Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 34, Number 31, Indianapolis, Marion County, 5 September 1888 — Page 8

8

THE INDIANA STATE SENTINEL. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER . 5. 1888,

A STAHCH MAN'S SOPfllSTKY

HIS ATTEMPTS TO DISTORT FACTS Specimen Falsehood and Fallacies of the Monopoly Txera Trying to Bkmbooilt ITorkingmen and rannen A Mess of Bank Absurdities. - Some on haa sent The Sektixel a copy of the Madison Courier of tho 23d ult., containing an article from the pen of one S. D. Phelpa of New York, who avows himself the author of an anonymous pamphlet relating to the tariff on starch, recently reviewed in these columns. The article in question i3 an attempted reply to The ixtixel's criticisms upon this pamphlet, and 13 certainly one of the most extraorlinary productions that has ever come tinder our notice. "When we say that for peveral months we have regularly read the Journal ' fearfully and wonderfully made "editorials on the tariff," and that Ave now measure our words carefully, the reader may be able to form some conception of the character of Itfr. Thelps' latest performance. But when we add that in this article Mr. Phelps, in one and the same breath, laims that the existing duty en starch is not prohibitory, and admits that only 1 lH;r cent, of the starch consumed is imported ; that he asserts that the duty on starch does not increase the price to the onsumer, and that the reduction of the duty would close our starch factories, and ttraightway tells the farmers that they "may gain a few cents on starch" by the asiage of the Milis bill; that he assumes that the starch industry cannot survive, with a protection of 47.47 per cent., as afforded by the Mills bill, while the average protection to American factories under the present monopoly tariff law is only 47 per cent.: that while admitting that we import no etarcn "ventures now to speak of, he tbe assertion tuat there is not a starch concern in the United States that paid last year a greater dividend than 8 per cent.," and that he "personally knows of seven starch factories that can be bought for one-half the cost of the plant," and bases on this an "argument" against the Mills bill; that in one paragraph he shows how Germany "protects" starch, and in another Bays that starch workers in Germany j?et only 53 cents a day ; that he tells the farmers that they get 10 cents a pound more for their corn because of the duty on it, although he has bat just asserted that the price of starch is not increased by the duty on that article when we say that this man Phelps does all these thi'ngs in a Binele article, the reader will readily conclude that a more illogical, incoherent, confused, contradictory, ridiculous and absurd plea was never put forward by an advocate of monopoly taxes since the system of reciprocal rapine firot gained a foothold on this planet. And the conclusion will be entirely just. We will say, however, that we do not believe Mr. Phelps is really such an ass as he writes himself down. He only takes the people for asses, that's all, and thinks that they will not detect his falsehoods or Bee through his iallacies, but will swal'.&vr the whole mess. Hut he is mistaken. Now, as to this duty on starch, it is not an important matter. The starch industry is insignificant. Our production of Etarch is only 21-1000 ot our total manufactured products. Comparatively little capital is invested, few hands are employed and the amount paid out in wages is trifling. The consumption of Etarch is also 6mall, and the tax on it is only a very light burden on the people. So fa'r as the general public is concerned, it matters little whether the tax on starch i3 1 cent of 2 cents or 5 cent3 a pound. We ehonld therefore devote little or no ppace to Mr. Phelps' manifesto, but for the fact that its fallacies and falsehoods 60 forcibly illustrate the trickery and humbuggery which the whole brood of monopoly taxers are trying to practice on tho people in this campaign. We shall therelore analyze it at some length. And first we will say that this man Phelps, who asserts that the duty on Etarch does not increase the price ot it, is the same person who told the manufacterers in the pamphlet already mentioned that a reduction of 47 percent, in the duty meant a reduction of 47 per cent, in the price of starch ! Apparently Mr. Phelp thought fctarch was all "tax that it contained nothing else. Tue Sentinel fchowed the absurdity of this statement by a little sum in simple arithmetic, and e observe that Mr. Thelps doesn't repeat it. He suns nothing about it, which is probably the most judicious course, under the circumstances. Now let us take his propositions $eriatinu No. 1 is : The duty on starch is not prohibitory, and has never been prohibitory in this country tinder any tana act. The imports of Ftarch into the United States for the fiscal year ending June 3 were very much larger than in 1357, Vs&i, or ISSj. Something certainly prohibits the importation of starch. If it isn't the duty, what is it? That is the object of the duty isn't it? Mr. Thelps says "only about 1 per cent, of the starch consumed is imported." That is substantially true. In ftie census year (1SS0) the value of our fctarch product was $7,477,742. Last year we imported only $f,572 worth. It will be seen that the domestic manufacturers have a monopoly of the American market. If thev do not make money it is not because of foreign competition, as Mr. Phelps admits. Perhaps they have been "protected to death." Who knows? imposition No. 2 is this: Wyes in the starch factories in the United Ftate axe cot at a minimum. The average rate of wages paid starch operative in ngland and Germany does not exceed 56 cents per ciay, or considerable lest than one-half the vera? rate paid to workmen similarly emr loved in the United States. I know whereof peak in this regard from personal Observation and investigation in this country and abroad. Now let us see what wage3 are paid in American starch factories, and taking Mr. Tbelps' statement as to English and German wages as correct, let us find how much 'protection" the American manufacturer needs to balance the difference in wages. ; Ihe census returns for 18S0 of tho etarch industry show: J?. Ubliab ram U-.......... 39 Capital in vs. ted . S3,S28,V( Hands employed 3,119 J-ii is wfr 819.197 Valua of raifrialj. ...S-4,91 l.ovo Value of product.--. 17,477,712 The foregoing is for the whole United Stat. Now let us look at the figures for Indiana: y&. eetabli'hmen t... ft Capital luvr-nied .. .... 623,000 Hands employed ...... 847 Paid la wages, ............. fiu,!vw V aloe of material,. aJu of proaact.... - $1,276,830 Now it is to be borne in mind that the foregoing returns are made by the manufacturers themselves. They show that the labor cost, of starch is 12.3 per cent, of the value of the product In other words, a dollar's worth of starch at the factory represent 12J cents paid in wapes; a hundred dollars' worth represents $12.33 paid in wares. This is the average throughout the United States. In Indiana the labor cost is a little lower 11.4 per cent. Thus in Indiana every dollar's worth of etarch at the factory represents 11.4 cents paid in wages; every hundred dollars' worth represents $11.40 Taid in wajres. The product per hand In Indiana averaged $3,685.53; In the United fcUtcs only $2,307.43. The average yearly

