Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 34, Number 35, Indianapolis, Marion County, 3 October 1888 — Page 2

V

12 . il i I ' A THE INDIANA STATE SENTINEL, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1888. .

THE LONDON MYSTERIES. * * *

HORRIBLE MURDERS IN WHITECHAPEL * * * No One Has Any Clew to the Fiend Who So Mysteriously Murders Depraved Women — The Police Completely Baffled. * * * LONDON, Sept 25. — As stated in these dispatches Sunday night another murder has been committed by the monster of the Whitechapel district in London. The English newspapers now give more facts regarding his deeds. The first victim was a woman found stabbed with a swordstick some time ago near Whitechapel church. The second was found some spix weeks ago at the bottom of the steps to a model lodging-house, with thirty-one stabs over her body. The third was discovered about three weeks ago, within three hundred yards of the same spot. The woman was horribly mutilated, her head was nearly severed, and she was gashed from groin to breastbone. All these outrages were within a radius of a third of a mile, in the very low neighborhood of Spitalfields. Of the murder preceding the one of last Saturday night the Pall Mall Gazette has the following account, with illustrations: Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel, some short time ago, had time to abate when another discovery is made which for the brutality exercised on the victim is even more shocking and will no doubt create as great a sensation in the vicinity as its predecessor. What adds so much horror to the mystery is that the murder, in the early hours of Fridav morning last, of the woman now known as Mary Ann Nichols, has so many points of similarity with the murder of two other women in the same neighborhood — one Martha Turner, as recently as Aug. 7, and the other less than twelve months previously that the police admit their belief that the three crimes are the work of one individual. All three women were of the class called "unfortunates," each so very poor that robbery could have formed no motive for the crime, and each was murdered in such a similar fashion that doubt as to the crime being the work of one and the same villain almost vanishes, particularly when it is remembered that all three murders were committed within a distance of 3O0 yards from each other. These facts have led the police to almost abandon the idea of a gang being abroad to wreak vengeance on women of this class for not supplying them with money. The facts of the latest of the three mysteries are that as Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's row, Thomas-st., Whitechapel, about 3:35 o'clock on Friday morning, he discovered a woman between thirty-five and forty years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. As the corpse lies in the mortuary it presents a ghastly sight. The victim seems to bo between thirty-five and forty year of age, and measures five feet two inches in height. The hair is dark — features small. The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having been engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased's fingers, but their is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discolored. Deceased worer a rough brown ulster with large buttons in front, a brown dress, and a petticoat which bears the name of the Lambeth work-house. Dr. Llewellyn has made a statement, in which he says he was called to Buck's row about 3:55 on Friday morning by Police Constable Thane, who said a woman had been murdered. He found deceased lyin on the ground in front of the stableyard door. She was lying on her back, with her legs out straight, as though she had been laid down. Police Constable Neil told him that the body had not been touched. The throat was cut from ear to ear, and the woman was quite dead. The extremities of the body were still warm, showing that death had not long ensued. There was a very small pool of blood on the pathway, which had trickeled from the wound in the throat not more than half a pint at the outside. This fact, and the way in which the deceased was lying, made him think at the time that it was at least probable that the murder was committed elsewhere, and the body conveyed to buck's row. At 5:20 he was summoned to the mortuary by the police, and astonished at finding the other wounds. He had seen many horrible cases, but never such a brutal affair as this. There is a gash under the left ear reaching nearly to thej center of the throat, and another cut apparently starting from the right ear. The neck is severed back to the vertebra, whch is also slightly injured. The abdominal wounds are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted. One cut extends from the base of the abdomen to the breast-bone. The clothes of the deceased were loose, and the wounds could have been [inflicted] while she was dressed. Buck's row, where the body was found, is a narrow Passage running out of Thomas-st., and contains a dozen houses of a very low class. It would appear as if the murder had been committed in a house and the body afterward removed to the place where it was found, the nature of the abdominal wounds being such that it would be hardly possible for them to be inflicted while the deceased was dressed. When Police Constable Neil discovered the body he roused the people living in the house opposite where the body was found, but none of them had heard any sounds of a struggle. A general belief prevails that the spot where the body was found was not the scene of the murder,

and this belief is supported by the fact that what appeared to be blood stains have been traced at irregular distances on the footpath in Brady-st., which adjoins Buck's row. Several persons living in Brady-st. state that early in the morning they heard screams, but this is by no means an uncommon incident in the neighborhood ; and with one exception nobody seems to have paid any particular attention to what was probably the death struggle of an unfortunate woman. The exception was a Mrs. Colville, who lives only a short distance from the foot of Buck's row. She says she was awakened in the morning by a "woman screaming "Murder! police!" five or six times. The voice faded away as though the woman was going in the direction of Buck's row, and all was quiet. She only heard the steps of one person. Inspector Helstone has, however, since stated that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady-st. to Buck's row was not true. The place was

