Indianapolis Journal, Indianapolis, Marion County, 5 July 1888 — Page 2

THE INDLANAPOLIS .JOURNAL, THURSDAY, JULY 5, 1888.

talced at over $13,000,000,000. In 1860 our total Jrodnction of cereal was 1.230,000,000 bushes, a IS 3;) tbe total production of cereals was 2,700,000,000 bushels, and i now much larger. Ia 1S60 our wool clip vai 60,000,000 pound. In 1S87 oar wool clip waa 235,000,000. In lsGO we mined 14.000,000 tona of coal. In 1SS6 we mined 106,780,OJ3 tons of coal. In 1SG0 we mined 'J00.0OO tunc of iron or. In 1833 we mined D.000,000 tons of iron ore. In ISC0 the total number of newspapers andyriadieals published in the United States was 4,031, with an aggregate eircnlation of 13.CC3.409. In 18o7 the total number of newspapers andxperisdicals published in the United States was 14,tCl, with an agrcecate circulation of nearly 40.000.000. Is it safe to turn away from the tariffprotective system under which such marvelous progress has been made and go back to freeirate tariff laws under which we hare always met disaster! PROTECTION SANCTIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Under our Constitution protective-tariff laws, ITen if enacted for the express purpose of protection, find full support and justification. The same elaure of the Constitution that gives power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, Imposts and excises," also gives the general government the power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. If our general welfare will be promoted by upholding American wages, protective-tariff laws must be retained. If our gen ral welfaro will oe promoted by protecting ' our market from the products of cneap labor and low wages of foreign countries, protective tariff laws must be retained. If our general welfare will be promoted by stimulating and increasing our manufacturing enterprises and building up oar home market, the Republican system of tariff protection must be retained. No one doubts the ).'ter of the general government under the Constitution to restrict or prohibit Chinese immigration. We have repeatedly enacted stringent Uws restricting, and finally prohibiting, Chinese immigration. These restrictive and prohibitory laws are jast and righteous laws. Vhy were they passed? Simply to protect American labor from competition with the cheap labor of China. Tny are prohibitory laws to prouct American labor, and enable oar laborers to demand nd receive a fair day's wages for a fair day a work, iastead of the starvation pittance for which fcinse laborers will work. If we have the rig it to shut oat cheap laborers, in order that oar own laborers may obtain remunerative wages, it follows of necessity that "we have an equal right, by protective tariff laws, to shut out entirely, or greatly restrict, foreign nations from deloging our country with their f rod nets of cheap labor and starvation waees. f the one is gocd policy, the other is equally good pol.ey. If it is our duty to keep oat cheap labor, it is beard to claim that it is not equally our duty to keep out or limit the importation of the products of cheap labor. The laborers in om factories, our mines, our mills, and npon onr farms And railways can be struck as hard a blow by flooding oar eountry and filling our market with the products of cheap labor of foreign countries as by opening onr ports to free immigration of cheap labor. The one course will as surely strike down the wages of our laborers, and take the bread from the mouths of their wives and children as the other. It matters not to oar laborers where the ehesp laborers may live if the products of their cheap labor stock our markets. The result is just as disastrous to our laborers if the cheap laborers live in England or China, as though they lived here. If the products of their cheap labor are brought Into competion with the products of our higher wages without tariff protection. The conclusion is irresistible that it is the duty of our ;overnment to shut our gates against cheap aborers from foreign countries, and that it is equally the duty of our government to protect our laborers by protective-tariff duties on the products of cheap labor imported for sale in oar markets. Mr. White, of California, temporary chairman it the national Democratic convention that recently met at St Louis, claimed in his address that the Democratic party has always been opposed to Chinese immigration, and that the credit of all the laws restricting and prohibiting, Chinese immigration is doe to the Democratic? party. This statement shows that Mr. White is densely ignorant of the history of his own party or that he is utterly reokless regarding the truth of his utterances. The fact is, and it well known by every one conversant with the fcistory of our country, that every law enacted for tne purpose of restricting or prohibiting Chinese immigration, is due to the Republican party. From 1852 to 1876 the Democratic party of California, and of the United States, strongly favored and cpneld Chinese immigration. In 1856 there were 30,000 Chinese in California. Labor demanded their exclusion. Tbe Democratio Legislature appointed a Democratic committee of inquiry, which reported as follows: We say tho tendency is not toward corruption. We think they have done us no harm." In 1859 Mr. Weller, a Democratio Governor of California, declared that We have cause to rejoice that this great Nation China Has been subjected to the law of nations." The cause of this rejoicing was tbe treaty with China. ratified by a Democratic Senate and proclaimed by Buchanan, a Democratic President, under which many thousand more of Chines laborers came to onr country. In 18C2 the first Republican Governor of California, in his first annual message, said: 'Asia, with her immense p pulation, is sending her people here, and I will be glad toco-perate with any movement having for its object th prohibition of Chinese immigration." From 1S6I to 1879 every resolution and eyry measure of restriction or prohibition there being about a .dozen laws and resolutions on tbe subject before 'Conrress. during that period was offered and supported by the Republican partv. The last public service petformed by Indiana's greatest statesman, Oliver P. Morton, was his journey 'to California, in 1S76, and his thorongh investigation of the Chinese question, as a member of sv special committee of Congress appointed on his motion. The report of that committee waa presented to the United States Senate in February, lb77, by Senator Sargent, a Republic-' an. All subsequent legislation on the subject has been mainly founded upon that report. In May, 1 87'J, the Legislature of California sent a memorial to Congress, asking tbat the State be granted the rignt to tax Chinese immigrant. Tbat Congress was strongly Democratic. It paid no attention whatever to tne memorial. There facts prove that the present attempt of the Demoeratie partv, in its platform, to claim credit for tbe legislation restricting: Chinese immigration, is like many other claims of that party indecent and false. BENEFITS Or A PROTECTIVE TARIF T. What is the benefit of a protective tariff 31 neb, ia every way. First It protects and upholds American wages. It is an admitted fact that American laborers are better paid, better clothed, better fed, better boosed, better educated and are more independent, than the laborers of any ether nation. This better condition depends upon tbe fact that tariff protection upholds the standard of American wages. Tbe report of the Secretary of State for tbe United States of 1S&5, on the condition of labor and wages in 12a rope, derived from feet and statistics reported by the United States consuls, protes conclusively that American wages, in all the various lines of employment, are from 25 per cent, up to 200 per cent, hieber then wages for like services are in free-trade England. A careful compilation of labor statistics, derived from consular and other anttsntio reports, furnUhei by Mr. J. II. Walker, of Massachusetts, shows that, taking the average of employment, a laborers family of four persons, with two