Jasper County Democrat, Volume 1, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 November 1898 — Page 8

DEMOCRATS AND THE WAR

They Vied With the Republicans In Giving the Administration Financial Support. McKinley’* Lack of Diplomacy and Vigor In Dealing Wltb Spain Wan Roundly Criticised by the Republicans—Chairman Hernly Would Slake a Nonpartisan War a State Issue to Bolster Up HU Party. It ought to be remembered, because it is true, that the Democratic party was the real war party of the nation. It was in favor of the war with Spain for humanitarian considerations. It believed that Spain’s rule in Cuba was brutal, savage, horrible, and it believed that the Cubans ought to enjoy liberty and independence. So persistent were Democrats in demanding a declaration of war against Spain that the remark was often made: “This is a Democratic war. ” It is a matter of record that when it became apparent that war with Spain was inevitable and the administration wanted the means for war purposes, Democrats in congress vied with Republicans in giving to the administration all the money it demanded and $50,000,000 was voted and placed in the hands of tin president to be expeuded as be might deem proper. If Democrats doubted the policy of issuing interest bearing bonds to supply war revenue, it was .not because of any hostility to the war, or for the purpose of embarrassing the administration, but, rather because they believed the time had not arrived making it necessary to burden the people with an additional tonded debt and taxation. They believed that the war would be of short duration, that tne reserves of the treasury were ample to carry ou the war, even if it should continue to December, when, if bonds were required, the facts would be before the country, and a bond loan conld speedily bo made to meet all emergencies. In a word, the Democrats, in and out of congress, with patriotic unanimity have sought in every possible way to uphold the hands of the administration in conducting the war. If there were criticisms of Mr. McKinley’s diplomacy and of his lack of vigor in dealing with Spain, it should be stated that Republicans were even more pronounced iu their complaints than were Democrats. And it will be remembered that it required heroic efforts ou the part of Republican whips to restrain Republioau members of congress from breaking through all restraints and openly condemning Mr. McKinley’s dilatory policy. The Democratic party studiously declined to drag the war into politios. It was not, in its origin, a party war. If Mr. McKinley was obnoxious to criticism, it was because he "decested” war, and exhibited the greatest reluctance in beginning hostilities. In his owu language he desired to be satisfied that a war with Spain would be a “righteous war,” and even the sinking of the battleship Maine did not arouse him from his lethargy. And the facts show that Republicans were more censorious than Democrats over such exhibitions of supineness. And in this connection it is worthy of mention that the Democracy of Indiana, in state convention assembled, in putting forth their platform, ignored the war as a political issue. There was not one word in the platform arraigniug Mr. McKinley’s administration for anything done or omitted iu conducting the war. On the contrary, the platform gave only expression of patriotic sentiments. The war plank of the platform was iu the highest degree eulogistic of the war, army and navy. Indeed, in each regards its indorsement of the wax was even more pronouuced than the declarations of the Republioau platform. To still further demonstrate that the Democratic party was opposed to dragging the war into politics, on Aug. 17 Hon. Parks M. Martin, chairman of the state Democratic central committee, gave expression to his views in an interview iu the Indianapolis Sentiuel on the war as a political issue, and is reported as follows: “As I said, 1 don’t believe that the war should be made an issue in this state campaign. It was not a political war. It was waged in the interest of humanity to snccor the down-trodden, starving people of Cuba. The Democrats are not disposed to bring the war into the state campaign, not that they’re afraid to, for if the Republicans show a disposition to make it a campaign matter we are going to take care of oarsalves all right. If they are going to make this a war campaign it is not patting it too strong to say that we will handle them without gloves. We might he able to show, for instanoe, that the war was brought about by the Democrats in congress, assisted by a few Republicans, and that if it had been left to President MoKinley and his advisers we would probably never have had a war. Ido not say this in the way of criticism and I am opposed to trying to make campaign material out ot a war that was supported loyally by all parties and all sections.” •' —t 7 This completely disposes all the shallow talk o? the Republican press regarding the position oi the Democratic party on the war as a political issue in the campaign in Indiana. Bnt, Mr. Hernly, chairman of the ReEiblioan state central committee, in an terview published in the Indianapolis Behtinel on Aug. 18, the day following the appearance of Mr. Martin’s interview, took occasion to insist that war should be and ought to be an issue in the campaign in Indiana. Evidently, Mr. Hernly beljeved the war issue would be highly conducive to Republican success. and is reported as saying: “I read The Sentinel’s interview with Parks Martin in which he said that the war should not. be made an issue in this campaign, bnt tint the Democrats are ready to meet it if the Republicans