examined by Serg't Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither bloodstains nor wheel marks found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere. Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot. That conclusion was fortified by the postmortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn. At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighboring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and that they would have effectually prevented any screaming. It is, moreover, considered unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, have been murdered, and have been removed to Buck's row within a period of an hour and a quarter. The murdered woman was identified in the course of the day as Mary Ann, or Polly, Nicholls, by several of the women with whom the deceased lived in a common lodging-house at 88 Trawl-st., Spitalfields. Women from that place were fetched, and they identified the deceased as "Polly," who had shared a room with three other women in the place on the usual terms of such houses — nightly payment of 4d. each, each woman having a separate bed. The deceased had lodged in the house only for about three weeks. The husband visited the mortuary on Saturday, and on viewing the corpse identified it as that of his wife, from whom he had been separated eight years. He stated that she was nearly forty-four years of age. The husband, who was greatly affected, exclaimed on recognizing the body," I forgive you, as you are, for what you have been to me." Nothing more was known of her, but that when she presented herself for her lodging on Thursday night she was turned away by the deputy because she had not the money. She was then the worse for drink, but not drunk, and turned away laughing, saying, "I'll soon get my 'doss' money; see what a jolly bonnet I've got now." She was wearing a bonnet which she had not been seen with before, and left the lodging-house door. A woman of the neighborhood saw her as late as 2:30 the following morning in Whitechapel road, opposite the church, and at the corner of Osborne-st. Mary Ann Monk, an inmate of Lambeth workhouse, was taken to the mortuary and identified the body as that of "Polly" Nicholls. She knew her, she said, as they were inmates of the Lambeth workhouse together in April and May, the deceased having been passed there from another workhouse. On May 12, according to Monk, Nicholls left the workhouse to take a situation as servant at Ingleside, Wandsworth common. It afterward became known that Nicholls betrayed her trust as domestic servant by stealing £3 from her employer and absconding. From that time she had been wandering about. Monk met her, she said, about six weeks ago, when herself out of the workhouse, and drank with her. The inquest upon the murdered woman was opened by Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner, on Saturday, continued on Monday, and then adjourned till the 17th inst. The following further evidence, in addition to what has been stated above, was produced: Edward Walker, the father of the [deceased], living at 16 Maidwoodst., Albany road, Camberwell, identified the body lying in the mortuary as being to the best of his belief his daughter. He had not seen her for three years. He recognized her form, her general appearance, and by a mark on her forehead which she had since she was a child. His daughter's married name was Mary Ann Nicholls. She had been married quite twenty-two years. Her husband's name was William Nicholls, and he was alive. His occupation was a printer's machinist. They had been living apart for seven or eight vears. He had not seen her alive since June, 1886. She was leading a respectable life, he believed, then. He saw her at a funeral. He did not speak to her, as they were not friendly. She was not always sober, and that was why they did not agree. He had no idea that she was "fast." He did not turn his daughter out of doors, but they had a few words one night and she left him the next morning. He added: She had no business to be like this now, as I had a home for her. His daughter's husband left the deceased. While deceased was being confined the husband

1 : ftft Pf I krms? km

paid some attention to her nurse, which caused some unpleasantness between them, and they separated. Her husband afterward lived with this woman, by whom he had another family. The deceased had five children, the eldest is twenty-one and the youngest about eight. She left her husband when the youngest child was about a year old. One of the children lived with witness, the other four being with their father. Witness believed that three or four years ago the deceased was living with a man of the name of Drew, in York-st., Walworth. He had not heard of any other man that the deceased had anything to do with. He thought his daughter was in service still at Wandsworth. The deceased was in the Lambeth workhouse in April last, and went from there to the situation at Wandsworth. The deceased's husband lived at Coburg road, Old Kent road. He did not think his daughter had any bad friends. She was too good for that. Her only fault was being too good to others and ignoring herself. Inspector John Spratling stated that at 4:30 Friday, while in Hackney-road, he first heard of the murder. He went to the police station and then proceeded to the spot. There was a slight stain of blood between the stones. Witness had carefully examined Buck's row and the neighborhood to see if he could find any weapon or any blood-stains on the morning of the murder, but could find neither. A gateman was on duty at the Great Eastern railway all night, and his box was between fifty and sixty yards from where the deceased was found, but he heard no screams. Witness also spoke to several other persons in the neighborhood, but no one heard any screaming. Mrs. Green, whose room overlooked the spot, was walking about her bedroom between 3 and a quarter past on the morning of the murder, but heard nothing. Henry Tomlinson, of 12 Coventry-st., Bethnal-green, a slaughterer in the employ of Mr. Barber, säid he was at work all night on Thursday. He started work between 8 and 9 on Tuesday night, and left off about 4:20 on Friday last. Witness after leaving the slaughter-house went to Buck's row with Police-constable Thain. There were two others besides himself who were at work in the slaughter-house — namely, James Mumford and Charles Britton. Witness and Britton left the slaughter-house at 12:30 and remained away until 1 a.m. None of them left afterwards until 4:20 on Friday morning. They were all quiet in the slaughter-house until 2 o'clock. The gates were all open. He heard no noise after he returned at 1 o'clock. He saw no one pass except the policeman a 4:15 a.m. There were several men and women in Whitechapelroad as be passed there at 1 o'clock on the morning in question. By the jury: He heard no vehicles pass the slaughter-house that morning when he returned at 1 o'clock. C. H. Cross, a carman, said that he left his home at 3:30 on Friday morning and passed through Brady-st. and Buck's row. When he got near the gate of the wool ware-house in Buck's row at about 3:45, he saw the figure of a woman on the opposite side ot the road. Just at this time he saw a man coming up the row, and he said to him, "Come and look over here ; here is a woman." They left together and met a constable near Hanbury-st. Witness said to him, "There is a woman lying down Buck's row on her back, and she looks to me as though she were dead." The other man said, "I believe she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and proceeded to the spot, and witness and the other man walked together to the top of Hanbury-st. The other man went down Corbett's court. He did not know him, but he appeared to be a carman. The evidence at the inquest did not, as it will be seen, throw any light on the mystery. But another desperate assault, which stopped only just short of murder, was committed upon a woman in Whitechapel on Saturday night. The victim was leaving the Foresters' music hall, Cambridge Heath road, where she had been spending the evening with a sea captain, when she was accosted by a well-dressed man, who requested her to walk a short distance with him, as he wished to meet a friend. They had reached a point near to the scene of the murder of the woman Nicholls, when the man violently seized her by the throat and dragged her down a court. He was immediately joined by a gang of women and bullies, who stripped the unfortunate woman of necklace, ear-rings and broach. Her purse was also taken, and she was brutally assaulted. Upon her attempting to shout for aid, one of the gang laid a large knife across her throat, remarking: "We will serve you as we did the others." She, was, however, eventually released. The police

