Indiana State Sentinel, Indianapolis, Marion County, 4 May 1892 — Page 9

I PÄGES 9 TO 12. J

SECOND PART. 0 ESTABLISHED 1821. INDIANAPOLIS, WEDNESDAY MORNING, MAY 4. 1892-TWELYE PAGES. ONE DOLL Alt PEU YEAR.

(SI !it3'

qI

TWO GOOD NOMINATIONS I MADE BY INDIANA DEMOCRATS Representative Jason B. Brown Renominated at North Vernon-He Makes an Able Address to His Constituents The Republican Party Vigorously Arraigned for Its Sins McNagney Wins in the Twelfth. North Vernon, Ind., April 26 Special. The democratic congressional convention held here today was a grand affair. Every county of the district was fully represented. The Hon. Jason B. Brown was nominated by acclamation. His speech of acceptance was the feature of the day. It was a full and comprehensive analysis of the prominent issues of the day. His discussion of the tariff was exceptionally strong and his discussion of reciprocity and free sugar was far beyond the expectation of anyone and was loudly applauded by the entire convention. On the currency question he was unusually strong, placing the democratic party on solid ground. He declared for the free coinage of both gold and silver on terms of perfect equality, and for legal tender paper money issued by the government convertible into coin In sufficient quantities to answer the demands of the people. Mr. Brown's speech was a great plea in favor of labor and the agricultural interests, and will have a strong tendency to discourage third party organizations. His strength has always existed, as it now does, with the laboring and agricultural people, being unusually strong in the farming districts. There can be no doubt of his election. Mr. Brown spoke aa follows: Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention I am without words to fully express my sincere feelings of gratitude and thankfullness for the great honor you have done me by again nominating me as the democratic candidate for the office of representative in congress from this district. For this manifestation of approval of in my official conduct, I will always held the democracy of this district in grateful remembrance, and with renewed zeal and vigor I will put forth my best efforts to aid our party the great party of the people in accomplishing a great victory at the coming election, a victory without which the dearest interests of the people and the progress of the whole country will be impeded. The approaching canvass, and the issues involved in it. are not new to the people of this country. The contest is again to be waged by the democratic party to secure equality and justice for all the people, and that the duties and obligations of government shall be borne by all alike, and that the government, in the exercise of its great powers and functions, shall not intervene between different clauses of its citizens and their different business industries and enterprises, and favor one or more to the hinderance and injury of others. One of the prime objects of our constitution as expressed in its introductory part is to "establish justice." There can be no justice in a government whose laws co not treat all of its citizens with perfeot equality and fairness. j Tim Tariff. The greatest burden that rests npon the people of any government is the burden of taxation. It is a necessary burden, and when the government imposes it on all alike, in proportion to their ability to bear it, no good citizen will complain. The exercise of the taxing power is from necessity arbitrary, and the only method which can be employed in its exercise which will protect all the people from injustice and wrong is to require that it be restricted strictly to public purposes; and that the taxes no matter what the form of taxation may be derived therefrom, shall be applied solely to purposes of good government. That the object and purpose of levying and collecting taxes shall be confined strictly to governmental use. and not be combined with a purpose and desire to aid and assist private enterprises. That such is the system of taxation intended by Ihe founders of our government, is plainly written in our constitution which provides: "The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts, and provide tor the common defense and general welfare of the United States." The taxes so levied and collected are, by the very words of the constitution, to pay the debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; not to pay the debts, or provide for the common defense, or general welfare of some of the citizens of the United States. Gen. Jackson said : "Congress has no right under the constitution to take money from the people unless it be required to execute some one of the specific powers intrusted to the government, and if they raise more money than is necessary for such purposes it is an abuse of the power of taxation and unjust and oppressive." Hence it is that the power of taxation, the power to take from the citizen his moneys, is limited not only to purposes of government, but the amount to be taken is restricted to what the government actually needs. Mr. Justice Miller not very long ago, in delivering an opinion of the supreme court of the United State, said: "To lay with one band the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprise and build up private fortunes is none the less robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation; it is a decree under legislative form: nor is it taxation; beyond a cavil there can ne no lawful taxation which is not laid for public purposes." It is strange that any party can exist in our land who uses the federal taxing power not for public uses and public purposes, but for private gain and peculation.

no sooner had the republican party come into possession of both branches of congress and the presidency than it entered upon a premeditated scheme to divert our tax laws from being the means of raising revenue for economical government purposes, and to use them as a means of gratifying the thirst of cormorants for greed and gain. The taxing power of the government in the hands of the republican party has been bartered for money to selfish owners of protected industries with which to corrupt the vote; to keep that party in power. The result is our laboring and producing people have had the burden to carry until labor and agricultural life are almost prostrate. The republican party, emboldened with its success in the past, no longer seeks to conceal its dishonest purpose, but it now boldly declares that it levies and collects tariff taxes for protection's sake. Its platform of 1888, on which President Harrison was elected, expressly declared: "We are uncompromisingly in favor of the American system of protection. The protective system must be maintained." To maintain the protective system the Fiftyfirst congress, which convened in December after the inauguration of President Harrison, passed the McKinley tariff law the present tariff act by which tariff taxes are fixed at an average rate of 60 per cent. There was no need of an increase of tariff taxes to increase the revenue, for when the democratic administration on the preceding 4th of March surrendered the affairs of government to its republican successor there was almost $100,000.000 of surplus moneys la the public treasury which had been accumulated under a republican tariff of an average duty of 47 per cent. But it was said that the McKinley bill should be passed to reduce the revenue for the purpose of preventing an accumulation of a surplus in the treasury. That the revenue has been reduced, there is no doubt, for the surplus is gone. It went to pay tbe expenses of the billion dollar congress. The process by which the revenue was to be

reduced was to increase the duty on foreign article, and their importation would lie lessened. The reduction of the revenue by such a process could do the people no good

