Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 34, Number 27, Indianapolis, Marion County, 8 August 1888 — Page 4

4

THE INDIANA STATE SENTINEL, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1888.

INDIANA STATE SENTINEL

TERMS PER YEAR i Einjrle copy.. 81 OO We ask democrats to bear la mind and select their ova state paper when they come to take subscriptions and make tip clubs. Agents making up clubs send for any information desired. Addess INDIANAPOLIS SENTINEL, Indianapolis, lnd. WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 8. n , i , Fob President, cuorrn Cleveland of nw York. Fop. Vice-President, ALLEN G. THCRMAN ot Ohio. DEMOCRATIC STATE TICKET. Governor Cocmxaxd C. Matsox. Lieutenant-OoTernor William R. Mteul Secretary of State Robert W. Miers. Auditor of State Charles A. Mr5Sox Treasurer of State Thomas B. Byrses. Reporter Supreme Court John W. Kerx. Attorner-General Johx R. Wilson. Superintendent Public Instruction E. E. GurITH. Judges of Supreme Court First District W. E. Niblacx. Second Pistrictr-O. V.Howe. Fourth District Alles Zollars. FRESIDEXT1AL ELECTORS. At Larire Thomas R. Cobb and Johw E. Laxb. First diatrict, 8. B. Vaiice; Second district, C. 8. Thjbbws; Third district, Charles L. Jewett; Fourth dintrict, Nicholas Corset; Fifth district, JohrR.East: Sixth district. Thomas J. Stcdt; feventh district, David S. Uoodiso; Eighth district. S. -B. Prrrr; Kinth district, John I. Mo 2U-oh; Tenth district, D.D. Dtkkmax; EleTenth district, John N. Türmer; Twelfth district, Johji IL Bass; Thirteenth district. M. A. O. Packard. A Peculiarly Odious Monopoly. If anjihing were needed to convince the people of this part of the country of the inordinate hoggishness and arrogance of the high tariff monopolists it has been supplied by a recent pronunciamento of the Muncie pulp company. This pulp company is a corporation composed of wealthy New Yorkers, who were induced by liberal offers from a syndicate of enterprising democrats of Muncie to establish a pulp factory in that thriving town. The .owners of this factory do not vote in Indiana. They are men of immense fortunes made, no doubt, out of the monopoly tariff. The president of the pulp trust, with which this company i3 connected, and the treasurer of the company is GrsTAV L. Jaeger, reputed to be eight times a millionaire. His company located Its mill at Muncie in order to make money. It was doubtless ft good thing for Muncie that it did E0, but it was ft good deal better thing for ; the company. It was given (free) twenty'five acres of land, with free fuel and free water for all time. It holds a patent on its process of making pulp, and a patent on its machinery. No one else can use this process, or this machinery. It had a guarantee of 2,500 tons of straw at $2 a ton (delivered) before it consented to locate its shop at Muncie. It employs the enorxo'Ca number of sixteen hand3 at the rite of wages current in Muncie. It will thus be seen that the Muncie pulp company owes everything to the generosity and public spirit of the people of Muncie, and especially of the -wide-awake democratic citizens who gave it its land, fuel and water, and that it makes a very slender return for the advantages which have been given it. But it has the sublime gall to publish in the Muncie papers an impertinent and offensive letter, purporting to be the composition of its secretary, one Tracy of New York, in which it sets itself up as a public benefactor, and presumes to tell the people of Delaware county that its interest must be held paramount to their own, and that they must vote as these purse-proud monopolists tell them to under penalty of their everlasting displeasure. The Journal declares the letter of this would be dictator and bulldozer a blow "right between the eyes " of "free trade." If it is a blow at anything, it is a blow at the high tariff monopolists, although dealt by themselves, because it exposes them to the people of Indiana in their true character of unscrupulous, greedy and arrogant tax eaters. The secretary tells the people of Muncie that if the Mills bill had been introduced lefore the company began to build its ehops he "doubts very much whether a brick would be laid where now stands this fine establishment." He also asserts that if pulp was put on the free list the company would have to reduce the price of its product $3 per ton, or on an output of twenty tons per day $160 per day, or $48,000 per year. He declares that the Muncie pulp company could not Etand this loss, but that it would have to fall on the farmers, mechanics, laborers, teameters and railroad companies. Almost in the same breath he asserts that if the duty is kept on, the Muncie company will sell pulp as cheap as the foreign article can be procured at New York. He also says that the foreign product is controlled by a Gerdau trust, and he insults intelligence by the statement that "by the grace of an American tariff system, for every ton of German straw pulp that the Muncie pulp works displaces by one of its own, the United States will be $S0 the richer, and the greater portion of this $S0 will add to the wealth of Delaware county, Indiana," This mass of balderdash, of incongrui ties and inconsistencies and contradictions and flat falsehoods, "goes right home," according to the Journal. And yet the average school boy of twelve years could hardly fail to detect its sophistries at a glance. If the tax on pulp is taken off, says this monopolist, pulp will be $3 a ton cheaper to consumers. - m t (The monopoly taxers always in sist that the tax does not increase the price of the protected article, but whenever it is proposed to remove or reduce such tax, some fellow who is inter esfced in keeping it up, pops up to say that such a change will compel him to sell his product for as much less as the reduction in tax amounts to.) But if the tax is kept on (says Mr. Pulp Monopolist) pulp will be as cheap as the foreigners can supply it to us. Thus he gives his whole case away. He either lies when he says the Muncie pulp will be as cheap as German pulp if the tax is maintained, or he lies when he says it will be IS cheaper if the tax is removed. In either case he shows himself to be utterly unworthy of credit. Now, the facts are that this palp monopoly is one of the most odious of the whole brood of monopolies created by the spoliation tariff. The pulp business is con trolled by a trust, of which, as stated, the treasurer of the Muncie company is presi dent. This trust "regulates" wages, limits the output, and prevents active competition for raw material, It realizes enormous profits. Some figures about the

