Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 34, Number 33, Indianapolis, Marion County, 19 September 1888 — Page 4

THE INDIANA STATE SENTINEL. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19. 1888.

I INDIANA STATE SENTINEL

1 Entered at the Postoffice at Indianapolis aa aecoadclass matter. TERMS PER TEAR: iBg'e copy .....-.... ....----................ SJ X OO We ask democrats to bear la mind and select their ' own itat paper when they come to take subecrip- .' tines and make up clubs. Agnts making ep dubs send for any information 'desired. Addesa IXDlAKArOUS SESTIXEL, Indianapolis, ind. "WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 19. Fob President, . GROVTB CLEVELAND of New Tork. Fob Vice-President, jLLLKJi O. TUriDIAN I Ohio. DEMOCRATIC STATE TICKET. PoTemor CocRTtA5D C Matsow. ; Llutenant-Ooernor "WlLUiM R. Myk&S. fröret ry of State Robert W. Mieba Auditor of State Charles A. Mrs. Treaaurer ! State Thomas H. Btb sl lip porter Supreme Court Johh W. Kkkx. Attorney-Oncral-Jous R. Wilson. , enperintendent Public Instruction. Elves E. ''OjtirriTH. f Judtfea of Supremo Court irat PUtrlct William E. NrnLACi-. feeond IHntrlct Oeokoe V. Uowt 1 ourth District Alles Zollars. FBESIDEMIAL ELECTORS. At Lart Tjjoxas B. Copb and Joux E. Lamb. i irat diitrlot. Samuel B. Vakce; Second district, CfTLERtt Ixbbi: Third district, Chables L. Jetett; Fourth district. NicnoLAS Cokkt; 'ifth district, Joiifl K Last; Sixth ilistrict, Tuomas J. ifTVor; Seventh distriit, Pavip S. Ooodiko; Eighth district, fcAMVSL J. 1vktt; Ninth district, John (T. McIIcoh; Tenth district, David D. Dtxkmax; fllerenth district, Jon! N. TrRNis; Twelfth disltrict. Jot' 11. Bam; Thirteenth district. Marcus A. O. Pa&abd. A New Story By Oulda." Miss Dora Bcssell's brilliant story, "A iftrange Message," which has been runjxiing for eeveral months in The Weekly j-Sentinel, is drawing to a close. The last i installment will appear in the issue for I Oct. SO. In the same issue (Oct. 30) we ehall begin the publication of 'a tplendid new novel, entitled "Guildeiroy," by "Ouida," the author of "Under Two Hags," "Moths," "Strathmore," 'Two Little Wooden Shoes," etc., etc. "Ouida" is one of the most popular of modern novel writers. Her stories have teen translated into nearly all the European languages, and have been read by millions of people. "Guilderoy," her latest effort, is, it is said, "conceived in her best style, has a well-defined plot, clearly-drawn characters, and is marked by a refined and subtle analysis of the mingled good and evil in the human heart." "We think we can safely promise the readers of The Weekly Sentinel a raro 'treat in this latest production of the most popular living writer of English fiction. The Result in Maine. The usual republican game has been iflayed in Maine this year by Blaise and his henchmen just as they have played it informer presidential years, for the puriposeof misleading the country as to the significance of the result, and influencing the political situation in other 6tate8. fFcarcely had the polls closed the other day when Mr. Blaine had a message on the wires to Gen. Harrison announcing hat the republican majority would be more than 20,000, and the largest given ince 1SG6. The chairman of the republican state central committee 'tent out a fimilar dispatch, and the republican papers of the country on Tuesday morning brought out their - poultry and double-leaded their editorials, and made a great fuss over the "glorious ! victory in Maine." Mr. Blaine said that it was a "political revolution," and no effort was spared to convince the country that Maine had really gone "h bent" for monopoly taxes and free whisky. This is an old republican trick, and is ; played every four years in Maine. Tho republican majority is always, according to reports sent out election nights, the "largest on record." All the organs make a great racket the next morning, and keep it up for a day or two, until tho official figtires come to hand, and then they usually drop the subject, because the official figures never agree with the first reports. But ' the public is supposed to accept these first reports as true, and to lose interest in the matter thereafter. The republican theory is that by "chiming everything" tho first night all the moral effect of a big victory is gained, whether thcro is a big victory cr cot. "Well, the official figures of last Monday's election are at hand, and they are fearfully shrunken from the Blaine figures. Instead of a republican majority of "over 20,000," as claimed by that prince of fabricators, the majority is only 15,524. The plurality is 19,405, as against a plurality of ,700, at tho September election four t years ago, a net republican loss of 1,214. The following are the official figures of 'the state elections of 1S84 and 1883 Rep. Deu. Pro. ,JVS W.MS Cl.loJ 3,971 et.ios V70 3,1 iwi sasoatt aee a I 7,77. 2.113 8JS increase.. 1,734 The democrats increased their total vote 3,158; the republicans, 1,72 ; the prohibitionists, 823. Tho republican vote is increased 2.1 per cent.; the democratic vote, i r. I per cent. ; the prohibition vote, C0.9 per cent. Now these are the facts. The republican have lost 1,214 on their plurality ; they have Increased their total vote 2 per 'cent.' against a democratic increase of 5 jer cent., and a prohibition increase of 40 per cent.; and Mr. Blaine says there has ieen a "political revolution!" There will probably be no political revelation in Maine until Gabriel blows his trump. But such changes as have occurred since tho last presidential year arc rgainst and not in favor of tho republican party. The really significant thing in tho returns of last Monday's contest is the extraordinary gain in the prohibition vote. A like per centage of increase would give (Tis 05,000 votes in New York, S,500 in Kew Jersey, 3,500 in Connecticut, and 30,000 in Michigan. If anybody. Laa a