whatever, but would do them infinite harm. A high duty on imported merchandise increases the price of such merchandise to the consumer. The domestic producer of like merchandise, or articles, will fix a price on the same approximating that of the imported merchandise. Thus it is that a high tariff increases the cost of all consumable articles to the consumer, no matter whether they are produced at home or abroad. The people of the United States consume annually so much manufactured products no matter whether our importations are large or small. Therefore a reduction of the revenue by increasing the tariff so as to diminish importations lays an additional burden on the masses of the people by increasing the cost to them of consumable articles; and at the same time it lines the pockets of the domestic producer of such articles with money, because it has enabled him to increase the price of his productions without having been put to any additional expense in producing and marketing them. The revenue received on dutiable goods during the last fiscal year was nearly $220,000,000. This large sum of money was eventually paid by those who consumed these dutiable imports. From the best information obtainable it is safe to estimate that the American people consume at least five times us much of the domestic as they do of the foreign article. Therefore, if, as is already shown, the tarill increases the prk-e to the consumer of the foreign article 0,0A aunually it increases the price of the domestic article to the consumer live tunes that amount, viz, Sl.lOO.OuO.l.'OO annually, whioh goes into the pockets of ilomentie manufacturers. But the monster iniquity of this amaz.nz scheme is that the tarill is laid hig.iet on the plain, common necessaries of life, which the laboring, poorer and middle classes are compelled to hare, thereby casting the great weicht of the burden on those wno are least able to bear it. The truth is the .McKiu'.ey bid was not passed so much to reduce! the revenues of the government as it was to increase the revenues of insolent corroorants and republican rascals, that they might give liuanoial aid and assistance to the republican party, ami that the people should be compelled in this indirect way to assist in contiuuiug that party in power. Lubnr nnd A'noulturr. But it is insisted by the advocates of a protective tariff that such a tari.T builds up tha diversified industries of the couutry and increases the wages paid for lal.or. Also, that it restricts our foreign trade, and thereby creates a home market for our agricultural people, which gives them an increased price for their productions. Thexe claims of the republican party are found to be la lee in lact when wc view the present condition of labor and agriculture. What industry protected by the fostering care of the McKinley bill has increases the wage earnings of a single employe? What agricultural product, either at borne or abroad, sells for a better or a higher price than it did before the passage of the MoKiniey bill? The answer to these questions and the present condition of our laboring and agricultural people show conclusively, that a protective tariff does not benefit either lator or agrioulmre, but that it is a positive injury to both, because it increases the price of every article that the laboring and agricultural people are compelled to consume. It is claimed by the false prophets ot the republican party that a protective tarill is necessary to enable the employers of labor to pav the laboring people the dillercnce in wages paid here above what is paid for the same service abroad. A protective tariff does not measure the price paid for labor. If it did the price paid would be tho same the country over where protection exists. Yet the fact is that in our own country, where the McKinley bill prevails, there is no uniformity of price paid the working people, in the Bast, whicn embraces tbe greater part of our protected industries, lest wages are paid than those paid in unprotected industries, and much less than those paid in the middle, western and far western states. If the McKinley bill makes high wages in Oresou, Colorado and California, it ought to make high iitici in Maine, Massachusetts nod Bhnde Isiaud. If a proteetivo tnritl makes high wages here, why does it not aUo make high wages in I'uasia, Italy, Franoe, J-'pain and Germauy, all of whom lire Iii li protective countries but are paying the meanest and lowest wanes on earth? There is co country in Europe where protection prevails that pays as hih waces as do-s England, a practically free trade country. Governor McKinley, the author of the McKiuley bill, during bis campaign last year for the governorship of Ohio, in a public speech at Akron iu that state, stated: "Protection can not lix the price of wages any r.'ure than it can tlx the price of a commodity. It sometimes seems as if men in the.r greed to gtt rich fail to leaven their prosperity with the teachings of the golden rule, and on erery pretext cut the wages of their laborers." It is a demonstration that the entire labor cost of the product of our protected industries does not reach -0 per cent, of the entire cost of that product. Yet ou the false and hypocritical plea of protection to labor, the McKinley bill was passed which carries an average protective tarill of 00 per cent. It pays back the capital side of the protected industries all their labor cost, and gives them -U per cent, extra. The only laborers the .McKinley bill protects are the poor, sickly, down-trodden monopolists and millionaires who own the business, not tte men, women and children who do the work. The McKinley bill, the very embodiment of protection, excludes the products of cheap labor from abroad, but it doea not prohibit cheap laborers couiin here in violation of lav, and competing with our own laboring people, thereby debasing and degrnding tha compensation paid for labor here. The Italian, Scandinavian, Chinese, and indeed the lowest and cheapest lr.hor classes of all Furope are brought here by the owners of protected establishment, and are put to work in competition with our working meu and women. Such conditions are in part the reasons why the owners of protected industries amass colossal fortunes, while labor does not receive its just reward. The Illinois state federation of labor recently held a great meeting and on this subject said: "The year 1391, with its bountiful harvests, witnessed increased dullness in miny callings and an increased army of unemployed wageearners. e e "Unscrupulous employers scour Europe and import, in violation of law, the victims of ignorance and misrule." On tins subject i can best express myself by quoting a psragraph or two from the vry abltf j and eloquent speech delivered in the home of representatives on the ;Mstday of Inst mouth I by the lion. J. De Witt Warner of New York. He said: "I have already referred, sir, to the example, blossoming inu beauty while this discussion is pending, of how the McKinley act, having helped its author and beneficiaries to greater profits Las also enabled them to cut the wages of their employes. "The labor question, Mr. Speaker, is one in which I feel a peculiar interest. In the first place, sir, I come from a district which in the amount of wages paid for skilled labcr each year, and in the extent and variety of its industries, is perhaps the greatest manufacturing district in the United States; more thau that, I come from a district whee there is perhaps a more thorough organization of skilled labor on an intelligent and independent basis thau in any other district in the United States. "Ihe wsge-earners there, sir, are perfectly well aware of what there is in this larifi matter. They know perfectly well what it means. They see a ship coming in, opposite the street in which they live, and from it coming, without any duty, the men vhotn their employers can hire to take their places free trade in flesh and blood. At the sane time they see on the decks of that sL.p goods they want, but are not allowed to buy nntil tbey have bean through the custom house, in order to make them take the alternative of buying foreign goods at higher prices or paying an additional bonus to their employers. And they bave sent me her, by a majority of between ,000 and 9,000, to say to my colleagues in congress aad to wage-earners all over the land that they do not want any protection. All they want is a free field and no favor, and the same right and privilege to buy whatever tbey need wherever tbey can get it cheapest as their employer bow has to buy the labor that crowds hither, duty free, from foreign nations. "They are not afraid of fair competition, sir. They are ready to meet it from any quarter. What they demand, however, is fair treatment. Jx4na-daniaai.itkth cLaflOf to Ml L iill