operations of the Muncie pulp works will afford an idea of the amount of plunder which the pulp monopoly takes out of the people every year. It requires three tons of straw to make a ton of pulp. This straw is delivered at the mill for $3 per ton. The labor and chemicals used in a ton of pulp cost $12. The total first cost of a ton of pulp therefore is : Chemicals and iator...... .................. 1 To i jfc X The company pays nothing for fuel or water, and has no money invested in land. It is enabled by the tariff to sell its product to paper mills at $85 per ton, or more than four times the cost of manufacture. Making liberal allowances for expenses, insurance, etc., it will be seen that the Muncie company will realize a vast fortune every year on the present basis. The secretary puts the capacity of the works at twenty tons a day. This is 6.240 tons a year, for which it gets, over and above the cost of manufacture, $G4 a ton, or the vast sum of $399,3f0. Making the very liberal allowance of 25 per cent, of the gross value of the product, and deducting the amount paid for labor and materials, we have a net annual profit of $206,760 on an actual investment of $160,000, or over 160 per cent. "What farmer, or merchant or unprotected manufacturer of Muncie makes such an unconscionable profit? No wonder these avaricious pulp-makers want the duty on pulp kept up and German pulp kept out of the country and all competition prohibited. They have got a "soft thing" a very soft thing indeed. If the people want to know what monopoly means, they will find a very striking illustration in the case of this Muncie pulp company. And at whose expense does this corporation thus wax fat? At the expense of the people. The tax on pulp is a tax on intelligence. It is a tax on newspapers and school books and bibles, and all the agencies through which information is principally disseminated. It is a tax on education. The Muncie pulp company sells its product to paper mills. The paper mills are "protected" by a tax of 15 percent. The paper mills sell it to the newspaper and book publishers, and they in turn sell it back to the farmers who get from the pulp company the munificient price of 50 cents (net) per ton for straw, and the men who work in the pulp factory for meagre wages. Thus the latter foot the bill, or their share of it, at last.

