Democratic Sentinel, Volume 19, Number 29, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 July 1895 — wilson BILLAT WORK [ARTICLE]

wilson BILLAT WORK

EVEN WOOL IS DEFYING PROTECTION ARGUMENT. farmers Beginning to Realize that the Country Is Not Going to the Doga —Political Antics of Sherman and McKinley—The ’96 Campaign. Revival of Prosperity. If that can be called remarkable which has come to pass In pursuance of all reasonable expectations, the present state of the American wool market is the most remarkable thing about the business situation. The tenth legion of the army of the protectionists through all the tariff war has been the American Wool Growers’ Association, with its center of energy in Ohio. The utter ruin of American wool culture was predicted in the event of any lowering of the tariff on foreign wools. In the wool-growing States this feature of the tariff fight was the only feature that protectionism could see at all. and when it became Certain that the Wilson bill was going to admit foreign wool duty free, it was proof in thousands of farmers’ minds that Mr. Cleveland intended deliberately and maliciously to betray his country to perdition. In vain it was pointed out to these men that the manufacturing conditions were such that the increase of the use of

certain coarse foreign wools would involve the increase of the use of domestic wools to mix with them. This reasoning, however, involved two judgments of the mind to get at the conclusion, and the protectionist mind was unable to follow so complicated a mental process. The Wilson free-wool bill was worse than treason, and the country had gone to pot. Among the first of the interests to feel the reviving prosperity have been the Interests of the wool-growers and the wool merchants. The Boston Commercial Bulletin says: “Never has there been such a sustained demand for wool.” This demand of course includes all grades, foreign as well as domestic, but the point is that each shares the activity of the other, just as activity in bread means activity in butter and vice versa. The total sales of wool in the Boston market come within a few thousand pounds of the highest record, and the advance on domestic wools has been, since the revival of trade, fully 20 per cent, in value. Of course it is very naughty for business to play such havoc with venerable theories of economy, but the farmers themselves ought to cherish a forgiving temper in view of the pecuniary good that comes out of the theoretical evil.

Sherman and McKinley. Time out of mind John Sherman of Ohio has struggled for the Republican Presidential nomination. Rutherford B. Hayes, in whose cabinet he sat as Secretary of the Treasury, countenanced and encouraged his ambition to have the nomination of 1880, but Ohio Republican politicians have more than once proven treacherous and false, and Sherman, who has been in every convention since 18S0 as a presidential candidate, has invariably failed, not alone because there was no popular enthusiasm for him, but also because it was known that Ohio was really not at his back. John Sherman now definitely abandons a field he never fully occupied. In what appears to be an authorized interview at Mansfield he says: “If all the people of the United States should join together and offer it to me I would not accept the position. I am too old. No man of 72 has a right to undertake the work and responsibility which come to the chief executive of the United States. It is a position of wear and tear and it should have a younger man.”

John Sherman has invariably proven a cold, selfish, greedy politician. It was not posible that a man of his character should ever attain the Presidency. He appeal's finally to have arrived at that conclusion himself. In speaking of those persons who may look for Republican nomination next year Sherman speaks of Reed, of AUison and of McKinley. He seems careful to abstain from the use of Harrison’s name. He describes McKinley as an able man, who will make a good candidate, adding: “He will, I believe, have the support of Ohio, and I would like to see him nominated.” There is the same old story. No person can rely to a certainty upon any proclamation made by Ohio Republicans as to their support of an Ohio candidate. McKinley seems to be with the Buckeyes in very much worse condition than Sherman ever was. The one danger menacing him is the .known feeling of hostility to him felt by the very persons who profess to support him as the favorite son of Ohio. If McKinley suffer defeat he will be one of those of whom there are numerous examples who were killed in the house of their friends. There is no more sincerity for McKinley on the part of Sherman than there is upon the part of Foraker, and just as easily as Garfield abandoned Sherman in 1880 froraker anc} many a Buckeye will without ceremony quit Ohio’s present favorite and ill-fated son.—Chicago Chronicle. Democratic Campaign of 1896. Chairman William F. Harrity of the Democratic National Committee, says that a meeting of that body will be