right to be highly elated over the result in Maine it is the prohibitionist. But the democrats have every reason to be satisfied, because the republicans have carried the state by a smaller plurality than they did four years ago, when they lost the country. Cleveland's War on Thieves. "We invite attention to a remarkable letter from Denver which we print this morning. It is well worth reading. It shows the character a nd power of the corporation and monopoly influences which are arrayed against President Cleveland in the far "West because of his fidelity to the interests ot the peoplo and his remorseless pursuit of the public plunderers who have amassed fortunes in that region by methods w hich ought to have landed them all in the penitentiary. The administration of President Cleveland is the first one since the war which has not been controlled, in so far as their own interests were concerned, by the greedy and conscienceless rings of so-called "speculators" that dominate the politics and business of the new West. The rascally millionaires who compose these rings have carried things with a high hand for many years. They have taken possession of and fenced in millions of acres of the public lands, to which they have no more right than they have to the crown jewels in the tower, of London ; they have manipulated, in tho interest of their schemes of jobbery, tho territorial legislatures and the territorial officials, whose appointments they were, as a rule, allowed to dictate, in consideration of liberal contributions to republican campaign funds; they have robbed and plundered and defrauded the government and individuals at their own sweet will, and until Grover Cleveland became president the power of the national government was systematically exerted to protect them in their nefarious operations. He compelled them to tear down the fences with which they had illegally inclosed the public lands, and to remove their cattle from them; he has ap pointed territorial officials whom they could not bully or corrupt, and who have frustrated many of their schemes of villainy; he has put a stop to their timber stealing and their cattle stealing, so far as it was possible to do so. Hence it is that these rings are united in opposition to him. They are prepared to spend money freely in behalf of Gen. Hareison, from whom they have nothing to fear. Harrison is closely indentified in politics and business with some of the ringleaders in these plundering combines, and they feel certain, and with reason, that if he is elected president they will have things their own way once more as in the days of Grant, Hates, Garfield and Arthur.

Harrison's Boiul-Buyinjg Scheme. The net surplus in the TJ. S. treasury, Aug. 31, was $107,673,320.00. This is in addition to the reserve fund of $100,000,000 held for the redemption of the legaltender notes. Ben Harrison says, in his letter of acceptance: "The surplus now in the treasury should be used in the purchase of bonds." In other words, Ben IlARRisos-'proposcs that the government shall go into the open market and buy bonds, paying whatever fancy premium the bondholders choose to demand, until the $107,000,000 surplus is exhausted. It i3 a very nice scheme for the bondholders, who bought their bonds at a big discount, and who, if Harrison's plan w ere carried out, would.be in a position to exact their own terms of the government. But it is not in the interest of the people of the taxpayers of the country who have already been mado to contribute, by sundry Bcheraes of republican devising, far more than was right or just to the enrichment of the nation's favored creditors. Tho government has no power to-day to call in a single outstanding bond. .lonN Sherman's blundering funding operations, when secretary of tho treasury', have left the government without this option. Thcro aro no bonds redeemable until 1801, three years hence. Thero urn 220,000,000 of 4 J per cents outstanding which will bo subject to call at that time. If the present rate of taxation is maintained there will bo available for tho purchase of lxnds in l0l at least $400,000,000 provided, of course, the money is not squandered in tho meantime in jobbery and profligacy. Ben Harrison and his party ray that tho high taxes must bo kept up; that tho surplus on hand must bo divided amonar tho bondholders; and the presumption is that the accruing surplusif they havo their way about itwill also bo handed over to the bondholders. There is no business sensa or equity in this proposition. It is devised in the interest of two classes: the bondholders and tho tariff-protected monopolists. Theso two classes are exacted to eontributo liberally to the republican corruption fund in consideration of tho adoption of a policy ho acceptable to them should Harrison bo elected. The proper way to 6olve tho surplus problem is to red uro taxes on raw materials and the necessaries of life. That is the democratic program, and it U a program that must commend itself to tho farmers, tho workingtnen, and the great masses of tho people. They would be tho sufferers if the policy proposed by Harrison were carried out; the monc3-lenders of Europo and America would be the gainers. The secretary of the treasury, Mr. Fairchilp, in his last annual report, discussed this question very fully, stating in detail the fatal objections that exist to tho Harrison plan of buying bonds. We quote: 1 limine In hnsiness of th money which in devoted to the purchase of the onU is worth onx-thing to the people from whom it is taken y taxation, and it the vulur of thisuo of rnony In Ltin'üs U rrenter than Hip amount of money which is saved ly the cancellation of the governmcat bono, thou the people have lost Jy the transaction, tho measure of the loss beinif - ilio liflerence between tliC worin ci tho use vi the nwiie