Now we regret to say that the Mills bill as passed, leaves the duty of 10 per cent on pulp. As originally introduced it put pulp on the free list, where it belongs. AVe are very sorry it wasn't left there. "Ve should like to see the odious pulp monopoly broken up. We know, and every person capable of adding up figures knows, that with cheap raw materials and free chemicals (which the Mills bill gives) and with free fuel and land the Muncie company, or any other company, can do business at a handsome profit in competition with the whole world. The people of Delaware' county need have no fear of losing the precious pulp factory, with its sixteen hands and 50 cents a ton for straw, whatever may be done with the pulp tax. The .pulp factory will keep moving right along, even if the people are not taxed to keep it up, just like the farmers and merchants and workingmen of Delaware county, for whose benefit no taxes are levied. Down with monopoly taxes ! Some "Journal' Figures Which Lie. Some fellow who is either grossly ignorant or willfully dishonest, ßends the Journal the following: The Financier of July 28, 1883, shows the following, comparing the laborers . of New York and Great Britain: Affur Tort. Great Britain. Laborers . 1,8M,000 15,181,000 Safinjrs bank deposits- J463.C23.000 1436,000,000 SaTirtcs bank deposits increase since 1860 800 per cent. 118 per cent. Average deposit to each person..-:... 1380 29 In Massachusetts depositors in sarin gs banks average two to each family; in Great Britain the average is one to thirty families. In I860 the total deposits in savings banks of the United States were $253,202,000, and in 18S0 $2,627,348,000. Increase in twenty years, 935 per cent Increase in New York city and Brooklyn savings banks: 1S60. 1883. depositors ..... 227,000 763,000 Total deposit . $49,000,000 1394,000,000 Average deposit to each person...... ......... .......... $216 $334 An increase of 600 per cent in amount of deposits, and 78 per cent to each person. And all this under the blessing of PROTECTION. The above figures are wild. The total deposits in saving banks in the United States in 1880 were not $2,627,348,000, but less than a third of that amount, or $819,106,973. From 1877 to 1S87 ten years the deposits intreased from $S79,897,425 to $1,235,736,009, or 40 per cent, an average of 4 per cent, a year. In Great Britain the pavings bank deposits amounted in 18S8 two years ago to $4S6,000,000, or the trifle of $50,000,000 more than they are above put down for 18S8. In 1841, just before Great Britain discarded the protective system, only 3 per cent of the population were depositors in savings banks. In 1881, more than 12 per cent of the population were depositors in savings banks. Thu3, under "free trade" (or a tariff for revenue only) the number of savings bank depositors in the United Kingdom increased more than four times as fast as the population. Under a protective tariff three persons out of every hundred had an account in a savings bank. After thirty-five years of "free trade" twelve persons out of every hundred had an account in a savings bank. The average savings bank deposit per capita in 1841 (protection) was $4.32. In 1881 (free trade) it was $10.94, an increase of about 250 per cent Between 1881 and 1883 the deposits in British savings banks increased about 12 per cent within a shade of 6 per cent a year, or nearly 50 per cent faster than the increase in the United States between 1877 and 1887. The above figures are official and strictly accurate. These for the United States are taken from the reports of the comptroller of the currency, as summarized on page 31 of the "statistical abstract of the United States for 1887." ,' Those for the . United Kingdom will bo found on page 343 of vol. 21 of the ninth edition of the "Encyclopedia Bnttanica." - It is never safe for a monopoly taxer to "monkey" with statistics, They invariably floor him. The Journal correspon dent was probably unaware of the fact that the champions of "British free trade" find one of their strongest arguments in

the growth of savings bank deposits in the j United Kingdom under their policy, or be would not have invited attention to the facts. Of course all intelligent workingmen understand that there is no question of free trade before the people of this country. The democrats propose to levy a tariff affording the enormous protection of 40 per cent, on an average, to our manufactures, and the monopolists oppose this because they demand a prohibitory tariff. But we suggest to such over-zealou3 champions of prohibitory tariffs as the Journal correspondent that if they don't want to make intelligent workingmen look kindly upon free trade, they will fight very 6hy of the British saving bank statistics. They are very dangerous things for the high tariflites to handle. They are loaded, so to speak. ' Down with monopoly taxes. Harrison's Chinese Record. Ex-Gov. Long sends to the Boston Globe what purports to be an accurate statement of Bex Harrison's Chinese record. As a matter of fact it is a very inaccurate statement of it It says in the first place that Harrison voted against the Tage bill to restrict Chinese immigration, because it was in conflict with treaty stipulations. This is simply not true. Bex Harrison voted against this and other anti-Chinese measures, because he believed that Chinese immigration ought to be en

