Pike County Democrat, Volume 23, Number 24, Petersburg, Pike County, 4 November 1892 — Page 6

-feUMmon . Marion (City at ’ evronted) .. Martin Miami Owen.. tl’erry.. Pike .... ^asW I;”;... Putnam.......... dttpioy............ hd^v... itnrke. it. Joseph... o Hi van .... sw it Zetland. K Tipton. Warricl arriek. Washington M'ella. White. "'hitely. Totals ... Net detrease local tuition tax. tPloyd couuty in 1890 levied on }Perry county levii-d no local toil " ,of Indiana Am Wade to Suffer ptto MakatheTax wOdloM3. Hundred Thousand Dollars i of Toltlon Money Atone (In the Connies at the State, and i Wherever There la a Itepubiloan Official ia a Democratic County. Interesting Facts for Taxpayers. There has been a great deal said dn Republican papers about the “Jewett Circular” advising Demo* patio local Officials to reduce their local ttu rates so that they would not raise more money than they (did last year. The following tildes will show why that advice ought to have been taken by ail local officials in regard to the matter of tuition taxes. It wa$ well kn^wn at the time the taxes were levied that there would be a large iullrown . Orroll. 53 i»'H Hr|lublloatl

yetto.. untain l.'int intmgtott. inseo rouge roc igowery *5,511 15 89 8,346 93 74 58 69 76 55 2, OBI 0| 8,659 49 9,119 JQ 4,116 60 _ . _.. : ~ ft t'uyua .... 1,193 01 Total.. W,744 10 ; inewame local tuition tax.. 53,533 40

- in# gnonnou* increase maae dj (bis board entitles it to stand glone—distinguished from ojl the state by its outrageous imposition pa the people. It increased the, city School taxes of Indianapolis the snm of §113,014,80, notwithstanding the city re* peives about 083,000 more from the state! i it did last yean. I It will be seen by the tables that Democratic counties show in* l of local tuition taxes and thirty* show decreases. The increases in eleven counties amount altogether 1.87, and the decreases In the aountipi amount to $180,038.18, i of tuition money distributed by The state superintendent of : instruction bad given public no; > that the increase would be jtfleasf ats to each child of school t is to say, between the ngos of l twenty-one years—in the entire 'localschool official knew ref school children entuner * or town, and know i would be at seventy. If he did not, ha i enough to hold i the plain duty of each i the load school taxes i some p an laavcxx gf tuition •locality. | t theyiil!es that .endeavored officials, to moke the, i $» high as they oonld., not sq marked as

This Ntcepta the city of Indianapolis, but includes all other increases by Republicans in Democratic counties. ThainDreased revenue distributed to those counties by the state, on the state superintendent’s estimate, will be $204,209,985, in that these for.y-six counties will have |151,7M.il more of tuition money than they had last year, notwithstanding the decreases made. On the other hand, of the forty-six Republican counties only seventeen have decreased their local tuition taxes, and twenty-nine have increased them. The total increases amount to $94,744.19, and the total decreases to $13,910.79, making a net increase of local tuition taxes of $58,933.40. Bat the school money distributed to these counties by the state will be $374,037.80 greater than last year, and therefore the local taxes should have been decreased to that extent. These counties will have $388,500. SO more revenue for tuition than last year, and unless thorp was some special reason gar increase in particular