pay of hands in the United States was S204.74; in Indiana 420.40; in New York $327.13; in Ohio $233.94. Admitting that the English and German etarch workers get only 5(5 cents a day, and assuming that they work "all the year around," as a New York manufacturer in his testimony before the taritf commission swore they did, and their Yearly earning average S174.72. 'This is 59.3 per cent, of the yearly earnings of an American etarch worker (average) and 41.5 per cent, of the average yearly earnings of a starch worker in Indiana, and he gets more than the starch worker of any other state. The labor cost in a dollar's worth of starch in the United States averages 12.33 cents ; in Indiana it averages only 11.4 cents. It will be seen that though the starch workers in Indiana cet better wages thau in any other part of tbe United States the labor cost of starch is smaller here than elsewhere a paradox which puzzles the monopoly taxers, but which is easily explained. The Indiana starch-maker " gets more than tho New York 6tarch-maker because ho produces more, as the census returns prove. They both live under the same tariff; have the same "protection ;" and if tarifls regulated wages, they would receive the same pay. But it is their productiveness that counts. The New York manufacturer pays smaller wages because be pays more for his raw materials (corn and potatoes are higher in New York than in Indiana.) So his gToss product per hand is smaller, and wages in proportion. American workinginen pet better wages than those abroad, as a rule, fop the same reason that Indiana starch-makers get more than New York starch-makers, because they produce more, and not because they are taxed "from the crowns of their hea'ds to the soles of their feet." Tho cheaper the raw materials the greater the average product per hand, in any industry ; the greater th average product the greater the average wages. Thus it is that tbe Mills bill, by cheapening raw materials, and thereby increasing productiveness (and at the same time increasing consumption or "demand") would increase the wages of labor. t But this is a digression. "What we de-' sire to emphasize is the fact that this talk about the difference of wages in home and foreign starch works as a pretext for opposing the Mills bill is the sheerest humbug. As we have 6hown from the mouths of the starch manufacturers themselves, $100 worth of starch at the factory represents the United States through ?li.33i paid for wages. The Mi'ils bill gives a "protection" of 47.27 per cent, or $47.27 on every $100 worth of starch. Thus if this bill becomes a law, no foreiga etarch can como into competition with domestic starch until a tax of $47.27 has been paid to the government on every hundred dollars' worth of it. We do not know what the labor cost of starch in England or Germany is, but we will assume, to be on the safe side, that it is nothing; that the English and German starch-workers labor for noHng and "find themselves." Then the p-ccount between the American manufacturer and his foreign rival would stand thus: American manufacturer pars for labor in one hundred dollars' worth of starch. m S3 His foreign rival pays- .... 00 00 Eitra eot of latnr to Ani.rioaa. ......$12 33 The Mills bill givcj the American a "protection" in every one hundred dollars' worth cf starch of .. 47 27 Deducing the extra cost of uis labor 12 Z3