couraged. He made no attempt to dis guise this opinion at that time. He ex pressed it openly, and in an essay read before a literary society in this city advocated it with a good deal of earnestness. He never put bis opposition to anti-Chinese legislation on the ground that it conflicted with treaty stipulations, either in the senate or elsewhere. As a matter of fact, they constituted no valid objection to either of the anti-Chinese bills which Harrisox voted against. Upon this point read the testimony of an ex-treaty commissioner, printed in the Indianapolis Journal, of April 6, 1872 (two days after President Arthur's veto of the first anti-Chinese bill): I fully hoped suspension could have been proposed for thirty years, and the Chinese government would not have considered the faith of the treaty trespassed on if it had been made for fifty years, or even more. A bill was drawn, however, with the express view of obviating the objection of conflict with the treaty. It was passed by congress and became a law with the approval of President Arthur. Bex Harrison resisted it at every stage ; voted for all amendments designed to weaken it, and against all amendments designed to strengthen it. He was as strongly pro Chinese as any member ot the senate. Gov. Long also says that Senator Harkison voted against an amendment to one of the Chinese bills, prohibiting the naturalization of Chinese, because the laws already forbade it. If that was the case; what possible barm could an express prohibition in the statute books have done? It would have settled he question absolutely, and it was in great doubt then, when courts all over the country were naturalizing Chinese. They had been naturalized 'right here in Indianapolis to Gen. Harrison's knowledge and by his party friends ; and had voted the republican ticket in 18S0 over democratic challenges. The fact is that Bex Harrisox voted against the prohibition of Chinese naturalization because he dind't want it prohibited. He wanted the Chinese to become citizens and voters.and, it is said, predicted that in such event they would ally themselves with the republican party, making a much needed addition to its voting strength. AVhy can't Bex Harrisox and his friends face the music on his Chinese record? "What's the use of lying about it? Such a defense as ex-Gov. Long makes is no defense at all. It does not harmonize with the record, nor with Ben Harrison's public utterances. It is a pettifogging, quibbling plea, not worthy of a police court shyster. - a A Few Questions Answered. The Chicago Herald is of course abundantly able to take care of the Indianapolis Journal in a tariff controversy. But there are some questions which the latter asks the Herald that we take the liberty of answering, because the readers of Tiie Sentinel, as a rule, do not read the Herald. Here they are : Do you not know, as a matter of fact, that tailors and seamstresses, men and women, now sew for very low wages? Yes; it is "protected labor," so called, and most protected labor, so called, works for starvation wages- The manufacturers reap the benefit of the 55 per cent duty on ready-mado clothing, and they enjoy the benefit of free trade in labor. And that to cheapen clothes would be to lower wages, thus bringing tailor and seamstress nearer to the starvation point and makimjr cheaper men and women? No ; not by a large majority. To cheapen clothes would be to make the wages of every man, woman and child in the land go farther than they do now. It would increase the consumption of clothing, as a reduction in the price of any commodity always increases its consumption. Increasing the consumption of clothing would increase the demand for the labor employed in its manufacture and thus increase the wages, which always advance when the demand improves. Do yon not know that a very Urge majority of the male population of this country.probably 00 per cent, wear ready made clothing the year round? Yes. What of it? Do you not know that a common, n good or a first-rate ready made, all-wool suit of clothing can be bought in this country to-day as cheap us or cheaper than in any other, and we may add, much better made and better fitting? No. AVe know just to the contrary. A better suit of clothes than costs $30 in this country, can be bought for $12 or $15 in England, Franco or Canada. Everybody knows this to be a fact who knows anything about it. Most of the monopolists buy a year's stock of clothing when they go abroad on their annual tour, and save on this and other purchases the cost of their journey. The so-called "protected laborers" do not enjoy this blessed privilege. Do you not know that the repeal of the duty on wool could not possibly reduce the price of ready-made clothing unless a reduction of wages followed? No. Common sense teaches us better than that The cheaper the manufacturer gets his raw material the better wages ho can afford to pay, and the cheaper he can sell clothing. If the Journal got its white paper for half what it pays now it could pay higher wages and at the same time sell its paper cheaper. We like to answer the JournaVt ques

