed, if not strangled to death, by the pending bill, vet he knows that many of the duties affecting the larger part of the industries of the country are no lower in the Senate bill than those in force when the McKinley act was passed. Naturally and prudently, he took no note of the fact that in numbers of cases our manufacturers can even now undersell foreign competitors in foreign markets, and many more will be able to do so with the reduction in the cost of materials made possible by the reformed tariff. In his day Mr. Allison was a pretty good tariff reformer. It is only the exigencies of party discipline that now bring him forward rashly to condemn a measure which is in no sense radical or destructive, and no more extreme than those he has himself sustained in the past.—New York Times. Don’t Tax Raw Materials. There is, of course, no honesty in the chatter that the policy of free raw materials is opposed to the Democratic 'principle of a tariff for revenue. No friend of such a tariff ever proposed to tax everything that is imported. Under a strict application of the principle,

the articles to be selected for revenue duties are those the taxation of which would yield the most revenue with the least burden to the people. To tax raw materials is to handicap our manufacturers, to limit the demand for labor, and to increase the cost of all goods produced from them. The policy of free raw materials is explicit}’ approved in the Chicago platform. Invodlag the World’s Markets. While some of the “conservatives" in the Senate are afraid of free iron ore, the Iron Age smd other trade journals are discussing the capacity of our iron manufacturers to invade the markets of the world with their wares. The Iron Age, which is a stanchprotectionlst journal, said on March 29: EWe are sure that few Americans liliar with our resources and our methods are not convinced that the manifest destiny of the United States is to become the greatest manufacturing country in the world. What we have accomplished in some branches of agriculture and of industry is merely a forerunner of the great achievements which the next generation will bring." The editor thinks our prices will, after one more turn, be “on a parity with the industrial market” ana that then with better banking facilities, better consular service and more attention to foreign trade we may expect to hold our own in the markets of the world. We are now, in fact, exporting millions of dollars’ worth of iron and steel products, agricultural implements, stoves, sewing machines, saws, axes, and nearly all kinds of tools,locomotives and, within a few weeks, pig iron from Alabama to England. It is then no wonder that even protectionist journals are waking up to the fact that with free raw materials and our protection bands removed, we can challenge competition from all quarters in all quarters of the earth.

Coal Industry Prosperous. It is a fact of considerable interest and significance that, notwithstanding the panic of last year, the consumption of coal was about two million tons greater than in the previous year. The Engineering and Mining Journal has taken extraordinary pains to collect statistics on this subject, and it finds that the consumption of 1893 was 183,422,710 net tons, while that of 1892 was only 180,399,017 net tons. After making account of imports and exports, the remainder shows an increase in consumption of 1,881,943 tons. From this fact the Journal draws the reasonable inference that “the depression in business through the year could not have been so great in fact as it appearea on the surface. During the first half of the year,” it continues, “business men worried over and continually talked about the depression in trade, when in fact they meant in prices. The continual tal£ about hard times caused capital to become far more conservative than there was any real reason for, and thus affected other branches of business. The semi-panic! spread everywhere and caused infinite harm to many industries, but, as the figures of coal production show, manufacturing interests throughout the country certainly have not suffered to the extent claimed and believed.”— New York Post! Betrayers ot Democratic Principles. The fundamental principles of Democracy are as sound to-aay as they were when Thomas Jefferson enunciated them more than one hundred years ago. “Equal rights for all, special privileges for none" will forever be the goal of popular government It is the essence of liberty and justice. A few traitors, masquerading as Democrats, may succeed temporarily in defeating real Democratic legislation, but they .vill soon be swept out of ' power by the tide of popular indignation, and better men will fill their places. j The study ot the social and economic sciences is more general than ever be- | fore and, knowing their rights, the people will insist on being free. Real Democrats should not be disheartened. i They should set to work to rid their party of all who can be tempted to vote special, favors to great trusts or protected interests. Millionaires are too numerous in the Senate and all of them are interested directly or indirectly in protected interests. But some of the worst men there are those who want to become millionaires and are willing to sell themselves and their party to be-, come millionaires. Rid the party of all such men. Voorhees for an Income Tax* No part of Senator Voorhees’ speech yesterday had more truly the ring of earnestness than his defense of the income tax. To the claim that “such a tax cannot be collected because of the wholesale perjury which income owners will commit in order to evade the I law,” the Senator replied: “I confess that I am shocked to be assured now by gentlemen of great ability and high position that the principal property-holders and income owners of the United States are ready, for the sake of defrauding the Government out of a small pittance, to blacken their souls with the detestable crime of false swearing, to render themselves fit associates for thieves, : house-breakers, forgers and cutthroats in the prison houses of the world, and to become everlasting inhabitants of hell in the world to come. ” The protesting plutocrats ought to be grateful for this impassioned “hurling back" of the imputation that they would perjure themselves to escape a slight tax. —New York World. Tariff In the Senate. Before the merry month of May comes in the Senate should hav.e passed a tariff-reform bill.—Boston Globe. A SHORT limit in speeches should be in order. Promises must be redeemed on schedule’ time, else the redemption will count for but little. —Memphis Ap-peal-Avalanche. The bill ought to be amended and passed, but above all things should it be acted upon speedily. Let the debate be short and to the point—and so only can the Senate hope to recover some of its lately lost prestige.—Springfield Republican. The party In power is under pledge to revise the tariff, and since it has the votes necessary to pass the bill now before the Senate a failure to do so with reasonable promptness will be a confession of inability or unwillingness to make good a campaign promise. —Philadelphia Times. Whatever has been done in the Senate —if anything be accomplishedmust pass the ordeal of conference committees, and it is in thesd bodies that the great battle between protection Democrats for personal revenue and low-tariff Democrats will take place.—Boston Transctipt. The tariff debate in the Senate is likely to ba prolonged altogether out Of proportion to the number or the importance of the changes in the pending measure that will be accomplished by it These, in all probability, will be neither many nor essential—the compromisers and log-rollers having already put the bill in the form that will command the largest possible vote in the upper chamber. No ONE is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.— Dickens.