Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 34, Number 19, Indianapolis, Marion County, 13 June 1888 — Page 9

mir Mi

i A .xrV. vV w AA. V. .A-s. fVN I A cV

'ViTiÄr Tri M Ur'YirftT f f TCI W IM TM

I I. J KI I fr Ift Ll J Jk rl CI 1 ft 1 III III iri im Irl 1.1 I &. y. "V

ix u Ii i 1 uJ rix 1

r

r

TIIE ISSUE FAIRLY STATED.

SHALL THE TARIFF BE REFORMED! Jt President Cleveland SaM In III Great ji5-TIja Democratic and IlepiibUan Flat form Free Raw Material T. Free Tobacco and "Whisky. From President Oevtland's The difficulty attending a fair and wise revision of our tariff laws is not underestimated. It will require oa the part of the congress great labor and care, and especially a broacJ and national contemplation of the subject and a e.orotrc cn&regard of such local and selfish claim es are unreasonable and reckless of the welfare of the entire country. Under otir present laws more than four thousand articles are subject to duty. Many of these do not in any way compete with our owu manufacturers, and many are hardly worth attention as subjects of revenue. A considerable reduction can be made in the aggregate by adding them to the free list. The taxation of luxuries presents no features of hardship; but the necessaries of life used and consumed by all the people, the duty upon which adds to the cost of living in every home, thould De greatly cheapened. The radical reduction of the duiies imposed on raw material used in manufactures, or its free importation, is of course an important factor in any effort to re duce the price of these necessaries; it would not only relieve them from the increased cost caused by the tariff on fuch material, but the manufactured product bein thus cheapened, that part of the tariff cow laid upon such product, as a compensation to our manufacturers for the present price of raw material, eould be accordingly modified. Such reduction, or free importation, would serve besides to largely reduce the revenue. It is not apparent how euch a change can have any injurious effect upon our manufacturers. On the contrary, it would apvear to give them a better chance in foreign markets with the manufacturers of otter countries, who cheapen their wares by free material. Thus our people might have the opportunity of extending their'sules beyond the limits of home consumption faving them from the depression, interruption in business, and loss caused by a glutted domestic market, and affording their employes more certain and steady labor, with its re.-ultiog quiet and con " tentraent. The question thus imperatively presented for solution should be approached in a spirit higher ' than partisanship, and considered in ti e light ' of that regard for patriotic duty which should characterize the action of those intrusted with the weal of a confiding people. But the obligation to declared party policy and principle is , not wanting to urge prompt and effective aci tion. Both of the great political parties now represented in the Kovcrnmcnt have, by re peated and autnoruanve declarations, condemned the condition of our laws which permit the collection from the people of unneeesfary revenue, and have, in the most solemn manner, promised its correction; and reither as citizens or partisans are our countrymen in a mood to condone the deliberate violation of these pledges. Our progress toward a wise conclusion will not be improved by dwelling upon the theories of protection and free trade. I his savors too much of bandying epithets. It is a condition which confronts us not a theory. Pelicf from this condition rcay involve a flight redaction of the advan;ag?s which we award our homo productions but the entire withdrawal of euch advantages hould not be contemplated. The question of free trade is absolutely irrelevant; and the peristent claim made in certain quarters, that all efforts to relieve the people from unjust and u mecesscry taxation are schemes of to-called tree traders, is mischievous and far removed from any consideration for the public good The simpli and phin duty which we owe the people is u. reduce taxation to the necessary expanses of an economical operation of the government, and to restore to the business of the country the money which we hold in the treasury through the perversion of governmental powers. These things can and should be done with safety to all our industries, without danger to the opportunity for remunerative labor which our workinrmen need, and with benefit to them and ail our people, Ly cheapening their means of subsistence and increasing the measure of their comforts. THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM. 'What t)i St. Louis Convention Said on the Tariff Qat Ion. The democratic party of the United States, in national convention assembled, renews the pledge of fidelity to democratic faith and reaffirms the platform adopted by its representatives in the convention of 1S4. and indorses the views expressed by President Cleveland in his last annual message t- concress as the correct interpretation oi that platform upon the question ot taritf reduction; and also indorses the efforts of our democratic representatives in congress to secure a reduction of excessive taxation. Chief jfmong i rs principle" of party faith are he maintenance of fin indissoluble union of free and indestructible 6tates, dow about to enter upon its second century of unexampled progress and renown; devotion to apian of government regulated by a written constitution, strictly specifying every trranted power and expressly reining to the st?"s or people the entire ungranted residue of power; the encouragement of a jealous popular vieilance. directed to all who have been chosen for brief terms to enact and execute the laws, and are charged with the duty of preserving peace, insuring equality and establishing justice. The democratic party welcomes an existing scrutiny of its administration of the executive power which four yrirs aar was committed to its trust in the election of Orover Cleveland president of the Unirej State, and it challenges the most searching inquiry concerning its fidelity and devotion to the piedres which then invited the suffraces of the people. Düring a most critical period of our financial affairs, resulting trom overtaxation, the anomalous condition of our currency, and a public debt unmatured, it ha3 by the adoption of a wise and conservative course not only averted disaster, but greatly promoted theprosperit of the people. It has reversed the improvident nd unwise policy of the republican party "Ving the public domain, ana has reclaimed 1rom corporations and syndicates, alien and domestic, and restored to the people, nearly one hundred millions acres of valuable land, to be sacredly held as homesteads for our citizens. While carefully guarding the interests of the taxpayers and conforming strictly to the principles of justice and equity, it has paid out more for pensions and bounties to the soldiers and aailors of the republic than was ever paid before during an equal period. I5y intelligent management and a ju dicious and economic expenditure of the public money it has set on foot the reconstruction of the American navy upon a system which forbids the recurrence of scandal and insures successful results. It has adopted and consistently pursued a firm and evident foreign policy, preserving jeaee with all cations, whjle scrupulously maintaining all the rights and interests of our own government and people at home and abroad. The exclusion from our shores of Chinese laborers has been effectually secured under the provisions of a treaty, the operation of which hasfbeea postponed by the action of a republican majority in the senate. Honest reform in the civil service has been Inaugurated and maintained by President Cleveland, and he has brought the public service to the highest standard of efficiency, not only by rule and precept, but by example of his own untiring and unselfish administration of public affairs. & every branch and department of the government under democratic control the rights $d the welfare of oil the people have been iarded and defended; every public interest 5as been protected, and the equality of all our citizens before the law, without regard to race or color, ha been steadfastly maintained. Upon its record thus exhibited, and upon the pledge of a continuance to the people of thee bene tits, the democracy invokes a renewal of fmpular trust by the re-election of a chief magstrate who has been faithful, able and prudent. We invoke, in addition to that trust, the transfer to the democracy of the entire Wislative power. The rapubliuui paxty, coaVjllinj j