had been informed, and are prosecuting inquiries into the matter, it being regarded as a probable clew to the previous tragedies. Up to the present time, however, no definite clew has been obtained, and meanwhile the terror in the neighborhood is, as might be expected, very great. "At every street corner," says a correspondent of the Daily News, "gossips cluster around anylody who could give the fullest particulars of the inquest, and the end of Buck's row, the spot on which the body had been found, is the scene of eager debate as to the possibilities of discovering the criminal. Groups of hardfeatured, sorrowful-looking women clustered together and bent over what they supposed to be the blood-stained paving-stones, and told strange stories of the difficulties credibly reported to be always experienced in obliterating the marks of human gore. One thin-faced, blue-eyed, little old man, who no doubt at some point in the three score and ten had on the stage seen Lady Macbeth trying to wash her hands of the life blood of King Duncan, and still retained some vague outlines of the story, recounted what he could remember as an actual historical fact. The narrative, distorted almost out of recognition, was listened to with the keenest interest, and was unhesitatingly accepted in corroboration of the general belief as to the ineradicable nature of blood stains." "People in the neighborhood seem very much divided in opinion," continues the same correspondent, "as to the probability of its being the work of one person or several. The women for the most part appear to incline to the lielief that it is a gang that has done this and the other murders, and the shuddering dread of being abroad in the streets after nightfall, expressed by the more nervous of them, is pitiable. 'Thank God! I needn't be out after dark,' ejaculated one woman. 'No more needn't I,' said another; 'but my two girls have got to come home latish, and I'm all of a fidget till they comes.' Very rarely has anything occurred even in this quarter of London that has created so profound a sensation, and seldom have the people in this part been so appalled by a sense of insecurity. There seems to be a prevalent confidence that the police are doing all in their power to

discover the criminal, but there is at least an equally general conviction that until this mysterious asassin is taken the neighborhood should have a stronger contingent of police for its protection. 'Life ain't no great things with many on us,' said one little woman, whose sprightly manner and rosy cherub face rather belied her pessimism, 'but we don't all want to be murdered, and if things go on like this it won't be safe for nobody to put their 'eads out 'o doors.' " * * * THE QUESTION ANSWERED.