tions. They are so easv. And by the

way we have propounded the Journal divers questions about the tariff on wool, and about the effects of high protection on wages as shown in Spain, Mexico and Italy, which it has en tirely ignored. This is not courteous, to say the least AVe may add that we think when Ben Harrison said a "cheap coat necessarily involved a cheaper man under .the coat," he meant every word of it Ben IIarrisox never did have much use for men who wear cheap coats ! Down with monopoly taxes! A "Journal" Discovery. We find the following characteristic tariff deliverance in our Chinese contemporary: The Sentinel is having up-hill work trying to prove that the Mills bill does not favor free trade. As a matter of fact the Mills bill declares for: Free trade in lumber, which we produce to the value of $:it0,000,0oo annuallyFree trade in wool, of which we produce over 300,000,000 pounds annually. Free trade in nalt, of which we produce nearly 40,000,000 bushels annually. Free trade in flax, hemp, jute and other fibers. Free trade in cement, potaxh, litue and brick. Free trade in inrats, game and poultry. Free trade in vegetables, peas and beans. Free trade in stone. Free trade In nearly one hundred other articles produced in this couutry, nirst of which would be produced iu sufficient quantities for home consumption if properly protected. This is a pretty good start toward destroying American industries and surrendering the American market to foreigners. According to this logic we have always had free trade. There is free trade all over the world. There is no protective tariff anywhere and never has been, except in China, which used to prohibit imports altogether. If a free list makes free trade, Alexander Hamilton was a free trader. So M as Henry Clay. So was Horace Greeley. Sq is James G. Blaine. So is Pig Iron Kelley. So is Bex IlAERison, who voted for a bill, which is now a law, that provided for Free trade in cattle, horses, 6heep and fowls for breeding purposes. Raw materials. Free trade in chemicals, drugs and dyes of many kinds. Free trade in cocoa. Free trade in coflee. Free trade in cotton, which is one of the principal American products. Free trade in diamonds, rough and uncut. Free trade in eggs, an important American product. Free trade in fertilizers. Free trade in bananas (grown in the United Slates.) Free trade in furs and fur skins. Free trade in hides and skins, (produced in great quantities in America.) Free trade in . ivory. Free trade in rags. Free trade in raw silk. Free trade in spices. Free trade in tea. Free trade in tin. And free trade in several hundred other articles, many of them, produced in America. A free list no more makes free trade than one swallow makes a summer. There never w as a tariff without a free list. The articles enumerated in the foregoing extract from the Journal are nearly all, as will be observed, important raw materials of manufacture. With scarcely an exception the great leaders of the republican party in former years recommended that the duty be removed from them. Grant did so. So did Henry Wilson. So did Charles Sumner. So did President Arthur. So did Secretary Foixier. So did Secretary McCcLLOcn. . --And James A. Garfield advocated the policy, (of making all raw material free " We presume the Journal found the interesting morsel above quoted in some monopoly organ, and re-produced it under the impression that it was valuable campaign material. That's the way the Journal is in Jhe habit of discussing ( ?) the tariff. Down with monopoly taxes ! Deserts the G. O. P. Judge Chester H. Krum, a life-long republican of St Louis, a son of one of the early mayors of that city, and himself a judge (elected by republicans) for six years, is out for Cleveland. He made a ringing speech the other night before the Twenty-second ward democratic club of St. Louis, in which, after reading the tariff planks of the Chicago platform, he said: Such is the platform of the republican party, and the people are asked to give it their support But, gentlemen, no citizen of the United States ought to approve such an astounding declaration of party principles. From every stand-point of free government and public economy it is the most atrocious party utterance which has been made in the history of American politics. It finds extenuation neither in necessity nor concern for the public welfare. It is based upon nosnbstantial foundation. Itis subversive of well-estahlühed principles of political economy. It finds no sanction in the constitution. Its sole purpose is to maintain upon the statutes of the United States laws which the necessities of actual war created, but which can now, by socalled protection, benefit less than 3,000,000 of people who hapjeu to be its favored recipients only at the expense of over 42.000,000, whotre expected to remain quiescent and unwilling victims of unjust and unnecessary tarifl discriminations. He contrasted the republican platform of '84 with that of '-88, and then spoke of the dangers of the vast surplus in the national treasury, saying: The war tariff hangs over this country like a vast incumbus. The growth of itä accumulation in the treasury has been insiduously eaping the life-blood" of American industries. ike some deadly, vampire of fable, the war tariffof 1864 is draining the veins of its victims while its wings of "protection" are lulling them into repose. He dwelt on President Cleveland's tariff message and the democratic platform, declaring that neither favored free trade, but only a reduction in the war tariff, which is ruining the country. He analyzed the Mills bill and indorsed it as a wise, patriotic and judicious measure. Judge Krum's hearty espousal of the democratic ctaise has created a great sensation at St Louis. Down with monopoly taxes ! Wouldn't be Blackmailed. The republican politicians started out some weeks ago to "fry the fat out" out of the protected manufacturers, to use the expression of Senator Morrill, of Vermont. By "frying the fat" out of these men, who, according to the ancient Moerill; "are making vat fortune every year out of the tariff,'1 he meant blackmailing them out of funds for the republican corruption fund in thi3 campaign a3 proposed by Inoalls' of Kansas, in his famous (and also infamous) .letter to the Chicago delegate. How much "fat" has been fried out of the protected manufacturers we do not know, but we have no doubt a good deal. Not all who have been approached, however, have submitted to the frying process. One of those who refused to let the campaigners fry the fat out of him- was Mr. Arthur T. Lymax, treasurer of the Hadley manufacturing company of Holyoke, Mass., and the Lowell manufacturing company of Lowell. He received a circular asking for a money contribution to the Holyoke

republican club. He replied announcing that he had no money for the Holyoke club, and saying further that he proposed voting the democratic ticket thi3 year for the first time in his life. He gave his reasons. He said in the first place that in his opinion the republican members of congress from New England, the Home market club and the Woolen manufacturers' club had done more harm to the protected manufacturers of Massachusetts than the democratic framers of the Mills bill. He said the democratic congressmen had advanced certain tariff rates in that bill at the request of republican manufacturers, while the republican members had done nothing to assist the manufacturers, saying: "Leave the schedule as it is ; it is better for the election."

