Jasper County Democrat, Volume 12, Number 5, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 April 1909 — Page 2

1 JASPER COUNTY DEMOCRAT. F. {. BlßiatCK. EDITOR DID PBBUSHES. Official Democratic Paper of Jasper County. Published Wednesdays and Saturdays. Entered as Second-Class Matter June S. 1908. at the post office at Rensselaer, lnd., under the Act of March 8, 1879. Office on Van Rensselaer Street. Long 1 Distance Telephones: Office 315. Residence 311. Advertising rates made known on application. SATURDAY, APRIL 17, 1009.

There has been a good deal of talk In Republican papers about the “Democratic factions” in Indianapolis. It can be stated on reliable authority that there is no factional feeling among the rank and file of Indianapolis Democrats. A half dozen men, who have been somewhat conspfcious, have had personal disagreements which have been exploited in the newspapers but the masses breathing a “plague on all your houses” have continued to be serene and untroubled. And that is the way they feel about it now.

« Norman E. Mack, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and publisher of the Buffalo Times, will start a new democratic monthly magazine which will be national in its scope. Mr. Mack thinks there is m fertile field for a magazine of this character and believes much good can be accomplished for the party. The first number will appear May 1, and such distinguished democrats as Gov. Shattorth of Colorado, Gov. Shallenberger of Nebraska, Gov. Judson Harmon of Ohio and Gov. Marshall of Indiana will be among the early contributors to its pages. It will be called The National Monthly.

Under the Dingley tariff law tl|e Standard Oil company, by an indirect method, was protected against foreign competition by a duty -amounting to about 150 per cent. Of course this was prohibitive, as it was meant to be, and gave the Standard Oil company a monopoly of the American market. While the Payne bill was considered In the house, the Democrats with thel help of independent Republicans succeeded In putting oil on, the free list. And now what will the senate do? The overlord of the senate is Senator Aldrich, the fath-er-in-law of John D. Rockefeller’s son, young John I). Senator Aidrich is chairman of the senate finance committee, which will have the tariff bill in charge. Will he have the oil duty restored? And if he doesn’t what will be povertystricken Standard Oil Company do?

The State Board of Health lias condemned twenty-four public school buildings on the ground that tney are noi sanitary. By looking at the list, which follows. It will be seen that the condemned, buildings are well scattered: Ayshire school. Bike county; Roy school, Hamilton township, Brown county; Deedsville. Miami county; Lagro, Wabash county; No. 11, Marion township, Boone county; Nos. 12 and 13, same township in' same county; Arlington, Rush county; Trafalgar, Johnson county; Beaver Dam, Franklin township, Kosciusko county; District No. 6. Clinton township, Boone county; District No. 1, Jennings township, Scott county: Paris Crossing, Jennings county; District No. 8, Putnam county; District No. 2. Dubois county; District 11, Lawrence county ; District No. 11, Hendricks countyi District No. 5. Hendricks county; District No. 10, Jefferson toyvnship, Jay county; Velpen school, Pike county; Lewis Creek school, Shelby county.

WILL DANCE TO A DIFFERENT TUNE.

On the day the Payne tariff bill was passed by the “house of representatives” (sounds funny, doesn’t it?) a dispatch from Washington said: When the bill actually was iiassed the Republicans cheered lustily, some dancing up and down the aisles and patting their fellow members on the hack. This bill as it stands is a gross outrage on the people of the country. It is expected that the senate will make it worse. The manner in which it was passed through the house was disgraceful. There was no real debate upon it because none was allowed. Not a single provision was discussed except such as Speaker Cannon’s committee on rules permitted. The bill went through practically as it was prepared in advance. '* While the Republicans down at Washington, in the presence of their masters, the trusts and special interests, may “cheer lustily” and “dance up and down” .and pat each other on the back, they will not fell so chipper when they get back

home and feel the indignation of the people. I'hey will gance to a different tune altogether.

WAKING UP TO EXPENSES.

Are the American people at length waking up to the fact that if the present scale of governmental expenditures is to continue they must go down deeper into their own pockets to furnish the needed cash? There are some, signs which seem to indicate that this unpleasant but practical truth is better appreciated than it was six months ago.—Philadelphia Bulletin. If the people do not wake up they will deserve all they get. During the late campaign the Democratic party did what it could to educate the voters on the subject of public expenses and in this state the voters responded by electing a Democratic governor, and 11 congreessmen out of 13. Much is expected of Governor Marshall. His position as the chief officer of the state keeps him in touch with what is going on, and where it is not within his power to prevent the imposition of unnecessary burdens on the people he can make a protest so emphatic as to lead later to the conviction of the abuse. As the Philadelphia paper says, "there are signs that the people are ‘waking up.’ ” They are not going to submit to unnecessary expenses much longer, either in the form of taxes or other things,

SCHOOL BOOK CHANGES.

