Democratic Sentinel, Volume 19, Number 23, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 June 1895 — NOW IT BEARS FRUIT. [ARTICLE]

NOW IT BEARS FRUIT.

COUNTRY BECOMES PROSPEROUS UNDER WILSON LAW. Good Times and Increased Wages Everywhere—Republican CalamityHowlers in a Bad Way—An Old Superstition Gets Some Hard Rapa. The Income Tax Decision. The organs of tariff protected monopoly are jubilant over the decision of the Supreme Court declaring the income tax unconstitutional. They foolishly think that the movement away from high tariffs toward direct taxation can be checked by the failure of the first crude attempt to tax the wealthy classes in proportion to the benefits they receive from the Government And they boast that the decision means that protective tariffs are to be the settled policy of this country. Never was there a greater mistake. The sentiment which put the income tax through Congress is stronger to-day than ever before. It is perhaps better that since in its first form the income tax was far from satisfactory to its friends, it should have been wiped out altogether. But the widespread demand for direct taxation which will reach the fruits of monopoly and special privilege, is growing every day, and will sweep away the party which dares oppose it. Far better had it been for the privileged classes had the patehed-up tax been allowed to stand. The next direct tax bill, introduced by a majority party in Congress, will be far more radical, and It will be enforced by a popular sentiment which will Insist on the Constitutional amendments necessary to make it the law of the land. Oh, no, short-sighted protectionist editors. Don’t fool your readers with any such nonsense as “high tariff our settled policy.” The people 9/ America have a good deal to say about settling things, and little obstructions like Constitutions won’t stand long in their way when they make up their minds to settle them right.

“Home Market’’ Delusions. Almost the only argument on which the trade restrictionists have relied to catch the farmer’s votes has been been the pretense that high tariff taxation would create “home markets” which would make the farmer prosperous. And In spite of the fact that the prices of farm products are fixed in foreign markets, farmers have been found foolish enough to believe that some time, far off, protection would give them a home market for all their produce. At the same time that they have been crediting high taxation with the development of thi-j country, the protectionist press has been steadily harping on the alleged decline of agriculture In Great Britain, under a low tariff. “It Is true, they say, “that by abolishing restrictions on commerce, England has vastly benefited her manufacturers and workingmen. But look at the farmers. Within forty miles of London there are thousands of idle acres, and foreign competition In all kinds of food stuffs has greatly reduced the rents of Londoners throughout Great Britain.” Admitting that the farmers in the neighborhood of London are not prosperous, the natural question is: What is the matter with their “home market?” With a city of over four millions of people almost at their doors, why aro they not rich? Come, Messrs. High Tariffltes, explain how It happens that with enormously Increased population In the cities, the British farmer has not received the benefits which are so glowingly promised, but never bestowed on, the American farmer! Keep Together, Tribune! It is too much to expect that the “no traders” will agree among themselves as to the real purpose of protective tariffs. Neither do we hope to find the utterances of any one protectionist agree from w r eek to week. But we certainly believe that a daily tariff organ should at least be consistent with itself In each issue. Under the heading “Some Startling Facts,” the New York Tribune recently published an article from its Washington correspondent, based on the Government summary of exports and imports. From that report the Tribune showed that while the value of the imports of articles of food and live animals imported free of duty in the month of March, 1894, amounted to $32,000,000; in March, 1895, it amounted to only $13,000,000. The same issue of the Tribune contained the usual original remarks about the “flood of foreign gods” which tariff reform is pouring on the country. Did any of the paper’s readers think to ask the editor why, if foreign goods are things to be avoided and shut out, the McKinley bill permitted $32,000,000 worth of them to come in free in one month? Perhaps they did ask and perhaps the editor did not know.

Why Republicans Weep. The calamity howlers of Republican press are just now using blue ink, and an extra width of mourning border for their wails. The cause of their sorow is no longer the terrible evil of unrestricted trade, but the fact that, in spite of their doing all in their power to hinder the revival of business, the country is entering on one of the most prosperous periods in its history. Factories are running on extra time to full orders; new industries are starting up all over the country; wages are being increased from ten to fifteen per cent; and railroad business is steadily growing. And in the sight of this prosperity, which should gladden the heart of every American, the high-tariffite sits him down and weeps, and weeps. Because: he said that the hard times brought on by a dose of McKinleyism would last until we get more of the same mixture. He thought that people would step using food, clothes, furniture or steel, just because the high taxation policy had been knocked out But strange to say, the people are going right on to produce and buy and sell things as usual. Hence these Rpublican tears. Duty on Silks. The voice of McKinley is to be invoked in favor of higher duties on silks. Cheap silks have become one of the few luxuries of the thrifty poor, and a little group of manufacturers demand the right to tax them more for the indulgence. That there is no reason for it the record shows. Under all tariffs raw silk has been free. The present duty on manufactures of silks is 50 per cent This Is exactly what it was under the Republican commission tariff of 1883-

90. The McKlnleyitea raised it to 00 per cent A call for more than 50 per cent taxation on any article of clothing will never again be popular In this country.—New York World. Hard Rapa for an Old Superstition. Secretary Morton is doing good service in combating foolish notions about International trade. In the preface to the valuable pamphlet just issued by the Department of Agriculture, entitled “The World’s Markets for American Products,” he gives the dear old superstition about a “favorable balance of trade,” and the need of selling more than we buy, some particularly hard raps. He maintains that the nation, like the individual, that'does not take in more than it puts out is in a bad way, and gives a conclusive point to the argument by citing the case of England’s exports and imports for the past five years. During that period her imports exceeded her exports by some $3,000,000,000, and she ought to have suffered several kinds of blue ruin, according to tbe Tribune’s favorite doctrine. On the contrary, she has accumulated so much wealth that she has had raiiioQs aud millions to throw away in Argentina and the United States, and not even yet shows any signs of applying for a receivership.—New York Evening Post. Good Times and Increased Wages. All such reports as that of the advances in wages grouped by the evening edition of the World recently are gratifying. It Is most gratifying, however, to see that among the advances now so frequently reported nearly all are made voluntarily by the manufacturers. Prices and wages are advancing together. In wheat, corn, cotton, coffee, provisions and various metals there has been a marked advance, showing an increase of demand and of general activity. It is only fair to add, however, that business has never been as depressed as some people would have it thought—New York World.

“Humbug at a Premium.’’ A calamity organ sententlously observes that “humbug Is at a premium these days;” and It then proceeds to emit a yawp over the terrible frauds in valuations of imports under the ad valorem duties on woolens in the new tariff. It is assumed in this specimen of humbug that the public Is liot aware that the ad valorem duties were much higher under the McKinley tariff, aud the profits of frauds In valuations consequently much greater^ Why England Has Cheap Meat. A writer In the Frankfurter Zeitung calls attention to the fact that Australian i#eat can be bought In English towns almost as cheaply as in Melbourne—from 6 to 10 cents per pound—and attributes to this and similar blessings of free trade the fact that In spito of hard times, there has been so little actual suffering In England. Just Watch Them Squirm! The McKinley brethren are now saying that Improvement In business Is only in those branches not touched by the new tariff. Of course tills is not true, but it is Interesting to sec the McKinleyites wriggle, just the same.