. spring it. Ido not agree with Mr. Martin that we who happen to be in positions of party responsibility can make the issues of this or of any campaign. The people make the issues. They know what they are vitally interested in, and unless the stump speaker talks of these things he will find himself without aodienees. Just now the people want to have the story of the war told them. It is a story in which they are vitally interested. They waut it told from the stnmp by the stomp speakers. They are interested iu the question of territorial expansion and the thonsand-and-one questions growing out of the war, and they want to know what our public men think about them. The people of Indiauu have decreed that the war shall be an issue in the caini paign. i “While we Republicans do not claim ' the sole credit for having brought on this war, we are all proud of the master--1 ly way in which the war was conducted by President McKinley, and we see no ! harm in saying so from from the stump. * * * * * * “The Republicans are forced to make | the war question an issue, even though j they were not inclined. The Republican party was the party iu power dfting this war crisis. It has many things |to explain to the people. It has to explain why it was necessary to issue bonds; why it was necessary to establish a war revenue, and it has to answer j to the people for all the steps of the campaign. It will try to answer to the people of Indiana this fall. ” It will be observed that Mr. Hern- ! ly, speaking for his party, declared in favor of making the war a campaign issue, besides, it will be observed that ; Mr. Heruly declares that "the Republicans are forced to make the war question an issae even though they were not ; inclined,” and that the Republicans j “have many things to explain.” Let it be understood that the war by itself considered—that is Ur say the 1 declaration of war mid the battles of the \ war on the land and on the sea—is not and cannot be made a partisau political ! issue, since all parties and all sections favored the war. i Mr. Hernly sounded a keynote when he said. "The Republican party has j many things to explain,” and it is \ doubtless truo that the people, if they . have made the issue,-it- is with the uu- ' derstandiug that Republicans shall “ex- ! plain many things”—uot about “bonds” . nor any of the laud or naval battles, ! since they have been explained by ofli- | cers in Qomqmpd. What, then? The l question is answered by the appoint- | meut of a commission by the president and his instructions to that commission, iu which he said: “There has been, in many quarters, severe criticism of the conduct of the war with Spain. Charges of criminal neglect of the soli diersincamp and field and hospital and ; in transports, have been so persistent, that, whether true or false, they have a deep impression upon the connWho made these charges which Republicans must explain? Mr. Hernly says “the Republican party was the party iu power during this war crisis.” And the Republican party mast explain. Certainly, Democrats did not make the charges. The Democratic party was not iu power “daring this war crisis.” No part of the infamy charged, and which, as Mr. McKinley says, has “made a deep impression upon the country,” attaohes to the Democratic party. These charges have been made by soldiers, by offioers wearing the insignia of generals, by correspondents of journals of the highest character for prudent statements, by army chaplains, and, to the extent they dared to talk, by private soldiers. This pelting storm of charges, growing more fieroe as the days went by, horrified the people. Nor was it required for the private soldiers, who returned alive from pestilential camps, to talk. To see them, as Colonel Studebaker said of his splendid regiment —the One Hundred and Fiftyseventh Indiana—“with fever in their very bones,” weqk, wasted and but a shadow of their former selves, was a speech more terribly eloquent than Mark Anthony made over the dead body of Uuesar.

True, they were not in the battle at Santiago nor Manila—they were not in war at all. Their battles were for life in the camps assigued them by the administration, by McKinley’s war secretary. They were in American camps within a lew hoars’ travel by rail of Washington, they were within reach of telegraph and telephone, and yet they suffered and many died for want of medicines, food and care. Suffered by criminal neglect and criminal inoompctency, the result of the lowest degree of partisan politics in making appointments. Mr. MoKiuley, in his instructions to the investigating commission, among other things, said: “I cannot impress upon yon too strongly my wish that your investigation shall be so thorough and complete that yonr report when made will fix the responsibility for any fatlnre or fault by reason of neglect, inoompetenoy or maladministration upon the offioers and bureaus responsible therefor—if it be found that the evils complained of have existed. “The people of the oonntry are entitled toknow whether or not the citizens who so promptly responded to the oall of duty have been neglected or misused or maltreated by the government to which they so willingly gave their services. If there have been wrongs committed, the wrongdoers must not escape conviction and punishment.”. These are brave words, aud, peradventure, like stray chickens, he may find them coming home to roost The war department has had charge ot the army, and at the head of this department is Secretary Alger, for whose appointment President McKinley is solely responsible. Hence, the traoki of the criminal blunders of that department point to the white house as certainly as the hoofprints of Phil Armour's cattle point to the slaughterhouse. The nation believes that the first criminal blunder was the appointment of Alger as secretary of war. If die people are right in this, the mnltipUed wrongs of whioh the people complain, the investigating commission may bold William McKinley, president of the United States, responsible. In the relentless search for wrong doers it may be in order to track them to their hiding places, but it is in oonsonauoe with the eternal fitness of things to find, if possible, the one man, the higher hie position the more important the investigation, who is responsible, and when found stand him up before the pitiless gaze of the world and say to him, as Nathan said to David, “Thou art the man.”