Why Union Clfrarmakcrs Will Not Support Harrison and the Krpubllran'TickeU To the Editor Sir: The question is often sked: "Why is it cigannakers throughout the United States are so unanimously opposed to Mr. Harrison and the republican party in this campaign?" Can they wonder why the cigarmaker will not vote for Harrison, when," as a U.S. senator," he voted fourteen times aeaiiiBt their interest while battling with the Chii.ese ia the Western states; when they expended $200.000 of their hard-earned money to prevent a reductiou of wages from $15 to $3 per 1,000, caused by the importation of pauper Chinese laborers? Could we do otherwise than remember Ah Ben and his ilk for the misery they brought on our brothers and their families in those states wheu the heathen Chinese, whom they thought our equals, were the cause of losing some five to sevc-u hundred thousand dollars in wages to our craft, thus causing destitution in our ranks? Can we go soon lorget that only two years aso the Ci carmakers' union of America expended s?rt),Oii0 iu sendii gwhitf ciscarniakers to the Pacific: slop at the request ot" the manufacturers, to try and supplant the Chinese, and the majority of them were compelled to "heat their way hack" Kast the test way possible? Will a-iy fair-minded man wonder why the cigarmnkers can not e lpnort th? republican platform of lsss when they read the clause reeorumending "free whisky and free tobacco?' When the internal revenue is taken ofl of cigars, the white cigarmaker's occupation is gone, from the fact that it kills the usefulness of our little union label, and without the label we are powerless. After the internal revenue is taken off of cigars, tho packa-res they are put up in will not have t be destroyed. Then what is to prevent a manufacturer from employing all of the Chinese and scab lahor he wauts, and putting their work on the market in the old packages and under thi nniou lnble? It will create what is known in the trade as a "turn-in job." The manufacturer will give a workman a batch oT tobacco and toll hini the number of cigars he wants out of it, the workman to make them at home. This plau would work very wtll were it not for the great competition whi h would eventually pull the price so low tLfit nn American born workman would h n'e toicarfihe trade or starve. It would result in the abandonment of the trade to leprous Chinese, and to our worst enemy of to-day the tenement house. At the last convention of the cigar-makers' union we petitioned congress to nciruirb the internal reveuuc system, butm the 1 tae5 "of our petition the republicans embodied in their platform a clause pledging themselves to do the opposite of what we ad: d. l.i conclusion, would those people like for us to forget our principles and interests to vote for Ah IJen from the thin, transparent plea of state pride? They. should know by this time that the eicar makers' union of America is the true friend of all laborers, and that we have learned the great truth, '"that an injury to one is the concern of all." When Mr. Harrison raised tt company of militia in 1877 it was a direct stroke to us, for we oftm find it necessary to strike. When Mr. Harrison voted against the interests of labor which was every time an opportunity presented itself he voted against us. The cigar makers believe in, and are true to the teachings and principles of, organized labor, and cannot so far forget themselves as to support a party or man who will, whenever occasion oners, strike him down a9 if he was a common dos. Hen 1 KisTEtt. Corresponding Secretary L'niou 33. Indianapolis, Sept. I.V. Lie F.iualizntUn of Itounty VAU. To TlrEDiTOR Sir: Will you please give .me S'vne informal .15 to the pension bill pasc(4 and vetoed lv (ten. (J rant dnrintf bi administration. Was there not a bill which passed both branches of congress granting pensions to alt soldiers and vetoed by Grant because, as he said, it would bankrupt the country, and at the same time cheerfully accepted the fifty-thousand-dollar salary? I served three vears in the war and am for Cleveland nad Thurman. Old Soldi eil Iliehmond, Ind., Sept. 21. The bill to equalize the bounties of soldiers passed the house Feb. 13, 1S75. The senate parsed it March 2, with anietultnents, which tha house concurred in March 3. It was laid before the president on the same legislative day, together with the general appropriation bills, which he approved, but he withheld his signature from the bounty equalization bill. It being the last day of the Forty-ihird congress, the fourth calendar day of March, but the third legislative day, President Grant had no time to write a veto message and the bill received what is known in American parliamentary lansniage as a "pocket veto," or in other words failed to become a law for want of the president's signature. See senate and house journals, second session, Forty-third congress. Also Con'rrsional Globe of Feb. 13, 1S73, for text of bill. The salary act, better known as the snl iry grab, which increased all the federal onicers' salaries, including President Grant's own salary from $2"),(i0t) to $"0, "00, received his approval March 3, 1873. This act. with the exception of the clause fixing the president's salary, was repealed Jan. 22, l fi74. A Ileverrnd ISlntherskite. To tue Editor Sir: The "Rev." Ira J. Chase, the republican candidate for lieutenantgovernor of Indiana, addressed the republicans at their loj; cabin in this city on last Saturday nicht. As a local aflair, it was respectable iu numbers, but there was not much enthusiasm. The only thin? in the whole speech worthy of note was his special address to his lady hearers, nil of whom were supposed to he-republicans. He admonished those of them who bad husbands who might be disinclined to 50 to the polls on election day and vote the rcuublieaa ticket, to take down their pots and skillets and drive them ofl' to the polls. That, in an ordinary politician, might pass for a cheap piece of wit ; but coming from a "reverued" peullenian it sounds a tritle irreligious. On the Sabbath day (yesterday) he went into the pulpit of the Christian church and preached a sermon, and at nkdit another from the text, "What think you of Christ? ' After the sermon the hat was passed around to help on the caniaign. This morning he visited the establishment of Witham fc liowen, and siwok bauds with the wage-workers. "Great is Diana of Fohesis." J. OBLIXULR. Union City, Ir.d., Sept. 21. Dr. Itowman Declare for Cleveland. Smelhyville, 111., Sept. 2". Special. Dr. J. A. Ilowman, the leading dentist of this citj' end a life-long republican tip to the present time, is now an out atid out supporter of Cleveland, Thurman and tari;l' reform. The doctor has always been a student and a thinker and his studious disposition led him some months go to cive the laiifl'onestion a more thorough investigation than he has hitherto accorded to it. The result was as above stated. TiikSkxTINKL representative called upon the doctor to learn the truth of thee statements. In answer to the incredulous inquiry, ""l hey tell me that von arc now a democrat, doctor. U that so?" lie replied, "Yes sir, I am as sincerely in favor of taritt reform nn the oldest democrat in the lr.nd." He further said that he would contribute his vote and influence toward the election of Cleveland and Thurman. Ir. Ilowman was captain of the yoiine men's republican club of this city during the enmfriiru of 'S4. This action lias cuuvd not it ittle surprise and chagrin anions his former republican brethren w ho have long cousidered him "dyed in the wool." Tin und the Turin. To tiik Editor Sir: rlcas irform mo through th columns of your valuable paper, (1) What the present duty is on tin plate (new material); 1 2) what th duty is on Manufactured tin ware (if any), and (3) if any provision is mado for such in the Mills bill. Fisher, III., SepL 23. MnXKV KETCH CM. 1., One cent per pound. 2. Twenty-five per cent, ad valorem. 3. The Mills bill puts tin plates on the free list, and a duty of 40 per cent ad valorem ou tin ware

INDIANA AND TIIE TARIFF.