*5,253 62 - 17,618 75 747 28 8 32 6,626 37 8,674 90 4,242 96 4,078 30 4,542 <0 8,874 08 4,(Mi.88 2,996 98 8,130 09 1,297 84 " 685 61 8,034 ~3 2,902 00 9,143 30 1,358 28 6,210 44 1,582 22 1,08 78 " 293 45 540 98 1,134 21 1,220 18 4,800 39 4,043 59 4,338 98 8,259 60 "i48 33 5,994 U 7,120 b7 241 25 8135,085 18 ..8112,505 81 .85,412 25 18,292 30 6,723 75 2.799 00 2,880 75 4,500 75 jUifti 20 8,614 20 9,522 00 4,032 35 6,081 00 6,675 23 5,538 00 8,216 95 4.802 25 4,437 75 4,588 50 5.800 00 6.802 25 4,690 50 7,799 25 9,496 75 10,173 75 8,518 50 8,134 20 4.001 00 7,112 25 4.080 00 5,203 50 5,115 25 6.801 75 8,506 25 5,457 75 8,938 00 2,042 50 6,612 73 2,183 50 11,040 75 6,C. 0 25 8,218 73 5,160 75 jB,055 50 5,190 25 5.001 00 4,0u5 <5 4,343 35 8264,269 99 8151,764 11 * 158 50, 678 73 i 10,174 571 2,051 72 2,872 40 8,793 84 1,539 83 •58 78 4,579 04 4,636-61 2,007 93 1,138 55 1,668 92, 8,296 93! 760 87 1,441 67 4,716 21 8,379 81 5,504 41 6,427 40 7,113 64 802 05 7,571 75 14,005 80 1,009 00 2,642 72 *871 81 2,497 78 5,293 30 4,091 47 9,874 59 8,212 80 4,916 83 2,803 79 822 32 1,812 35 2,885 62 14,509 37 1,036 66 •960 20 1,905 15 7,153 U *3,054 83 4,102 00 In 1891, *168. m either 18JO or 18"1. Count tea. *3,138 75 6,378 00 6,8.2 00 1.257 97 6,750 00 2,269 39 7,542 00 . 6,087 25 7,420 60 1,571 17 9,585 75 * 98 69 2,948 25 . 6,865 50 4,042 36 6,003 00 ........ 8,466 75 ........ 6,000 00 1,949 55 6,701 25 .. 6,818 25 5.392 00 1,903 87 6,837 00 ... 6,573 20 .. 2,894 35 . 5,985 75 615 66 7,233 00 ........ 4,438 50 ........ 6,975 00 614 a6 3.088 50 . 5,874 75 ........ 8,608 25 4,548 75 4,766 i5 8,687 75 1,602 81 4,791 00 . 2,339 50 . S.457 00 . 1,245 70 ..8,93*75 6,705 00 8.551 00 6,706 50 4,406 75 '6,526 50 8,615 75 10,691 25 1,589 75 14,641 00 8,482 00 16,382 25 7,295 25 2,556 73 9,905 23 2,000 04 154 67 651 08 jf.oraw Jvi. *8,649 90 1,509 00 5,491 00 5,272 61 5,899 26 13,807 32 8,014 58 2,849 57 7.711 78 2,500 64 11,932 43 7,504 13 4,811 TO 11,150 46 8,950 77 4,933 63 10,369 08 9,175 29 8,413 61 6,617 81 5,530 00 8,382 16 8,174 27 10,065 42 5,838 28 5,833 58 8,871 00 8,188 69 4,989 24 7,434 58 I, 563 33 4.711 51 |812 73 8,433 39 11,581 18 8,981 30 8,866 46 8,461 08 10,040 17 4,280 88 7,568 13 10,091 43 18,494 45 11,411 94 ‘7,911 37 II, 628 23 *42,310 79 (274,057 40 *320,590 80

cases there is just that much unnecessary increase of iaxo3 on tho people of those counties for that purpose. It should be borne in mind that tuition money is used only for paying teachers. All other school expenses are paid out pf tho special school, taxes, It will be noticed also that in only six counties—five Democratic and one Republican—have the local school taxes been decreased so that there will be le3S school revenue than last year, and in none of these, except possibly White county, is the docreaso of any material amount On the whole showing it is clearly apparent that Democratic officials have! acted in the interest of the people, while Republican officials have been trying to make the new tax law obnoxioua to the people- The evidences of that conspiracy multiply daily. The question that the people of Indiana *re now confronted with is, “What nro yon going to do with these Republican local oihcials who have increased your local taxes over $1,500,000, in order to make yon believe that yon were oppressed by the new tax law r What wart of opinion lid they have of your intelligence ? What was their object in trying to liscredit a law that increased the taxes jf corporations in Indiana over $1,360,XX), and made them, for the first time in the history of tho state, pay their just share of taxes? These are question** il—t should be carefully considered. Imports of Tin Tint*. A few days ago, says The New York Times, we invited the attention of oar hiph tariff friends to some very significant official figures relating to imports jf«n plate. W« regret,ftut our high. tsulff friends have not yet found time to1