wage-workers, cannot possibly save more than $123 from a whole vear'a wages in free-trade England, wbile in the United States the same family could readily save $534 from a year's waees. y Cut Democratic orators mod free-trade newspapers insist that, adeeming that wages are higher in America, the cost ef living is eo much greater here than in England that no benefit accrues from the higher wages. This is the argument used by President Cleveland in his message. Statistics prove that this aruuint is wholly without foundation in fast. Mr. Walker, in his com Dilation of statistics, prorss that the fair average difference in tbe cst of the yearly supplies of a family of four persons, in England, and a like family in the L cited btatee, is only about tit, including tariff duties. The Democratic party admits that wages are higbsr in the United States tban tber are in European countries, and what is more significant it admits tbat it is protective tariff legislation that makes at;d keers them so. The Demoeratie platform of 1884, saii: Tbe necessary redaction in taxation can. and must, be ejected without depriving American lab :r of the ab'htj to comiTe ucefailjr with foreign Labor, and withoit iapotUg lower ra.s cf duty than will be ample to ejver a&y fcereated eotof production which may exi in couqucnc of a higher rate cf wages )rraillu in tbU country. This it a direet admission that wages are higher in America tban tbey are iu Europe, and that it is tariff protection tnat keeps American wages st their high sUcdard. On June 7. 1SH the Democratic party, at us nstional convention at St. Louie, in its vain attempt to harmoa tze honesty with dishonesty, fairness with deceit and frankness with purposed dismiss, reaffirmed the platform of 164. includiog tbe statement just quoted. I use these Democratic platforms tre to .prove that American wages re higher tbsn foreign wages, and that protection makes them so. If the Republican proteet-ive-Unff system is destroyed as is new at

tempted by the Democratic party, American wages must inevitably fall to the low standard of Europe. Second A protective tariff stimulates and develops American manufacturing and mining industries, and thereby furnishes employment for labor and investment for capital. This is a selfevident fact. Proofs of it are abundant throughout our country; your beautiful city of Kokomo transformed, as by magic, into a thriving hire of industry, demonstrates the truth of my statement. Would the Mills free-trade tariff bill add to or subtract from your present growth, thrift, activity and enterprise, if enacted into law? You well know that it would crush some of your most promising industries, and would cripple and partially paralyze many others. The senseless and criminal attempt of the Demotratic party to array labor against capital has borne its legitimate fruits in mobs, riots, strikes and labor disturbances. The truth is. labor needs and most have capital to give tt employment, while capital is equally dependent upon labor to make it income-producing. The man who stirs up needless strife between labor and capital is an enemy to his country and to his kind. The covert insinuation of the President iu his fre-trade message, that capital is reaping all thi benefits of tariff protection and that labor receives no real benefit from protection, in the face cf the admission of the Democratic platform that protection upholds American waees. is communistic, pernicious and faUe. If mill-wheels and factory-spindles are stopped; if forge and furnaee fires are put out; if mines are closed; will not our laboring men and their families suffer! In no nation on earth have manufacturing and mining interests, with their ever attendant growth, development and prosperity in every other department of enterprise, made such gigantic strides as in tbe United States under Republican tariff protection. By the development of our resources and the additions to onr material wealth, brought about by these manufacturing and mining industries, onr rate of local taxation for State and local purposes is rendered light If our protective system is to be destroyed; if our manufaeturicg and mining industries are to be made to compete, in our markets, with the products of the cheap labor of Europe; if our wage-workers are obliged to aceept the European standard of waees; will our growth and prosperity continue? Will new manufacturing enterprises be established? Will our laborers be as comfortable, happy and independent as tbey have been under tariff protection? A few cents' difference in tbe cost of food or clothing is immaterial to tbe laborer who has no money and can get no work. Between four and five million laborers of the United States are employed in our manufacturing and mining industries. These laborers, with tbeir families, represent about onefourth of onr entire population. These are dependent for their comfort, in a word, for their living, upon the continuance and prosperity of our manufacturing and mining industries. If wages are lowered, they must suffer the loss. If manufacturing and mining industries are crushed or crippled, they will be thrown out of employment and quickly reduced to want. Their safety and comfort depend upon the preservation of tariff protection. But these are not alone benefited by protection. All our manufacturers, and mine-owners, all onr farmers and producers, and all our tradesmen, are vitally interested in the preservation of our protective traiff system. Third A protective tariff protects American markets for American products. It is absurd to contend tbat American manufacturers can pay their laborers American wages, and then sell the products of their mills and factories at the same price foreign manufacturers ask for 'the products of their cheap labor and starvation waees. It is equally senseless to claim that our manufacturers and producers can continue operation, and continue to pay American wages, unless tbey can sell tbeir products in some market It is a self-evident proposition tbat in order to keep our mills, mines and factories in operation on the American standard of wages, onr manufacturers must have market for their products, in which thy can obtain a higher price than is asked for the products of cheap European labor. If our manufacturers are obliged to sell their commodities in European markets, tbey will be obliged to accept European cheap labor prices. If by means of Democratio freetrade tariff laws, our American markets are deluged with tbe products of European cheap labor, the result will be the same; our manufacturers will be obliged to accept for their products European cheap-labor prices. Our manufacturers cannot pay American wages and sell their products at European cheap-labor 'prices. If our markets are thrown open to the products of the low wages of Europe, without tariff protection, our laborers must inevitably accept the tame low and starving rate of wages, or go without work. This is