EXPERIENCE OF ONE HUNDRED YEARS ITow the Stnte Flourished I'nderthe Walker "Free Trade" Tariff and How She lias Since Lteeu Taxed to Make Tennsyl vaula and New Kngland Kich. If, as I have stated, the people of Indiana have been taxed to make the people of New England and Pennsylvania rich, there ought to be some way of proving it from the official records. There is, however, no period of free trada with which the various periods of taritT can be compared. The nearest we can come to this, which of course would be the most satisfactory comparison, is to compare periods of low protective tariff with periods of high protective tariff. The period which is distinctively known as the low-tariff period is from 1S-1G to 1SG0; the distinctive high-tariff period is from lSf!) to the present time. If then my proposition is correct, Indiana should have increased more rapidly in wealth, proportionately to the Eastern states, from 1SÖ0 to l&V) than from ISM to 1870, or 1S70 to 1 SSO. I concede this to be a fair test, and believe that any fair-minded investigator will do the same. It is, I believe, admitted by all American writers on political economy, except the HonfJohn M. Butler, that the decade 1850-1 W0 was one of remarkable prosperity. James G. Blaine, who is fairly entitled to be considered the chief in intellect among republican statesmen, concedes it to be true, but accounts for it by the discovery of gold in California, war in Europe and famine in Ireland. There is an air of plausibility in his argument as applied to the entire United States; but certainly there is no reason why the discovery of gold in California, and these other causes, should make Indiana increase in wealth more rapidly than Massachusetts and Pennsylvania any more than there is that the great discoveries of gold and silver since 1800 in Colorado, Montana, "Wyoming, Xeveda and Dakota should make Massachusetts and Pennsylvania gTow rich faster than Indiana. If the difference actually exists, as it must, if my proposition be correct, it must necessarily le due to the tariff. There is no other possible cause for it. The last census of the United States shows the increase of wealth per capita in the states mentioned, and for the periods mentioned, to be as follows:

lo-Vlij ISM). " 1870. I 1. i'i s&'sTUä'S.. - ? ; - g - -S.r; -13' - a .a Indiana .. j2 .!-' 91 ! 7.V,j 93 3 R50 12 Massachusetts. :," 62 V 14f.:t! 1.2Ü is-is 7 IYnnsvlvanin 313 47 .Vi! 1ftl j l.'Jtl ' 12-'Q M

If vou will reflect for a moment you will see that there is one element of unfairness in this table to both protectionists and anti-protectionists. The advance from 18(10 to 1870 is represented in the beginning in a normal currency and at the close in a depreciated currency ; while trom 1870 to 1SS0 the r verse is true, the figures for 1S70 being in depreciated currency and those for 1SS0 in normal currency. The latter makes an unfair showing'for the protectionists and the former for their opponents. We shall come nearer the truth, therefore, if we take one-half of the advance from 18 jO to 1880 as the average advance of the lart two decades. Py this method it appears that Indiana advanced fl per ;cent., Massachusetts 15, 1111 JL VIIli7VI,cH.I.. X U n UCOMIO OI JOff v . .. . . ' tarnl; while, on the average, in each of' the two decades of high tariff Indiana advanced öS per cent., Massachusetts OS nor cent., and Pennsylvania 79 per cent. This demonstrates the proposition ; but it may be asked why Indiana increased more than Massachusetts and Pennsylvania from 1S50 to 18H, when there was a tariff, though it was a iow one. The reason is the difference in population. Indiana increased '.' per cent, in population during that decade, Pennsylvania 2 per cent., and Massachusetts 34 per cent. Now an increase of population adds more to the wealth of a large state, like Pennsylvania, or a new state like Indiana, than to a small and old state like Massachusetts, because a large part of the increase in wealth is the advance of lands. If 1,000 inhabitants bo added to the city of Boston the value of city lots will l anlly be affected; but if 1,hi0 inhabitants !e"ndded to a new county in Indiana, or to any farming region, it will cause a material increase in the value of land. It may also be suggested that there was some particular cause why Indiana should have advanced in this way, and that the proposition would not hold true with other states. There is no room whatever for such an explanation. The rule will hold good in any comparison of agriculaural states with manufacturing states. If we tako our neighbors, Illinois and Ohio, for examples, we find that they prove it with even greater clearness than Indiana, for Ohio increased 100 per cent, in per capita wealth from 1SÖ0 to l.M), and only an average of 4'.) per cent, in the two deeades succeeding; while Illinois increased 178 per cent, in the first decade and only 52 per cent in the last two. Here, again, is a difference iu rates of increase, which is due partly to population, and partly to the fact that with the buildingof railroads the prairie lands of Illinois were more quickly brought under cultivation than the wooded lan. Is of Ohio and Indiana, and consequently rose in value more rapidly. While these official statistics demonstrate that tire tariff is constantly enriching the manufacturing states at the expense of the agricultural states, they do not make the case as strong as it actually is, for the reason that the apparent wealth of Indiana is much greater than its true wealth. Take, for instance, tho item of railroads. Tho total valuation of railroad property for Indiana in lSSO was $V244,820, but how much cf this is owned in Indiana? I know of but one railroad that enters the state which has a controlling interest owned in Indiana and that is tho Terre Haute A. Indianapolis railroad, controlled by Mr.W. K Mckeen. There may be some small lines owned, or partially owned, here, but it is notorious that all the main lines are owned by outside parties and usually by Eastern men. If we estimate the entire amount owned in Indi-tna at 5.000,000, which is vervlileral, we should etill have $25 per capita (our population in ISfsO was l,07,."0l) of our stated wealth which is not in fact our wealth at all. A still greater reduction should ba inade for the mortgages on Indiana lauds in favor of non-residents. The total land valuation ot the state (assessed) . in 1SS0 wa ?.-:iV 0S'J,L':, and if the amount of mortgage indebtedness should be put at one-tenth of this sum, which is a very low estimate, wo would take another $25 per capita from the official figures. In addition to private indebtedness we have a public debt of about $25,in H),0tK (state and local) which calls for a further reduction of $12.50. When it is remembered that these railroads and debts are nearly all held by Eastern capitalists, it M ill be seen that our growth n compared with the' manufacturing states is very unsatisfactory incte.Hl. Perhaps tho worst feature of this accumulation of wealth in the Eastern states r.t our expense i3 that there is nothing like a fair dittribution of the wealth when it gets there. If half or two-thirds of Mr. Carne