tin plate show that about 350,000,000 ft supply tor six month#—v ported in excess of what may he called the normal average annual imports. For this reason the quantity imported in the six months immediately following t*>e imposition of the higher duty lid not exceed too,000,000 pounds. But in'January last the stocks which had been imported under the old duty were running low, and the demand caused the import movement to increase. Here lire the treasury department’s reports of the quantities imported in the first four months of the current calendar year; Imports of Tin Plato. 1889, Pounds. January... 80,619,909 February. 43.888.915 March. 07,488,900 April... 70,489,109 It was the report for March that we mentioned a tow days ago. Wo have Dow added the report for April, which eras published by the treasury department on Saturday last We pointed out that Uia quantity imported in March exceeded average monthly imports of tin plate far the years 1889 and 1890, when the import movement vt as not disturbed by tariff legislation. It will be seen that the quantity imported in April was still greater. The comparison may he shown is follows: Imports of Tin Plato. Founds. rhe fiscal year 1889..797,945,079 lbe fiscal year 1800. .071,001,458 Monthly average for 1889.,..,,... 60,663,164 Monthly average for 1890......... 58,223,038 Imports in March, 1899. 07,498,960 Imports in April, 1890. 70,489,102 Since March 1 wo have been importing more tin plate per month than was imported per month in the years of 1889 tnd 1890, and the official reports show • steady increase in the rate. The accuracy of the reports will not be questioned by our high-tariff friends, for the Bgures are those of Mr. Harrison’s secretary of the treasury, who has kindly published the report for the month of April at a time when the figures can be sot forth in the platform which will he adopted at Minneapolis this week. The duty on the quantity imported in March and April would have been at the bid rate, $1,879,880; under the new rate It was $3,033,737, an increase of #1,655,357. We shall be disappointed if our high-tariff friends persist in ignoring this import movement and the significance of it Reliance upon the home market is confessedly abandoned. Reciprocity is based upon the truth admitted at last that the home market is insufficient. It is equally true that many months of ceriprority, re-enforced by the short crops of Europe, and by the famine iu Russia, have proved wholly unavailing to gain to the pound of pork, the barrel of flour, or die bale of cotton the price they once ordinarily bore.—From Senator Turpie's speech on Reciprocity Humbug. If there is a workingman in Indiana whose wages have been advanced since the McKinley law took effect, we should be glad to receive his name and address.

HIGH PROTECTION. la England a Thousand Toon of It Cro* g|«d Pauperism. Gentlemen who advocate high protection talk about England and t'uo sufferings of English laborers. From the days of William the Conqueror until 1846, the highest kind of protection laws prevailed in that country, and the average wealth of the laboring people in 1840 was estimated at £44 per family. Under the high protection laws all the wealth of the country was concentrated in the hands of a very faw, seven-eighths of the population being laborers, most of whom were barely able to earn the most meager subsistence. Mulhall’s Dictionary of Statistics tells us that since the passage of what are known as the free trade laws of England more than a million of English families have risen from the condition of day laborers to what he terms the middle class, meaning those comfortable, prosperous people whose incomes range above $3,000 a year. Mulhall also states that the rich families have decreased moire than 60 per cent., and the wealth per family of tins class more than 10 per cent.

He also shows that the average wealth of the working class has doubled during that period. In other words, under the English tariff laws the workingmen and poor classes are constantly getting richer, the middle class or people in comfortable circumstances are constantly increasing, having more y yearn, while the doubled in rich .bers and iple of tree decreased both in 1th. This proves that the trade, as it is called the Republicans, or fair trade, or just tariff laws, as advocated by us—that is, tariff levied for the purpose of benefiting the whole people—has had the pffept in England to decentralise we-’+h and to bnild np a large class of that character of people which alone makes a country great, prosperous and happy. Nearly a thousand years of protective tariff prior to 1846 had divided the people of England—a protected nobility owning millions on the one side, a small! mid<i)e class of moderate means, and 20,000,000 people suffering abject poverty, many of them being little above pauperism. Forty years of fair trade have decentralised wealth, reduced the number who possessed extreme wealth, almost abolished pauperism, and largely increased the thrifty middle class. The very reverse has been the condition of the United States during the period of Republican control.—Speech of Representative Joseph Wheeler. The harvest will be on in three weeks, and thousands of tons of binding twine rill tie used on which the McKinley tariff indies a tariff of $14, ‘J’hp hill removing tLisVx, which a Democratic house passed ‘wo mdfitha ago, still remains pigeonholed in the finance committee of the Republican senate. The cordage trust rill never allow the hill tp leave the