Leaves balance In his favor of. 34 94 on every one hundred dollars' worth of starch he produces. In other words, the Mills bill gives the manufacturer a protection of nearly four times the entire amount of his labor cost, or a bonos of 3-5 per cent over and above all he pays out for labor. Before any English of German starch can be offered in this markei it must be charged with a tax per $100 valuation of $47.27. The American manufacturer pays not a penny of this. Take starch representing $100 (exclusive of labor cost) at factories here and abroad. Give the foreigner his labor free; charge tho American $12.33 for his labor. Here is how the comparison will BtaDd before their respective products can be offered in our market: American starch (without labor) ..4100 00 Add cost of labor 12 33 112 33 . I'M O 47 27 f 147 27 . 112 3-1 Forego starch (without labor or duty). Add duty- ... .. Deduct Americas Balaneo in faror of American.. sss so - S31 04 Here we give the foreiarn manufacturer his labor free. His goods have to bear the cost of transportation thousands of miles ; he pays more for his raw materials, and the only advantage he has (aside from tho cost of labor, which we hav6 counted as nothing) is a cheaper plant, and this advantage the Mills bill will deprive him of to a great extent at least, by cheapening the cost of machinery, etc The starch manufacturers of" Indiana, who pay 11.4 per cent, for labor, who get their raw material cheaper than their foreign rivals, and many of whom have free fuel, certainly need no more than 47.27 per cent, "protection" to enable them to pay present wages and make as much profit as at present. Having tried to humbug the workers in starch factories. Mr. Phelps attempts to bamboozle the farmers with the idea that they are protected on corn and get more for "it because of the starch factories. Thus: The annual capacity of our domestic starch factories for the consumption of corn is estimated at 12.430,000 bushels, or more than one-third as much as our total export of corn last rear. It requires 4-V;0fl0 acres of land and 14, 4U0 fanners to produce the corn annunlly consumed in our starch works. If the Mills bill were to become a law and the etarch factories were to close (?), what new outlet or industry would the farmers find for their 12,4SO,000 bushels of corn? If our domestio manufactories are to cloe, the workmen now employed in them will have to go from the wheel, the spindle and the foree, to the plow, the reaper and the hoe. Instead of being consumers of corn they will have to become producers; and instead of having mouths btini fed by farmers at home, they will be engaged in feeding moutns in foreign countries at euch prices lor grain as tha foreigners may dictate. One is at a loss which mast to admire in this; the easy assurance with which the writer hints that with a protection covering four times the entire cost of their labor, the starch factories would be compelled to close; the colossal gall which it takes to tell the farmers that they do not already sell their corn "at such prices as foreigners dictate;" or the exquisite idiocy of the assertion that if starch makers were to go to farming they would cease to consume corn. According to this starchy economist, farmers do not consume corn! Well, it is not necessary to waste any words on that proposition, put whether the farmer already selU his corn at prices dictated by foreigners may be seen from the statistics of our exports. In 1SÄ5 our farmers exported 41,3b8,o$l bushels of corn. Our imports were purely nominal 30,530 bushels. If the farmer could have got one-tenth of a cent a bushel more for his corn at home than abroad he would have sold it at home, wouldn't he, 31r. Phelps? The duty on corn had no more effect on tho price than a duty on moonshine would have on Mr. Phelps' output thereof, of which there is certainly a surplus for export. We have at hand the quotations of corn in Chicago and Liverpool on Feb. 14, 18S8. The price at Chicago then was 4ß cents; at Liverpool it wa 65 cents, or 40 per cent, higher. And this man Phelps actually has the effrontery to tell the farmer that he gets more for his corn because there are starch factories here which consume the enormous amount of eight-