gie's annual income of -$1,500,000 were divided among his 7,500 employes there might be some slight satisfaction in the thought that Indiana's burdens were doing some good for a considerable portion of bur fellow-citizens; but it must be cold comfort for an Indiana farmer to read the descriptions of this gentleman's castle in England, or his stage-coach jaunt with Mr. Blaine, and then reflect that he is helping to support Mr. Carnegie by paying a tax on every article of iron or steel that he uses. Still greater must his disgust be when be reads the telegram that Mr. Carnegie has cut bis men's wages 10 per cent, as he did this year, and that the men have struck on account of it, "Protection to American labor!" "Why, the labor in the great protected industries is practicallj' on a par with the "pauper labor" of England, now. Listen to the highest protectionist authority on this question. In his "Report on the Cotton Goods Trade," in 1881, Mr. James G. Blaine says: The wages of pplnners and weavers in Lancashire and in Massachusetts, according to the foregoing statements, were as follows, per week: Spinners: English, $7.20 to $.40 (master spinners running as high as $l2j; American, $-7.07 to 10.30. Weavers: English, $3.S4 to $8.74, subject, at the date on which these rates were given, to a reduction of 10 per cent.; American, to $8.73. The average wj?es of employes in theMassa chusetts mills is an follows, according to the official returns: Men, $8.30; women. $5.62; male children, fill ; female children, fXOS. According to Consul iShaw's report, the average wages of the men employed in the Lancashire mills on the 1st of January, lSJ, was about $3.00 per week, subject to a reduction of 10 percent.; women f;om $3.40 to $1.30, subject to a reduction of 10 per cent. The hours of labor in the Lancashire mills are fifty-six; in the Massachusetts mills sixty per week. The hours oi labor in the nulls in the other New. England states, where the wages are generally Jess than in Massachusetts, are usually 6ixty-six to sixty-nine per week. Undoubtedly the inequalities in the wages of England and American operatives are more than equalized by the greater efiieiency of the latter and their longer hours of labor. And now these manufacturers tell us that if the tariff on cotton goods is reduced less than 1 per cent, (the exact reduction of the Mills bill is 92 cents in $100) they will have to reduce their laborers to the level of the "pauper labor" of England. Reduce Mr. Blaine's figures to the rate of wages per hour, and eee if they will not in some cases have to raise their employes' wages to get them to the English standard. It is like the republican proposition to ''revise the tariff so as to check imports." It can be done only by advancing the rate. Pennsylvania is even worse than New England. There is no part of the Union that shows such contrasts of immense wealth and pitiful poverty as itdos. How does that state compare with England? I will let Mr. John Jarrett tell in the following extract from his testimony before the senate committee on labor and capital, Sept 6, 1883: You say their condition is pitiable and miserable. How much so is it? It is because the wages of coal miners are too low. They are illy paid. Then, too, they suffer from the truek system. Under that system they pay 100 per cent, more for what they buy than our people do. Then the houses they live in are extremely miserable. If I feel particularly for any branch of labor in this country it is for the poor coal miner. He risks his life day after day for a mere pittance. Every time he departs from the light of day he does not know whether he will ever see it again. And, while in some branches it does not require much skill to be a miner, in others it does, and I think the coal miner ought to be better paid, better clothed, better housed and better fed than he is. Have you been among the English miners? Yes, sir; and from my experience among the