the senate and resisting in both bouses of congress a reformation of unjust and unequal laws, which have outlasted the necessities of war, and now undermining the abundance of a Ion? peace, deny to the people equality before the law and the fairness and the justice which are their riht. Thus the cry of American labor for a better share of the rewards of industry is stilled with false pretenses; enterprise is fettered and bound down to home markets, capital is disturbed with doubt.nnd unequal, unjust laws can never be properly amended nor repealed. The democratic party will continue, with all the power confided, to struggle to reform these law) in accordance with the pledges of the lat platform indorsed at the ballot box by the suffrages of the people. Oi all the industrious freemen of our land, an immense majority, includinc every tiller of the ioil, gain no advantage from excessive tax laws; but the price of nearly everything they buy is increased by the favoritism of an unequal system of tax legislation. All unnecessary taxation is unjust taxation. It is renugnaut to the creed of democracy that by such taxation the cost of the necessaries of life should be unjustly increased to all our people. Judged by democratic principles, the interests of the people arc betrayed when by unnecessary taxation trusts and combines are permitted which, while unduly enrich:ti2 the few that combine, rob the body of our citiens by depriving them of the benefit of natural competition. Every democratic rule of governmental action is vitiated when through unnecessary taxation a vast sum of money beyond the needs of an economical administration is drawn from the people and the channels of trade aud accumulated as a demoralizing surplus iu the national treasury. The monev now lying idle in the federal treasury resulting front superfluous taxation amounts to more than S12ö,'K,fV0, and the surplus collected is reaching the sum of more than öo,uX),000 annually. Debauched by this immense temptation, the remedy of the republican party is to meet and exhaust it by extra vagaut appropriations. The democratic remedy is to enforce frugality in public expenditures and abolish uneeessary taxation. Our established domestic industries aud enterprise s should not and ueed not be endangered by a reduction and correction of the burdens of taxation. On the contrary, a fair a id careful revision of ourtnx laws, with due allowance for the difference between the waees of American and foreign labor, must permit and encourage every branch of such industry und enterprise by giving them assurance of an extended marke; cn l steady and continuous operation in the interest of American labor, which should, in no event, be ueuleeted; the reision of our tax laws, contemplated by this democratic party, is to promote the advantage of such labor by cheapening the cost of tho necessaries of life in the home of every workingman, and at the same time securing to hiui steady and remunerative employment. Upon thi question of tariff reform, to closely concerning every phaso of our national life, and upon every question involved in the problem ot irood government, the democratic party ml:nits its principles and professions to the intelligent sutlrages of the American people. Indiana Democratic 1'latform. "We arc opposed to taking money from the pockets of the people and hoarding it in the treasury of the United Suites beyond the needs of a proper administration of the government, thus converting it into dead capital at the expense of the busiuess of the country, and encouraging extravagant and corrupt expenditures. To the end that these cruel burdens bi removed from the taxpayers, and that luch expenditures shall cease, we insist that the taxes on imports be reduced to the lowest point consistent with ediciency in the public (.ervice, and we demand an immediate revision and reiorm of the present unjust tariff, as recommended in the late message of the president.

THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM. What th5 Chicago Convention SaM on the. Tariff Ouestlon. "We are uncompromisinsly in favor of thu American sy?tem of protection; we protest against its destruction as proposed by the preiulent and his party. They serve the interests of Kurope: wo will support the interests of America. We accept the issue, and confidently appeal to the people for their judgment. The proteetive system must be maintained. Its abondonment has always been followed by reneral disaster of all interests eicept those öf the usurer and the sheriff. We denounce th Mills bill as destructive to the ceneral business, the labor nnd the farming interests of the country, and we heartily mdor-e the consistent and patriotic action of the republican representatives in congress in opposing its passage. We condemn the proposition of the democratic party to place wool on the free list, and we iusist that the duties thereon shall he adjusted and maintained so 89 to furnish full and adequate protection to that industry. The republican party would effect all reeded reduction of the national revenue by repealing the taxes uron tobacco, which nre an annoyance and burden to agriculture, and the tax upon Fpirits t:ed in the arts and for mechanical purposes, and by stich revision of the tariff laws us will tend to check imports of such articles as are produced by the people, the production of which gives employment to our labor, and release from import duties t!io, articles of foreign production, except luxuries, the like of which cannot be prodnced at home. If there shall Ftiil remain a larger revenue than is requisite for the wants of the government, we lavor the entire repeal of internal taxes, rather than the surrender of any part of our protective nystem at the joint behest of the whisky ring and the agents of foreign manufacturers. CODICIL T-ELATIxa TO "Tr.MPEEAXCE AND MORALITY." The first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people aud the purity of their homes. The republican party corJially sympathizes with all wise and welldirected efforts for the promotion of temperance and morality. The Christian Union on the Kepubltcan ri.it form. The republican party has taken up the challenge of the democratic party, and a clear and definite issue is presented to the American voter by the contrasted platforms. Let m state the issue in our own words. There is a surplui in the treasury of ilij.000,00'), and an annual incre3.se threatened of ?J0,X,GO0. If this accumulation goes on, the country will eoon be involved in hopeless bankruptcy, because in that cae the money which commerce needs will be locked up in the treasury vaults. To protect the nation from this serious menace, two policies are proposed. The democratic party proposes to continue appropriations of public money to such sums as are necessary for an economical administration of the government; to retain the tax on alcohol; to modify the tax on tobacco and to reduce the tax on imports by admitting raw materials tree of duty and by reducing taxes on all articles of necessity. If this involves some manufacturers in commercial distress, the party will regard the individual injury as counterbalanced by the general eood. The republican party proposes to abolish the tax on tobacco; to abolish also the tax on alcohol Used in the arts and manufactures; if necessary, to do away with the national tax on alcohol altogether; to retain the present tax on imports substantially unchanged ; to retain it, not because it is necessary for revenue, but because it will foster and promote American manufactures and keep up wages,and it proposes to accompany the policy of taxation with one of liberal appropriations, not only for immediate governmental necessities, but for the construction of a navy and of coat fortifications, for river and harbor improvements, for national ai l to public education, and for pensions, With this explanation we put the policies of the two parties in parallel columns, to make apprehension of the difference between the two easier and clearer. Il'p. TVm. Ti on tn'iiw..,,,, Ab'lih. Modify. Tisoa alcohol ..Ä lteducoor a bo I tli. Retain. Tax on raw materials.... TV tain. Abolish. Tai on neces.anr........ Ivtain. Itedncs. Tax on luiurics. ...... ... Jvtain. IVt.iin. Object rf tat...... Protection, lleveaue. Lien(i;tnres......... Liberal. Lconotuical. It would be an absurd and a dishonoroble affectation if we were to pretend to look upon the issue thus framed with indifference. We believe that it has vital relations to the future of our country. We believe that the coming election will be likely to settle the trend of national life for some years to come. Nor have we any wish to conceal our personal predictions and predjudices. They are in favor of economical expenditures and a lowered tariff.

COLD FACTS FOR FARMERS.