tenths of one per cent, of the corn produced in this country. He says the starch factories consumo one-third of our total exports. Our total exports (1SSG) were 2.4S per cent, of our production. One-third of 2.45 per cent is .82? per cent. a little more than eight-tenths of one per cent. Oh, Mr. Phelps 1 Do you think the Indiana farmers are all fools? Again he says: The protection afforded the corn starch industry by import duties has not served to increase the price to the home consumer. If this is true, can Mr. Phelps tell of what possible benefit "protection" has been to the starch industry? If it docs not enable him to get more'for his starch than he otherwise would, how can it help him, or how can its removal or reduction hurt him? Unless "protection" enables hitn to sell his starch for better prices, how does it enable him to pay higher wages to his employes, or better prices for corn ? We challenge Mr. Phelps to answer these questions. As to his contention that protection has not served to increase the price of starch to the home consumer, he answers it bimseli when he says that "the farmer who favors free starch "linds that his free trade neghbor favors free wool, and that where he may jai;i a few cents on t(arch,h& will loso as' many dollars on his wool." Of course nobody is talking about free starch, unless a protection of 47.27 per cent is "free." Mr. Phelps also says: But what protection does the farmer pet on the corn consumed in the starch factories? The duty on corn is 10 cents per bushel, w hich on 12,430,009 bushels equals 1,2-M,U00. Divide this last amount amon the 14.40J farmers required to raise and market the corn (estimating three men per 100 acres), and we find that each is annually protected to the extent of Again we ask: Does Mr. Phelps take the fanners for fools ? We have already shown that the price of corn, as of every agricultural commodity of wbich we regularly pro luce a surplus, is fixed abroad. If the duty on corn were taken off tomorrow it would not affect the price by tho smallest fraction of a cent; and if it were increased to $1 a bushol it would have just as little effect. This is the case as to wheat, cotton (already on the free list) and everv other agricultural product of which we produce a surplus. But it is worth noting that while Mr. Phelps says the duty on starch, which is supposed "to be exposed to foreign competition, does not increase its price, he aids the full amount of duty to the price of corn, which we do not and cannot import. We quote airaia: Mr. Mills strenuously insisted that the avererase reduction proposed by the bill was only $4. til ou the present average rates on each $100 imported. Why does he sin?! out starch and propose a reduction of 47 27-100 per cent, in the duty on that product, when the average reduction oa all other articles is only 4 61-100 per cent? Why not put it this way? Mr. Mills leaves a "protection" of 47.27 p2r cent on starch, while he only "protects" other dutiable commodities 42 per cent, on the average. Why does he discriminate in favor of starch ? And suppose Mr. Phelps explains why starch is now "protected" to the extent of 91.54 per cent., while the average protection in other articles is 47 percent.? Will he do it? Mr. Phelps devotes some space to the sugar schedule, and in so doing makes it very embarrassing for the republican politicians and organs that have been telling the people of Indiana that the Mills bill increases the duty on sugar. Mr. Phelps says that the bill makes a reduction of 13 per cent, on sugar (which, by the way, is a northern as well as a southern product.) He neglects to say, however, that the 6ugar duty is chiefly a revenuo duty; that most of th3 tax paid on it goes into the national treasury and not into the pockets of the individual, and that sugar is already imported free of duty oa a very large scaio from the Hawaiian Islands. But he isn't dealing in facts. Another specimen of his logic: Tnr. Sentixel confidently avows that the Mills bill will reduce the price of starch rbout Tili percent This reduction, it asserts, n-o-.ld come out of the profits of tha manufacturer; but how such a result would be reached we are not informed. I will venture the assertion that there is not a starch concern ia the United States that paid last year a greater dividend than 8 per cent, and that at least euht of them Jaid no dividends at all, and have not paid any or years. I know of seveu starch factories which can be bought for one-half the cost of the plant. The Sentixel did not cay that the Mill3 bill would reduce tha price of starch about 23 per cenc. It said that a reduction in the tariff would only be a reduction on the present price of 23 per cent, instead of 47 per cent as claimed by Mr. Phelps in his pamphlet. As to the proposition that because 6tarch factories pay no more than 8 per cent, profit on the investment there can be no more than S per cent profit on their goods, any merchant will tell Mr. Pnelps that it is absurd. Plenty of business men sell for $1.50 what "costs them but $1, and yet make but 8 or 10 per cent a year on their capital, as everybody knows. Mr. Pbelps knows it, too. He is only making- believe that ha doesn't Now comes the most demagogical and dishonest part of the Phelps letter, which is saying a good deal : If the daty on corn were repealed, consumers on the Atlar.tJc seaboard could buy their corn in Rrsda and the Arf'ntine Republic and bring it ir.to New York at a less price than western-grown corn. The exports of corn from the Argentine Republic last year were equal to about one-half of the expom of corn from the United States. Were not the farmer protected on his corn we could to-day land cargoes in New York at a less price than that now quoted in the market for home-grown corn. Western farmers need net be surprised if they find in the near future, and probably next year, Argentine corn arriving in New York, even in the face of the import duty of 10 cents per bushel. It is difficult to speak of such rot as this with patience. W e have already shown that corn sells at Liverpool 40 per cent higher than it docs at Chicago, and that we export more than 40,000,000 bushels. This, indeed, is far below the average exports. When Mr. Phelps tells the farmer that there is danger of corn being imported (except in the event of a failure of our crop) from the Argentine Republic or anywhere else, he talks like a fool. In 18iG we imported 30,53G bushels, which was only about 60 per cent of tho average importations for the preceding nineteen years. The average 1867-18S5 inclusive was 50,503 bushels. Our imports are declining, although they have always been so small as to cut no fiarure. Our exports in 1886 were 41,308,584 bushels 2.4S per cent of the production. Twenty years ago (1867) they were 75o,S74,4S4 bushels, or only 1.63 per cent of the production. Our farmers are a3 secure from the danger of competition from foreign corn in America, and as much dependent upon foreign markets for their corn, as they ever were. It is not worth while to notice the absurd talk by which Mr. Phelps tries to bamboozle the farmers into the idea that they derive some beneGt from the duties on wheat, barley, oats, etc., etc. Any farmer who would be gulled by such a transparent fraud is credulous enough to believe that the moon i3 made of green cheese. There are not many 6uch in Indiana, or, as Mr. Phelps puts it, "It is is barely possible that there are farmers in Indiana who do not know to what extent their products are protected." Yes, it is "barely possible." The farmers of Indianaare intelligent as a rule. They read the papers. They know that their wheat, corn, etc., etc, are sold abroad, in open competition with the products of the "pauper labor" of Russia, India, etc., and that they are not and can not be protected on their" products, although they are taxed 47 per cent, on the avcrago on