miners in England J may say that they are really better cared for than are the coal miners in the United States. Do you mean that thjr have more comfort during the year? f Yes, sir. Then the trucll system has been entirely wiped out there; the men are getting their money every week. I presume no one will doubt Mr. Jarrett's orthodoxy on the tariff question, as it is commonly understood that he is now in Indiana trying to manipulate the lahor vote in the interest of Mr. Harrison. He certainly has had ample opportunity for investigating the subject on which ho speaks. Almost as wretched a state of affairs exists in the coal mines of Indiana. The wages of the men (owing to the fact that in order to keep up the price of coal the mines are so worked as to give them but 220 days work in a year) average less than SI a day. And these owners and operators of coal mines desire only to protect American labor also. Do you remember what they did last winter? Do you remember bow you paid f S a ton for coal ? Do you remember how, in order to make you pay that sum, these Pennsylvania coal barons shut down their mines and threw their wretched laborers out of work entirely? When some one bands you a card bearing a E.ritish flag and some forced statements falsely said to have been taken from English newspapers, just remember these things, and then vote to "protect" these unfortunate American laborers by keeping up the prices of their clothing and other necessaries of life, if you wish to. These coal barons are paying for such cards. The fat is being tried out of them. J. P. Pcxx, Jr. A Review of the Trusts. Ilere is a list of some of the trusts that exist in the United States in consequence of high tariff: 1. The Steel rail trust, buttressed by a tariff tax of $17 per ton. 2. The Nail trust, by a tariff tax of $1.25 per 103 pounds. 3. The Iron nut and washer tru?t, by a tax of $2 per I0 pounds. 4. The llarbed fence wire trust, by a tax of CO cents per HX pound?. 5. The Copper trust, by a tax of $2.50 per 100 pounds. 6. The Lead trust, by a tax of 1.50 per 100 pounds. 7. The Slate pencil trust, by a tax of 30 per cent 8. The Nickel trust, by a tax of $15 per 103 pound. 9. The Zinc trust, by a tax of 52.50 per 100 pounds. 10. The Sugar trust, by a tax of $2 per 100 pounds. 11. The Oilcloth trust, by a tax of 40 per cent. 12. The Jute bag trust, by a tax of 40 per cent, 13. The Cordage trust, by a tax of 30 per cent. 14. The Taper envelope trust, by a tax of 25 per cent. 15. The Gutta pereha trust, by a tax of 35 per cent. IS. The Castor oil trust, by a tax of SO cents per pallon. 17. The Linseed oil trust, by a tax of 23 cents per gallon. IS. The Cottonseed oil trust, by a tax of 25 cents per gallon. 10. The Itorax trust, by a tax of $5 per 100 pounds on borax and horacie acid, $8 per 1H) pounds on crude borax and borate lime, and per 10O pounds on commercial boraeic acid. 20. The Ultramarine trnst, by a tax of $5 per 100 pounds. (letting Tired oi Joe. NOBLESVILLE, Sept, 26V Special. The republicans ore Rettini very tired of their congressman, the Hon. Joseph II. Cheadle. His recent action toward the gallant Phil Sheridan's widow has done him incalculable injury in this district The following paper is being circulated and signed by republicans exclusively: To t ti Hon. Joseph B. ChcaUlc, M. C, Whirn;tou, 1). O. : We, th undemiene-l republlf a- Tolfrs of H.vniltu omiotr, Indiana, rprft to learn ( your po-itlon on ibe tulijec-t ol pensions to the widows of tfie hrae an 1 ?:Ilaut P'-ncra!, Jvhn A. Ipau anl l'lul II. hherilau. We know that the grt service of tlirs men in the hour of the republic's i-orll tlotuand at the haml of Uio Amnilcan cnros alt the bills prorid tor tholr niUiw anj more. Your (.itiiu is a ndropre-eitalioiTof t!,e lral, prtrlotic ami sonorous st'iitinnMit' of your constituents. Wo, o! t!i Ninth Indiana dis'trnt. deiiianil a withdrawal of rour otijoi t;ouivU these two bills that they way becum laus.