money value of their wages, and not to be compelled to expend them at the great national pluck-roe-store of tbe protected industries that our tariff has built to fleece them." On the 4;h day of this month the democratio house of representatives passed a bill "to absolutely prohibit the coming of Chinese into the United States." Almost every democrat present, I among the number, voted for the bill, while the republicans voted against iL Yet the republican party professes to be the friend o! labor. Hera Marknt. The claim made that the McKinley bill is beneficial to the farmer because it creates for him a home market, or for any other reason, is as false and hypocritical as the o'aim that it benefits our laboring classes is. Agriculture is the basis of civilized life everywhere. Everything else is dependent upon iL It is not only tue hope, but it is the very life and soul of our country. Therefore, if in any possible case the government could be excused for intervening in favor of an industry, it would be tor doing

so in favor of agriculture. A protective tarid cot only increases the cost of living to the farmer by increasing the price of all commodities be consumes, no matter whether he buys the domestic or the imported article, but it a so increases the expense of the conduct of his business by increasing the price of all implements and machinery he uses, and giving him r.o corresponding increase of price for his mar ketable products. It absolutely cheapens the price of his products. The cry that a home market is beneficial to the farmers certainly will not longer deceive our agricultural people. There are three times at least ns many people in tha United States enlaced in unprotected occupations as there are those who are engaged in protected occupatioLs. There is a much greater number of people engaged iu farm lite than there are those who are engaged iu the protected industries for whose benefit ihe McKinley bill was passed. The asricu'tural people, because cf their large nu m her, can furnish a profitable market for the productions of manufacturers. Hut there are not enough manufacturers, including all of those who are associated with them iu business, to furnish a market for the products of our farmers. For the year 1 '.' I our agricultural exports were nearly $731,000,0H. After fully supplying ;the home market demand, after having made provision for all of our own people, this vast amount ot Inrni and field surplus productions found ita way into European markets, r.nd went tar toward paying our import account. Without this vast agricultural surplus we c uld not pay our import account, without withdrawing from ourselves almost every dollar of gold and silver money we possess. It is the farmers' surplus that finds its way ss best it can to foreign markets thnt saves our country from bankruptcy and ruin, and yet the republican party says restrict our farmers products to ice American market. And when the republican party is told of our large annual agricultural exportations, and that they are certainly increasing, it says that a protective tariff will exclude agricultural imports and widen and enlarge the American market for the American farmer. This it says in spite of the fact that we have practically no agricultural imports. Wo export annuaily millions of bushels of wheat, oats, oorn, and other field produots. We export millions of pounds of beef, pork, breadstuff's, and other agricultural productions. These things go abroad because our own market is not lare euoiizh to consume them. TLey must either go abroad for sale or waste and decay on the farmers' hands. Whoever heard of foreign countries exporting to the United StAtes beef, pork, corn, wheat, onts, hay, breaJatulls, live animals or ether agricultural productions to help supply tbe American market? Whoever heard of the price of American agricultural productions bein regulated in the American market by agricultural productions imported from abroad? No one. The price of our agricultural productions in our markets is regulated by the irrevocable law of supply and demand; and the supply being greater than the demand, low prions follow. Cut o'f your foreign mntket and the supply will largely ina case, causing still lower prices, and eventually the death of agricultural life. Our surplus agricultural productions sold in foreign markets represent in a measure so much American labor. And they are not sold in protected, but unprotected, markets. The American farmer's surplus comes in direct competition with the cheapeet paid .labor in the world. It comes iu competition with the ignorant and poorly paid labor of India, Bussia, Italy and the South American states. It cotues in competition with the pauper libor of all Europe, and yet the American farmer is asked to gulp down the McKinley bill as the panacea to cure all his ills. I here appropriate the words of the Hon. Josish Patterson of Tennessee uttered in congress on the 10. h day of last month as further expressing my opinion on this subject. He said: "Whatever restricts importations restricts the foreign market, and the farmers are not only robbed under this system by having to pay an enormous tax on the necessaries of life, whether purchased from the importer or the manufacturer of this country, as 1 have already explained, but thev aro forced to sell at low prices in the foreign market because ot the restraints which this system plsces on trade. We may here and there curtail an appropriation bill, we may resort to this or that devioe, but as long as this nefarious system of indirect taxation and robbery continues to exist, agriculture will not and cannot prosper. Its decadence began with the system and nothing will restore ita prosperity hut ita abrogation. The farmer needs no nostrums, he needs no props to sustain him, and he haa no favors to ask. Untrammel him, turn hirn loose, let him have justice, not as a boon, but as a God-givsn rght, and be will not complain, but will grow in strength, happiness, aud prosperity." Free Sugar, It is being constantly thrown in our ears that sugar is cheap, and that it is made so by the MoKinley bill. It is tr..e that by placing raw sugar all below No. 16 Dutch standard of color ou tbe free list, the price of sugar has materially declined. Formerly the tarill on sugai brought the government annually about $äfi,0o0,000 of of revenue. It was almost a pure revenue tax. By taking the duty otf ot raw sugar the government loses that amount of money, and the price of sugar is cheapened, which conclusively proves that the tarill is a tax. But the augar made free by the McKinley bill is not a consumable sugar. It is a coarse brown sugar, full of impurities, and is seldom on sale. The sugar substantially used by all classes of consumers is white, granulated aud other sugars which have goue through some refining process, on whicn the duty still remains. All cleansed and refined sugars of a higher grade than No. 10 are still dutiable. We have two enormous sugar refineries in this 0 uutry, Claus Sprecklea' aud the sugar trust, who substantially control the price of all sugars sold in America. For their benefit tbe McKinley hill put a taritf tax on imported refined sugar huh enough to enable these two refining establishment! to receive a bounty annually of $10 per ton on their refined sugar, and the power to control the American market and make for themselves millions annually. Tbe McKinley bill furnishes them raw sugar, all ' below No. Id duty free, aud gives them a tantf on it after they refine it. They refine it, and put it ou the market for consumers r.t a price low enough to almost exclude foreign refined sugar from our market and make a pro lit of more than 15,000,000 annually. The reason why refined sugar has beeti made cheaper to the consumer is because our re liner j. by the McKinley bill, have been furnished the raw material duty free. So it would ba with other manufacturers if the raw material was made free of dnty. But to give protection to a few people in this country who ore trying to produce sugar, nota bly in Louisiana, the McKinley bill gives a bounty to be paid oat of a public treasury of Irom f 10.uo.out to ilL'.OU'J.OOO annually. Ihe outrage of this ia mnuifeat to every one. What right had congress to say that the people's cash box should pay bounties to sugar producers any more than it bad to cay that the people's cash box should pay bounties to persons engaged in other pursuits? It had and has no right to do so in either case. But the McKinley bill had in some way to make np for the loss of ,"6,000,000 of revenue it would annually sustain, and tho annual bounties it would pay. To do this it put a taritf ou refined sugar, and increased the tariff tax on almost ev.ry other article that the agri enltnrist and wags-earner uses. On woolen goods the increase is fom 68 to 92 per cent. A large increase ia laid on the manufactures of iron and steel, flax a 1 linen, cotton, tin plate Taikuj oJLkfl f of ue üiial axUfliaa.