exactly what Democratio free-trade tariff laws mean. It is exactly tbe result the British Democracy on both sides of the Atlantic are laboring to secure. The single and supreme purpose of the Republican party, in its creation and advocacy of our protective-tariff system, ever has been, and now is, to give to American labor the best possible opportunity, by opening mines, building factories and mills, "and putting every possible wheel, plow, hammer, spindle and loom in motion." The effect of protective legislation has been, and will continue to be, to diversify and stimulate American industries, thns assuring industrial and national independence; to invite the investment of capital in labor-employing enterprises; to develop every trade and pursuit; to create and preserve a Urge and certain home market for the products of our farms, our factories and our mines; to give steady and remunerative employment to our laborers, and to secure such competition as will make and keep our home market the best market in the world. The -protective- tariff policy, inaueurated and advocated by the Republican party, "inpires American labor with hope, and erowns it with dignity; gives it safety, and protects its increase; secures comfort to every citizen, and culture to every home." Fourth Tariff protection not only protects Americau markets for American products, but it creates borne markets, and continually increases their demand for home consumption. Every mine that i3 opened, every manufacturing industry that, is established, is a center of eonsumption, and ereates a local home market. This statement needs no argument iu its support. The history of overy mining and manufacturing village in our country proves its truth. Fifth Under tariff protection, our marvelous development, thrift and enterprise has quickened inventive genius, so that to-day the United States leads the world in devising and developing labor-saving and economical machinery. No nation is independent uutil it is capable of self-support, both in peace and in war. I( must, in time of peace, be able to produco and manufacture within its territory all that may be necessary for comfort and convenience in living. In -add it ion to this, it must be able, from its own resources, in time of war, to clothe, arm, feed and equip an army and navy for its defense. Under tbe impetas given to the development of our national resources by tariff protection, our Nation is infinitely better able to fulfill these conditions of independence than ever before. HOME MARKET VZOSC3 FOREIGM MARKET. I have said that one of the most beneficent results of the protective system is that it protects and builds np a home market for the products of our farms, mines, mills, looms, and factories. In the view of the British Democracy, as shown by their speeches in Congress, and in their conventions, this is not a result to be desired. Their demand is, throw open our home market to all tbe world; fill it with the products of starvation wages; pour into it the results of pauper labor. Their statesmanship and political economy is summed up in the reiterated demand, "let us buy where we can buy cheapest, and sell where we can sell dearest." That is often poor economy and worse statesmanship. Would the breaking down of prices in our home msrkets. by flooding them with the cheap products of half-paid and half-fed laborers of Europe be a good bargain when it shall have stopped the wheels and hushed the noise o! our factories, and deprived our own laborers of employment? Will that help us to sell oar products in a better-priced market than our own? Where is there any market that will compare with our own American market? It is the best rcarketin tbe world to day, made so by the protective-tariff system of the Republican party. Free-trade England knows tbat, and that is tne very reason she is giving all her influence and aid to the Democratio party in its unholy attempt to destroy the safeguard of protection, which has built up and maintains our home markets. .It is time for the people of our country to know and realize tbat we are all vitally interested in protecting onr home market for home products. No better investment can be made than tbe payrnsnt of such tariff duties as may be necessary to so limit importation that the products of our farming, mining and manufacturing industries may find ready sale in our home markets for home consumption. Instead of breaking down our home market, as Demoeratie anti-proteetion legislation would inevitably do, it should be our constant aim to build it up. It is now our only reliable market, and is rapidly becoming our only market. Under the fostering influence of tariff protection cur home market has grown with our national growth ar.d development. It has kept full step with our productive industries. We now eonsnmo within our own territory 2 per cent, of the entire products of our farming, manufacturing and mining industries. Our home market consumes V2 per cent, of our products. We only have to look for foreign markets In which to sell 8 per cent, of our gross products. Is it wise to break down our home market by free-trade tariff laws? If we do tbat it will not fctln tu sell oux 8 per cent surplus at any better

prices than we can now get in foreign markets. On tbe contrary, if our home market is flooded with cheap-labor foreign products we will be unable to sell 92 per cent of our products in our own markets, and will have to take a Ies3 priee for what we do sell at home. Our surplus for sale in foreign markets will be increased by the glutting ot our home market with foreign cheaplabor products, and for that surplus we will have ta accept low foreign prices. Bnt every year foreign markets are erowiog less desirable and far less reliable as to priee or demand. Free-trade England, with her Cobden Club statesmanship, lays a heavy tariff duty upon substantially all we would want to sell in her market, excepting only our breadstuff. Whatever we produce or manufacture, that would come into competition with English production or manufacture, is subjected to heavy duties. She has on her tariff list over a hundred articles manufactured or produced in tbe United States. An exsmple or two will prove what English free trade means. On articles manufactured from gold the English tariff is $4.03 per ounce. On our silverplate and silverware the English tariff is 36 cents per ounce. England's main supply of tobacco comes from the United States. On nnmannfactured tobacco she charges a duty of from 85 cents to 93 cents per pound, while on manufactured tobacco the English tariff duty is from $1.05 to $L34 cents per pound. The cost of this tobaeeo at the American shipping port is from 6 cents to 12 cents per pound. These facts, taken from Professor Sumner's recent work oa protectionism, prove that the boasted free-trade policy of England is only designed to work one way. She wants all other nations to open their ports to her products, free of duty, but when other nations want to sell their products in her markets 6he lays heavy duties upon them, unless she needs the offered merchandise for food. England is rapidly getting ready to furnish her own surply of wheat from her empire of India, and the moment she is ready to do that no more American wheat can be sold in England. A short time ago no wheat was grown in India. Now. Enelaud has 27,000,000 acres under wbeat cultivation in her empire f India. The entire

vi heat crop of the United States for 1886 L 457.210,060 bushels. The wheat crop of Indiafor 1886 was 289. 000. 000 bushels, all of which was for export, because the people of India live on rice and miliet. This was almost two-thirds as mnch as the erop of the United States. Englsnd has already built 14.000 miles of railroad in India to transport wheat to the ports of India for shipment, and every year the production of Indian wheat is increasing rapidly. Labor in India is 8 cents to 12 cents per day. Can Americans compete with their wheat in European markets against wheat raised with 8 cents per day labor? Already Germany has imposed a tariff duty on wheat that absolutely prohibits the importation cf American wheat into south Germany. J. C. Monaghan, United States consul at Mannheim, in his report of Jan. 28, 1883, shows that the German tariff duty on wheat under the present law is 5 marks ($1.19) per 220 pounds. Bv recent laws our hog product is substantially exeluded from France and Germany. In a short time our cotton crop will have to find its market at home, or go without a market. A few years ago we furnished 85 to 90 per cent ot the worlds cotton. Now we oniy furnish from 60 to 65 per cent. Ezypt and India, with their cheap labor, are rapidly becoming large producers of cotton. In view of these facts, which are known to all who are willing to investigate, is it good policy, is it sound statesmanship to break down our home market by withdrawing from it the safeguard of tariff protection? No, no. Protect the borne market Build it up. Open new mines, build new mills, shops and factories; start new enterprises, diversify and multiply our industries, create new centers of consumption until our home market shall consume and use all that we produce and manufacture. In this way, and in this way only, can we maintain the present high standard of wages and comfort among the laborers of our country. THE FARMER IS BENEFITED BY TARIFF PROTECTION. President Cleveland, in his free-trade message, assumes that none except manufacturers and their employes er benefited by tariff protection. He says: 93-4,870 of whom are domestic servants and laborers), while 1,810,250 are employed in trade and transportation, and 3,837,1112 are classed as employed in manufacturing and mining. For present purposes, however, the last number given should be considerably reduced. Without attempting to enumerate all. it will be conceded thai therw should be deducted from those which it includes. 