HEAVILY TAXED AND NO RETURNS. The. Vool TarlfT-The Prosperity of the 1 rower Not Dependent I'pon tit Iutlea oa Imports I tow Free Wool Will Work to Their Advantage. Congressman John E. Russell of the Tenth Massachusetts district (ex-secretary of the Suite board of agriculture) epoke in part as follows in the tariff debate in the hou.se of representatives, May 1G: I will try to inVko the point that the prosperity of wool growing is not dependent upou a tax on imported wool. The wool-grower is dependent for the sale of his wool upon the manufacturers of his own country alone. Wool is the only one of our farm products of considerable value for which there is no foreign demand. If there is a surplus it must remain on hand. The manufacturers of other nations are not ac customed to our wools, and will not take them. Like all other things men wish to sell, its price will be governed by the demand for it; that demand will arise from the prosperity of your customers, and that only. Therefore, if the business of the woolen manufacturers is good, you will get a fair price for your wool, but if these men are not successful, if their business is hard and waning, your market grows narrow and wool falls, as wo have sten it fall during the last ten years. The wool-grower and the manafaefurer can have no divided interest; they must flourish together or they must languish together, and at this time they are equally unhappy. A gentleman on the othersiifetold me this morning that if I could establish tli3 fact that the wool industry would improve with wool on the free list he would vote for it. 1 do not expect to convince him, though I see him listening. It is too near a presidential election, and thu party whip has a 6harp lah. f Laugh tor. How, sir, did we get the blessing of a high tax on imported wool? It was the result of a combination between wool men and manufacturers. Prior to 1507 we have a nominal duty on wool, and the fortunate experience of the country in every department of industry and enterprise under the tariff of 131u led to the further reduction of the Liriff of 1.7. And, as I had the pleasure to remind the house in the d'dutte the other day, the whole delegation from Massachusetts here and at the other end of the capitol voted for it. In that revision wool under 20 cents a pound was made free. The effect upon wool was inimediale. It went up, and in lSo'J it was as high us it has ever been in our history, and the manufacturers of Massachusetts and Khode Island made more money than they ever did in any year of their business. They flourish together, because their Interests are identical. When the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Hopkins said: "Continue this tariffand even ra:se it, and we will produce all the wool required in this country." I saw that he did noi understand the relation of wool-growers to ioxnufacturers. No manufacturing people in our day can raise all its own wool. No soil or climate will produce all the various wools that enter into fabrics ranging from coarse carpets to cloths mixed with silk. The wools grown in America are not a c mplete raw material, even for the cloths for men s ordinary wear. We are controlled by fashion. The manufacturer must make what is demanded. lie has to make cloths such as people who pay high prices will buy. In onier to get material for 6uch clothing the wool-buyer must go to the world's market and select tb-cccs to mix and blend with American woo!. He may require Australian, or African, or South American, or Spanish, or French wools for his purpose, and if he does he will pay from 50 to 73 per cent, duty on them, and that handicaps hiin in competition with the men who have free wool; he is thus at a disadvantage with the manufacturers of England, France, Belgium and Germany, the great cloth ej porting countries. It is urged here that our people cannot k?eo their llociis without a protectiou to wool; it is aid our sheep will disappear; one will forget the taste of mutton. This is cot the teaching of experience here or abroad. The high-priced lands of Uneland, open to the competition of mankind, carry more sheep than in former days. The pastures of France have double the sheep they had when wool was protected. No vote of mine would ever be given con sciously against the interests of the American farmer, but 1 would take the duty off of wool, for I believe that in less than a year the prica of wool would advance, because the woolen manufacturer, freed from the tax on two-thirds of his raw material, would be better able to buy the other third. Applause ou the democratic side. THE FARMER'S PAY. "Cent by Cent, Dime by Dime, Dollar by Dollar, the Tariff Tax is Collected Out of Their U.nly, Weekly, MoutUly, Yearly Expcuses." Puck. There are hundreds of thousands of men in this country who work harder than most of the so-called workwomen. Thev form the great body of small farmers from Maine to California. These people, as a rule, have neither the leisure nor the money to buy many papers or to read extensively, and we doubt if many of them see this journal. liut to those who do read 1'uck we wish to address ourselves directly. You will be asked this fall to vote the republican ticket, because the republican party, by instituting aud maintaining a hii;h protective tariil, has given the country the prosperity which all ter citizens you included enjoy. We advise you not to give your vote on any such grounds. Whether youare prosperous or not, you can jude for yourselves. Yuu know that you live and conduct your business on a dangerously narrow margin. You know that your expenses come unpleasantly close to your receipts; and you know that those expenses increase with each year as competition increases and the owners of greater farms crowd you in the market. You ought to know that you derive no benefit whatever from the protective taritt. Tuking freight and insurance into account, no European country can compote with you, exceptio times of local famine of failure of American crops. And when our crops fail, or fail in part, what good can the highest tariff do you? If you have produce to Bell, under such conditions, you can make your own price. You sell at a profit on the actual cost of production, and vet your business can scarcely be called profitable. Why is this? Ia it not because your expenses are greater than they should be? Is it not because you have to pay, for almost everything that you buy, more than any other farmer in civilized countries is oLli;red to pay? Make your calculations for yourself. You pay more for iron, in all its forms, than any European pays. That nieans you pay u premium on all agricultural implementson ploughs, cultivators, spades, shovels, rakes, hoes, thrashers, corn-cutters, pitch forks, manure forks, trowels, mowing machines, scythes, sickles, axes, hammers, hatchets, knives, nails, tacks and everything, big or little, into the composition of which that metal enters. And this is not all. You are paying a premium on a great many other things on your clothinir. for instance; on the clothing of your wife and the clothing of your children. Indirectly, you are paying the tax on the clothinar of your farm hands and the women employed in your household. In order that American manufacturers should be encouraged, you aro paying a duty to all American mauufacturers. You ore told that a duty is levied on importations of foreign goods. But you pay this duty, if you buy the foreign goods. You pay ft, in part, if you buy the American goods of the same sort; for the American manufacturer naturally puts his price as near as possible to the mark fixed by law for the foreigner. If the European manufacturer can not sell a yard of a certain sort of cloth in the American market for less than 10 cents, why should the American who manufactures the same sort of cloth sell it for less than 0 cents, to keep the market for himself? Perhaps he could sell it for 5 cents, and make a profit, but why should he? In the scheme of business morality there is no reason why he should. And be does not. A tax is levied upon foreign imports. Who pays it? The foreign manufacturer? No; ho

he gets his prico from the American importer. The American manufacturer.' No; he makes Ids price as nearly as he can, what the foreign manufacturer charges. Who pays the tax, then? Well, you do, for one. lou pay it on almost everything you buy. You pay it cent by cent, and dollar by dollar. You pay the fraction o( a cent on the tin-plated iron spoon with which you stir your cornmeal, boiled into what is called "suppawn" in er York, "hasty puddinir" in New Enzland, and "mush" in the rest of the United Suites. You pay a dollar, perhaps, on your plow, and five or ten dollars, it may be, on your mowing machine or your thrasher. You pay a cent on the felt hat that keeps the sua off your head all the long summer days; you pay from one toten dollars on the clothes you wear. Cent by cent, dime by dime, dollar by dollar, this tax is collected out of yourduily, weekly, monthly, yearly expenses. You will be told, we suppose, that it is your duty to pay this tax, for the good of the country. Judge for yourself how far it is for tho good of the country by a simple study of easily accessible figure. Of you who are engaged ia agricultural operations thrreare in this country more than 7.670.OX1. Of those engaired in trades or manufactures which subject them to foreign competition, the highest official estimate is under Vd-j.OOO. So that you 7,G:o,WX) are taxed to support OOü.ÖUO. And of those yKl,0X how many receive their fair proportion of the tax you pay? We cannot tell you. But you can see for yourselves that every year thouands of workmen employed in '"protected" industries are clamoring for higher and "striking" to get them. Don't you thiuk it would pay you to find out where your money goes?