bare es that our since 1861 Is due to mil he pointed oat stumps and newspapers that in 1860, we were, as a nation, only worth #16,000,000,000, and ns we are now worth #07,000,000,000. it will be taken for granted upon pure assumption without a shadow of proof, except possibly a comparison between- our condition in 1346-61 and 1861-09, or between the growth of En- j gland and the United States, that there- { fore high tariff is the cause. But it might just as well be argued that because as soon as a community begins to grow wealthy a piano appears, and be-, cause the greater the wealth the greater the number of pianos in a community, none of which facts can be denied, therefore pianos are the cause of wealth. The truth about the matter is that for the last thirty years we have grown wealthy in spite of a tariff, and our enormous advance in wealth baa come far more from the non-protected than from the protected industries. It may he confidently stated that if for the last twentyfive years onr tariff duties had been onehalf of what they now are, onr national wealth today would have been #100,000,• 000,000 instead of #07,000,000,000. Fur example: In 1861 we had #6,000,- ' 000,000 worth of shipping which employed 60,000 sailors and did 75 per cent, j of the ocean trausporuuiuuui: the world., This industry, if suffared to increase in ' the ratio it did from ’41 to ’61, would today have been worth #30,000,000,000. j When we consider that the protected in-! dustric-s represent only a traction of onr aggregate activities and pay l*a« chan 1-100 per coat, of onr taxes and employ only one in twenty of onr laborers we see how monstrously false is the asser-, tion that high tariff has caused our national prosperity since 1801.

no one ueeu leur a nur nuu urmnnu comparison, conducted in a non-partisan i spirit, of onr national progress in wealth between 1846 and XI and from 1861 to *76, during fifteen years' actual trial of high and low tariff. Nor need any one fear a comparison between English progress in wealth from 1861 to XI and that' of the United States. Of course, proper j allowance must he made for population,! acreage and capital between the two periods and the two nations. In 1846 we were only fifty-seven years old, with no ' foothold to speak of west of the Mississippi. If the pauic of 'S7 be charged up | to low tariff, that of '73 must be charged . up to high tariff. No fair-minded man! will take our condition at the opening of i a great war—after treason had stolen; everything its hands could seize—as the proper test of our industrial system. From ’46 to XI tramps were unknown; in 187X we had over a million of them. Fifty years ago England was the paradise of high tariff. It disappeared in 1848. Then her panperage was five times | as great as it is now, and the wages of [ labor one-third its present scale. Acre ' for acre and man for man since 1861,! England has outstepped the United States in the race for wealth, for we must not forget that we have two men and one hundred acres to her one. But, comparisons aside, what has caused our enormous growth in wealth since 1861 ? Answer: The greatest acreage and the greatest wealth of farm and mine and the greatest and most skillful army of wage-workers of any nation on earth. I repeat, of these workers only one in twenty is engaged in the protected industries. These industries, when we charge them up with the monstrous subsidies that we have paid them since 1861, have not added $1 tef onr public wealth. Appraise their plants and wealth-producing capacities at a fair price and deduct from this valuation the subsidies paid them in the shape of increased prices since 1861 and the protected manufacturers owe to unprotected American industry hundreds of millions of dollars. And yet we hear the endless assertion: “High tariff did and does it”

oar national prosperity ? To the American fanner and miner. They are the only ones that prodace any exports worth naming. Oar manufacturers do not need to do this—they have 62,000,000 people by the throat, to whom, backed up by the government, they say: “Pay or be fired.” After this monstrous fraud they have the impudence to turn to the fanner and say: “Behold your home markets.” Home markets? for who and what? for wheat? for cotton? for pork? The pices for these great staples are fixed in the markets of the world and all the tariffs in creation can’t and don’t improve the price of wheat, ootton or pork one penny. The home market is for tho protected manufacturer, who has a lug thing of it—sometimes 200 or 300 per cent., averr age 60 per cent, and can well afford to furnish “the fat” to keep his patrons in power. Would not our 63,000,000 people eat just as much under a 20 per cent, as they do now under a CO per cent, tariff. “Of all the devicee to fertilise a rich man’s field with a poor man's sweat,” this McKinley law is the most ingenious! and most effective. Its prsdecesaors have effected the prioe of weastorn real estate to that extent that nineteen agricultural states of the west, of which Indiana is; one, own less than one-half the wealth: of the six Atlantic states clustering around New York city, in which states high tariff has its headquarters. These states have so manipulated congress that since 1861 our tariff rates have, in spite of all efforts to reform, constantly advanced until they now average 60 per cent Elect Harrison, and before the close of his administration they will rise to 75 per cent Keep the pftpentf party in power, and in lees than twenty years they will advjrpoe to 100 per cent average. \ Finally, a great moral question comes in. Does prosperity—167,000,000,000 of it—justify robbery? If so, Jay Gould is, as his fcoft-rtolled pastor claimed a few weoka ago, htha loveliest of men.” The great mgsses of our poor are poor by j reason of their honesty. Rich scoundrels usually die in their bods. The realques-1 tion is, “Who owns our great wealth?" j Ho man pver yet earned $1,000,000, yet, 900,000 men own $10,000,000,000 in the United States. There must be something ineqpreesibly wrong in an industrial system that In thirty-one years has created j 5,000,000 tramps and consolitbte4 80 per i cent, of our national wealih in 250,000 bauds. No wonder the high tariff advocates are doing weir beet to shoulder this monstrous fact upon coal oil, rdl-.