almost everything they consume, for the benefit of monopoly. And they are getting mighty tired of it, too, as Mr. Phelps wiil find out in November. Returning to starch, Mr. Phelps quotes figures to show that the average difference in the value of starch imported into and exported from the United States during the last four years was 1.S4 cents per pound. Ilow'he can reconcile these figures with his statement that the duty does not increase the price of starch to the domestic consumer, we do not pretend to guess. Probably he does l't try ; monopoly taxers rarely atteinp to make their assertions about the tariti" harmonize. It is sufficient to say that oao of these two statements is necessarily false. Which is it, Mr. Phcdps? Once more: Mr. Mills and his disciples (like THE SEN'TIMEL), who advocate foreign control of our American markets, say that what we lose by our increase of imports, we will gain by an increase of exports. Let ns see how this doctrine will work with ftarch. What new foreign markets does Mr. Mills propoi-e to open to which we can export starch under more favorable auspices than now? Perhaps The SE.vriEL is not aware that thirty of the principal countries and provinces of the world levy an import duty upon starch produced in the United States, yet &uch is the fact. The average rate of duty on 6tarch of these thirty countries is 1.57 cents per pound, or .07 of a cent per pound hiirher than Mr. Mills proposes in his bill. The following table may be of interest in this connection. Here follows a table showing the duties levied on starch in thirty countries. Among thera we do not find the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, nor Belgiumnor Holland, nor Denmark, nor Norway, nor several other European countries having an aggregate population of over 70,000, W0. It is possible some American starch might be sold in these countries, which admit it free, in view t the fact that in our domestic markets our manufacturers will be protected under the Mills bill to the extent of four times the cost of labor. We have covered every proposition advanced by Mr. Thelps. We have devoted much more space to this effusion than the intrinsic importance of the subject merits, because the allegvd arguments he advances are those in use by the monopoly taxers everv .vhere. Now we want to say a few words about the starch industry, its presäent condition and the relations the tariff bears to it The census returns indicate that starch manufacturing has been a very prolitablo business in the past. That it is not peculiarly profitable now we have every reason to believe. We have no doubt that Mr. Pheln3 tells the truth fur once when he says that "there is not a s'arch concern in the United States that paid a greater dividend than 8 per cent, last year;" that "at least eight of them paid no dividends at all, and have not paid any for years;" and that he knows of "seven starch factories which can be bought lor one-half tbe cost of the plant." Why are these things true? It is not on account of foreign competition, becauso the American manufacturers have had an absolute monopoly of the home market, as Mr. Phelps admits. The importations are purely nominal he puts thera at 1 per cent of the consumption. The exportation are a great deal larger than the importations. So that the American starch factories more than ßupply the entire home consumption. Foreign starch cuts no figure whatever, according to Mr. Phelps himself. What, then, is the difficulty ? Well, it is very clear. The starch business has been "protected" to death. This often happens under an exorbitant tariff. The business was made so profitable by an excessive tariff that it has been overdone, and the result is that tbe capacity of our starch factories is much greater than the consuming canacitv ot the country. It is a case of over-production, brought about by undne tariff stimulation. Our factories supply the entire home demand, and have a surplu? left, and then do not b"gin to run to their full capacity. Every intelligent starch manufacturer understands the situation perfectly, and knows that he has nothing to ft.r from foreign competition under the Mills bill. Every honest one admits this, and admits also that all the talk to the contrary is pure humbug. Wo fancy from our investigation of the subject that a very large export business in starch is never to be expected under any tariff system, although it would doubtless improve if the Mills bill became a law, because the cost of machinery, buildings, etc., would be reduced, placing our home manufacturers more nearly on a par with their foreign rivalä in these regards. But, as Mr. Phelps says, the 6tarch industry is a "domestic industry, pure and simple." It is so in other countries as well as in this. Most countries which grow corn or potatoes are going to make the bulk of the 6tarch for their own consumption. A leading starch manufacturer of Indiana writes The Sentinel: The starch manufacturers as a rule are satisfied with the Mills bill. They have nothing to fear from foreign competition. Foreign makers will not content for the trade. There have been no rreat profits in the starch business for several years on account of over-production. In conclusion we beg to ask Mr. Thelps the following questions, and he can have reasonable space in The Sextixel to reply to them if he desires to: t. If the tariff regulates wages, why do wages differ so greatly in different states of the Union in Indiana and Maine, for instance? 2. Whv are the wages of Indiana starch workers Larger and the labor cost of starch in Indiana smaller than in other states? 3. If, as you say, the tariff does not increase the cost of starch to the consumer, how does it help the manufacturer, or enable him to pay higher wages or better prices for corn? . 4. If the . tariff does not enable the manufacturer to get better prices, how can its reduction injure him? - 5. If the tariff docs enable the manufacturers to get better prices, who pays those prices if not the consumer? 6. If a tariff increases wages, why is it that, according to your own statement tho starch-workers in Germany which "protect" starch get the tame wages as the starch-workers in England, which has starch on the free list? 7. Do not the foreign manufacturers of starch pay more for their raw materials than the domestic manufacturers ? 8. Are not the latter at some disadvantage because of the increased cost of their buildings, machinery, etc., caused by tho tariff? And would not the Mills bill reduce this disadvantage? 9. The per cent of labor cost In American starch being, as shown bv the census, only 12.33 per cent, doesn't 4?.27per cent, tariff fully cover any difference that may exist between wages here and abroad? 10. Isn't it better to give the people cheaper clothing, fuel, tools, shelter, crockery, furniture, implements and medicine than cheaper whisky and tobacco? Indianapolis, Aug. 31. Rend our bigoffer. Two papers, one year, one dollar and twenty-live cents. It is the best offer ever made by our paper. Delay not Frenchmen can properly be called "knitrhts of the table." They are good julqes in all its refinements and delicacies. In order to stimulate the appetite and keep the digestive organs in good order they give pre-eminence to Angostura Bitters. When you try them be sure it is the genuine article, manufactured by Dr. J. Ü. B. Siegert & Sons. Malarial poisons can be entirely removed from the system by the use of Ayerg Ague Cure. This remedy contains a specific, in the form of a vegetable product used in no other ague preparaiioo. a nin ted,