FARMERS NOT PROTECTED. Do Tou Oct Ultrh Price for, Your Crops? IIor Much Moaey Do Von Make ia u Year? Is lour Farm Oat of Debt. IssuoJ by tho Manchester Tari.T r.jfortn League, 63 Matt-st., Boston.) For twenty-five years the "protectionists" have kept you down under a high tariff. They prate about a "home market" and "diversifying interests" to help tha farmer. What are the facts? Does your next door neighbor pay you any more for wheat in the ''home market" than the shipper for Liverpool? Does the manufacturer pay you a higher price than the-erain dealer? The farmers ara not "protected?' They pay war tariff taxes on everything thoy buy, and they get no more for what they seil. More than half of the workers of th's country are farmers and farm laborers. The farmer is the strong horse who has to bear the burdeii of taxes, while the wool is pulled over his eyes. You get for your wheat the price at Liverpool, less the cost of getting it tuere. The enormous duty on steel rails and on iron has increased by untold millions the cost of the rail ;vays that carry it, and so increased your freight and lowered your profit. Kvery hoe aud plow and tin pan and stove costs you more because of the tariff taxes. Your house and fences cost you more. Y'our clothes cost you more. What do you get for it 11? The duty on wool, do you say? Well, only $70,OU0,O.X) worth of wool (price paid farmers) is erown in this countrv, to jdO.OOO.OÜO com, fö'JO.OOO.OOJ wheat, S-ViO.üuO.üOü hay, $250,0UO,OC0 cotton, $100.0.0,01 hens' eggs. Not a thirtieth of our farm products is wooL It is hard to tax thirty men tor one. But the wool tarifl hurts the wool-growers. "Why? Hecaue the woolen manufacturers have to btiy imported wools to mix with domestio wools, and the duty makes the price bo high as to prevent their paying a good price for home grown wooL Thus, the farmers pays more for Lis blanket, and gets less for Lis wool. England fold to foreign countries in 13i3 $110,003,000 worth of woolen goods, where we sold under $1,000. 000! The price of wool and of all farm products averaged higher in the free trade than in the protection period. The tariff affects none of tho farmer's products iu favor of the farmer. The tariff on wheat, etc., is entirely a sharn, because we ex port K rain nnd do not import iL If we were really to thut ourselves up to "the home market," the glut of produce would ruin our farmers. The more freely Europe buvs, the better off aro American farmers. Oiive our workingmeu work all the year round, by help of tree raw m itorials and more foreign trade, and they will have more money to spend at home. Think about these things! When you vote for congressmen, don't mind party names, but find out if the candidate, behoves in tariff reform and lowering taxes. TU rarmer Tax of S3 13,000,000. If the increased price of American manufactured good3, caused by the tariff, is only onefourth the average tarifl rate, and you will add the increased cost of their distribution, caused by the law, it will be found that the sum is something- over $720,(00,tX)d. That is to our Ceople as low an estimate as, I believe, would e reasonable of the cost of "protection." The 6um is probably greater. But that much, at least, I believe, we annually contribute to try and rill the rapacious and insatiable maw of the hideous and detestable monster. now TriE farmers' account stands. Now, how stands the account? I have demonstrated, I think, that to those directly engaged in agricultural pursuits the total increased price of all their products in consequence of the tariff cannot possibly exceed JUVAOOO. The total sum is probably far less. IJut it the above figures are correct and ray reasoning is sound as I am confident it is the cost ot the tariff to the farmers alone, in the (u refuse of American manufactured goods aside from all duties paid to the government), cannot be less than $3d:),000,000 a year. That is the Inside liirure; and deducting frota that Mini every pvsible cent of advantage they get from protective duties namely, $15,0?,001 it will leave as the net cost of the tariff to those who are directly engaged in agricultural pursuits the sum Of f31j,WK,000 a year; and to all other classes who are in reality and effect, though not farmers, engaged in agriculture, a sum in addition of about 50 per cent. -J. Q. Sinilh, Farmer und Wool Grower, Oattand, U. WHO WANT TAXED WOOL? Not tho Wool Crow ere, as Shown by tho Record. Philadelphia Times Ind. Texas has 4,.r001000 sheep and her entire delegation in congress eleven ia all voted for the free-wool tariff bill. Pennsylvania bas 900,0)0 sheep nnd cast twenty votes against the free-wool tariffand six in favor of it. Michigan has 2,100,000 sheep and cast five votes for the free-wool tariffand six agiinstit. Khode Island has 20,000 sheep and cast her solid vote of two against a free-wool tari:K Minnesota has 300,000 sheep and cast four votes, including one republican, for a free-wool taritl, and one against it. Missouri has 1,100,000 sheep and cast twelve votes for a free-wool tariff and two against it. Massachusetts has 60,0w) Bheep and cast eitrht votes against a free-wool tariff and four in favor of it. Georgia has 500,000 sheep and cast a solid vote of ten in favor of a free-wool tariff. Maine has 50t,0JO sheep and cast a solid vote of four against a free-wool tariff. North Carolina has 500,000 sheeD and cast seven votes for a free wool tariff and two against it. New Hampshire has 200,000 eheep and cast a solid vote of two against a free wool tariff. Tennessee has 5K),( sheep and cast eight Totes for a free wool Uriffand two against it. Indiana has 1,000,000 fheep and cast six votes for a free wool tariffand seven against it. Illinois has 800,000 sheep ami cast fourteen votes against a free wool tariffand tlx ia its favor. Arkansas has 220,000 6heep and cast a solid vote of five in favor of a free wool tariff. Alabama lias 300,tfX) sheep and cast a solid vote of eiuht in favor of a free wool tariff. These facts, exhibited bf the vote on the new tariff bill in the house on Saturday, certainly show that the demand for taxed wool does not come from the wool growers, but from partisan demands for taxes on the necessaries of life to sustain monopoly control of taxation upon consumers. Id a Nutshell. Hon. Tax on tohanco. Titx on leohol. Tax on raw mat. Tx on neo'ries. Tu on luxuries. Object of tsx. Expenditures. Abolish. Reduce or abol. Modify. Jtetaln. Abolish. Iteduen. Jtetaia. Revenue. Economical. Itctain. ItfUia. Retain. Protection. LibrL