THE TARIFF

Democrats Would Reduce Taxj ation to the Lowest Point Practicable. They Recognise the Necessity of Levying Taxation For tl»e Simple Purpose of Raising Revenua For tho Economical Support of tha Government. In the grand march of our much vaunted civilization, a class of men, not numerically large, bnt profound thinkers upon subjects involving national prosperity, have come to the front as the advocates of free trade between the nations of the earth. The men who exploit their free trade theory would do away with customhouses, the frowning Moro castles equipped to levy tribute upon the commerce of the world, to be paid, not by the nation exporting and selling the exported merchandise, but upon the citizens or subjects of the country who purchase it. The law under which this tax is levied and collected is called a tariff, or the tariff under which schedules are prepared and the amounts of money to be paid ou each specified article, which necessarily, and inevitably is paid by the purchaser or consumer. The free trade advocates contend that if there were nojariff taxes levied the benefits that accrue to the people, the great mass of the poople in all of the commercial nations of the earth, would exceed the imagination of philanthropists. Free trade between nations, it is held, would be a poteut factor in ushering in the millennial era. It would introduce harmony and good will in the counsels of nations and do away with the friction, envies and jealousies now existing, indeed, it might be said since “God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on, all the face of the earth,” it might be well enough to recognize the “fatherhood of God” to the extent of permitting his civilized children to trade together free and untaxed. But the most sublimated of the nations of the earth, except, possibly, England, have not reached that free trade state of perfection where tariffs and schedules, direct and ad valorem taxation can be dispensed with, and the United States, under the corrupt Ding* ley law, is in the swim up to its neck—a law never designed so much to pat money in the treasury to sustain the government, as to tax the great body of American consumers for the benefit of a comparative small class of corporation patriots, who subscribed liberally to Mark Hanna’s corruption fund, which debauched the nation and elected Major McKinley. The Democratic party is not a free trade party. It recognizes the necessity of levying impost taxation for the simple purpose of raising revenue fog the support of the government economically administered, believing that sneh taxation is all that any jast interpretation of the constitution warrants, and that beyond that limit, tariff taxation is spoliation, direct robbery protected by law, which adds to its infamy, and which no amount of word jugglery can obscure. The high prerogatives of government in their relation to citizens or subjects are: (1.) To deprive men of their lives. ( 'Jt .) To deprive them of their liberty. vB.) To deprive them of their property. The latter deprivation often involving conditions as lamentable as the former. In the language of Shylook: “Yon take my life, when yon take the means whereby I live,” and a tariff law soch as the Dingley abortion, is enacted for the purpose of taking the means whereby poor men live and banding the booty over to grasping shylocks, who, in the language of the play, “are wolfish, bloody, starved and ravenons.” It is one of the evils inherent in tariff taxations, that it is practically impossible to oonstrnct a tariff law, nnder the operations of which selfishness, greed, rapacity and spoliation do not find coverts nnder the protection of which these corses thrive, bnt when fpich monstrosities as the “McKinley law” and the “Dingley law’’ are warmed into life in the womb of Republicanism, as prolific of infamies as the ovum of snapping turtles, their number and enormity tasks investigation and defies the capabilities of statisticians. , < The Democratic idea of tariffs is to reduce taxation nnder their operation to the lowest point practicable to meet the requirements of government economically administered. bnt, unavoidably, such tariffs are more or lqss protective in their operations, since, $* a rale, the tax on the imported article advances its price, and If It comes in competition with a home manufactured article, that, as certainly as the imported article, oosts the consumer more than otherwise would be charged. Democrats do not deny this postulate. They admit it in all its force, and to the extent practicable would shape tariff laws in the interest of the great body of consumers, because statesmanship worthy of the name seeks to promote the general welfare of the people, which cannot be done if legislation is so shaped as to benefit the few at the expense of the many. As has been intimated it is difficult to levy tariff taxation in a way to do even and exact justioe to all who pay it. With the lowest tariff theoonntry has ever had there was incidental and unavoidably protection, hat when the Democratic party has shaped tariff legislation there has been no purpose to create a favored olass and enrioh it at the expense of the rank and file of consumers, while the Republican party pursues a diametrically opposite policy as is shown by all the tariff laws for whioh it stands responsible, the MoKinley and the Dingley laws being the two onlqipl infamies whioh stand to its credit, distinctively aud vividly indicate the pur-