375.143 carpen ters and joiner, 25,401 milliners, dresaroarsl and a r. stresses, 172,726 blacksmiths, 133..6 tailors ard tailoresses, 10'J,4.i masons, 70,741 butchers, 41.301) bakers, 2.1,083 plasterers, and 4,8'Jl engaged in manufacturing agricultural implements, amounting, in tho aggregate, to l,J14,Oi23, leaving 2,t23.08j persons employed in such reamfacturiue industries as are claimed to be benefited by a hi eh tariif. To these the appeal is made to save their employment and maintain their wages by resisting a change. This is the pettifogging plea of penny politics, rather than the fair statement of broad statesmanship. It only requires the commonest of common sense to discern the fact that, in this free Hepublio, the interests and prosperity of every man and woman, in whatever pursuit or occupation engaged, are in greater or less degree dependent npon and affected by the interests and prosperity of every other man and woman, in their respective callings. Farmers, railroaders, carpenters, masons, plasterers, blacksmiths, tailors, milliners and dress-makers aro all vitally interested in the continnance, development and prosperity of our manufaeturicg and mining industries. Destroy our manufacturing and mining industries and you paralyze the nerves and still the pulsations tbat are now sending swift currents along all the business arteries tbat give life and activity, thrift and prosperity to our Nation. The evident attempt of President Cleveland is to array the prejudices of all other classes of laborers and artisans against manufacturers and miners and their employee, by means of the false and absurd assumption that tariff protection is for the exclusive benefit of manufacturers and miners and tbiir laborers, and yields no benefit to other classes of laborers. American farmers are benefited by the protective-tariff system, and they need this protection. In addition to the general benefits already considered, the farmer needs direct protection. Under Republican tariff laws he has received this needed protection on substantially all agricultural products. A moments reflection will show that all of the protection heretofore afforded is still needed. The immense Dominion of Canada, with its Manitoba wbeat fields equal in overy respect to our Dakota wheat fields and its fruitful farms, prolific in live stock and in all the leadine fruits and vegetables needed for food, is a strong competitor in our markets. Fruits and vegetables come across the ocean and enter our markets in competition with the products cf our farms. Potatoes, hay, oats, wheat, hops, rye, barley, garden vegetables, timber .butter, eggs, poultry and live stock from Canada; cabbage from Holland; potatoes from England and Scotland; peas, beans, nay and eggs from Denmark and Norway; onions from Spam and Egypt; tobacco from Sumatra and Cuba; and cattle from Mexico. This partial list will serve to show that the American farmer has close competition for his products and needs the benefit of protection. Strike down the protective-tariff system, and trill not our farmers feel their loss? A few days aeo Sir Charles Tupper, Minister of Finance for the Dominion of Canada, in a speech in the Canadian House of Commons, declared that the free-trade tariff bill now pending in Ccncress and approved by tho Demoeratie rational convention by special resolution, "places on tbe free list live articles of Canadian production npon which last year co less than Sl.SOO.OOO were paid io dnty." He might have made his statement much broader. The fact is that the Mills bill, as reported to Congress by the Democratic members of the ways and means committer, entirely abolishes direct protection on nineteen farm products and largely decreases protection on three others, while tbese same products of the American farmer, if he reeks to sell them in Canada, are subjected to heavy tariff duties, imposed by the Dominion government This is British and Democratio free trade. It is desicned to work only one way. and that one way ia always aeainst the Americao, whether he be a farcer, a manufacturer, a miner.or a day laborer. Does this free-trade anti-protection policy of the British Democracy of the United States commend itself to tbe American farmer I FRICES UNDEB TARIFF PROTECTION. Strenuous efforts are msde by the Democracy to induce the belief that all our people, particularly the laboring classes, are systematically and mercilessly robbed by protective tariff laws, on the aisumed ground that protection very grettly Increases the price of all of our products and manufactures to the consumer. President Derelatd, in his message, now mhde the Democratic platform, or rather the interpretation of the deceitful and double-tongued utterances of the Democratio platform, says: Nor cm the workr in manufactories fall to understand that while a high tirirT is claimed to be necessary to allow the payment of remunerative wges, it certainly results in a very larceir.erease iu the price of nearly all sorts of manufactures, which, in alnuts countless forms, L needs for the u&e of himself and his family. falseness of this claim and thehollowness vauoted argument of free-traders were i . CroUrsly made man IX est by Mr. McKinltj

By the last censos it is made to appear that of the 17,d92,0'Jl) ofour population engaged'in all kinds of industries, 7,070,493 aie employed in agriculture, 4,074.238 in professional and personal service (2.-

member of Congress from Ohio, fh his recent speech in Congress in opposition to the Mills bill, in which he furnished for inspection, as an exhibit to prove the correctness of his statement, a complete suit of all wool clothing, man's size, purchased for ten dollars at tho clothing establishment of Leopold Morse, Democratic member of Congress from Bostoo. ' We have heard a great deal about -the poor man's tariff tax troubles. We are told that all that he eats, dnnks and wears pays heavy tribute; that he eats with taxed cutlery and table-ware, from a taxed tablecloth; works with taxed tools; looks through taxed window-glass, and sleeps under taxed blankets all for th'j benefit of a few rich manufacturers, miners and monopolists. All this is the veriest - rot and is an insult to the intelligence of American laborers. They know by dear-bought experience that tbey never were as well off, as comfortable, as well boused, fed and clothed as they have been under the system of tariff protection, established and upheld by the Republican party. If any one Is in doubt, let him go to the musty ledgers and journals kept by the merchants in Democratio free-trade tariff days, from 1846 to 1SG0, and compare the prices then paid with the prices now current. Compare the prices then paid for clothes, blankets, tracechains, nails, tools, food and farming utensils with the current prices for far better articles of like character, and he will be more than ever satisfied that the protective-tariff system of the Republican party is good policy, true statesmanship and beneficient in its results. The prices of all the leading articles in daily nse by the masses have steadily declined until better articles can be bought for about half the priee eharged in Democratic free-trade tariff days. A much larcer decline in price has taken place in some very important articles. For example, in 1S57, steel rails were $166 per ton: now they can be bought for $31.50 per ton, and have sold as low as $28 per ton. The lowest price of pig-iron io free trade tariff dsys was $31 per ton, while under tariff protection it can be had at $18 per ton. Plate-class did not become a competitive industry of our country until 1875. Plate-glass then cost ,08 cents per square foot; now it sells at 33 eents per foot. The Mills bill strikes a blow at this industry