WIIATJIASUFACTÜIIERSSAY

STRONGLY FOR TARIFF REFORM. "The Itich Would Lose, Hut tha Pour V.'onld (Jain, If the Mills Hill Tieoani a Law" "Where Protection 1 Highest, AYa-rc Ar Loneit." The chairman of the finance committee of the Ilolyoke republican club recently solicited a contribution from Mr. Arthur T. Lyman, who is the treasurer of the IIa Hey thread company of Ilolyoke, as well as of the Lowell manufacturing company of Lowell. In reply Mr. Lyman wrote the foUowiug letter, which we are permitted to publish: "OFKicit or TitK If ADtcv Compact, IhjsTon, Jtdy t.l, lis. ) "Chairman of tli Finance Coruuiittca of the Ilolyoke llepublican Cluh: "Dear Fir I have yours of the 12th, asking for a contribution to the republican club. 1 am, of course, deeply interested in the tariff as regards the Hadley company, and also in its bearing on many other cotton and woolen manufactures in which I am interested, but in my opinion the republican members of congress fron New England and tho 'Home market club' and the 'Woolen manufacturers' association' have practically done more harm to the cause of protection and to the protected (socalled) in lustries of Massachusetts than the democratic members of the ways and means committee. "J have had occasion to pee some of the democratic members of the wavs and means committee and to hear of tlie p!ans and views of others, and I am convinced that but for the action of th r' publican members of congre from Ne v England and of the greater part of the republican mauufacturers of New England we could have had in the Mills bill satisfactory schedules tor woolens and cottons. As it is, at the request of some manufacturers (republican) made through the democratic members from Massachusetts, the demoem's of the ways and means c iiuru'ttee altered and advanced rates on 6ome important items, whiio we were met, I am infor ned, by republican members of the house saying: 'Leave the schedule as i: is; it is better for the election.' The republicans now refuse to aid in putting raw materials on the free list, and certainly in New England free raw material has been considered as an element in projection almost us essential as the duty on the manufactured article. "From my business experience in both Itnportinii and manufacturing, I am fully awaro of the necessity of protection for the maintenance here of certain manufactures, and I very much regret that the republican party, with which I have acted from its beginning, has, for political success, taken a position which I consider hostile in its practical effects to the protected industries of Massachusetts. The democratic members of the ways and means committee take broad, and on thi whole, reasonable views of the tariff fjuetion, and while, of course, they look at the interest of the United States as a whole, they do not ignore the fact that many creat industries have grown up in this country under the high duties made necessary by the war of the rebellion, ind that it is only fair and proper that consideration should be paid to their existence and condition. Neither do they ignore the fact that the work Etople in the protected industries are very inely members of the democratic party. IJesides the consideiation that my manufacturing interests have been put at needless risk by the partisan action of the republicans, I must also take into consideration the interests of the whole country, in which we tre involved, and I ran not feel it to be rivjht to vote for any one who can honestly stand on the republican platform. Most of the republicans with whom I have spoken about it have told me that they have Lot read it. I can readily believe that it would be disagreeable reading to republicans who iu me past have, in a!l honesty, desired to have raw materials and food products on the free list. Bat the exigencies of practical politics have forced the party into a false position as regard the tarili and iuto many o:her nnwiie and dangerous relations in regard to the domestic, and foreign afiairs of the country. "There is practically no party in this country in f:vcr of free trade in any reasonable sensa of the term, and it is aa unfair to cat! the Mills bill a free trade bill as it is to that the republicans are in favor of the free drinkin of whisky, because the manufacturers of protected articles have for several years insisted that all internal taxes should be taken off in order that it should be impossible to aber the duties of imports. While the Mills bill is not a bill that wholly commends itself to me, it is correct, and for the interest of Massachusetts in many particulars, notably in the matter of free wool. Every manufacturing country La the world of any consequence, except the United States, has wool on the free list. The position that the republican party has taken makes it well for the country, as it 5eem3 to me, that it should not have control of the government for the next four years. Yours trulv. "Artucb T. Lyxak." During the debate in the house on the Mills bill, Congressman Dingley, representing the Second Maine district," declared that every woolen manufacturer in the Second district had said to him: "Free wool would, in the end, be a curse to the manufacturing interests of tho country." This statement was brought to the attention of Mr. Robert Ii'eakie of Hyde 1'ark, Mass., part owner of two woolen mils located in Mr. Dincley's district, and under date of July 23 he wrote to the editor of the Lewiston Gazett, as follows: '1 am surprised that Congressman Dingley ehould have made the statement quoted by you, knowiug, as he must, that it was not true, for we have two woolen mills in the Second congressional district of Maine, and we surely have given him no authority to speak for us iu that manner. The employment of 6uch methods to further or retard legislation, whether successful or otherwise, must tend to a loss of elfrcspect by the person usinj them. Mr. Dingley's statement cannot be excused on the ground that he had not sufficient evidence of my position on the tariff question; for knowledge of that has extended as far and as wide as the circulation of the Uoston Hrrald, in which paper, a few months ago, a lengthy controversy on the ?nbj ct of tree wool was carried on between the Hon. A. W. Heard, treasurer of this state, and myself, in which I claimed and attempted to prove (and I think I did prove) that free wool would be vastly beneficial to both manufacturers and operatives. On account of the official position of one of the disputants, and his well known reputation as a most able and industrious champion of the high protective policy, as well as tor other reasons, this 6eries of letters attracted a great deal of attention; and, if the representative from your Second district has given any heed to the discussion in the newspapers and elsewhere, which has followed the adveut of the Mills bill, he cannot have failed to know my sentiments in this matter. "Speaking as a woolen manufacturer of that part of the bill which concerns my business, I have to say that I hink it is the best bill that Las ever been framed to promote the interests of woolen manufacturers and the laboring population employed in woolen-mills. I cannot see how any manufacturer can fail to fiad in it all the protection he needs, and the operative all the guarantee he requires of protection aeainst the cheaper labor of European countries. Briefly, this is the position: Free wool and 40 per cent, protection against competing products of foreign countries. If there isany free-trade in this 1 cannot see it. But I do see that we get free wool aud a protection of 40 per cent., which is equ il in amount to double the whole labor cost of making woolen goods. If European manufacturers were to get their labor for nothing, under this bill we would still have the advantage of them. It seems a pity that this questionof tariff cannot be viewed by each man from a practical business standpoint, and not, as it now is, from a political one. I believe that, if it were so viewed, nnd calmly and carefully considered, the people of New Enrland would hasten to instruct their representative to further, by every means in their power, the making of the Mills bill a law at once; at any rate, so far as the woolen interests are affected. Very truly yours, "ltOBEIiT BLEAKIE." The Hon. W. L. Douglas of Brockton, the well-known shoe manufacturer, comes out ftrongly for tarul reform and the Mills bill in the following letter, which has special interest for the workinemen: "As tariff reform will be theirsueof the coming presidential campaign, I feel considerably interested as to the final resulL I was told the other day by a stanch republican J