In every instance the tax is laid heaviest on the coarser and cheaper articles used by the poor and laboring people. The truth is, that when the tax on retined sugar, the bounty paid to sugar producers, and the increased tax on other articles are taken into consideration and paid, the consumers of cheap sugsr wiil have paid more than they did before raw sugar was made dutj free. 11 cheap sugar ia what the republicau party wants, it can still cheapen it in a large measure by repealing the bounty provision, and by putting refined sugar on tbe free HsL By eo doing the public treasury would save from $10,000.0u0 to $12,000.000 annually, now paid out on account of sugar bounties, the people would save annually $15,GO0.tO0 on acoount of the tariff on refined augar. and Ciaus Spreckles and the sugar trust eould retire from business and live out the rest of their days on their illgotten gains. On the authority of tha following Associated Press dispatch, which appeared in the morning papers of the 12ih inst., I am glad to announce that in that event Claus Spreckles and his family would not materially sutler: "San Francisco, April 12. An intimate friend of Ciaus Spree kles, in speaking on the recent sale by Spreckles of his Philadelphia refinery to the trust, said: 'The formation of the trust about five years azo was a surprise to Spreckles, but he was still more surprised when the trust gave him the option of fcoing in with them or being crushed. Their offensive wav of blulfinir hun roused the old man's