pose of the party to create monopolies for the sake of monopolies and to compel the people to pay tribute money to fill their coffers. Iu so far as the Dingley law has contributed to the revenues of the government in a time when war demanded funds to meet expenditures, it has been a dismal failure; but not so vfrben the favorites of the party are considered, for whose special benefit the law was enacted, nnder the spacious plea of restoring prosperity to the country. From these pampered pets of the government no complaints are ever heard. Corruption iu legislation for their benefit inspires them to eulogize it, and prompts them to contribute liberally of spoils wrung from labor to perpetuate in power a party which has systematically utilized its opportunities and powers to increase spoliation in the interest of those who, regardless of the poverty the piratical policy entails, with the insatiable thirst of the horse-leech, forever calls for more victims aud more blood. To defeat this party of McKinley aud Dingley tariffs, and expose its schemes of rapine is the purpose of the Democratic party of Indiana iu this campaign. aud as the days go by, facts will be piled upon facts until the people, amazed at Republican perfidy, will rally to the standard of Democracy and again give it control of state and national affairs.

THE SCHOOL BOOK LAW

A Monument Commemorative of Democratic Wisdom and Fealty to the Best Interests of the People of Indiana And In It* Operation Saving: Million* of Money to the Laboring; Men of Indiana Iu the Cost of School Book* For Their Children. It is a well known fact that prior to 1889. the state of Indiana was in the grasp of a schoolbook trust which was as devoid of conscience as a' hungry wolf operating in the midst of a flock of sheep. In writing of this aggregation | of insatiable men, who for years had mercilessly robbed the people of Indiana, it is designed to briefly point out to what extent these robberies were perpetrated upon Working Men seeking to educate their children in the common schools of the state, and which, without let or hinderance, had gone on for years. This schoolbook trnst, having ample means at its command, was able to debauch not only a portion of the press, but a large per cent of the I school officials of the state, and bring i into active operation whenever demandI ed, a thoroughly equipped army of i henchmen to do its bidding and aid it in perpetrating its piracies. At this supreme juncture the Democratic Legislature resolved to put an end to this schoolbook spoliation and lift the intolerable burden from parents who had been compelled to purchase its books; and there is not in the legislative history of the state a law more in consonance with justice and righteousness than that enacted by the Democratic legislature of 1889, which emancipated the people from the domination of the schoolbook trust. And here it is worth while to say that the Republican Party, ■ as in the case of the Australian ballot law and the revenue law, took a position in favor of the schoolbook trust, and in flagrant opposition to the welfare of the people of the state. Bnt as intimated, the purpose is to show to what extent the workingmen of Indiana are interested in the financial problem which the Democratic law of 1889 solved for the state. Enrollment of Schoolchild reu. Officially stated, the number of sohoolchildren enrolled in Indiana for, the year 1888, the year preceding the enactment of the antischoolbook trnst law, was 514,463. A set of schoolbooks as supplied by the trnst cost $9.40, hence it appears that to supply each of the schoolchildren in the state for the year 1888 with a set of books would require the sum of $4,835,962.30. It is stated by officials connected with the state department of education, that a set of schoolbooks on an average, has to he renewed every four years, and assuming that on an average children are in school 12 years, the cost of renewing schoolbooks nnder the rule of the trust, would be $14,507,856.80. If is fair to assume that one-half of the schoolchildfen enrolled in the state in 1888 (357,231) were the children of citizens, laborers, mechanics and men working on farms, who were required to pay in 1888, under trust rule, $9.40 for every sec of books purchased far their children—amounting to $3,417,976.10. Under the operation of the Democratic schoolbook law passed in 1889, the oost of school books was reduced one-half, or 60 per cent. This resulted in a saving to the parents of the schoolchildren of the state, as stated, $2,417,976.10 in the purchase of schoolbooks. And ifT as is assumed, one-half, of the children enrolled in the common schools of the state in 1888 were the children of parents who work for a living, the saving to them amounted to $1,308,988.06. And here, again, assuming that daring the school age of these children, these sets of books have to be renewed every four years, the saving towageworkers would amount to the sum of $3,626,964.15 during the 12 years. Under circnmstances, as pointed out, and considering the immense benefits accruing to our fellow citizens whose incomes are derived from their labor the Democratic party has a right, predicated upon its fealty to the interests of labor, to expect that workingmen will not overlook its labors in their behalf.