On April 8 the State Board of Education met in Indianapolis for the purpose of receiving proposals for supplying the readers, arithmetics, geographies and copy books to be used in the public schools during the next five years. According to newspaper reports the meeting was attended by a very large number of book men who were interested in the publications of twentyeight bidders. Some of the bidders are independent publishing houses, while others, in one way and another, are identified with what is known as the school book trust. It has been intimated for some time that there is a, combination on foot to bring about a complete change in the books now in use and substitute others. There have been rumors of the formation of a syndicate for this purpose and that an agressive effort would be made to induce the state board to throw out the books now in the hands of the school children and require the purchase of books of other authors and publishers at the beginning of next school year. The board took all of the proposals under advisement and will I meet .again on the 22d of this month jto consider the question of letting i contracts. The people have conjfidence in the members of the I board and look to them for fair treatment, and for protection against unnecessary expenditures. By virtue of their offices, Governor Marshall and State Superintendent A ley .are new members of the board, and they know how the people fedl about the matter of frequent and needless changes in school books. The cost of sqhool books to the parents of the children is enormous in the aggregate, and changes are keenly felt by tens of thousands of persons whose, children are in the schools. The state board will, no doubt, seriously consider this phase of the question. If a good book is now in use it should not be thrown out unless the action can be defended on the ground of distinct advantage in matter and price.

THE SUGER TARIFF HUMBUG.

Congressman Dalzoll In Controversy Willi Constituents Over Sugar. Congressman Dalzell writes: Washington, D. C., March 16, 1909. Mr. V. F. Geyer, McKeesport, Pa. My Dear Mr. Geyer: I have your letter enclosing petitions for reduction of tariff on sugar, whicli 1 have caused to be sent to the proper committee. However desirable such reduction might lie from your standpoint, I want to tay to you that such reduction is [utterly out of the question. The tariff upon sugar accomplishes two objects. In the first place, chiefly, jit is a revenue tariff from which the government derives a very large i revenue. And, secondly, it is a protective tariff. I entertain no doubt that with the continuance of I the present duty upon sugar and the ■ encouragement of our home lndusi try. the time will come when we ► hall be able oursetves to produce all 'the sugar that we consume. Just 'now, when our revenues are falling behind, and we have in prospect a very large deficit, it would be exceed* ingly unwise to cut off the revenue *hat the government derives from the import duties upofo sugar. Thk is not my opinion only, but the opinion of all who have considered the subject. You suggest a bond issue to make up the loss of revenue that would result from the taking off the duty on sugar. I very much fear that even with the duty on

sugar we shall be driven to an issue of bonds to supply our revenues. Yours very truly,

JOHN DALZELL.

Mr. V. F. Geyer effectively replies as follows: McKeesport, Pa., April 6, 1909. Hon. John Dalzell, Representative from Pennsylvania. Washington, D. C. Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of the 16th ult., and have read with interest what you write regarding the Sugar Tariff. The fact that the Government needs the revenue does not justify the imposing on this one particular food product, of an abnormal tax, which on Raw Sugar is e\ual to about 80 per cent of its in-bond value, increasing the cost of Refined Sugar 2c per pound. I can see no reason why this important article of food should be singled out for an excessive tax, and have never been able to understand on what theory the Government proceed in levying such an excessively high Tariff rate on Sugar. You state that the high Tariff is necessary to protect the Domestic Beet Sugar Interests, which are controlled absolutely by the “Sugar Trust.” It has not been shown that the farmer reaps any great benefit from this industry, which the people are paying so dearly for. If you will pursue your investigations further, you will find the profits from the Domestic Beet Sugar Industry finally are safely stowed away in the pockets of the “Sugar Trust.” I claim that statistics of the production of Domestic Sugar do not bear out your contention that in the near future the United States will manufacture all the sugar we consume. As a matter of fact the portion of the total amount of sugar consumed in this country, that is the home of protection, is decreasing instead of increasing. There is no reason for supposing that the relative production in this Country will increase. In Louisiana Sugar has been cultivated since 1823, and they have only succeeded in getting the total production up to 335,000 tons; in 1894-5 they produced 319,000 Tons; last year ; the Domestic Beet Sugar production was 440,000 Tons; this year 384,000 Tons. Our total consumption during 1908 was 3,185,789 Tons. Our Domestic production in Louisiana and Beet Sugar combined in 1901 and 1902 amounted to 484,81)2 Tons, so that you will see that lin the last 7 years that they have !increased only 234,198 Tons. During the. corresponding time the consumption in the United i States has : increased 81 3,473 Tons. Our Sugar Tariff has been so high that the cultivation of Beets in unfavorable localities has been encouraged, and in these sections i they themselves do not claim they I will ever be able to produce Sugar •in competition with the markets of the World. Result is a “hot house” industry. As Mr. C. A. Spreckels, President of the Federal Sugar Refining Company, said in his testimony before the Ways and Means Commitjtee: “If it is your desire to pro;mote unnatural conditions, make i the duty high enough, and Beet" Sugars could be grown profitably in ! Alaska.”