A BIG BARBECUE IN SHELBYVILLE. The lion. Allen G. Tbarman Positively To ISe rrenent on Ort. 15. SnELBTViLLE, Sept. 3. Special. The 15th of October has finally been agreed upon by the democracy here as the day oa which they will have their great barbecue. Four years ago tJJ.OlJO people assembled here on a himilar occasion, end it was admitted by all that the meeting did much toward carrying the state. The present birhecua is to he conducted on a larger scale than the one of four years ago. Scott Itay went over to Columbus, O., Saturday, and had a Ion? interview with Mr. Tharman, who consented to come to Shelbyvilleon löthof the October, lie ex pressed hims-'lf in strong term of a desire to make his first speech at the old home of Gov. Hendricks, as he thought it was appropriate to do so. Mr. Thurmaa to-day telegraphed Chairman Jewett, of the democratic 6tate committee, his wishes in the matter and his first f peceh

j was fixed for this point on the day named. (jrov. dray has agreed to be present also, aim letters or invitation have been sent to other distinguished men. Up to this time 5-l,."i00 have "been subscribed to a fund to pay expenses. It is the intention of the managers to buy two rarloa'is of cattle, which, with the thirteen head forwarded from fanners in Shelby county, will be enough beef for the occasion. The central committee met Saturday and resolved to get to work and make the meeting the createst in the history of the state. One hundred thousand people are expected. Trains will be run out of Indianapolis every hour President Cleveland has been invited v be present and kix bands of music have been engaged. Special Harveftt HxcurMons. The Northern Pacific railroad announces a series of five special harvest excursions from St. Paul. Minneapolis, Duiuth and Ashland to Principal points in Minnesota, Dakota and Jontaua during August, September and October. Partits contera plating a trip for pleasure, business, or wi'h a view of selecting a new home can avail themselves of rates lower than ever before announced to visit the wonderful country tributary to the Northern Faciüo railroad. Tickets will be on sale at St. Paul, Minneapolis, Duiuth and Ashland on Au?. 21, Sept. 11 and 25, and Oct 9 and 23, limited to thirty days from date of sale, and good for stop-over on going passive. These rates to Montana points are about one cent per mile each way, and in some cases nbout half of the one way fare for the round trip. Connecting hues east and Fouth of St. Paul, Minneapolis and Duiuth will teil tickets in connection with thv.-se excursions at one fare for the round trip. The dates named will be a very opportune time to visit the wheat fields of Minnesota anil north Dakota; also to sea the cattle ranges of Montana. Everybody should bear in mind that the Northern i'acili? railroad is the short and direct line to principal points in Montana, and the only line running either dining cars, Pullman sleeping cars, or colonist sleeping c;irs to Fargo, Grand Forks, Fcrgu Fiills, Wahpcton, Jamestown, Helena, and principal points in northern Minnesota, north Dakota and Montana. For rates and other information apply to Charles S. Fee, p-cneral passcr.jer and ticket oent, St. Paul, Minn., or nearest ticket agent. The Biting Tongne. Slander attacks u s from behind. Tha bite is rarelyfelt unless it Is maii;n;mt an,l persistant. Disease, too, ofton steals upon us through a vital channel. The air we breathe affects tho lua?s if it be malar ious it enters the blood; if it changes too quickly ia the temperature it produces disease of the throat etc. When Hostettor's Stomach Bitters is taken to prevent or to remedy the various forms of disease produced by miasma, such as intermittent fever, dumb agu?, ague cake or bilious remittent It Is and ever has proved tobe a.n effective and thorough remedy ona which does not only ameliorate the symptoms of the mahdiesof this type, but eradicates their ca-j?e- Dyspepsia, liver complaint, rheumat'S n, Ma Her ani kiioey troubles are among the humanity-aiTlictins troubles which it promptly relieves and uliirualrlj remove. Advice to Mothers. Mrs. TVinj'lnw'g Soothing Syrup should alwav bs nd when children are euitiu teth. It relieves the lit'.le sullerer at onr; it Produces natural, quiet sleep by relieving the child from pain, and the little eherub"aw:ikes as "bright as a button." it is very pleasant to t.it. It tlies the ehi'd, softens the pm, allays all pain, relieves wind, regulate tha bowels and" is tho be.it know a remedy lor diarrhea, whether arising fnrn teething or other causes. Twenty-five cents a bottle. m - rzr ui P i i- - . - Its superior excellence rroven tn mmtons of homes for more thn a quarter of a century. It is used ty the United r-.utea Government. Indorsed by ths beads of the Gr-at rniversHica aa tha dtroatrt Purest and most Healthful. Ir. Price's Cream EakIns Powder does not contain Ammonia, Liioo or Alum, bold only in cans. riUCt liAKINO POWDEß CO. Kew York. Chicazo. Et. Louis, An Important Announcement Abont six weeks ago. while at business, 1 Was suddenly attached with excrucln.tng f ains In my feet, knt and hun' S wveia he ttMvt. that 1 loo my IxM Immediately, and In two or three 1ns luv Joint were swollen to almost ioublo their uaiural t-lre, and Kleep was driven (rotn me. Aftrsunr ng the most exeruelailnK :i!n for a week, UMnjr liniments and various other remedies, fi j.-nd w ho yiupuihlzed with my hcUdeaa condition, said to me: " Why don't you pe Bwirt's Specific and use. lt. I will fuarMtitee a cure, inl If it does Hot the meOlctn IjmII rat j o . noiliiug." I at once aeeured the a. 3. ., ani after uslne It the firm rlay, bad aquietnlglit ami refreshing nie p. In a fi k I felt greatly IweiiUedT. la three, weeks I could lt up and walk attout the room, and arter usii, aix l)tiles I was oat and able to 10 buimeks. Bluce then I bave been regulat iv at my post of duty, and stand on my I et from idne to tvn boers a day, and am entirely free from feln. Tnese are tbe plain and iniple facts ii my ca-e, and I will cbeerlu l. answer ail inqidi les rely tiva thereto, either tn person. or byjuaiL Thoms Makrii.mk. It W. 13th aireet, Kew York City. ITigmrn.ts, Try. I bave warded oft ft severe hi rack of rneuniatism by a timely resort to Sw Ut's Specific. In all eaai a where a per maneot relief ia fiWht this medicine coin. DienO ltelf for a coiiailuitlonal treatment that t!i(.;oii?h)y eradicates tha seeds X dlaae from the trttew. Kee. 7. P. Harmsok, D. D. VfwToric, 61 7TH At. After pendln $2uu to be 1 1 lie red of Uiood Poinn without any benefit, a few buttles of Swift's 8ecii; worked a perieel euro. C POUTEB. Vikkwa. Os. Sfy little Frt. aired aix. and bov, aged four yearn, had scrofula In tha worst aevravnted shapo. Tney were puny and slckir. To-Oay thev are healthy and ro bunt, all the result of UidnK s. s. 8. Jos T. OoixrxB. Ladt Laitr, frrmi Cov Fla.-Tour 8. 8. B. baa proved a woudtuful sueeexs In my case. Tho caneor on my fac no doubt, would have soon hart led me to my frave. do think Ul wondTiul, end ha no equal. ii. U. 13 mu, 'ostmaster. Waco, Texas, May 9, 1SS3. 8. S. Co., Atlanta, U. : Oent eineu Know lug that you appreciatevoluntary testimonials, wa tak j.i.-nsine in stating that one of our lady customeia has retained her health by the ue of four lare bottle of yonr frreJt remeoy, af'er huvliiif been an Invalid for several jeur. UertrouUa Was extreme delilllty, eaiiaeii l.y a Olaeese peculiar to her St X. mi us& Co., DruKntHta. Teree books miti.d tree on application aUl dxutfilsw eil H. k. 8. Ip.k bwtrr STTcrrro Co., a Prawer 3, A Innta Oa.