FOREIGN TRADE

Its Condition Before and After the Act of 1873. By Flavin* J. Tan Vorhl*. The more oarefully the reports of the treasury department are examined, the mote do the figures there given emphasize the intimate relation that exists between our foreign commerce and the money question. The real significance of the figures there given can only be arrived at by computation and comparison. Not every one is inclined to make such careful examination. Every man ought to do so who represents or desires to represent the people, or attempts to discuss the subject. For 25 years there has been an awful draft by foreign trade upon our resources. It can hardly escape attention that there has been a constant loss since 1873, and that the loss has been increasing ever since. There can be no doubt that this annual loss goes to pay interest to foreign holders of onr debts, dividends to foreign holders of our corporation stocks and rents to alien landlordfl This is clearly shown by the tables of annual exports aud imports of merchandise and of exports and imports of gold and silver from 1835 to 1897 to be found in every monthly report except those of May and Jane last. It is worth while, in view of present conditions and the repeated assertions made by certain papers aud speakers that onr foreign trade gives evidence of prosperity, to see what these tables contain. The fiscal year prior to 1843 ended on Sept. 80. Since that date it has ended on Jane 30. Draw a line across the tables between 1873 and 1874, dividing the whole time from September, 1884, to Jane 30, 1893, into two periods. An. estimate of the exports and imports of merchandise and the money metals (gold and silver) during the first period ot 38 years aud nine months will show that the wealth of our country was increased by foreign trade by $557,090,937. This was an average annual increase of over $14,800,000 for the entire time. Daring the last 20 years of the period the net average annual increase oLwealthwas nearly $19,000,000; during ®the last 15 years it was over $28,000,000; during the last 10 years it was over $42,500,000; daring the last five years it was over $55,500,000. Daring the last year, ending June 30, 1873, gain was $57,000^000.

The showing is different for the seoond period of 25 years, beginning Jane 80, 1873, and ending Jane 30, 1898. In stead of onr wealth increasing by foreign trade, we lost daring the time $3,547,087,104. This was a not average annual loss of nearly $142,000,000. Drop out of the calculation five years at a time, beginning with the earliest date, and note the rapidly increasing loss down to the year 1898. During the last 20 years the net average annual loss was nearly $148,500,000. Daring the last 15 years it was nearly $154,500,000. Daring the last 10 years it was nearly $200,000,000. Daring the last five years it was over $286,500,000. During the last year the net loss reached the enormous sum of $535,000,000. In the face of such a showing what comment is necessary ? Prior to Jnne 30, 1873, onr foreign trade brought a gradually increasing balance in onr favor. With onr increase of population and business, onr wealth increased nntil in the last year the excess of imports of merchandise and money metals over exports reached nearly $57,000,000 of balance on onr side of the ledger. In the next, year, ending June 30, 1874, we lost over $67,000,000. In 1875 we sent ont of the country an exoess of over $71,000,000 in gold and silver alone. In 1876 we lost over $120,000,000, of which $40,000,000 was gold and silver; in 1877 over $167,000,000. Between the years 1880 and 1890 there was some decrease in the annual loss, oaused, no donbt, by the beneficial effects of the Bland-Alli-son law. From the year 1890, however, the loss has continued with increasing rapidity, notwithstanding onr great increase in population and business, nntil it has reached its present tremendous proportions. It is difficult for the student of economics and commercial movements to avoid the oonplusion that the difference between the two periods depends upon the demonetization aot passed in 1878, by which Hie destruction ot bimetallic option was oommenoed. What will be the ultimate limit of this foreign demand cannot be oertaiuiy predicted. It is certain that there is not now any tendency to a decrease of the aggregate amount of interest* dividends and rente to be paid each year to aliens. On the contrary, the net excess of merchandise and silver necessary to seenre us any return of gold will, and must, continue to increase with more or lene* regularity until the bimetallic option is restored. How long we will be able to stand this no man can say. Our resources are grant and our productive powers almost unlimited; bnt our foreign trade is but a small part of dor commercial transactions. If this was all the draft upon our industries aud our productions we oould stand it for a long time. If it is true, as we claim, that the destruction of the bimetallic option that has been the governing power and the balance wheel of commerco for more than 1,000 yean has produced this resnlt in onr foreign trade, the same appalling conseqnenoes have fallen upon our domestic transactions and is rapidly oonoentratiug the wraith, of the country in the hands of the creditor classes. If interest on credits and dividends on stooks held in foreign countries and the rents to alien landlords have created so large and ooutinually increasing draft, what must be the magnitude of the aggregate draft caused by interest bn credits, dividends ou stocks and rents on speculative investments held, bv onr own «!«)»