that will paralyze, if not destroy it, unless materially amended. But even .if it were true that prices are increased by tariff rrotection, would that fact condemn the system) If tariff protection upholds the hieh standard of American wazes and Democrats are obliged to admit that it does then by all means preserve tariff protection. . It would be infinitely better for American laborers to pay some increase in price for the articles they consume and use, and thereby preserve their hieh standard of waees and secure steady employment, rather than lower their wages to Democratic free-trade tariff rates, and take the chances of being thrown out of employment altogether by reason of being Drought into direct and unprotected competition with tho cheap labor of Europe. It would be far easier for our laborers to pay a high price for all tho necessaries of life with good, fair American wages than it would be to pay any price at all after being leveled to the starvation wages of Europe. In his zeal to traduce the protective system the President says, in bis free-trade message, "Under our present laws more than four thousand articles are subject to duty." The only possible theory on which this statement can be said to even approximate the truth is to call every possible erade of tbe same article a different article. For example, there are many different grades of sugar, and each grade is subjected to a duty imposed on that erade. but it is untrue and misleading to call each grade a new article; all are suear, the difference is in quality, .not in character. A careful examination of the present law will show that only one-fourth of the Presidents statement is true-the other three-fourths is imagination. TRUSTS. Our country in its territorial extent is so vast, and comprehends such a diversity of climate and production, that it forms within itself a vast field for the interchange ot commodities. This internal or .interstate commerce is absolutely free, and gives large opportunity for competition among our American producers. The President, in bis message, admits that "Competition among our domestic producers sometim es has the effect of keeping tbe price of their products below the highest limit allowed by tariff duty." But in his zeal to strike down protection he proceeds to charge against it tbe evils ot trusts and combinations, which have rapidly increased and grown up under this Demoeratie administration. He says: "It is notorious tbat this competition is too often strangled by combinations qnite prevalent at this time, and frequently called trusts, wnich have for tbeir object tho regulation of the supply and price of commodities made and sold by members of the combination." A an echo to these charges made by the President, the Democratic national convention, in its platform, said: "Judged by Democratic principles, the interests of the people are betrayed when, by unnecessary taxation, trusts and combinations are permitted to exist." These statements, carefully considered, tend stronsly to show that the growing evils known as trusts, instead of being chargeable to tariff protection, are the direct and legitimate outgrowth of Democratic free-trade agitation, and the persistent attempt of the Democratio party to strike down onr protective system and throw open our market to the products of cheap labor. While the Repnblican party remained in power the protective system was secure, new manufacturing and mining industries were established without fear, capital sought investment without timidity or fear of ultimate loss, business was undisturbed and thriving, labor found abundant employment, new consuming centers were created, prosperity abounded, and overproduction was not feared. Its shadow darkened no factory door or mine shaft. But as soon as the Democratic party got into power threats against the system of tariff protection began to be made, business became disturbed, new enterprises languished, capital became timid and distrustful, manufacturers and miners hesitated and begin to eurtall rather than to increase their business. Work on half time, strikes, lockouts and shut-down have followed in natural sequence. American manufacturers and producers and their laborers have concluded that the only way in which to keep no American wages is to keep up American prices, and the only way to keep up prices, if our market is to be thrown open to the world without protection, is, so far as possible, to so limit production as to uphold prices sufficient to juti(y living waees and reasonable profit Of course, this is exactly what English free-traders desire, because it will make a larger demand for their cheap-labor products as soon as the free-trade tariff bill becomes law, and will also enable them to realize larger profits on the products of their starvation wages. Trusts and combinations of this kind cannot be too severely condemned, but in condemning them it should be remembered that they are the legitimate outgrowth of Democratic anti-proteetion agitation. In proof of this, permit me to read a few lines from a statement .made June 12, 1688, in Congress, by Mr. Scott, of Pennsylvania, the recognized mouth-piece of the administration. In his attempt to prevent Mr. Kelley, his Republican colleaeue, from presenting an amendment to the Mills bill, Mr. Scott said: I believe it to be my duty, in the interests of the men of the country whose interests are more or less jeopardized, even by the dUeussion of the bill, to endeavor to seeure a vote upon the measure, so that the business men of the country may know what they have to do in order to manage their affairs. As a business man invse'f, I know, that whether this bill might be for the bst interests of the country, if it should pass, or whether it might be detrimental to the best interests of the country, during its agitation no merchant, no manufacturer, no buiness man can tell from one day to another day what he can do, or what he ought to do. in order to manage his business. There is Democratic proof of the pernicious results of the attempt by tbe British Democracy to strike down the Americau protective system. Is it any wonder that trusts and combinations have thrived and multiplied under this Demo cratio administration! Vote the Demoeratie arty into perpetual retirement from power; et it be distinctly understood that the Repub lican system ot tariff protection is here to stay, and the remedy will be reached. REDUCING PROTECTIVK DUTIES WILL NOT DECREASE THE REVENUE. The claim of the Democratio party is that the general government has too much money too large a revenue, and that, therefore, tbey must strike off protective duties in order to reduce the revenue. This is a trouble never known in the old days of Democratio administration. They were always wrestling with a deficit rather than a surplus. Tbe prediction is here ventured that if this country shall be cursed with a few years mere of Democratic administration tbe government will be again borrowing money with which to pay current expenses. Experience proves that by lowering protective duties the revenue will be increased rather than reduced, because under the stimulant of low and con-protective duties Enclsnd and other cheaplabor countries will import iuto our country double and treble the products they now bring here for sale. The reduction made by the Republican party by tbe present tariff law, passed March 3, 1883. it was then estimated would reduce the annual revenue ?45,000,COO. but the re duetion of tariff duties so increased te importation from foreien countries tbat tbe revenue was only reduced -about $21,000,000. By the act of 1SS3 the duty on copper ore was reduced onehalf cent per pound, and the imports so increased that the revenue from copper is double what it was before the reduction.