wrath, and he defied them. While they were laying their plans to shut down the refineries here he went to Philadelphia, built a thiee-million-dollar refinery and opened an active fight in their own camp. They stood the competition until this winter, when they became weary of the struggle and agreed to Spreckles' terms jeU'OO.euO for his Philadelphia refinery and liberty to control all the suixar interests on the coast. So Spreckles came back with his f 5.000,' 00 in profits ready to meet the Hawaiian planters an 1 secure control of all the augar crop of the islands. sJpreckles did a generous thing with the coin he wrested from the trust He gave d. 000,000 each to his three children. The old man is worth fully jf40.Ou0.COU, ail made out of sugar." What a blessing cheap au'ar has been to Clans Spreckles. It has enabled him to keep the wolf from the door. Reciprocity, The same congress tb.it gave us cheap sugar also gave us a small relish of free trade, called reciprocity, and put it iu the McKinley bill. This reciprocity consists of puttiag raw sugar, molasses, cotlee, tea and raw aud uncured hides on the free list, and requires that the countries exporting all or any of 6uch articles shali take from us our productions of all kinds, free of duty. It is also provided tbut if any of the countries producing and exporting such articles, or any ot them, imposes duties or exrcitions npon the agricultural or other products of the United States, which the president deems reciprocally unequal and unreasonable, he may by proclamation restore all of said articles to tho dutiable list, and they at onoa become subject to taritT taxes. So, cheap sugar and molasses and cheap tea and coflee are at the mercy of the president's discretion. To vest such extraordinary power in the president ia unwise if not dangerous. For many years before the passage of the McKinley bill tea and cotlee were on the free list, and no president had the power, under any circumstances, to subject them to a taritf duty. But under this reciprocity clause he may subject them to a tarill tax whenever in bis opinion the countries producing und exporting them are not conducting themselves according to his ideas of reciprocal equality. But what I desire more particularly to call attention to is, the classes of our people who are being benefited by this system of reciproc ity, and lor whose besieht it was intended, feecretary ISianip, its author, deslared at the outset that it was intended to benefit the farmer by opening up to him a market lor his surplus productions, and that such was its purpose was declared by the leaders oi the republicau party generally. If th.s reciprocity clause was intended lor the farmers alone, why was it uot limitad to ag ricultural productions? Why does it contain tho words "or other products of the United States?" Like republican legislation and con duct generally, it was intended t deceive. Its real purpose was to open up an additional market for the products of manufacture, not the products of nsriculturc. By the very terms cf its provisions it applies only to countries producing and exporting sugar, molasses, tea, coffee, and raw and uncured hides. These. countries in the main are Mexico, Cuba, Central America, and outh America. They are agricultural couutries. and some of them produce a surplus of agricultural products. It is not agricultural countries that our farmers desire reciprocal trade with. It is the thickly settled, densely populated countries who are engaged in pursuits other than agriculture that the American farmer desires liberal trade relations with. The statistics show that since our present trade relations have been established with these countries, or some of them, that the export business of our manufacturers with them has largely increased. These countries will not buy farm products from our farmers because they raise such products themselves. Hut they will buy agricultural implements of all kinds, ateel rails, structural iron, locoraotiree, railway cars, and indeed almost everything our manufacturer! produce, because they want such articles and are unable to produoe them themselves. That this scheme of reciprocity is widening our manufacturers' markets is apparent. For the four months ending July SI. lt'O, our exports of machinery to Brazil were of value about ?315,0G0. For the sume period in 1811, under reciprocity, they were nearly $ 70,000. I cannot take time to go minutely into details. as I would like to do, to show you the small amount of our agricultural productions, and the large amount of our manufactures the people living in the countries with whom we have trade relations under this reciprocity clause take. Tbey desiro agricultural implements from ns with which they can better develop their agricultural iudustry, rather than our agricultural products. Under this clause of tha McKinley bill these couutries are becoming large purchasers of our manufactures, but not of our agricultural products. This provision was a cunningly devised scheme to further aid tbe protected industries of this country and not the farmers. If it was intended to aid the farmers why was not reciprocity extended to the great countries of Europe aa well as to these small South American states? Why was it not extended to Italy. Frauce, Belgium, Austria, Germany and England, all densely populated countries, not given to agriculture, but largely dependent on foreign countries for their agricultural supplies? We have nearly $1.000,000,0u0 annual agricultural anrplua which could be sold at a ftrofitable advantage by our farmers if we had iheral trade relations with these countries. Every one knows that Great Britain, and not South America, is the market for our farmers. During the year ending June "0. lf!l, we sold to Great Britain almost J30.0OO.0OO worth of cattle, and to all South America and the West ladies less than ICO.OOO. Burin? the fame period we sent to Great Britain nearly 21. 000.000 of corn, and to South America less than ?l7t',0U0. Of wheat we sold to Great Britain durin2 the same time almost i.'12.000,0o0. and to South Amerioa less than $2,500,000. Of wheat flour for the same time we sold to Great Britain near SCOO.OCO and to South America about $3.000,000. As Mr. Mills well said: "We are able to produce an annual surplus of agricultural products valued at $ 1,00; , 000,000, but we could not find a market for it in tbe countries of the western hemisphere if we should have full reciprocity with them all. It ia not to the 50,000,000 ahepherds and farmers to the south of us, but to the 3' 0,000,000 shopkeepers to the east of us. that we must look to consume cur surplus larm products. While the administration Is pressing for free trade with the South, it is pressing eonally hard for no trade at all with tbe East. Fifty millions of farmers fouth of us, keeping up a protootiye taritf against all other countries, and letting in onr manufactures free, would open markets for the consumption of many millions of our manufacturers, and would add many millions to tbe fortunes of makers of locomotives, steel rails, and struetural iron; but the benefit to the American farmer would not be perceptible." The McKinley bill reciprosity scheme is not for labor and agricultural life. It was not so intended. It is for tbe exclusive use and ben. efit of the already over-protected protectionists of this country. Fr Silver. The constitution of tha United States provides: "The congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof ar.d of foreign coin." XJuiiiAtDjitf.üfiaJerslaiiditia the dull

of congress to exeoute it in tbe manner the constitution requires. To "coiu money" is the language nsed. Money is a metal stamped by publio autnorily and used ai a medium ot commerce. Any currency usually and lawfuL'y employed iu buying and selling as the equivalent of money, such as bank notes and tbe like is called mouey. To prevent abuses it was necessary t6 fix a publio stamp on certain quantities of sueh metals as were made use of for purchasing purposes, uch waa the origin of coined money and of the publicofiices called mints. To coin money nudsr tbe constitution of the United States is for congress to take the metal employed for such purposes, mold it into proper shape, affix to it the proper value, and ktsmp upon it the authorized declaration of the United States that it is raoney. Th metals out of which money is coined are gold and silver, and have been duriug ancient and modern times. That gold and sliver are the metals, and the only ones meant by the constitution, out of which congress should coin money, is apparent cot only from the fact that such at the time the constitution was adopted were the only money metals of tbe world, but from the further fact that the states of this union before the constition used only such metals for coining money. The constitution also declares that "no state shall make anything but gold and silver .coin a tender in payment of debts." It cannot be supposed that tho constitution would authorize something beside gold and silver to be made into money, and then prohibit the states from using it for debt-paying purposes. Gold and silver are placed iu the constitution on terms of perfect eauality so far ns their being coined into money ia concerned. No preiereuce is given to cither, and the coinage laws passed l7 virtue of the constitution should make no discrimination against either, but should provide for the coinage of both metals upon terms of perfect equality. uch was the belief ot all onr people, and the practice of the government in respect to the coinage o money from the adoption of our constitution to 173. For a. period of more than eighty years the United States had free