to them snd the interest saved on the bonds canceled. For example, no calculation being tnatle of compound interest, the ptirchate at par of a one-thousand dollar 4 per cent bond twenty years before it is due, saves to the people $3Xi in interest upon that bond; but if the money bad not been taken front the people, and if in their business it would have been worth 5 percent, annually for the twenty years, then the total value of the use of $1,000 to them would have been $1,000, and there would have been a loss of $'00 in consequence of thia surplus of taxation. But 4 percent, bonds cannot be bought at par, and bence the circulation must always be made upon the basis of a far less savin? in interest than 4 per cent, per annum by the purchase of the bond, while the average annual value of the money to the whole people may safely be put at not less t.ian 5 per cent. The government has purchased some bonds during the present fiscal year for the sinking fund and has been obliged to pay such a price for them that the annual savin; in interest upon the purchases is only about 1 per centum. The price of the same classes of bonds have advance since these purchases so that the annual saving in interest would be less if purchases were made now. Should the government attempt to spend all of its present surplus revenues in the purchase of bonds, the price would sto much higher. Indeed, it is doubtful if enough bonds could be bought to expend a I' the surplus revenues at a price which would result in any considerable saving in interest to the government. So that it does not seem w ise to continue taxation beyond the ordinary needs of the government, and then resort to "the buying of bonds for the mere purpose, of redistributing the circulating media among the people. I am not, however, at present dispoacd to recommend to repeal tho sinking fund requirements of the present laws. It is probable that the command of these laws can only be obeyed at a heavy cost, but nevertheless, it is better and more wholesome that the country should each year continue to devote such sum as they require to the extinguishment of so much of the interest-bearing debt as can be purchased therewith. Atleast, thcexperiment should be laiih fully tried until it is demonstrated to be a failure. The government has never paid a premium in gold for its bonds for any purpose but the sinking fund since the enactment of the law creating it, and it has done that but three times in lS., when it paid a premium in gold of SÜ.79ö,3-0.4J; in lfcjl, a premium of $lsl,-2-1x78, and again in the present tiocal year, when it paid a premium of J,8.")2,015.88. With thefo exceptions, the government has been in a position where it could purchase or call its bonds at par or less, and has consequently been en aided to apply almost the whole of its vat surplus revenue of the past tw enty-one years to the retirement of its interest-bearing debt upon fairly good terms; it is rot probable that it can do this as to any considerable portion of its remaining debt. After the question of the annual surplus revenues is disposed of, there süll remains the surplus money which is in the treasury to be considered. One use which can be made of this money is to diminish taxation to such an extent that the annual revenues will be les for some years to come than the appropriations: thus the accumulated surplus would be used for ordinary expenses, and the people would ?:ain the greatest possible good from it. Doubtess by the time this money was spent in pursuance of this plan, the revenues would have so increased as to be equal to proper annual expenses. Experience teaches that this would probably be the case. This is wiso and patriotic finance; Mr. Harrison's plan is a mere juggling with the people's money for the benefit of the great capitalists. The place for the people's money is in the pockets of the people themselves; and any policy which takes from them a dollar more than is required for the government's needs, and hands it over to bondholders, monopolists or the lobby, would be a high crime against the people. Gen. Harrison's Mendacity. It is not pleasant to be obliged to convict a candidate for tho highest office in the gift of the people of absolute, unequivocal falsehood, but Mr. Harrison's method of discussing campaign issues leaves no other course open. Some days since, on the occasion of his assertion, "There is not to-day, there never has been, a republican community where a man cannot set forth his opinions unmolested," we showed the utter falsity of his words by a long list of infamous outrages perpetrated on prohibition speakers in the strongest republican counties of this 6tate during the present campaign. In his letter of acceptance Mr. Harrison commits an equally inexcusable breach of truth. In discussing the position of the democracy on the tariff question, he says: We cannot doubt, without impugning their integrity, that, if free to act upon their convictions, they would so revise our laws as to lay the burden of the customs revenue upon articles that are Dot produced in this country, and to place upon the free list all competing