The duty on rice was reduced one-fourth cent per pound and the importations increased 22,000,000 pounds. The duty on spun silk was lowered 5 per cent, and the imports and revenue have increased to eieht times tbe former amount The duty on silk velvet was redueed 10 per cent and the revenue from silk velvet instead of being reduced, increased over $2,000,000 per annum. By the act of 18S3 a slight reduction was made in the duty on wool and woolen manufactures. This reduction of duty instead of reducing the revenue increased it $4,000,000 per annom. These facts show that the net results of a Democratic auti-protection tariff, law such as the Mills bill will be to increase the revenue rather than to reduce it. while our markets will be so glutted rrith foreign importations as to render the stoppage of our own manufacturing and producing industries a necessity for lack of a market. REDUCTION OP TAXATION SINCE THE WAR. Regardless of truth, tbe Democratic party insistsupon calling our present tariff and internalrevenue laws war-tax laws. They seek to leave

the impression tnat no reductions in taxation have been made since the close of the war, and that our revenue laws are still upon a war footing. That this is utterly false is readily proved by records open to the inspection of alL From lbCG to 18S8, a period of twenty-two years, the control of the House of Representatives in Congress has been equally divided between the Demoeratie and Republican parties each party having had control eleven years. Under the Constitution all revenue bills and all bills for tbe reduction of taxation must originate in the House of Representatives. The Senate has no jurisdiction of the subject until jurisdiction it given to it by a bill which has passed the House being sent to it. Hence the claim tbat a Republican Senate has prevented the Democratic party from reducing taxation while in control of the House of Representatives is wholly untrue. The record proves that during the eleven years of Democratic control of the House no revenue bill, or bill for the reduction of taxation, has passed the House and then been rejected by the Senate. The Democratio party ba3 failed to pass such bills in tbe House of Representatives, and is chargeable with the sole responsibility for such failure. The records of tbe two parties stand thus: During the eleven years of Democratic control no reduction whatever was made in tariff duties, and but two small reductions were mada in internal revenue taxation, aggregating only $G,368,935. During the eleven years of Republican control four laws were enacted reducing tariff duty, the aggregate reduction of annual revenue from tariff duties being $78,083,300. Durine the same eleven years of Republican control eight laws were enacted reducing internal revenue taxation, the aggregate reduction of anuual revenue from internal revenue taxation being $2S4,421.2G0. During eleven ye ars of Republican control the annual revenues were reduced $302,504,569. During eleven years of Democratic control the annual revenues were reduced on'? $6,368,935. To whieh party can the country look with tbe most confidence for any needed reduction of government revenues? EXPERIENCE OT OUB COUNTRY UNDER DEMOCRATIC TARIFF LAWS. The sad experience of our country under former Democratic free-trade tariff laws should be a sufficient warning to prevent our people from permitting the experiment to bo triad again. In 1846, and again in 1857, the Democratic party enacted anti-protection free-trade tariff laws. I will let the words of two Presidents of the United States describe tbe disastrous results of tbese laws. In his messages to Congress in 1851 and 1852, President Fillmore said: The policy whioh dictated a low rate of duties on foreign merchandise, it waa thoucht by those who promoted and established it. would tend to benefit the farming population of this eountry by increasing the demand and raising the Thrice of agricultural products in foreign markets. The facts, however, seem to show incontestibiy that no such result has followed the adoption of this policy. In the second place, as our manufacturing establishments are broken down by competition with foreigners, the capital inTested in them is lost, thousands of honest and industrious citizens are thrown out of employment, the destruction of our manufactures leaves the foreigner without competition in our market, and he consequently raises the price of the article sent here for sale. President Buchanan, in bis message to Congress of Dec. 8, 1S57, graphically described the condition of our country under Democratio free-trade tariff laws, in these wordc: In the midst of unsurpassed plenty in all the productions and in all the elements of wealth, we find our manufactures suspended, our public works retarded, our private enterprises ot different kinds abandoned, and thousands of useful laborers thrown out of employment, and reduced to want. Do you desire to repeat this history? If io, vote with the British Democracy. Put we do not have to rely upon our own experience alone. Ireland drank to the 'very dregs the free-trade cup which England pressed to her unwilling lips, and is to-day the poorest, most distracted, forsaken and harassed country on earth. Ireland was once prosperous and happy. The whole "Green Isle was a thriving hive of industry, supporting in reasonable comfort a population ot 8,000,000. Her manufactures of linen, silk, wool and cotton, protected by tariff laws and encouraced by subsidies absorbed her capital, employed her laborers, diversified her industries and insured her prosperity. England, with merciless greed, forced her free-trade doctrine upon Ireland, and to-dsy her mills and factories are rotting in silence and her popolatioo, reduced to 5,000.000, in broken in spirit, depressed and reduced to want. Let the pathetic words of and Irish patriot por;ray the results of free trade upon his country: The eotton manufacture of Dublin, which employed 14.000 operatives, has been destroyed; the 3,000 silk looms of the Liberty have been destroyed; the stuff and serge manufactures, which employed 1,491 operatives, have been destroyed; the calico looms of Iialbriggan have been destroyed: the flannel manufacture of Kotterdrum has been destroyed; the blanket manufacture of Kilkenny has beee destroyed; the camlet tra le of fiandon, which produced 100,000 pounds a rear, has bten destroyed; the worsted and stuff manufactures of Wattrford have been destroyed; the rateen and frieze manufactures of Carrick-on-fcuir hare been destroyed. One business alone survives thrives, and flourishes f.r.d dreads no bankruptcy. That favored, and trivileged and patronized business is the Irish coffin-makers. How can an Irish-American vote" with the British Democracy of the United States? Holland, once thriving and prosperous, is