In one place in your letter you state that you cannot reduce the excessive Sugar duty because the Government needs the revenue, now derived from Importations of Foreign Raw Sugars which pay this high rate of duty, and immediately after this you say that' the prospects are that we will shortly produce enough Sugar In our Domestic markets to supply our wants. If the latter Was possible, there would be no importations of Sugar, so from what sources is the Government then going to derive revenue? I j presume you will then propose additional taxes. As Domestic Beet 'Sugar producers do not claim that | they will ever be able to produce sugar cheaper than they are now 'doing, ;the consumer will have to continue paying the same high price for his sugar as he does now, and other taxes as well. This means that sooner or later, we must face the question of cither having to destroy that part of the industry which the promoters have seen fit to locate where nature never intended Beets to be grown economically, or because of this mistake made in the first place, the people of the United States mast go on paying the excessively high price for Sugar until the end of time. In so far as our export in jellies, jams, and preserved fruits is concerned, the direct result of cheaper Sugar would be to give us a much larger share of the World’s markets than we are now able to secure. This is the greatest fruitgrowing country In the World, but our export trade in canned and preserved fruits Is relatively small,

owing to the fact that we cannot compete in neutral markets with countries having the advantage of cheap sugar. A material reduction in the Sugar tax would at once enable our canners to greatly increase their exports, thus creating a demand for fruits, berries, etc., of our farmers, which now go to waste for lack of a market. Why drive out large manufacturing concerns, like the H, J. Heinz Company of Pittsburg to open establishments in England and Canada, as they are doing, because w'hen competing in neutral markets with * other Countries, it is necessary for them to have the advantage of cheap Sugar. The advantage to our farmers, from the increased market for these products, would far exceed the doubtful benefit which a very few of them may now derive from the growth of Sugar Beets or Cane. Under these conditions it would seem better policy for the average businessman to take account of stock at once, and make an adjustment before we become too deeply involved.

If, in our Domestic production, you include Hawaii and Porto Rico, I can only say that the Hawaiians themselves admit having made $15,000,000 last year on their comparatively small crop. It is a recognized fact that the cost of production in Cuba is something under 2c per lb. cost and freight. Porto Rica is in the same latitude, but 400 miles distance. Porto Rico Sugar is to-day being sold to Refinners at 4.05 c laid down in New York, or more than 100 per cent over the Cuban cost of production. For these interests to make this abnormal profit at the expense of the consumers in the United States, is not the common idea of what the protective tariff is.

The duty on Sugar increases the cost of it to the consumer 2c per pound, which based on the consumption in the States is over $140,000,000 annually. The price of all Sugars in the United States being based on the cost and freight, price of foreign sugar, plus the duty and cost of refining. The people recognize that the “Trusts” are the chief beneficiaries of our present high tariff. They have placed themselves unequivocally on record as demanding tariff revision. They have been promised and expect “Honest Tariff Revisions” in the- interest of the consumer. Certainly an honest revision of the Tariff would not leave them, w ith this excessive burden to bear on Sugar. lam in favor of eliminating entirely duties on necessities, but if you must tax them, let Sugar bear its proper share of the burden, but do not single it out for such an excessive tax, as is being done at present. At any extreme a 50 per cent tax on Sugar or say a dyty of lc per lb. is sufficient for all Interests. , t ■