sens ? If the demand* caused "by credits, stocks and speculative investments held at home have increased in the same proportion that the figures show those held abroad to have increased, the time is near at hand when the entire production of the county will not be sufficient to satisfy it. What then? Already, according to intelligent estimates, 250,000 people of the United States own 80 per cent of all the wealth. How much longer can this concentra- . tion of wealth continue before the point is reached when nothing but revolution will stand between our industrial and producing classes and slavery to the holders of wealth? The cohrse that has been pursued since 1861 and still is being pnrsned by the great financial interests and creditor classes, is bringing about a conflict between wealth and production. If the American people desire to remain free they will he compelled to take care of debtors and let the great creditor clashes take care selves. If America institutions are to be perpetuated the policy of this conn-” try mnst cease to be what it now is—to promote speculative schemes for public and private robbery. The policy must be an honest attempt to promote legitimate business interests.

PRESIDENT’S WAR

The New York Tribune, good Republican authority, says: “From beginning to end it has been the president’s war, and today it is the president’s victory.” That settles it Dewey, Sampson, Schley, Merritt, Shatter, Alger and Long are back numbers. Only Major McKinley is to be recognized. The Tribune further says: “We do not mean he (Major McKinley) sought the war, or wished it or entered upon it with feelings other than of reluctance and of detestation.” Right again, McKinley is no war horse. His "neck” is not “clothed with thunder,” and but for the Democratic party, the Caban patriots would be still living under Spanish rule.

INSTRUCTIONS mOTERS How to Mark Ballot DEMOCRATIC TICKET. p—» T '< For Secretory of State, SAMUEL M. RALSTON. For Auditor of State, OEM. JOHN W. MINOR. mmmmmmmm ' '** For Treasurer of State, DDL HUGH DOUGHERTY. For Attorney General, DEM. JOHN G. McNUTT. For Clerk Supreme Court, SEX. HENRY WARRUM. INSTRUCTIONS. ■ If you want to vota a STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC TICKET make* . a oroaa thus, Xj within tha larva olroleoontalnlnvthe ROOSTER at tha top of tha tloket. If you mark In tha LAROR CIRCLE you mu at not make a mark any whara alia on tha ballot or you will loaa your vota. If you want to vota a mlxad tlokat, you must not mark within tha larva circle, but must maka a oroaa thus, X, In tha SMALL SQUARE opposite thanama of aaoh paraon, for wham you daatra to vata. You muat not mark on tha ballot with anythlnv but the BLUB PENCIL v> van you by tha poll olerk. If you by mlataka mutllata your ballot raturn It to tha poll otork and vat a new ballot. You must fold your ballot bafora oomlnv out of tha booth ao that tha faoawll! not show, and ao that tha Initials of tho poll elorks on tha book will show. There is a persistent effort being made to conrinoe the people of the United State® that the Caban patriots are not capable of self-government. But the fact is. they are as capable as were the people of any of the Spanish-Amerioan republics the United States ever recognized. Spain ooold not oonqner them and it will be an everlasting shame if the United States ohests them oat of independence. Dingley’s protective tariff produced its first year a deficit of $08,846,108, bat it pat many millions In the pockets of the men who subscribed to Mark Hanna’s (And to elect MqKinlsy. . i ' ffyMG.n! , ji' i. ' Free ooinage is inalienably allied to the free institotions of the oonntry, without it we pass to the vassalage of the plutocracy. The Republican goldbng speakers have yet to learn that the advocacy of sound money demands sound arguments. I