foreign products. On the contrary, ho cannot make this statement without impugning the integrity of Mr. Cleveland and the entire democratic party. In his great tariff reform message of Dec. 0, 1887, which is the basis of tho issues of this campaign, Mr. Cleveland explicitly says: "Under our present laws more than 4,000 articles are subject to duty. Many of theso do not in any way compete with our own manufactures, and many are hardly worth attention as subjects of revenue. A considerable reduction can be mado in the aggregate by adding them to the free list." This message was declared by the national democratic convention to bo a correct exposition of democratic doctrine, and has been similarly indorsed by the various tate conventions. It is impossible that Mr. Harrison shouM not have had knowledge of these facta. AVo havo no special objections to Mr. Harrison's airing his Cheap John demagogy by arguing what the "tendency" of democratic doctrino may be; but to assert that "wo canrot doubt without impugning their integrity" a proposition which is directly the opposite of the democratic avowal, is as flat n falsehood as would be on our part a declaration that Mr. Harrison, in his message, opposed applying the surplus to the payment of outstanding bonds. When the candidato for tho presidency makes such statements ns thoso above quoted; when John M. Butler says, in a printed article, "Under the Mills bill tho tariff on sugar is so differently graded from the law of 1883 that it is diflicult to say whether the Mills bill tariff on sugar is ereater or less than tho tariff of 1HM3"; when W. IL H. Miller declares to public audiences that tho Mills bill does not propose reductions to tho amount of 7 per cent, on sugar and rice; what extent of mendacity may we reasonably expect from the common run of republican statesmen? The Mills Bill and Its Trainers. To Tim r.rmR Sir: Clay Goodino addresed the "high tax free whisky party" her 1'ritliiy ii!?ht, and to prove that the Mills bill was sectional und discriminated against the North in favor of the South, said that "the com mittee of congress, which framed the niensurej was composed of tiv'ht democrats and five repiiblioiiis: that the republicans were entirely excluded from the committee loom; that six of the eight were, and are now, southern men and two northern men. and that six of them were in ihe rebel army, l'leasegive the names and residency of the members who composed the committee, and the other facts. (i recti tie Id, Ind., Sept. 11. DEMOCRAT. Th committee on ways and means, from which tho "Mills bill" emanated, is composed oi Messrs. Mills of Texas, MeMilu.n of Tennvssoc, BkCKN'kiihjK

of Arkansas, Breckeneipgk of Kentucky, Tcrner of Georgia, "Wilson of West Virginia, Scott of Pennsylvania and Byxttm of Indiana, democrats; and Messrs. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Browne of Indiana, Heed of Maine, McKinley of Ohio and Burrows of Michigan, republicans. The democratic ma jority of the committee agreed among themselves upon the first draft of the Mills bill, and then submitted it to the full committee. This is in accordance with custom w hen political measures (so considered) are prepared. The republican members of the finance committee of the senate have been engaged for tho past six or eight weeks in drafting a tariff bill, and they have not yet consulted the democratic members of the committee. How many of the southern members of the ways and means committee served in tae Confederate array we do not know, nor is it material. "We know that Mr. Gooding's statement is incorrect, because some of the southern members of the committee were mere boys when the war ended. But what difference does it make to sensible men who framed the bill, or what states they came from? If the bill is a good measure ; if it is for the benefit of tho whole country; if it will relieve the farmers and working classes and check monopolies; if it will release the idle millions in the treasury and put them in circulation, it matters not who drew it up. The bill must bo judged onts merits. It carries out tho policy advocated by (J rant, Garfield and Artiitr, by Folg er and McCclixx-h and Henry Wilson and Charles Si'mner and William B. AllifeON ami John Sherman and Ben Harrison in past years; it is in accord with the demands of both political parties in Indiana for twenty years past. Why doesn't Mr. Gooding address himself to the merits of the bill, and show how it will injure the country to break up the salt monopoly, and the lumber trust, and the sugar trust, and to give our manufacturers free raw materials? The very fact that he feels it necessary to appeal to prejudices and passions which no patriot would seek to revive, instead of discussing calmly and fairly the merits of the proposition, shows that ho knows the w eakness of his case. The statement that tho Mills bill is sectional is wholly false. If there is any discrimination in it, it is against the South and not against the North. It reduces the protective taxes on all important southern products now on the tariff schedules, and places somo of them on the free list. Thr chairman of the committee, Mr. Mills, comes from tho second wool state of the Union, and wool goes on the free list. So do hemp and ilax, which are leaning southern products. Sugar and rice are reduced more than the average reduction in the bill. The charge of sectionalism U a silly one, and any one w ho will read the bill will perceive its falsity at once. Harrison's Chinese Record. Gen. Harrison says in his letter of acceptance that the laws relating to Chinese immigration would, "if I