Tho Steel Schedules which have been regarded as the “backbone” of our Tariff have had to give way to the public demand for reduction in duties, and yet you attempt to jusify the continuance of the pres ent high duties on Sugar which effects every man, woman and child. In other words, what you propose to do, is to reduce the wages of the laboring man, (as they say lowering the tariff schedules on Steel will do) and on the other make no corresponding reduction in duties on necessities, but force him to pay this high Sugar tax which the Hon. Wayne MacVeagh very properly “infamous.” You are more familiar with legis--1: ve affair? in Washington than m, 1 1 am fully convinced that v. ill be a very serious mattter for Congress to attempt to put through a tariff bill that does not protect the irterests of the consumer. Hoping that you will use your influence to bring about this result, I am, Respectfully, V. F. GEYER. P. S.—To show you that the principle of imposing taxes on those most able to pay them was not considerated when the Tariff Schedule on Sugar was adopted, I quote the following as an example: Sugar duty per cent. ...78.87 Champagne 56.12 Automobiles 45 Costly Furs . 35 Expensive Feathers & Trimmed w Hats- .50 Rare Painting & Statuary 20 Diamonds : 10 One might suppose from this that Sugar was a luxury, instead of a necessity.

Mr. F. G. Fritts, Oneonta, N. Y., writes: “My little girl was greatly benefited by taking Foley’s Orino Laxative, and I think it is the best remedy for constipation and liver trouble.” Foley’s Orino Laxative ia best for women and children, as it is mild, pleasant and effective, and is a splendid spring medicine, as it cleanses the system and clears the complexion. A. F. Long. Genuine “Quaker Parchment” bqtcer wrappers, blank or printed, for sale at The Democrat office in any quantity desired.

\\ UNITED CLOTHES iff 111 which we sell from $lO to S2O have the same ill " JH style, fit & finish of S3O & even S4O clothes 11 Jjj They are designed by expert draftsmen and 11 IH tailored by skilled mechanics in one of die « ji largest and most sanitary workrooms in America jj The low prices are made possible by die enormousY / output of die manufacturers —The Richman BrofbersX v Co., of Cleveland, for whom we have die exclusive agency \ u here We should like to show you the new spring II styles : in all sizes to fit all men. VE I C. EARL DUVALL ] RENSSELAER, IND. Haaa mm^mm^ SLmmmmm ___ BARGAINS lw Implements —■——————— We have the following Bargains in Implements that have been carried over that we will sell at the following low prices FOR CASH—===== i Rock Island Tongueless Sulky Plow, 16-inch. .$25.00 i Sattley High Lift Sulky Plow, 16-inch $36.00 i John Deere Stag Tongueless Sulky Plow, 16-in $30.00 3 John Deere Hammock Seat Cultivator and Gopher $27.00 i Janesville Spading Harrow, 8-foot $31.00 1 Moline Cutaway Disc Harrow $25.00 2 John Deere No. 9 Corn Planters with 80 rods of Wire $36.00 3 Corn King Manure Spreaders SIOO.OO These implements are all new but have been carried over and the paint is a little dingy\ All are guaranteed to do good work. V HERRIMAN & MARTIN MT. AYR, INDIANA

TALK ABOUT QUALITY. Won Sweepstakes at the Rensselaer and Lowell Poultry shows, 1900 —3 silver cups, 15 specials and 2 on cockerel, 4th cock, 4th pullet, and 4th hen, at Indianapolis, in the largest and best class of Langshans I ever saw. Eggs from my pens $3 for 15; outside flock, $1.50 for 15; $6 for 100. WM. HERSHMAN, R-R-l Medaryville, Ind. The Democrat for good work. Subscribe for The Democrat

MILCH COWS FOR SALE ► 1 have 100 head of Milch Cows for sale at private sale, > some now fresh, others fresh soon, ages, 3 to 5 years, • mostly Durhams, some Jersey mixed. Will sell for ; cash or bankable note. Come early and get tlie pick of the lot. ► Also 160 head Shoats, weighing 65 to 125 pounds each. Will > sell in any quantity desired. All' healthy and in good condition. ED OLIVER I NEWLAND, .... INDIANA

TIMOTHY AND CLOVER SEED. This is the time of year the farmer begins to figure on sowing grass seeds. He wants to buy seed that is free from weeds. Our seed s that kind. It is home grown and we nave recleaned every grain of t. You can call at our store and nspect it before you buy. ' EGER BROS. The Twice-a-Week Democrat and the Twice-a-Week St. Louis Republic, both a full year for only $2.00.