Mr. Lyman further said: "I very much regret that the republican party, with which I have acted from the beginning. has, for political success, taken a position which I consider hostile in it3 practical effects to the protected industries of Massachusetts." ""He also 6aid: "I cannot feel it to be right to vote for any one who can honestly stand on the republican platform." Mr. Lyman is one of many manufacturers in this country who have studied the tariff question in its practical aspects, and who know that a policy which cheapens their raw materials, opens up the markets of the world to them, and gives them legitimate protection instead of shutting them up by a Chinese wall as demanded by the exclusive platform adopted at Chicago, will in the long run promote their prosperity, as well as that of the entire country. Thousands of manufacturers like Mr. Lyman will vote the democratic ticket this year for the first time in their lives. Down with monoply taxes 1 The Two Programmes. The tax on whisky is a tax on drunkenness. The republicans say: "Take it off." The democrats say : "Keep it on." The tax on oleomargerine is a tax on fraud. The republicans 6ay: "Take it off." The democrats say: "Keep it on." The tax on cigarettes is a tax on dudes. The republicans say: "Take it off." The democrats say : "Keep it on." The tax on wool is a tax on the people's clothing. The democrats say: "Take it off." The republicans say: "Make it higher." The tax on sugar is a tax on the people's food. The democrats say: "Reduce it." The republicans say: "Increase it." The tax on salt is a tax on an article that is absolutely necessary to the preservation of human life. It is a tax which the Indianapolis Journal has 6aid no man not engaged in the salt business would have the cheek to defend. The democrats say : "Take it off." The republicans say : "Make it higher." The tax on window-glass is a tax on daylight The democrats say: "Reduce it." The republicans say : "Make it higher." The tax on lumber is a premium on the destruction of American forests, and a prize for the production of droughts to the ruin of thousands of farmers annually. The democrats say: "Take off this accursed tax." The republicans say: "Make it higher." ' And thus it is all alorg the line. The democrats are for repealing or reducing taxes which cripple industry, oppress labor, reduce wages, curtail the markets of American manufacturers and feed monopolists with extortionate profits. All such taxes the republicans want to retain or increase. The taxes which tend to restrict harmful indigencies and to repress vice, which discourage fraud, and which are chiefly paid by the rich, and not by the poor these taxes the republican party proposes to repeal, and the democratic party proposes to retain. This is the position of the two great parties, as set forth by their platforms and defined by their candidates. Down with monopoly taxes! Sample Republican Lies. A subscriber at Dublin, Ind., sends Ttie Sentinel a republican paper printed in New Hampshire, which contains the following: Gov. Gray of Indiana is tolerably well posted on democratic matters in that state, and he allows that the republicans will win there. The Hon. Charles Voorhees, for eight years a democratic senator in Indiana, will take the stump for Harrisox and protection. Of course these are 6heer fabrications. Gov. Gray is confident that the democrats will carry Indiana in spite of Morton's barrel and Dudley's dirty work. So is Senator D. W. Vookhees. Charles W. Voorhees lives in Washington territory and is a hearty supporter of Cleveland and Thurm an. So much for these lies. There appears to be a systematic attempt on the part of the republican press to circulate such falsehoods as the above in localities remote from the place where the persons referred to live.and where the tacts are known. For instance the Journal of this city prints the names every day of alleged democrats (in other states) who have come ort for Harrison. In four cases out of five these so-called Harrison democrats are fictitious persons. The others, as a rule, are not democrats at all, or else they are misrepresented. The republican game is one of bluff, brag and bluster all along the line. The plan is to "claim everything." But these tactics were employed four years ago, and did not succeed. They will not succeed now. The drift is all with the democrats now, as every observant person can see. The republicans are demoralized, and are making desperate efforts to unload their platform, to explain away Harrison's Chinese and labor records, and to save as many congressmen, etc., as possible from the general wreck next November. The betting all over the country 13 in favor of Cleveland at heavy odds. The only danger to the democrats is from .over-confidence, and if the republicans keep on making their noisy claims this will probably be overcome as the campaign advances. So up and at them, boys, all along the line. . Down with monopoly taxes! There is a marked revival of business all over the country. The splendid crop prospects no doubt have much to do with this. The yield of wheat will be much larger than was anticipated. The corn, oats and barley crops will be almost unprecedented. The corn crop is estimated, at 2,000,000 bushels. The cotton crop will be the largest in our history. Of course these magnificent harvests have a tendency to revive business, and the almost cer

tainty of President . Cleveland's re-election, and of the speedy relief of the legitimate industries' of the country from a portion of the excessive taxation they now stagger under operates the same way. There are good times ahead, and everybody ought to feel happy especially democrats. Shall Foreign Commerce be prohibited? If a high tariff is a good thiag, a higher tariff is a better one. That's what the monopolists who made the Chicago platform seemed to think, and so they declared for an increase of the 47 per cent, tariff, i. e., "such a revision as would check imports." Now if we "check imports" we check exports also, because imports can only bo paid for with exports. Stopping imports means stopping all foreign trade, shutting off our foreign markets altogether and isolating ourselves from the rest of the world, as China where wages are lower than in any other country on earth has done for centuries.