nnd unlimited coinage of gold and silver upon terms of perfect equality, aud co distressing j or alarming consequences followed. In 1S73 the annual production of the two metals was nearly e jual; only a diflerence ot $250K0 , being in favor of gold, our gold production beinv J36,000,UCO and silver if 35. 700,000. ; Three years before that time the republican party had refunded the public debt by which it was provided that it should be paid in coin, and this act of refunding largely increased tho value of the obligations of the government in favor of all who held her bonds and securities. The capitalist, monopolist, money lender, usurer, and ereditor, publio and private, saw another way by which the bonds, notes, obligations and securities they held against the government as well as against individuals could be largely increased in value. They knew that the quantity of gold and silver rnon?y in circulation was about equal, and that the destruction of either would almost double the value of the obligations they held. They also knew it would almost double the burdens and obligations that the government and debt paying people were bearing, but what did they care for that? They were like the "horse leech," they ""wanted more." So, in 1S73, a revision of the coinge laws was secured by the republican party in congress, and in rcakiog that revision in some mysterious way, which was not only wrong but absolutely criminal, the coinage of the siiver dollar was surreptitiously stricken out of the coinage laws, leaving our mints with no power to coin anything but gold, subsidiary silver, silver dollars of legal tender quality to the extent of ?3 only. In this way the gold bugs secured a disAonrst advantage over the debt-paying people, as well as over labor and agricultural life. The mouey of the people was destroyed, that the mouy of cormorants might be made more valuable. I cannot bettor show you how silver was destroyed than by quoting from the very able speech of tho Hon. Marcus A. Smith, delegate in congress from Arizona, delivered in the house of representatives on the 24th of last month. He said: "The act of 1873 domonetizing the standard silver dollar contains sixty-seven sections. It purported to bo a codification of the assay, mint and coinage laws of the United States. The reports accompmying the bill in tbe respective houses did not contain a word about the suspending the coinage and demonetizing the standard dollar. The gentleman in charge of the bill, in his speech in presenting it to the Louse, said nothing about the omission of the standard dollar. It has been charged that Senator Sherman, in presenting it to the senate, said nothing about dropping the silver dollar; There had been a much larger coinage of these dollars within the year before and the mouth before the bill waa passed than during nny similar previous periods in our national history; so that if rapidly increasing coinage could give importance, the subject was quite as important as ever. "On the day that President Grant signed the bill, he sent a special message to congress recommending the construction of new mints at Chicago, St. Louis and Omaha for the coinage of silver dollars to assist towards the resumption of specie payment. Eight months there: after Grant, in a to letter Mr. Cordray, expressed surprise that silver dollars were not appearing 'to supply the deficiency in the circulating medium.' Senatora Conklin, Blaine, Allison, Howe and Beck and Representatives Csnuon, Keller, Garfield, Holman and Burcberd, all prominent and watchful members of congress in 1S73, arose in their places in a subsequent congress and distinctly disolaimed any knowledge at the time that the aot of 1S7S demonetized the silver dollar." We all remember well the disaster which followed ihe destruction of silver money by this wretched act, and all remember with what pleasure and delight the people bailed ita partial restoration by tbe Bland-Allison bill of 1878. The question Is ought we to restore the silver dollar to its plaeein the constitution where our fathers put it Answering for myself to the peorileof this district, who have twice elected me, I say I am for free coinage of silver upon terms of perfect equality with gold, just as the constitution of my country provides. I am for the coinage of the silver dollarof 412 grains, nine-tenths fine, as it was before 1S73, when it was most criminally destroyed. I am for the gold and silver coinage of the constitution, and a circulating medium convertible into the same and for a full and suüicient volume of it. I am for honest mouey, money that is Just as good in the hands of one person as it is in the hands of another. Suoh money is gold and silver and legal tender paper issued by the government, which the government guarantees is convertible into gold and silver. All money which has the power of the government behiud it regulating and governing its value is par money. We hear it saij that if we have free eoinage of silver, wo will have a cheap silver dollar, a dollar worth only 70 or 80 cents. If so, why was not the silver dollar coined prior to 1S73 a cheap dollar? Fvery ones knows it was not a cheap dollar. That during its life of more than eighty year It was of as good valne, and bad as strong purchasing as had its brother gold; and that when it received its death stab in 1873 it was better than gold, for it wa at 3 per cent premium above gold. But yet every cormorant and monopolist and all his agents and advocates cry out and say that the salver dollar will be a cheap dollar. The minority report on the Bland bill of the houso committee on coinage, weights and measures, appealing to prejudice and igcorauoe aays: "Depreciate the standard of the dollar and every pensioner of the country, every holder of a policy of insurance, every widow and orphan enjoying the proceeds of trust funds, will by so muoh sutler from this fraudulent reduction ot the standard of the country." Free coinage of silver will not depreciate, but will appreciate the standard of the dollar. If toduy the silver dollar buys as much as the gold dollar will whioh it does while it dost is not recognized as money in tbe coinage laws of the United States, will it uot be made better and stronger in the minds of tha people by its restoration to its rightful place in the constitution as the lawful money of the people? I would not cheat even Shylock. Surely I would not knowingly put into the hands of either the creditor or debtor elasses, certainly not into the hands of workingmen and women, soldiers, pensioners, their widows and orphans a depreciated or dishonest dollar. But look at the silver dollar today. Although it is outside of the coinage laws it bays as much and pays for as much as does any dollar in tbe world. The pensioner, working man, laborer, professional man, merchant, bau k er, monopolist, farmer, tradesman or any one else ean buy as much with it and get as much for it of everything this lifo sViordj u Lo caa fj) ll Jul jiailAi. U

would be better for the people if we had more silver dollars with the government itandiüg beLind them making them good money. The claim made that the silver dollar will be a depreciated dollar is based on the fact that the silver bullion required to make a silver dollar is worth but ti or 70 cents when measured by the gold standard. This is true. But silver bullion ia not money no more than gold bullion is money. Butitis replied and (aid that gold bullion is worth as much as gold money. That is true because tbe government deolares gold to be money, and regulates its value; and has also declared by law that gold coinage shall be free. Therefore the holder of cold bullion knows he can have it coined into money free and that he can get all the money out of it free that it will make; and for that reason he will not sell it for less than what it will make in money when coined. So will it be with silver, it its coinage ia made free, the same as gold, and tbe government fixes ita ratio at 16 to 1, thereby equalizing its value with gold. Gold and silver money will then be on a purity with each other, as they were belore siiver was demonetized, and they will remain so. Money does not receive its value from the commercial world. No price is given it by commercial transactions as is given to species