Ü31EABI

mum ww Ißum

' '" -1 MAfi Kl""1'

ABSOLUTELY PURE. For Qolck raiiias, the Eoyal EaMns Fowder Is superior to all other learenlc agents. It is absolutely puro and wholesome tud of tie highest learcning power. K 13 always triform ix strength and quality and cever fai!s to mate llbt, sweet, niosi palatable and nutfürUve feöd. Bread, ticcits, ratCcs, cake, etc., raised with Eoyal CaiiDg Fowder may bo eaten hot without distressing results to tha most delicate digastlro organs. It will keep in any diinato without doierioration. Prof. IT. A. Hott, U. . Government Chemist, after examining officially tha princi7 J baking powders of tho country, reported : The TiOyal Caking Towdcr is absolutely pnre, for I tare bo found It in many tcat3 made both, for that company and tho United States Government. " Eecau30 of the facilities that company have for obtaining periectly pure cream of tartar, and for other reasons dependent upon the proper proportions of the sane, and tho method of its preparation, the Royal EaWng Powder is undoubtedly the purest and most reliable baking powder offered to the public "Dr. UISRY JL MOTT, Pn. D.," Ü. S. Government ChmisL

3 tnna ß loins

OLD ON Jo Cash Payment cr settlement of until after a SATISFACTORY TEST. Haohinery and Tools Guaranteed to make Wells anywhere, and at the rate of 3 feet to every 2 feet by any ether machine, or no sale. THE BEST IS ALWAYS ill. UI1L.HI L.O I -eZ04JJ

Empire Well Auger Co.. Ithaca, N. Y.

ITS:

Nlarw - B4nlm?NcwStor74,M,LDRED's AMBITION" bfSCiir V Jm ilUllliCO A story of social ambition, by the most

popular story writer in America. Every mother should read it and place it in the baads of her daughters. A pure, domestic story not at all sensational, but intensely interesting;. 9FTt, rArtlflV New Story "THE WISDOM Kose lerry wooKe s cf the ancients" A Story of dress and redress. "LmmS"Ll's vosiah Allen's Wife The best story she has ever written. Its rich, keen sarcasm is irresistible. She keeps the reader convulsed with her sharp hits spiced with pure fun, strenj common sense and sound moral lessons. IF?' 1 1 I iA .-5 POEMS with full -page drawings, finest Will WcirieXOSl S illustrations ever engraved, by best artists.