that Harrison would certainly be elected. That Statement may come true; but it does not leeia to me that be can float lLto the white house on the taritl plank the republican party has given bim to htar.d upon. The days of high protection are numbered for this country. High protection is an idea that ctlived its vseiuiness. The great masses of the ieorle of this country understand the true principle of political economy better than they did fifty years ago. Experience is a good teacher. Education has done its work. Willi a population increasing at the rate of 2 per cent- per annum we must devise some means of increasing consumption of the poods we manufacture ana produce. If this end can be accomplished, w can givo employment to the idle workman who is not a consumer when out of work to the exteut h would be if employed. High protection means to reduce consumption. Now, this question of consumption is the whole case in a nutshell so far as the working classes are concerned. A redaced consumption of the products made ia this country signifies a lower rate ot wages to the working classes. Watres are based upon supply and demand. If there is a great demand for a manufactured article, employment is given to a greater number of people. Tho demand for bkided workmen makes the price. The Mills tariff bill reduces the tariff about percent. "The average tariff to-day on everthing thst we eat, drink and wear is 47 per cent, ltdoea not seem to me that the hih protectionists ought to go insaue over a reduction of 5 per cenL in the tariff. As near as 1 can learn from what I read it looks that way. They have a mania for the poor workingman that they do not seem to experience but or.ee in four years. AVhen any legislation in the interest of the) working people is asked for. it is the republican party of hijrh protection which vote co.' There are a few exceptions. "The democratic party is the party the workingman must look to if he wants any favoi cnuited him. I claim that the Milis tariff bill does not go far enough. It will not accomplisb all that the president aked for in bis tariff message. It will not reduce the surplus entirely that is accumulating iu the treasury at Washington. This accumulation of the people's money the Mills tariff bid will reduce to a certain extent. Lut a litde tariff reform is l etter than none. A 5 per cent reduction will in crease consumption and will have a tendency to increase wages. If wages do not increase but little, it will have another etfect. That is, the reduction in the tariff will certainly give rmployment to a lanre numple of people. A Li,:n protective tariff is in the interest of tho rich to the dttrunent of the poor. This is tho platform of the republican party. Free whisky and tobacco make their creed complete. The principles of the democratic party are in the interest of the many instead of the few. The