! of property generally. Money is the creature of j the law. As Senator Morgan said. "When money in good tho law makes it good, when money is J bad, the law is responsible." Without the iaw there would be no more power to coin rr create i money and fix its value thau there would be to i punish for crime in the absence of the iaw de- . flu in sr the crime and prescribing the punishj menu Money receives its measure of value ; from the law that authorizes its coinage. Therefore if gold and silver money are both coiued 1 on terms of equality and given cjaal value as j money, as our constitution provides, they will be of equal value in the Lauds of the people and in tbe commercial world. "And God said let there be light, and there was light." Let the government sos "let there be silver money," and there will be silver money as good as gold. Tho constitution does not provide that congress has any power to deal with gold ani silver bullion except to coin it into money. Ihere is no provision in tho constitution fvr congress buying and selling silver or gold bullion at the market or any other price, und iseuin certificates for it and holding the bullion for redemption purposes of the certificate, or authorizing it to bo done. The government has the authority to issue a legal tender paper currency, based on gold or silver redemption; but it has no right to go into the market and buy silver bullion and issue paper morey to be redeemed by the bullion, any more than it bas the right to go into the market and bey up any other commodity and issue pper money to be redeemed with such commodity. The only proper relation the government can lawfully have with gold or silver bullion is to coin it into money. Today we have outstanding $45,OoO,COö of treasury notes, greenback currency. Ihe government has declared that it will redeem them. It is required by law to keep constantly oa hand a gold reserve fund of $lo0.0oC,0uO for their redemption. Th:s currency is at par all the time, because the people have faith in the declaration of the government that it will he redeemed, and therefore they do not desire its redemption, because with them it is preferable to gold itself. The people have this faith in this money, notwithstanding they know that the present administration has withdrawn the reserve fund and applied it to other purposes. The national bank currency is at par, because the people know that the government holds its own bonds, hypothecated by the banks for the redemption of their eurrency. Let the government restore silver to its rightful place in the constitution and coinage laws of the country, and declare it to be money as it does gold, and it will be on a parity with gold, liars aud hypocrites to the contrary notwithstanding. And 100,000,00:) of standard silver dollars held by the government as a reserve fund for the redemption of f 3-56,000,000 of more greenbacks would be accepted by the people with equal confidence that they now have in the gold reserve jund. Alexander Hamilton said: "But upon the whole it seems to be most advisible not to attach the unit exclusively to either of the metals, because this can uot be dono effectually without destroying the otlice and character of cne of them as money and reducing it to a situation of mere merchandise, which has been proposed from different and very respectable quarters, but which probably would be a greater evil than occasional variations in the unit from fluctuations in the relative value of the metals. To annul the use of either of the met als as money is to abridge the quantity ot circulating medium, and is liable to all the objections which arise from a comparison of the benefits of a full with the evils of a scanty circulation." Speaking of this statement of Mr. Hamilton's Thomas Jefferson said: "I concur with you in thinking that the unit must stand on both metals." But it is said free coinage of silver will benefit the silver miuers. I admit it wi'L But does uot free eoinage of gold beneft the gold miners? I am willing that silver niners shall be benefited by free coinage in consideration of the great benefits the other and more numerous people will receive from it Those who are most strongly opposing free coinage are the creditor classes. In many instances the obligations they held were incurred when the volume of the currency was greater than it is now. I am willing to give the debtor class a fair chance. The mortgages on the farms of Blinois. Iowa and Kansas alone amount to nearly $500,000,000, on which the annual interest is more than 837,000,000. There should be a sufficient volume of currency to give employment to labor life, to fair trade and business enterprises of all kinds, to the end that labor should have its just rewards, and that the productions of labor and honest enterprises should have a fair compensation so that tbe debtor class would have a fair opportunity to obtain iu proper and needed relief. An examination of the statistics will disclose the fact that when silver is depreciated, or falls below its standard coining value, in almost the exact proportion the farm products aud the compensation of labor are correspondingly depreciated. The coining value of an ounce of pure silver is $1.29. In 172, the year before silver was demonetized, cotton per pound was 19.3 cents; corn per bushel, 70 cents; wheat per bushel, $1.47, and silver per ounce, $1.32. From that time on, because of the demonetization of silver in 1573, there bas been a yearly gradual decline not only in the articles 1 have mentioned, Jut in all farm products, until the close of the year 1'J1, when cotton was r eeuts per pound, corn 21 cents per bushel, wheat 83 cents per bushel and silver (JQ cents' per ounce. With these conditions confronting ns is it auy wonder that the people darnand that silver money their money be restored to them with its full legal tender quality, and its value stamped on it by the government? I stand within the lines and yield obedience to the laws and decrees of the democratio party when I apeak for the full coinage of sdver money, of full legal tender quality and of the value the government stamps upon it. I apeak for 412U grains of standard silver for each dollar. I speak for the people's money that finds its way into every borne and hamlet in the land, and brings joy to every fireside. I peak for the money o? the constitution: the money of Washington, Jeilcr son. Madison. Jackson and Mooioe. and their compeers, who believed in good government and honest money. I speak for that mouey which haa asserted ita loyalty and devotion to the peonle in the past, and will do so in the future. We have not forgotten how, after it bad been stabbed almost to death, and had heen buried in oblivion for years, when it made its appearanoe again with what delight we wel corned it and called it the "Dollar of the Dad dies." In Julv. 1S84. the democratio party of the United Statea met in national convention. nominated Mr. Cleveland for the presidency and elected him. That convection, speaking for the democratic party of the whole country, declared "We believe in honest mone;, the gold and silver coinage of the constitution, and a cirou lating medium convertible into such money without loss." There is aa strong a declaration in favor of the coinage of silver as there is in favor of the coinage of gold. Like the constitution, it is a declared belief in favor of the coinage of both, with no discrimination H favor of the one or the other. I indorsed that platform when made, have done ao ever aince and do so now. In July, 1883, the democratic party again met in national convention at St Ixiuis, and in its platform there made expressly declared: "Ihe dcaagcraUo nam of tha Uaited Statea