HOW WOMEN CAN MAKE MONEY

wmsmmw ladies

SKETCHES AND ' V,: 14 mm i '1 m .1! : l Catarrh ely's ?Ofi OKI W tream balm Gives Relief 'at once and Cures Cold in Head CATARRH Hay Fever. Not Liquid, Snuff or rowder, tne trom in' HAY-FEVER Ä 52 " 0f' i r.rtiia U nnliil lnti rarh nostril and Is airrraWc Price SO cDts at Drninrist ; by mall, reRioterM, 60 cents. ELY VCOTII EKS, 50 Warren street, S etr York. For is yetrt at 37 Court F lace, now at 322 Market Street, T miMlp K V Bet Third and Fourth, JJUlUü 1 1110,11 A ffnitrty tductt-nl ib4 quKBe4 pkrsldsa aad tfaa most uaamrm, M his vrseuo will rni. Ctirea all forma 0 PRIVATE, CHRONIO ond SEXUAL EASESl , Spermatorrliei. ana Impolency, M ttrault of ulf-sbM ta 7nth, mal iicms la mt turrr ymrm, wr olfcer oaum, tod ndiiclD sosm f Uie (6i Ivwinf (TtK .N'wtsasDC. femlcl Ktawoss, (nlgbt itn tan bf dreamt). Uimswf Uftet, Drfcit Urrcor Fhr. si - !! J. Plm,.lMa at. ArrralaB So Sactott .. Coufuoa sf Ideas, tM at t)usl Power, as., rfsdrriuf, msrrtsge liaprDpT or snhsp;'. ,r tkfoMj sad Persia, Blr ontrd. g YPlilli IS P'UrlJ' od a. "v TVl'4 f" Ul si.fsii Gonorrhea, CiLEKT, Strtesors, OrciuUs. fTtrui, tu uyuirta fii. aal oiu!r nHrato diauaas qul.-klr ssrwi. Hteseir-rTtoot that sph Idas mbi par aporisl sttraHo to s sartors daaa mt dlwasr, (nil trrsüug thonnno's sec. sJlt, quires ireal sallL rk'stciass koloi tlili (art oftra rsrommrnl prrrns M art smrs. WM tt I lwoa ryoient to Vint too cilr for treatment. nsdtetnM eaa bs scat pnjtuy sad aflr by nail sr oxprsas snevnoro. Carei Guaranteed in all Cases undertaken. . . . CooatlilSlWu fHraoBsQy o b letJsr fre So4 1nr4, Casrgas raassasbls sad somspoadooos strteil soat'loausl, PRIVATE COUNSELOR, Of WO psKSS. at os any addma, si sisfy Mtr4, Mr (W) reo la. heatd bs Ml tr ail. irtdm sa i (W) reo 1. & hen Id bs read bv i Class boar trssa ( A. M. It f. a ftsjuUeSjItotr. sa s'e.

'Pmßm- : Ms vou ; A-4-' Si '-'Ur shall hare

;AKING"

POW Mm Mäh TR any kind "THE GRAND OLD DAY'" a Thanksgiving poem. "THE VOICE OF A STAR" a Christinas poem. of thespedal in the AuV" V III ri Home Journal! AHB PRACTICAL U HOUSEKEEPER FROM NOW to JANUARY 1839 Four months, beginning September, lot only 10 CENTS j SUver or Sumps the mere cost of paper, postace, Lc He ta put if in A MILLION families on trial. CURTIS PU3. CO. Philadelphia. P. WW. hi 'tmmJß gHEUIFFS SALL. Br rirtue et a certified copy of a derre to ma rf'rwterl from th CVrk of t he Superior Court oi Marion county, Indiana, in cause No. 32,741, wuer1.1 ot-urircuria Miiiih it plaintiff and Jane llairgerty ct al. are defendants, requiring me to make tha sum of money a provided for In nid decree, with interest on said decree and costs, 1 will expose at publio aale to tho highest bidder, oa SATURDAY. TUE 29th DAY OF SETTEMBER, A. i). liSa, between the hours of 10 o'clock a. in. and 4 o'clock ni. of raid dav, at the door of the Court House of .iarion ooucty,lnriiana, the renta and profits for a terra not exejediuj aeven yean, of tha following real estate, to-wit: Lot nnmbcred one hundred and thirty-tare (1.131, In McOarty'i subdivision cf the east part of 0utl.1t one hundred and twenty (lo), in the city of Indianapolis, Marion county, Indiana. If uch rents and proSta will not sell for a sufficient sum to satisfy said decree, interest and costs I will, at the same time and place, expoee to public sale the fee simple of said real estate, or so much thereof aa may be sufficient to discharge aid decree. Interest and costs, f-ald sale wilt be made without any relict whatever fron valuation or appraisement laws, ISAAC KTSO, Sbertfof Marioa County. September, S. A. D. IMS. J. X. Lecklider, Attorney for Plaintiff GKMPKIGN GOODSi TORCHES, FLAGS, HELMETS, CAPES, LFGGINS, And everything psed la TORCHLIGHT PROCESSIONS. Send for Large Illnstratel Catalogue, PRINTED IN COLORS, John Wilkinson Co., 65 STATE-ST.. CHICAGO, ILL. i or OF.ORfiE S HALL FOR BOYS AND YOCS k J men. Pro!. J. o. kJoear, A. lt., Prfaeipsu, i Oearfa'a, lad. Collate or Boa in eaa. . Beiert, thorovtt safe, fiO and $340. Combining tecaoica, and mannst. tralaiiLg.

"lira

I4LJ

Send for Catalogue. Vjj J

s r.t