now overty stricken; her manufactures are stag nant, her business is depressed, and distress and want are prevalent among hor mechanics and laboring classes. An eminent business man of Holland, when recently asked to state the cause of this deplorable chanee, answered: "It is because Holland adopted a few years ago free trade, and the law has ruined us." Even England, tbat free-trade paradise, is neither prosperous cor happy. The British Minister cf Agriculture very recently openly prcclsitced that the agricultural industries of Great Britain are in a deplorable state; tbat large nu jabers of farmers are idle; tbat a vast acreage of tillable land is out of cultivation, and tnat agricultural values iu Great Britain alone have shrunken $200,000,000 Suringthe past year. Norway and Sweden are Bettering from the blighting curse of free trade. Rufos Magee, United States minister to Sweden and Norway an Indiana Democrat in bis last report to the Department of State, said: The rais:n:r of wheat has ceased tTbe profitable in Sweden, and has been so for yean- EstaU property has consequently fallen in value and ceased to be remunerative. If Sweden could enact a discriminatin? import law I am inclined to think it would be directed against Russia. The United States has been ued aa the great example of prosperity under a protective system. JSwedtm has the two most acrgressive competitors for trade in all commerce cn her east and south Runsta and Germany. The one, with her a'moct prohibitory duties, changing and shifting constantly, disturbing all calculations of tbe factor and of manufacture; the other, with her lowpriced products cheapening mcrceU, have 'whipsawed' Sweden's trade until it is all but ruined. If we are willing to rain wisdom from the experience cf our own country and that of foreien countries we will stand fast by tho protectivetariff system of the Republican party and resolutely oppose the anti-protection policy now advocated by the Democratic party. THE MILLS FREE-TRADE TARIFF BILL. The Democratic national convention, not content with making the President's message part of the platform, as the interpretation of its otherwise contradictory and deceitful utterances, also embodied the Mills bill in the platform. The resolution is as follows: Resolved, That this convention hereby Indorses and recommends the early passage of the bill for the reduction of the revenue now pending in the House of Representatives. Of course this resolution applies to the Mills bill as it stood when the resolution was adopted by the convention. It then stood substantially as originally reported to the House by the Democratic members of the ways and means committee. Some change may be made, but they will be few and unimportant. The Democratio members of Congress in caucus passed a resolution that every amendment to the bill offered by a Republican is to be instantly voted down. Hence, if the bill passes the House, as it probably will, it will pans in substantially its original form. The bill is pert of tbe Democratic platform and is an issue of the campaign. For the first time io our history a vitally important measure, affecting the interests of every eitizen of the Republic, has been originated, and is being pressed through tbe lower House of Congress under star chamber edicts and methods unexcelled in the' darkest days of kingcraft. The Republican zaembers ot the ways and

means committee were not permitted to participate in tbe construction of the tilL Tbe Democratic members of the committee sat with closed doors and in the darkness of eeerecy framed this infamous measure. Producers, manufacturers, miners, agricultural associa tions, and trade and labor organizations becged the privilege of being heard by the committee before being ruined by this iniquitous bill: but the Democratio majority of the committee ref nsed to hear argument or statements of facts from them. This is the fulfillment of tne Democratio pledge of 1884 "to revise the tariff in a spirit of fairness to all Interests." Time will not permit any full discnsiiou of the grievous wroncs soucht to be Inflicted by this bilL Only a few of its leading points can be noticed. It ia rankly sectional, and discriminates against the North and West and in favor of the South. No one need be surprised by this. It is just what the Democratic party has always done, and will continue to do. Tne South owns and controls the Democratic party, and dictates Its policy as completely now as it did from 1S50 to I860. The claimed object of this bill is to reduce revenue. Sucar is a necessary of life, the poor need it equally with the rich. Its production in our eountry is limited to a very small territory, principally to the State of Louisiana, very small quantities being produced in Florida and Texas. The entire amount of sugar produced in our country is only about 10 per cent of the amount we consume. We do cot produco as much suear now as we did thirty years ago; while our consumption of sugar is increasing at the rate of 10 per cen. per year. In 1SC1 our sugar product was 528,321.000 pounds. In 1887 it was less than 200.000,000. In 1861 our consumption of sugar was 814.951.500 pounds. In 1887 we consumed 2,782,000,000 pounds.Ninety per cent of all the suear we consume is imported from foreign countries. The duty paid on imported sugar during the year 1837 was $o6,507,495. Why not put sugar on the free list and thereby reduce tbe annual revenue over $5G.000,O00! Why longer proteet an industry that is yearly diminishing its production, notwithstanding it is protected! Why compel our people to pay 556.507.4U3 per year in tariff duties in order to protect tbe sucar product of the South which was last year only w rth 18,000.000 all toldi The answer is, tariff duties on sugar are continued becaas sugar is produced in the South. ' If cugar were a product of the North or West it would be found on the fre list in the Mills bill. Under tb Mills bill tarifl duties on sugar are only reduced a very smali percentage from what they now are under the tariff law of 1833. More than 1,000,000 of the voters of the United States are the owners of sheep, and ara producers of wool. These voters interested in wool raising are scattered throughout all of the States of the North, the West and the Pacific slope. Texas is the only Southern State that is to any considerable extent interested in sheep culture. The value of our annual wool clip is over 90,000,000. We have over 3,000 woolen factories, employing over 105,000 laborers. The capital invested in woolen, manufacturing in our country is over 5160.000,000. The annual wages paid laborers in tbese woolen-mills is over C47,000,000. The cost of material used in a year is about $103.000, 0 DO, while the value of the annual products of these mills is over $2G7,000.000. Our wool product if