recraemg tae xocai tax levy - to the increase of awcssaad trustees in Republican counties actually raise it. In numerous case*"this was done for political effect. In not a few counties a surplus was created by Republican officials for the purpose of leaving the same at good interest. To illustrate how the taxpayersare imposed upon by Republican officials the following counties are given as examples:

comma. Benton .... Decatur — Fayette .... Fountain... Hendricks.. Henry. Jasper.. Jay.. Jennings... Kosciusko.. Lake. Lawrence .. Morgan.... Newton ... OrangePorter. Randolph .. Rush..;".. Tippecanoe. Union. Vermillion. Warren — Wayre..... *36,238 31 95,933 13 8,887 37 18.795 83 85,188 31 8*838 96 18,KM IS 34,543 78 15,331 34 48.408 89 105,009 79 38,404 47 9,438 84 18.409 04 10,590 13 49,080 78 85.087 08 83,979 79 41,365 50 33,663 90 18,730 06 ro,sct 57 49,565 83 811,897 16 8,935 93 7,614 83 13,489 84 13,440 83 15,000 00 7,630 84 8,880 86 6,473 37 18,066 81 28.970 09 8,818 74 7,536 43 9,313 5S 8,113 S3 13,357 67 15,368 70 14,933 81 81,983 81 3,913 55 6,233 04 00 13,774 SI *13,648 13, 9,344 54! 9,033 90 10.515 98 13,505 51 83,049 05 11,077 91 11,507 99 11,943 68 19,101 10 40,309 53 15,087 51 7,800 59 13,404 30 3.185 83 35,733 16 20,804 91 17,653 99 83,826 08 i 8,587 98 ‘ 10,591 39' 11,661 94 2 MM2 34 Trust* Legitimate OOkprlng of Protection Tin trust is the g .eateet enemy of the protectionist causa, according to The Commercial Bulletin. This is a new il-j lustration of the truth of the scripture ! sayin » that “a man’s foes are to be found! in hL own household.” The trust is the \ strictly legitimate offspring of protec-! tion ns it is now advocated in this coon-1 try. The essence of protection is the shutting out of competition. It calls upon government to intervene to pro-, vent competition. What more natural than that when a kind of competition appears which it is j out of the power of the government to j prevent, those who have been used to being aided against competition should j combine among themselves for this purpose? It is so natural that it may be | pronounced as inevitable. Surely, when government is asked to intervene to aid business, there ought not to be surprise that business takes stringent measures to aid itself.—Boston Herald. In 1890 beans were imported from Canada to the amount of (15,899. The dnty on beans, then, was 30 per cent The McKinley tariff increased it to 40 per cent, the object being to shutoff entirely the Canadian product, that the American bean growers might have a monopoly of the bean market As the valneof Canadian beans imported during the twelve months succeeding the enactment i of the McKinley tariff amounted to $15,735, it is evident that the American bean men do not receive tire protection promised them. Still, McKinley can paint with satisfaction to the fact that the balance of the bean trade is $174 in our favor, all on account of bis little bilL