in rational convention assembled rcnewa tha

of its ::dl::y to p'atform len.ocratic faith, ani reaffirms the p'atform adopted by its re presentattves in the convention of lt. ' Thus Stauda the democratic party. Its declared lr is for the gold on ! s.lver coinage of the constitution and a circulating mediuaa convertible into such money. And thus it will Stand as Hie law Ol me urmorra.iu I'arijr un.ii it is repealed by the democratic party, which will not be done in your day or mine. The democratic platforms of twenty-fo2f ol the democratic states of this Union, etates containing more than one-hall vi the entire pop Utiou of the whole country, have declared fot the equal coinure of g dd an i silver. Ia l'l'O the democratic party f Indiana ia a btte convention assembled r-pnke in no uncf n tain words upon the subject of free coiuae. Ii said : "We denounce the silver bill, so-called, ra, ecntly enacted as au ignoininoua surrender U the money power. It perpetuates the da lüocetizati n oi silver aod tse single gold standard, whereas the interests v'. the people require the complete remonctixstion of siiver and its restoration to perieet equality with goM in our coinage. We demand the tree and un restricted coinage ot silver upon the bails cax istinu prior to 17V I indorsed that platform then, I indorse it now. The C3:iipei'ti ot l'.'O. of two yeare ao. ca-ne oa in Indiana. Senator Yoorheef a as the avowed cunUidate of the democratic party for re-ecpoc to the U. S. senate, af much so a i! he f r.J been ii"Oii,iatrd by a eon venuon of his putt.1, and was running before the people lor election. He stood tuartly oa this platform throughout th- fate, as I dd in this district, lie defended ani upheld it ia every speech he inn ie, from first ti last, and the result was aa overwhelm, lpg victory for the democrr.t.o party in t.H ilato and an unprecidented d-mocratic ms;ori ty iu both branches of the legislature. With) ail his gieat power in the state and his wooderful prestige nud pj; ular.ty with the peoplw ol Ind:ana he could not have been fleeted eithei by the people or by tlie legislature if he hal abandoned free silver and ranged himslf along with tLe siUk'le standard t-.M buL's, who seeij to oppress the people. That the democratia party of Indiana i.- iu favor of free si.ver there is not a do ulit, and if the question could ba submitted to the voter? of our st.it?, whodr disconnected from party or expediency. PJ per cent, would vote in furor of the restoration O.' silver mouey. On Thursday last t!i democratic partv cf Indiana met in convention and nominated one of the n.ost splendid tickets vtr presented to the people of our Mate lor the.r suilra n-s. Ou the eutjeet of the currency the ecuventioa said : "We believe thnt there should be kept in; constant circulation a full and suliie:ent volume of money, consisting of gold, silver ani legal tender paper currency at par with eacli other." Thus it ie that the democracy of In diana favor goid, silver and leal tender raoney on terrua of perfect equality. I earnestly appeal to all voters who believe in a reduction of the tarid' to a rrvenve stand ard, who believe in an honest and economical administration of publio a lairs, who fiver a reduction of publio expenditures who waat honest money, gold and silver, on the basis of the constitution, and legal tender currency con vertible into such money, and enough of it to supply the honest demands ot the people, to cast their efforts and votes with the democratia party. That a large majority of the American people are opposed to the present administration vi public a flairs by the republican party, there is not a doubt. A united enort on their psrt wut overthrow the combined armies of republican ism. plutocracy, trusts, combines and monopo lists, and restore the country to better times. Either the democratic or repub.ican party wia succeed. No intervening party can hope for success. A third party ean only assist one or the other of the two great parties. Let every patriotic citizen who loves his couutry and de sires that the existing wrongs shall be remedied, but who is hesitctiag as to whether he fully supports either of the dominant parties. choose the one that comes nearest to reflecting h.s desire and judgment aa d cr.it lus political lortunes with it, and na wnl hn 1 himself within democratio lines, and in November next the democracy will rejoice with blue in a great victory, which wiil sicnalixe the coming in ot an administration which will be for the benefit of the whole people. The Hon. John Overmyer made a ehorf but brilliant speech and etated that anya one who desired to fit down to a higt protective rppast could eo Luthe askeet not to be one of the puests; that hi believed in tho doctrines of JelTorson ant the reforms of Cleveland; that be wa( unutterably opposed to the policy ofcenc tralization as ehown by all the acts of the republican party ; that he predicted an. overwhelming majority for tho democrat of Indiana at the coining election and tha election of a democratic president andthaf hi work and influence would help tt bring; it about. Ta Lead tha Democrats cf the Tweltl District, Fort WAYNE,Ind., April 2-X Special.The democrats of the Twelth congreesionaL district met at Kendallville today. Uele gates representing six counties were in atv tendance. Tha convention assembled at the opera bouae at 2 o'clock. Senator Ja. M. Barrett was elected chairman. AttorC ney C. F. McXagney of Columbia City, P. S. O'Kourke and J. M. Kobinson of F'orl Wayne "were placed in nomination fo. congress. O'Rourke withdrew before tha first ballot, which resulted: McNagney 56, Kobineon 4S. Kobinson in a neat epeecb made the nomination of McNagney unan' imous. McNagney is the etronest candi, date nominated in this district for twenty ' Tear". He ia a good canvasser and politi--; cally very popular. He will strengthen' the democratic vote in this district. Ka resolutions or plattorui were introduced. Cleveland's name when mentioned before) the convention was cheered to the ech&t In the senatorial convention James L McDonald, editor of the Ligonier Banner, was nominated on the fifth Lallot over W, H. Iea8 and Freeman KeLey of Dekalb counties. The judicial convention noicinaUd Loa I), i'leming, also of Ligonier, for circuit prosecutor. All three conventions were characterized by the best of feeling, and harmony. Morgan Coanty In It Again. Mabtixsvillf, Ind., April 20. Special. Morgan county democrats havehai a final hearing regarding a place on tha the list of delegates to tho national convention. In ISt'-O A. K Conduitt, now o! Indianapolis, was a citizen of this county, and was placed among the delegates to the national convention as a Stephen A. Douglas man. Todav, after thirty-two years, hia eon-in-law, V. S. Shirley, of this city has a similar position, and will do what he can for Urover Cleveland at the coming convention at Chicago. This ia thi first time this county has been recoteniZt;dl since ISOO. Why tu Corporation Kick. Auburn Courier'. Kailroada are fighting the new tax in the courts because their taxes hava been increased more than other taxes, liepublican editors are at the same time trying to made the people believe the new tax and assessment law increases tha taxes of the railroads lew than on tho people. But they are merely tr ine to deceive. The increase on railroads is very much greater than on other property. The figures show it, and the wrath, of the railroads proves it. Kaep Away from Hint. Chicago Timos.J An undertaker'1 manservant may rro erly be called the valet of the fchadov o ... --