should 1? charged with their enforcement, be faithfully executed. Such amendments or further legislation as may bo necessary and proper to prevent evasions of the laws, and to stop further Chinese immigration would also meet with my approval." It is rather a novelty for a presidential candidate to single out a particular statute, or class of statutes, and promise that if elected ho will faithfully execute it. It is the sworn duty of a president of the United States to execute every law on the statute book, whether he is in sympathy with its object or not. Does Gen. Harrison mean to be understood, when he says that he would "faithfully execute" the Chinese laws, that there are other laws which he would not "faithfully execute?" Such an inference would be entirely reasonable. But probably this is not what he means. His laying stress upon his willingness to enforce these particular laws is doubtless becauso of the fact that his persistent opposition in the senate to their enactment renderod it very uncertain in the public mind whether, if he bhould become president, he would not wink at their violation and disapprove of measures intended to supplement them. Harrison's pro Chinese record is making him no end of trouble all over the country. It renders him especially obnoxious to the people of tho Pacific coast, but it is exceedingly distasteful to wageworkers everywhere. Harrison seems to realize this, and licnco his desperate effort to mako voters believe that though he was all wrong on tho Chinese question when he wasn't running for office, ho is all right now. But wo do not believe that his attempt to sw allow his own record on this question will greatly improve his chances tor election. As tho AHa California puts it: California w anted Mr. Harrison's friendship in not now. He may carry his opposition to Chinese now to the extent of upsetting a Inundry-wngttii, or puttintr the torch to a wash-house, if be choose. Nobody here cares. Our people wanted him in 1352, and he was agftinst us. So tho wage-workers of the country wanted him in 1882 and he was against them. . Senator Tiurman and the wholo democratic party were for them, but Senator Harrison and his party wcro on tho other side. They wanted a freo immigration of the Chinese so that the great capitalist! and corporations who run their party could havo cheap labor. They wanted tho Chinese naturalized so that the party could havo the benefits of their votes, as it did havo of the votes of nomo of them, illegally cast in this city in 1880, and which helped to send Harrison to tho U. S. senate. On this as on every other question which has arisen in this country sinco tho war, the republican party was against the interests of American labor. Bun Harrikon's record is even worse than that of his party upon theso questions, and a few fine words in his letter of acceptance can not make it or him any more acceptable to tho workingtnen of the couutry.

Bcn't fail to read the letter from Denver printed this morning. It throws a flood of light upon a good many things. It unlocks a good many mysteries. It explains why all the millionaires of Colorado and tho territories aro straining every nerve to put Ben Harrison in Grover Cleveland's place. It shows what an honest, firm and courageous chie f magistrate wo havo to-day; what an. Inveterate foo of jobbers and ringstcrs, and what a stanch and fearless iriend of the people and de-1

fender of their rights. And it shows, too, what a powerful influenco the land grabbers and cattle thieves of the "West exert, and what personal hazards a public official takes when he bids them defiance. The "Balance of Trade" Delusion. "We find this highly impressive paragraph in the Jonrxnl of Friday: Th present head of the bureau of statistics, at Wasaington, is a dyed-in-the-wool democrat from Missouri, and would not let any statistics unfavorable to the democratic party go out of his office if he could help it. "iet his last report shows that the imports of the United states for the year ending June 30. 1S8, were $783.00 ,( n and the exports were f741OuO,0OO, leaving a balance of trade of $41,U00,0ui against us. In the last year of republican administration, endiug June 30, 18S5, our imports were iti:V,7i,n,(iiiuiind our exports $751,Oö;,IXX, showing a balance of $130,21W,U0 in our favor. In what way the fact that we imported more than we exported during the last fiscal year is "unfavorable to the democratic party" it would puzzle the Jmrnal to explain. "What the democratic party or the republican party as such has to do with our exports or imports it would also puzzle it to show. Likewise it would puzzle the Journal to trace any connection between the tariff and this adverse "balance of trade" that it is distressed about, since the tariff has not been changed in the slightest particular since the last year of republican administration. More than anything else it would puzzle it to tell what it means by "a balance of trade azainst us," and why such a balance is a bad thing. In thirty of the last fifty-one years the "balance of trade" was "against" us. During the twenty-four years of republican rule it was "against us" twelve years, and "in favor" of u.s twelve years. The "balance of trade" has been against us most of the time einco the arrival of the Mayflower, yet the country has been growing richer all the time. The "balance of trade" is always against England, and England is also getting richer all tho time. When an individual pays out less than he takes in he is supposed to be doing well, from a material standpoint. When he pays out more than he takes in he is supposed to be