the difference between the rich and tho poor. With high protection the poor people have to pay more fcr the necessaries of life. A low tariff sigr.iScs low prices for such articles as the tari ff iilfectA. Lower prices guarantee increased consumption, which is sure to stimulate and increase production. This being true, how can waes be reduced when there is more work to do and less workmen out of employment? I wish to call the attention of the working classes to cue thing, and that is this: Why is it that the high, protectionists are fighting the very mi!d tanf?" bill that is now before congress? My opinion is that if the tariff should be reduced ell raerchandise manufactured at the time the bill would become a law would shrink in value in proportion to the reduction of the duty on each arti el'i.' The rich would have to lose; the poos would gaia. Are the high projectionists to bs blamed tor fighting to retain their wealth? Thl only weapon they have in shape of an argument to fcght their battle with is the poor workingmen whom they have befr;3nded so often ia tha past. Perhaps they have experienced a changa of heart. If so, praise God. ''Suppose, for an examoie, the tariff should bo taken off lumber, which the Mills till rt-cotn men. N, and other materials that co into the building of a house. The result would be tha the bouse would cost a ereat deal less money. Would this benefit the rich or the poor? Tha workingman could then afford to buibi and own a bouse for his family; he would have a tome that he could call his own; b it the real estate owners would lose by (he shrinking ta the value ot their building. They cannot b blamed for standing for protection. The duty cn lumber and olher materials that go to buil'i a ship have driven the American flag from tho seas. But very liiüe shipbuilding is now done. in this country. We cannot compete with other nations. High protection hns done this. and driven out of employment thousands o skilled workmen, who have had to er.gace in other branches of industry. This is the effect of protection. The Mills tariff bill, if it should become & law, would revive and reclaim this lost industry of shipbuilding to a certain extent. Where protection is the highest, wages nre the lowest. That is, a workman earns less money in the year. Take the great iron industry in Pennsylvania. Iron has a hu;a protective tariff. There is more trouble ia Pennsylvania with the workingtoen than in any other state in the Union. The pauper labor of Europe finds a haven of rest in highly piotccted Pennsylvania. Th"n. again, take the pottery industryof New Jersey, which is hithly protected. I was readini, a few days ago, thit that the average pay of their workmen was $S per week. The manufacturers claim to make 10 per cent, profit on the oü'put of their business. A very fair proüt. We shoe raanuTaotnrers would be happy with one-half that e mount on our total sales for the year. The average wages of those in my employ are about J14 per wees when employed, ond I think it will average about the same ia other factories in Brockton. This is $3 per week more than the pottery workmen average in New Jersey. Of course we shoe manufacturers do not mako the profit that the pottery manufacturers claim to. The pottery industry is protected from 50 to CO per cent. Shoes are protected 25 per cent, which proves that the higher a product is protected the lower are the wages paid to th workmen. "Take the boot and shoe industry. The duty was taken off of hides in 172. Wazes hare not been reduced, but are higher than they were previous to the time the duty was taken off. If the duty could be taken off of manufactured boots and thoes and all materials that ere required in their madufaeture, we could defy the world to compete with us on our line of goods. Boot and "ßhoe manufacturers need a market independent of the home trade for their goods. Protection is the highest in this country of any nation on the globe. It should be quite the reverse. We should not stand in fear of any nation in the world as to competition. We are able to cope with any of them. Our workmen are the best They can do mora work in a d;iy and d it better than workingmen of other countries. Our mountains aud Valleys abound with gold, silver, lead, ceppef. iron and coal and other minerals ten nunerous to mention. We have everything to work with. Those who are afraid of other nations' competition are not giving our country proper credit. In my opinion. I can give employment to a larger number of workmen more days in the year under a low taritl than I can under high protec ive tariff" law, an I not be compelled to reduce wages, for the simple reason that a low tariff will put the idle labo-er to work, increase consumption, put more money into circulation and give an impetus to busiress such as this country has not experienced for manv years. W. L. Douglas." . "Brockton, Mass., July 23." One Victim of the Itich Tariff. Israel O. Whitney, Merchandise national bank: He did not hesitate to declare what hit political afhliatiom had been and were. Hewas a convert from republicanism to the support of Mr. Cleveland iu 1M1 "a mugwump then, if you will," he added, "but an out-aud-out democrat now, and made one by the politics of the parties iu regard to the tariff." Through the high protective tariff he had neeo bis business as a foreign importer the business of Whitney Bros. & Co., Boston and Calcuttacrippled and diminished until it was nearly ruined. If the retort should be made it often was made that a true policy was one whib protected those engagea in dotnesrrc inaustries and notiu foreign importations, he wouid replythat he and thousands of others in the United States, occupied with a similar business, una at least some claim to consideration; and, moreover, he and they had been extensive owners of vessels, which now. because ot the protective tariil, had rotted in idleness. He also held the protective tariff responsible for the existence of huge and inequitable monopolies like the sugar trust. For such reasons he wa a tariff reformer and a democrat full-fledced. because it was the democratic rrty srhüih sought to reduce tho tarifl.

f