more valuable than the combined products ot our gold and silver mines. During the year endincr Jnne 30, 1SS7, our woolen factories consumed 392,05l,79S pounds of wooL Of this we produced in onr own country, 285,000,000 pounds, whieh is 71 per cent, of the total amount ussd in our manufacturing establishments. That is, we produce 71 per cent, of tbe raw wool we need, and Import 29 per cent, of it Here is an industry worthy of protection. Who would not rejoice to see our country produce all the wool it needs for consumption! Yet, under the Mills bill, wool is put down on the free list, all protection is withdrawn from the production of wool. All nations can send tbeir wool into our market free ol duty, while the protective-tariff d fa ties on woolen manufactures is greatly redueed. Nineteen of the agricultural products of the North and Northwest are put on tbe free list, while the duty on several other Northern farm products is largely redueed. Permit a single illustration. Under the present tariff law of 18S3, potatoes are protected tfy a duty of 15 cents per bushel. The farmers of the North and Northwest receive from $70,000, 000 to $90,000,000 per year for their potato crop. During the present fiscal year Canada and Great Britain imported over 4,000,000 bushels cf potatoes for sale in our markets. Is the tariff duty on this vegetable 00 benefit to our farmers! Under tbe Mills bill the agricultural products of the farmers ot the North and West are denied tariff protection. Can any one say truthfully that this bill is not sectional! It if, and was meant to be, sectional. In 1887 foreign-made steel rails to the amount of 49,509 tons were sold in our markets. Every pound of these rails might have been and ought to cava been made from our own ore by our own mills. Tbe . present duty is $17 per ton. Under the Mills bill it is reduced to $11 per ton. At that duty, importations will be more than double and our rolling-milli And mines will stand idle. Is it any wonder that the expected passage of the Mills bill is causing long unused furnaces and mills in England and Wales to be gotten ready for rapid work! The industries preserved and stimulated by the Mills bill are English industries. The commerce and navigation report fr 1SSG the latest available statistics shows that tariff duties were collected during that year on only 982 articles, which is less than one-fourth of 4,000 as stated by the President in his message. The report of the Secretary cf the Treasury shows that of $212,032,424 tariff duties collected during the last fiscal year $147,747,924, or about seven-tenths of the whole, were collected from even classes of articles, namely, sugar, iron and steel, wool, silk, tobaeeo with the manufactures ot them glass and fruit. All the other dntiable articles combined only produced 864,284,500 of revenue. This proves tbat the Democratio claim that everything is heavily burdened with tariff taxes is an unmitigated falsehood. Of these seven articles, sugar produces the most tariff revenue and is certainly as clearly a necessary of life as any. In 1887 unmanufactured wool produced only $5,899,816 of tariff revenue, only about one-ninth of the revenue derived from suear. Tet wool is put on the free list, while sugar is still subject to duty almost the same as under the law of 1883. Rice produced a tariff of about $1,000, 000 m 1837. Why retain protective duties on sugar and rice articles of food which bring in a revenue of nearly $58,000,000, and put wool on the free list! Remember where sugar is produced and rice grown and you can guess tbe answer. The President devotes the chief part of his message to an argument against the protection of wool and wooien industries. The Mills bill follows bis dictation bj putting wool oa the free list and reductng protection on woolen manufactures nearly one-half. The aim of the President and tbe Democratic party seems to be to strike down protection just where free trade will most benefit their English allies. Henee tne protective duties on wool and woolen manufactures, on all manufactures of iron and steel, and on glass, are stricken down or ereatly reduced by tbe Mills bill, while the farmers cf tha North and West are left without any protection as to many agricultural products "in which Canada and England are their ehief competitors. In commenting on this Democratic measure, a leading English journal recently said: "Should Congress give effect to this proposal, its immediate result would be an enormous stimulus to English industry." If tbat is true, what must be its result on American industry! The words of General Jackson, in his letter to Dr. Coleman, written in 1824, are peculiarlv applicable to tbe Democratic leaders of 1SSS aud their anti-protection policy. He said: In short, sir. we have been too long subject to the policy of the British merchants. It is time we should teeome a little more Americanized, and instead cf feeding the paupers and laborers cf Europe, feed our own laborers, or else, in a short time, by continuing our present policy, we shall be pau;ers ourselves. REPUBLICAN THEORY OF TARIFF PROTECTION. The Republican party is wedded to no particular tariff law, but it Is wedded to tbe policy of tariff protection. Experience has proved that it csn safely be intrusted with the duty of so adjusting the tariff from time to time as to make its burdens just and equitable. The platform of our party is clear and unambiguous. It needs no President's message as an interpretation of its meaning. It says: "We ere unco ai prom; s'ng!y in favor of the American system of protection: we protest against its destruction as proposed by the President and his part?. They aer re the interests of Europe: we stl l sur port the interests of America. We accept the issue atii confidently appesl to the people for their judrnent. The protective system must be mintainJ. Its abandonment has alwavs been followed by reral disaster to all interests except those of the usurer and the sheriff. W denounce the Mills bill as dtruetie to the general business, the labor and farmii.e interests of the country, and we heartily indorse the consistent and patriotic action of tbe republic an Kenrentatives in Conprs in oproinr its u. . condemn the proposition cf the Iemocr!ie party to place wool cn the free lit, and we insist that tie duties thereon shall be adjusted and maintained eo aa to furnish full and ad-quate protection to that industry." The theory upon which the Republican party has always scuhttole?y tariff duties isplaiu and just, and commends itself to reason and judgment. It embraces three propositions: First Place on the free list articles that we want but cannot produce or make in our eountry. Second Levy protective duties upon materials and manufactured articles which come Iu direct competition with like materials and oiaa-.