doing ill. But when a nation takes in more than it pays out, the balance of trade is said to bo against it by certain erratic economists; and vice versa. And an "adverse balance of trade" is almost as great a bugaboo to these queer people as a famine or a pestilence. The Journal is evidently possessed of the silly balance of trade delusion, and hence the grotesque editorial deliverance which has called forth these few genial observations. . Iijing; to the Farmers. Foraker has the gall to tell the farmers that the tariff has given them "a better price, for their lands and their crops" and "less cost for practically all they may have occasion to buy." No man with a conscience would tell a lie like this, even to gain the presidency. Here are the highest prices paid in New York for the principal farm products in 1800 (low tariffl and 188 (high tariff.) Let the farmers study this table and ask themselves how they aro benefited by the monopoly tariff: 1S60, " 1RS6. LowTariiT. High Tariff. Corn 05 65 Cotton...... 11 Oats 47 8'J Mens pork S1D.75 12.50 Wheat. 1.70 95' VooI 40 34 On the free list in I860. And the cost of the dutiable article that the farmer buys is enhanced 47 cents on every dollar by the tariff. Doesn't Gov. Foraker lie Bcandalously when he tells the farmer that the high tariff benefits him? An Kasy Question. Will some democratic free-trader kindly tell us how the removal of the tariff on wool will make high-priced wool for the farmers and lowpriced clothing for mechanica and other town people? The question is asked by an Ohio paper and reproduced in the Journal. It is an easy one to answer. Most of the foreign wool that our manufacturers use is mixed with domestic wool in the making of fabrics. The cheaper the foreign wool can be bought, the cheaper the manufacturer can produce his fabrics. The cheaper he produces them, the greater will be the demand. The greater the demand for his goods, the greater his demand for wool, both domestic and foreign. The greater the demand for wool, the better price it will command. Nearly one-half the woolen mills in the country are idle to-day, while we are importing $41,000,000 of woolcn'goods, and exporting barely $500,000. With free wool, these mills could start up and make tho bulk of this $41,000,000 of goods which are now made for us in England, Scotland, Franco and Germany. Instead of exporting half a million of woolen goods, wo could soon export ten or fifteen millions. There is no mystery about it at all. There is no theory about it cither, becauso experience shows just w hat freo raw materials will do for tho country. With free hides, we export over $10,000,000 of leather, and with freo cotton, we export over $15,000,000 of cotton goods, "When wool was on the freo list, before the war, our farmers got more for their wool than they have ever got since it was "protected." Freo wool meansCheaper ami better clothing for the people. A better market for the domestic manufacturer, and A better demand and higher wages for the textile workers. "What Is, Can lie. Tho report of Carroll D. Wright, U. S. commissioner of labor, shows that the average wages of employes in woolen mills in the United States was $1.4:) per day, against 8S cents perduy in british nulls. Annual report for lHMi, page 2:'ti.l We defy any free trader to show how American manufacturers, with free wool, could compete with british manufacturers without an equalization of wages. Tho report to which the Journal refers fchows (page 22.) the average daily rate of wages of adult male textilo workers in various states to bo as follows: Maine, $1.42; New Hampshire, $1.61 ; Vermont, $1.31 ; Massachusetts, $1.35; Connecticut, Sl. lo; New York, $1.38; New Jersey, $1.21 ; Pennsylvania, Sl.OTi; Delaware, $1.03; Maryland, $1.47; North Carolina, $1.07; Kentucky, $1.00; Illinois, $1.42; Indiana, $1.05; Iowa, $1.81; Missouri, $1.53; California, $1.45. It will bo seen that tho Iowa manufacturers paid much higher wages than those of any other state. They paid $1.81 per day, against $1.07 per day in North Carolina. There is absolute free trade between tho two states, and tho distenco between thein is scarcely one third, tho

distance between England and New England. And yet the Iowa manufacturers paid 69 per cent, higher wages than the North Carolina manufacturers, and moro than held their own against the latter, tuming out, the last census year, from their thirty-four establishments, products of more than double the value of the products of the forty-nino establishments in North Carolina, Now, if the Journal will show how the Iowa manufacturers can pay 69 per cent, higher wages than the North Carolina manufacturers, and, in open competition with the latter, outstrip them, it will itself answer the question which it defies any "free trader" to answer. The question, indeed, is fully answered by the facts we have given. "A manufacturer cannot compete successfully with another who gets cheaper labor," say Ben Harrison and the Journal, "unless he is heavily protected against him." But manufacturers do so compete right here in the United States, as we have shown. The woolen manufacturer of New Hampshire pays $1.61 a day; in the next state, Vermont, his rival pays but $1.31. Yet New Hampshire is far ahead of Vermont as a woolen manufacturing state, turning outin 1S80 over$S,000,000of goods, while Vermont turned out but a little over $3,000,000. So Pennsylvania pays $1.65, while her neighbor, New Jersey, pays but $1.21, yet Pennsylvania manufacturers make just as much money as those of New Jersey. You say it can't bo done, do you, Mr. Journal t Well, it is done, right under your very nose, and the proofs, as given above, will b3 found in the "Compendium of the Tenth Census," vol. 2, pp. 1191-1201. If the Journal will grapple with the fads we have here presented it will find something else to do but bellow "free trade" and wave the bloody shirt for some days to come. Trobable Kffccts of Tariff Reduction. To THE Editor Sir: Please answer the following: 1. If the tariff is reduced, will rot prices upon commodities remain the same if there is not an increased importation? 