This may be a wise policy, although it seems like an anachronism in these last 3-ears of the nineteenth century, which have brought the peoples of the world closer together than they have ever been 6ince the dawn of history. Admitting, however, that it is a wise policy, the logical thing to do, obviously, is to pass laws absolutely prohibiting all exports, except of articles which we do not produce in this country, and laying such taxes on those articles as will yield sufficient revenue to carry on the government. It is possible if such a policy were adopted we wouldn't have a government to carry on very long. But however that may be, it is clear that the doctrine proclaimed at Chicago, if followed to its logical conclusion, would compel an absolute embargo on all foreign commerce, excepting in the very few commodities which we do not and cannot produce in this country. Why not, then, go the whole length at once, and pas3 laws absolutely prohibiting the importation of any article which is grown or fabricated in the United States ? This would compel our people to buy only domestic productions, and it would give the trusts and combines absolute control of the home market Horace Greeley said that the way to resume was to resume. Similarly, the way to check imports is to check imports that is, prohibit them entirely. It is the Chicago doctrine that the less foreign commerce we have the better we are off. Of course, then, with no foreign commerce . at all, we should reach the very summit of prosperity. We throw these suggestions out for the benefit of Ben Harrisox. If he were to elaborate them in his letter of acceptance, it would show not only that the Chicago platform is "in entire harmonv with his views," as he has already declared, but that he is willing to carry out the ideas of the platform "in their length and breadth." It would define the issue between moderate protection and a prohibitory tariff still more sharply than it has been done, and would give the people an opportunity to get rid of foreign commerce altogether by the election of Harrison. But so far as The Sentinel is concerned, it is opposed to the whole principle of exclusion and prohibition when applied to trade. Its motto is Down with monopoly taxes ! The Delirium Tremens Policy. In the times of free whisky, which Ben Harrison and his party are trying to bring back, drunkenness was almost universal throughout the land. Whisky, was used for drinking purposes instead of water by the bulk of the population, including women and children, and, as a republican contemporary remarks, was "the chief article of barter at every cross roads." A New England clergyman, the Rev. John Marsh, in writing of his flock at Uaddam, Mass., in those times, describes them thus: A staunch, well-informed but plain people, whose labors were in shipyards, coasting, fishing, quarrying, and farming;; labors iu which ardent tpirits vert a daily ration at 11 and 4 as regularly at food was provided at other hour. A pitcher of water as a part of the table furniture was unknown. No one, not even the most delicate female, used it. This was, as Mr. Marsh says, "a typical New England community." There is no village in all the United States of wh ich such a picture could be drawn in these days of taxed whisky. The Chicago Tribune, commenting on the foregoing, says: In such places as Uaddam temperance reform has progressed amazingly under the stimulus of the nigh whisky tax. Local option laws have been adopted in many of them, and high state taxation nas diminished the number of drinking places and the amount of drink consumed in the others. Under the high tax Americans have become from being considered the most hard drinking of civilized nations, except the Russians, the most temperate, except the Norwegians. Ben Harrison and his party 6tand pledged to a policy which would reduce the price of whisky to 25 cents a gallon, and make it almost as accessible to the people as water, with such appalling consequences as are above described. The democratic party says that the tax on whisky shall 6tay, and that the monopoly taxes on food and clothing and shelter must go. Isn't that right? Down with monopoly taxes ! The Chinese Organ in a Hole. The Journal says : The necessities of free traders require them to treat American manufacturers ns public enemies, and capital invested in manufacturing as a fair subject for confiscation by democratic legislation. The course of The Sentinel illustrates this. It is attacking one industry after another by name, and each one is a greater robber than the other. To-day it is the woolen business, the next day starch, then g!as, 6aws, 6traw pulp, and so on in order. Each one, according to The Sentinel, is "a peculiarly odious monopoly," and a more outrageous form of highway robbery than the other. The men engaged in these different lines of business are all treated as public enemies. There is not the slightest foundation for the above. . The Sentinel has not "attacked"the woolen business, nor the glass industry, nor saws, nor "starch," nor any other legitimate business. It has told the truth about the pulp monopoly, but has not spoken of it in half as strong terms as the Journal has applied to it repeatedly. The Sentinel printed 6ome facts 'and figures showing that certain statements made by a certain Raw manufacturer of this city were untrue, and asked him, in a courteous way, a number of questions, which he has never attempted "to answer. It printed some figures about the glass, industry from the census reports, and showed that this business was adequately protected by the Mills bill. It did the fame thing touching the f taxch