FISIIBACK OX TIIE TARIFF.

HOT SHOT FOR MONOPOLY TAXERS.

How the Law For Tfhich Harrison Voteitf' llroke Down the Steel Rail Industry la ' Indianapolis "I'rotrrtinc Pnnylvania at the Expense of Indiana. ' M

Hon. Stanton J. Teele: Tbe law by wbich yon impofe an increased duty on imported steel bloomf bears harder upon the steel rail mills ol x tbe Weet than I thought when I wrote you last I have been informed by a railroad builder that he can buy steel rails of the Pennsylvania monopoly for per ton. . Tbe increased tax wbicb yon put upon blooms, simply to favor that monopoly, makes tbe blooms cost in the yard of our rail mills here in Indianapolis $.17 per ton. I ppent an hour recently in going through that mill, w hich has been put in running order at an expense of several hundred thousand dollars. The ponderous machinery is in splendid condition, skilled workmen are ready for service, there is a home market for steel rails, but your law Bays not a rail sball be rolled in Indianapolis. Our republican national platform of 1 SSO says: We reaffirm the belief avowed in 1S76 that the duties levied for the purpose of revenu should bo discriminate as to favor American labor. Is tbe labor employed in Johnstown, Ta., American labor, and the labor-seeking employment in an Indianapolis rail mill foreign lalor? It would seem so, for - ' you have deliberately shut our Indiana mills, and have told railroad builders to go to Pennsylvania and buy their rails. I say you did this deliberately, because you never yet confessed, what was probably true, that you gave an ignorant vote for a measure which inflicts such injustice . upon your immediate constituents. The fact is the republican party mnst call a halt and consider whether Mr. Morrill, Mr. Sherman and Mr. Kellry anj safe leaders in this matter of tbe tariif. Whatever happens to Indiana, or other parts of the country, you will observe that these gentlemen ?o" manipulate every tariff enactment that it put more monev into the plethoric pockets of their constituents at tbe expense of tbe public. I do not wonder that Mr. Kelley accomplishes so much since I have been toM tbat he accepts or'ice with the distinct understanding tbat the business of peddling offices in his district is to be committed to other hands. Tbe roster of department clerks appointed at his solicitation in smaller than yours, but you may be sure that if he were representing the Indianapolis district the machinery of our steel rail mill would not be rusting for want of use. Tho republican party must learn to resist the pressure of Mr. Kelley and hia Pennsylvania lobby. They care nothing for the party when it can not be used to make money for Pennsylvania manufacturers at the expense of other states. It matters not what issue is before the country. Mr. Kelley never makes a stumpv, speech in congress or out which is not full of his peculiar tariff notions. When President Johnson was trying to force his "policy" upon us, and republic- -. ans in tbe North were fearing that the fruits of the war woull be frittered away by concessions to the South, Mr. Kelley made a tour through the southern states and was in thj South when the celebrated riots occurred in Mobile. He went home by way of Indianapolis and was prevailed upon to stay and make a public address here. A brass band was hired to parade the streets with

the announ iment that the Hon. H llliam D. Kelley Auid deliver art ldre. at Mo risou's oiv ra hone, 'I- :e p'tu :jsfw packed witli a throng of anxious teople wüo came to hear Irom an eye-witnes what was going on in Alabama and what did they hear? A harangue of two hours al)Out beet-root sugar. Iloosiers were told by this statesman that the soil and climate ol Indiana were unfit for the cultivation of wheat; tbat Texas, Georgia and Minnesota were better wheat states, and that the only course left for our farmers was raise beets, convert them into sugar and trade the sugar for Pennsylvania windowglass, shingle nails, etc. This is the statesman who frames the taritT measure foi"' which you and your colleagues vote. He it was who directed you to vote for a duty on steel blooms which closes the steel rail mills in Indiana and elsewhere and you obeyed him. . What is most needed in our party now is a spirit of resistance to this tyranny. We are tired of seeing sensible senator and congressmen led about by the nose to do the bidding of such men. You know they care nothing for the party, unless it serves their selfish purposes. Senator Conger threatens to oppose the party if it puts timber on the free list. Senator Sherman threatened to defeaJL -tbe whole tariff legislation of last session unless the senate o!cyed the commands of the iron masters, and the party basely knuckled to such insolence. I say I am tired of it, and others are getting tired.. The phrase "protection for American labor" pounds well, but it is very hollow if our tariff laws are to be looked' to as an indication of its meaning. What I am trying to show you is that such legislation as we are considering is oppressive and not protective. Its effects upon the shoemakers of this country are curious and instructive. The world knows that American shoemakers are the best in the world. Their wares are exported in large quantities. By the tariff law you hi've fhut them out of som of the best market of the world, and luve enabled their foreign competitors to undersell them. This is bow it came about. In warn countries, in South America 2vn elsewhere, there is a large demand for shoes made of light stock. Our native leathers are too heavv for thcra and it is necessary to import the- material used by our shoemakers in manufacturing the goods for this trade. What have vou done? You tax serges and lasting Sö per cent. Y'ou tax kii skins !.' per cent. The cottons, nails, tacks, buttons and thread used in making the shoes are taxed, and the iron used in making the machinery necessary for shoemaking is also heavily taxed. Now, it is easy to see that foreign manufacturers of shoes who get these materials free of duty are enabled to undersell American shoemakers, or compd them to sell f r such prices m require them to reduce t'.io daily wages of American workmen. Mr. Howard M. Xewhall, a shoe manufacturer of Lynn, Mass., stated to a committee of -tbe legislature of that state last winter that: "A removal of duty from all articles used in the manufacture of a shoe would be an advantage to the employer andemplovcd; it is hardly necessary to say that to lessen the co.t of shoe-making material will also IkmicIU home consumer. wh would gel shoes at lower prices than they now pay." So, little by little, I nm trying to sho you the hypocrisy of the pretense of protection by men who frame laws which oppress American manufacturers, laborer and consumers. When you protect any lody it is some giant home monoply of the "proprietors of ioreign industries who are crippling our foreign commerce. W. P. PtSUEAt K. On of the Campai-n L,ir. To THE rniTOIt Sir: The republican hrf are industriously circulating on the kly am' the aoldiiT that John I'.lack will le rmoj in the event ot v levciana s election, ir can't find liea that are too contcmtitiMc ty the oll nolrtiera. Warrea, lad, JJept. '23,

I

V

t , -