2. If there be an increased importation, how is it going to reduce the surplus? Houston, Ind., Sept 4. Joun N. P. 1. Certainly not. Tho reductions contemplated are principally upon raw materials, which will enable our manufacturers to produce such things as clothing, furniture, etc., etc., cheaper than at present. They will have to modify their prices of the same to consumers in order to hold their trade. 2. The additions to the free list will make a substantial reduction in the revenue to begin with. Last year the tariff on articles that the Mills bill puts on the free list produced a revenue of about $22,000,000. This will be wiped out if that bill becomes a law, and there is no reason to anticipate a very large increase of importations of dutiable articles, because it is Quite certain that our domestic manufacturers can supply the bulk of them as cheaply as their foreign rivals, with the latter at an average disadvantage of 42 per cent., as they will be under the Mills bill. It cannot be too strongly impressed upon the popular mind that the principal changes mado by the Mills bill are in the direction of cheapening raw materials; that with cheaper raw material our manufacturers will be enabled to produce more cheaply without reducing wages; that cheaper production means a larcer domestic consumption and larger exports, and that these things means a better demand for labor, with a corresponding improvement in wages.

Gen. Harrison's Lietter. Gen. Harrison's letter of acceptance, which was given to tho world last week, is not the letter of a statesman. It is the letter of a demagogue. It is uncandid, dishonest and sophistical in its treatment of the principal issue before the country, and in its allusions to the other questions involved in the present campaign it rises to no higher level. It is a pettifogging document from the first word to the last. Of course that portion of the letter which relates to the tariff will be read with the greatest interest, because the country has been curious to see whether Gen. Harrison would go to the extreme lengths of the Chicago platform upon this subject. The impression which the general's tariff utterances will produce upon the average reader isthat he is absolutely without convictions upon this question. He logins by an effort to place his adversaries in a false position a position which neither by word nor by action have they shown tho slightest intention or disposition to assume. He insists that the president's message, tho Mills bill and tho St. Louis platform all mean "free trade;" that they are an "open and defiant assault upon our protective system," and he tells the country that "less work and lower wages must be accepted as the inevitable result of the increased oflcring of foreign goods in onr market." which ho assumes would result from the remission of unnecessary taxes. Now when it is rc.uemtarcd that (ten. Harrison and his party in Indiana have been for many years demanding reductions of the tariff, and that ho ran for governor of the state upon a platform declaring explicitly that tho government fchould in its revenue laws "give tho g.eatest possible exception to articles of primary necessity" (tho object aimed at by tho Mills bill), tho utter insincerity of his present attitude becomes manifest. Gen. Harrisos imputes unworthy motives and hostility to the wage-workers to his opponents for advocating tho very things which ho and his party have advocated iu years past, w hich tho great leaders of his party, including three presidents of tho United States favored, ami which a commission of republican protectionists declared only seven years ago, after a thorough investigation, would conduce to the welfare of the country. A man with settled convictions would not bo capable of such flagrant inconsistency as this. But the general is not only insincere; ho is cowardly in his discussion of the tariff issue. Declaring himself in accord with tho declarations of tho Chicago platform, ho attempts to break tho force of its demand for free whisky by saying that an ocecasion is not likely to nriso for tho repeal of tho internal taxes. Such a contingency, be fays, is "remote," and ho also goes out of his way to say that the repeal of tho oleomargarine tax "need nut enter into any platform of revenue reduction." And jet the Chicago convention has said to tho country, iu plain