industry, in answer to a pamphlet full of misstatements, that the republican campaign committee has been circulating throughout the stated The Sentinel has "attacked" none of these industries. It has not called them "odious monopolists," or characterized the men interested in them as "highway robbers," or employed any such terms in speaking of them. The Journal knows this. But being utterly unable to meet the facts and figures which The Sentinel has presented, showing that these industries would not be injured by tariff reform, the Journal resorts to the disreputable but characteristic device of charging The Sentinel with "attacking" them. We over-rate the intelligence of its readers if they are not able to see that these tactics are a confession that The Sentinel's arguments are unanswerable. The only local industry that has been attacked in the Indianapolis press this year is the Encaustic tile works. The attack was made by the Journal. It consisted of a scries cf sheer fabrications, which were promptly refuted, but have never been withdrawn. Down with monopoly taxes! A Simple Issue. The issue between the two great parties in this campaign is so simple that a child can understand it Cheap clothes vs. cheap whisky. That is all there is of it The democratic party favors cheap clothes; the republican party favors cheap whisky. The democratic party opposes cheap whisky; the republican party opposes cheap rlothes. Stated thus plainly it will be seen that the question is not a political or an economic one it is a moral one. Whatever a man's views may be about protection and free trade he must, if he havo ordinary sense and honesty, own that the tax on whisky, which the republicans propose to repeal, is a most righteous tax. Mr Blaine himself thought so when he wrote his 'Taris message," in which he paid, speaking of the whisky tax, that it involved a moral question, and that so long as there was whisky to tax he would tax it. Mr. Blaine was right, and he was right when he said that to remove the tar on whisky would be to increase its consumption enormously. This is what the republican party proposes to do. It says to the American people: "We will keep up the tax on the thread and needle of the poor woman who is paid starvation wages for making shirts; upon the slate pencils of the little children; upon the shovel and pick and red shirt of the poor fellow who lives upon what wouldn't be enough to keep a self-respecting horse; upon lumber and hardware and crockery and glass and wool and salt in short, upon everything that the people need, but we will do all that we can to 'increase the consumption of whiskv enormouslv,' and so to increase vice and misery, and poverty and crime, and insanity and death among the people of these United States." That is the issue. There is no getting away from it. Mr. Harrisox himself has expressed fear lest coats should get to be too cheap. As an "uninstructed political economist" he cannot favor cheap coats. Free and cheap whisky is more to hU taste. Such being the case it is certain 'that neither that wretched thing, "state pride," nor social, or business, or religious pressure can influence the people of Indiana to give their indorsement to the monstrously cruel and wicked platform upon which the republicans must fight this campaign. Harrison's personality is, relatively, a very small factor in the problem. He is the free whisky candidate, and a vote for 7iim means a vote for free whisky. He must stand upon his platform. It is impossible to disassociate one from the other. The man who attempts to make the distinction is 6imply trifling with his own conscience. AVe have no doubt that upon this issue Indiana will be carried by the democrats. AVe believe it, because we know that her people are an honest, moral, temperate, God-fearing people, and that they always vote their convictions. If they do this in this campaign as they will they will make it impossible for Mr. Harrison's political friends to redeem the pledges that they made at Chicago. Down with monopoly taxes ! The Iiabor In Starch. Factories. , Speaking of starch, we find the following in the Elkhart Sentinel: The Elkhart starch company employs twenty or twenty-five men, depending on the state of the trade, and thirty to thirty-five boys. Most of the mcu receive 1.20 a day. Three or four having positions of more responsibility pel $1.3ö to $1.5. a day. But one, the shippin? clerk, gets s?. The boys' pay ranges from 33, cents to 50 cents a day. The older ones, doing work formerly given only to men, receive from $5 to $7 per week. Most of the younger boys, borne ol them lads from thirteen to sixten years, work seven days in the week. Sunday morning breaks for them with no promise of rest, or change, or recreation nothing but the opening of another day of unending, unbegin ning grind. They form a pitiful looking procession as they file out of the factory in tha evening, carrying their empty dinner pails, their pale, haggard, .joyless faces a mute but pathetic protest against the social and political bystems that make such things possible, or the power that gave their miserable lives. As we showed the other day the labor cost of starch is only 12 per cent The duty on starch is 94 per cent The manufacturer now gets a bonus of 82 per cent oter and above the entire cost of his labor. What sort of wages his employes receive is shown from the foregoing from the Sentinel. AA'e may add right here that one of the largest starch manufacturers in Indiana says he is not afraid of foreign competition if the Mills bill becomes a law, and that wages will not be reduced. Forty-seven per cent, protection, he says, is goodenough for him. Down with monopoly taxes! The Starch Tax. The Journal has finally ventured to attempt the discussion of the tariff in some of itspraeticalaspects,but, of course, makes a mess of it. For instance, it says : There is no tax on corn-starch, because 99, per cent cf that consumed in the United States is of American manufacture, and never passed throuzh a custom-house. Corn-starch is retailed in Indianapolis to-day cheaper than in the free-trade city of London, and from 20 to 50 per cent lower than it was told in the freetrade times of 1SG0. It has been retailed in this city, in close competition, for less than S cents per pound, and yet the free-trade organ tells it readers that they are paying a tax of 100 per cent, on their starch under the present tariff. If starch retails for less than 3 centa, where is the cost of the corn, the profit of the manufacturer, the jobber and retailer to come from? Now.if the Journal will refer to a pamphlet purporting to have been composed by a starch manufacturer, and which is being circulated in Indiana as a republican campaign document, it will find it there expresüly stated that if the Mills bill Is