held in November, immediately after the State elections which are to occur this year. The time and place of holding the Democratic national convention will not be decided at that meeting, but there ’will be a full interchange of views on both points. Afi to the issues of the campaign, Mr. Harrity says that the Democrats will have no apology to make for the silver lgeislation nor for the tariff legislation of the last Congress. He believes that the currency was placed on a stable foundation by the repeal of the Sherman silver act. The reviving industry and trade of the country vindicate the Democratic tariff policy. Mr. Harrity agrees with a recent declaration of Senator David B. Hill that the Democrats never had a better prospect of carrying a presidential election than they have of carrying the election of 1890. With no setback to the growth and development of industry and commerce, the Republicans will be bankrupt of capital in entering the campaign. Protection Killed Ireland’s Industries Seeking to make capital by appeals to race prejudice the American Economist, organ of the tariff trusts and Trade Restriction League, revives the old exploded charge that free trade ruined Ireland’s industries. To prove its unfounded assertion it quotes from < Aeon’s Short History to show that up to 16S8 Ireland had flourishing commerce in linens and woolens, which En-

gland destroyed. That Ireland in the 17th century did have extensive manufacturing industries is beyond dispute. It is also true that the short-sighted English protectionists tried to destroy them. But the method by which Irish commerce and industry were ruined is shown in the passage from the Short History quoted by the Economist: “To protect the Interests of English graziers the import of (Irish) cattle into England was forbidden. To protect the interest of English clothiers and weavers its (Ireland’s) manufactures were loaded with duties.” Here, then, according to the Economist’s own authority, is the proof that it was protection and not free trade which ruined Ireland’s commerce and manufactures. No other result could have been expected from the policy of trade restriction which shut Irish products out of their best markets. But the Economist is forced to admit that while the English policy of protection destroyed Ireland’s industries over one hundred years ago, it is the land system of that unhappy country which is responsible for the misery and poverty w'hich exist there to-day. And It tries to deceive its readers by calling the land policy imposed on Ireland by England “perfect free trade in land,” and quotes from Professor Wallace a picture of the terrible results of what It calls the free trade doctrine of supply and demand. It is true that Professor Wallace has shown that the hopeless degredation of the Irish people comes from the monopoly by a few landlords of the soil on which the peopie must live and work. But it is not true that he traces the evil to free trade doctrines, for, as every one who has read his books knows, he is a free trader, and proves that the evils of landlordism are due to the restrictions of land monopoly. The Economist’s false statements and misrepresentations will convince no intelligent IrishAmerican that trade restriction is better than the policy of free commerce for which the great Daniel O’Connell strove.

Income and Outgo. Oflicial statement of receipts and expenditures for the month of May shows a deficit of 83,280,135 for the month. The average deficit for the preceding ten months of the fiscal year was $4,347,136. The May statement therefore shows an improvement and indicates that Secretary Carlisle’s estimates Would have proved to be about right but for the overthrow of the income tax. The revenue from customs during May was $12,474,558, against $9,798,069 in May last year under the McKinley tariff, an increase of $2,676,489. And yet Republican leaders threaten to restore the McKinley law, substantially in order to increase the revenue. The revenue under the new tariff is still much less than it will be when conditions become more normal, but it is decidedly more than it was before the repeal of the McKiDley law. The amount of internal revenue collected during the month was $10,754.Q 33, or $1,287,897 less than in May last year. When the country is in the full tide of prosperity, as no doubt it will be before the middle of the next fiscal year, the income from internal revenue, even without the income tax, will probably be $15,000,000 monthly, while the income from customs will be at least as much, more. There will then be no serious deficit, even though a Republican Congress may execute the Updegraff threat and offer the president his choice between McKinleyisra and poverty. A moderate surplus would be a good thing to have next year, but the government can survive without it, and iJie country would be better without it than with a relapse into McKinleyism. Good Times Will Kill It. There are still some traces of McKinley enthusiasm, but the outlook is now distinctly unfavorable to his candidacy In 1898; and six months of continued commercial restoration will make it Impassible.—Rochester Herald-