language, that rather than surrender any part of the protective system, the republican party would repeal the whole internal revenue system the oleomargarine, tax, the whisky tax and all. Gen. Harbison says he indorses the platform, but ha also says that the policy it proposes will not be carried out. We believe this is the first timo that a presidential candidate has ever a&ked for the suffrages of the people upon the" ground that tho policy w hich his party proposed would not be carried ont The remainder of the letter does not call for extended comment. The only passage in it which will attract attention is that relating to trusts. Blaine, the "uncrowned king" of the party, says that they are "merely private affairs" with which 1 the president has no right to interfere. Gen. Harrison says that the "legislative ' authority" should deal with theaa. ' How he doesn't say. The paragraph conveys no definite meaning j and was evidently not intended to. Its Obvious purpose was to neutralize . the effect of Blaine's defense ofj the trusts, 60 far as possible, without committing the writer in a war that would arouse the suspicion of the trusters, ujon whose active support all his hopes of re-election are based. Taking the letter as a whole it is a commonplace ierformance. It will not strengthen Gen. Harrison before tho count r y. The Journal devotes nearly two columns to more or less garbled quotations from democratic newspapers and politicians to prove that the democratic party is a freetrade party. By precisely the same meth ods it could be proved that the republican party is a free-trad party. Editorial ex pressions by the hundred in favor of fre trade are to be found in the files" of the Chicago Tribnnr, St. Paul rionsrr-Prfst, Omaha Bee, Cincinnati Commercial and other representative republican journals. James A. Garfield, whom the republican party elected president, was an avowed free trader. Grant, Arthcr, Semner, Henry Wilson and many other republican leaders of recent years ara on record as free traders, according to the Journals definition. But the republican party is not a free trade party. It is to ho judged by its performances and its platform, and they are both of tho Chinese tariff sort. The democratic party is to be judged the same way. The president's tariff message, his letter of acceptance, the Mills ' bill, and the St. Louis platform define the democratic tariff creed. In the face of these authoritative expositions of the democratic policy, "the man or paper that says the democratic party is a free trade party is either dishonest or a fool." The Sentinkl does not base its asser tion that free wool would benefit ths American wool-grower on theory. It bases it on facts and experience which admit of no other conclusion. When wool was free the farmer got better price for his wool than he has got since it wa protected. Thi3 being the fact.it is pretty safe to assume that if wool were free again the farmer would again get letter prices. And there is no "college lore" or "cheap logic" about it either. "College lore" we have none, and "cheap logic" we leave ti the monopoly tax organs. We deal exclusively in facts. And here are some files for the Journal to gnaw on : In 1SÖ9, with wool on the free list, the highest price at New York was 45 cents. In 1800 it w as 40 cents. In 1801 it w as 4 cents. In 18S4, with wool highly "protected," the highest price was 33 cents. In 1SS5 it was 34 cents. In 1SS6 it was 34 cents. Average highest price for the last three years of free wool, 45 J cents. Average for the last three years of protectedwool, 35$ cents. Difference in favor of frej wool, 10 cents a pound. Isn't that a I pretty good reason to believe that free wool now would benefit the wool-grower ? We ' pause for a reply. Ben Ectler made a speech the other day in Boston denouncing the Mills bill and President Cleveland's tariff message. Yet this same Ben Bltler, in the democratic convention at Chicago four years ago, offered the follow ing resolution and made a long speech favoring its adoption : liexohfl. That all mnferial v-irl in the ati$ vnl ma mi faetv res, and the necessaries of lifs not produced in this country, shall come itt fre; and that all articles of luxury should b taxed as high as possible up to the collcctiou point. I This is precisely the principle w hich tindcrliestho Mills bill free raw materials; untaxed necessaries of life; high taxes on luxuries. But Ben Bcti.er, shameless old demognguo that he is, denounces the measure. Bctlf.k never had any political principlt s that he adhered to for twelve consecutive months, and it is hot surprising to find him in ISsS denouncing the very policy which he to strenuously advocated in 18SI. But he no longer has any influenco or following. Everybody knows him a political fraud, aud almost everybody knows that he got run out of a bunting monopoly which owed its existence to the high tariff. Bctlkh will not humbug anybody thin year. One of tho leading figures in the Chicago convention was Gen. J. It. Chalmers of Mississippi, who has sinco been nominated for congress by tho republicans of his district. Tho republican press is quoting his utterances in favor of mouopoly tariff with great gusto, and evidently regards him as a decidedly valuablo acquisition to the g. o. p. Yet this man Ciialmers was a lire-uater before the war, a relel soldier all through tho war, and a kukluxer after tho war. Ho is one of the very worst specimens of tho genus rebel now at large, and it seems very sträng that the so-called party of "loyalty" should tako him so warmly to its bosom or it would if the same party hadn't taken Momiy, IiONGSTunr.T, Key, Settle, Mahone, Ackerm an and scores of other bright and shining lights of the lost cause into its affections just as heartily. Chalmkks is in congenial company w ith these ol rebs, and we wish them and the g. o. p, much joy of his society. Harrison's plan for disposing of tin surplus now in the treasury is to use it in the purchase of bonds. (The Journal nt thero is no surplus in tho treasury, but let that pass.) Harrison's program is t buy up the bonds at any prices the bondholders may choose to demand. It is a very nice program-for tho bondholders. But it is a very bail one for the people. But as Harrison and his party believe in running the government in the interest !

th bondholders and moneyed men gencr