"But Good* Are So Cheap “ This is the argument 'with which our farmers and work people will be bamboozled for the next five months into Toting for a tariff, the effect of which is to enrich at their expense she small class of people who are at the bottom of high tariff legislation. Innumerable small-' bore orators and newspapers will repeat this fall the stale bid chestnnt: “Fifty years ago yon hauled a load of wheat one hundred miles over corduroy roads, scld it at fifty cents a bushel, and bought salt at |3 a barrel. Now you, under a high tariff, go ten miles over macadam-j izod roads, get eighty cents for your, wheat and pay fifty cents for salt Hal- j lelujah, vote again for the 60 per| cent, tariff.” Now there is just truth1 enough in this ancient campaign rot to [ float the orator’s monstrous inferential falsely. Salt can be bought for fifty i cents a barrel, but high tariff has no more to do with it than with the macaS-' amized roads. Why is salt so cheap?; Fifty years ago it was supposed that the | Creator had given the north but one salt bed; that at Syracuse, N. Y. A ring of speculators became millionaires by in- j during congress to put a high duty on this necessity of life. Did they lower the price? Not much. Another equally' valuable salt bed was found in Michigan. The Michigan and Syracuse people com- j blued, but nature was too generous. For salt was found in Kansas and at a dozen other points. Now salt is nothing but boiled water, and its manufacture is as cheap as dirt In a while the cry^pro- J tect cur infant industry. Devt^offhotoe salt by a big tax,” did duty, but [God hy been too liberal. There were top many salt deposits in the United States*—-And so we have, after paying the salt monopoly $100,000,000, salt at fifty cents a, barrel. The cry of “infant industry” was' a fraud from toe start Occasionally the; tariff architects blunder and get the duty too high and then the article is over-produced mid its price falls to less i than the duty. Hence this chestnut j “My friend,” says Mr. Orator, to the countryman, “don’t yon know there is a dnty of fifty cents a yard on that shirt you have got on?” “May be,” says greeney, “but the blamed thing only cost twenty-five cents.” Now this joke is a dead give away of the whole high, tariff argument For it proves that if the object of high tariff was to cheapen goods by competition, the dnties would be put to that print that would bring pesults like the countryman’s shirt. But; such results are exactly what high tariff doesn’t want, and such mistakes are invariably corrected at the first opportunity. • - But why an goods so cheap? In the first place, remember cheap is a relative term. Giving the high tariff advocate a benefit of all the reductions in dntied articles that hq chums, we are still paytog fo| them 00 to 100 per cent, more than they cost in Europe, and in those portions of Europe that are working under high protection. This proves that it is not high tariff that cheapens goods, but dense populations and their labor surplus. VAgato, everybody knows that the cause of cheapened goods is increased machin-j ery skill and power and more effective labor. “Exactly,” cries the high tariff man, “High tariff stimulates industry and that brings inventions into demand and improves, by high wages, the effectiveness of labor.” Stop a moment, my friend. There Is no place on earth where machinery has reached that development and wages been so improved within the last ftuty yean aa in free trade England. .% (^er«on PM* you

eryand labor skill w confined to high tariff countries, a thing that is absurd. This process of cheapening goods is com-! mon to all the world and nowhere is it; so effective as on the salt ocean, the only j portion of the earth that man has not ’ ■raxed with tariff. Ocean freights are' about one-tenth of what they were twenty years ago. find now comes an answer to this “But-goods-are-so-cheap” business that’ <me never reads about in the Indianapolis j Journal. Look at the scale of prices of. farm products for the last twenty yean: [

m. 1818. 18T4.. 1875.. .. 1876... 18TT. 1878 . 1879 . 1880 . 1881. 1883.. ..;. 1888.. 1884 . 1885 . 1888. 1887. 1888.. ....... 1889 .... 1890 .. 1861 (at close of). the Fiscal Year Ending June - 10. t Cotton Corn Wheat per lb. per bu. per bo. Cents. Cents. TTfl I. 33 1.88 13.4 13.0 13.9 II. 8 11.1 9.9 11.5 11.4 11.4 ms 10.5 10.0 9.9 9.5 9.8 9.9 10.3 0.0 10 03 73 85 67 54 86 47 54 ,55 67 08 61 54 SO 48 55 47 49 41 1 SI 1 43 1 13 1 34 1 17 1 84 1 07] 1 35 1 Hi 1 19| 1 13 1 07 86’ 87 89 85 90 88 Now for the other side of this cheap goods business. The manufacturer, while his goods have been cheapening, has been protected by the government. In 1890,\ finding this cheapening process inconvenient to deal with, Harrison’s administration come to his rescue and raised his 47 per cent, protection to 60 per cent.j Far campaign purposes it made a show of helping the farmer, but, as Blaine said, it did not increase the price of a bushel of wheat or pound of pork (if he had lived socth he would have added, or cotton) a penny, and it conld not, for such prices are fixed is the markets of the world. Does that l'anner get his woolen goods 800 per cent cheaper than is 1873? But 1! that is the decline, as the above table shows on the cotton. Does he get his dry goods, his farm implements 70 per cent, and 80 per cent cheaper than he did in 1873? But that has been the depredation in his wheat and corn. Then it looks as if therejtfere two sides to this “bnt-goods-arc-so^heap” argument. This article is getting loo long andj can’t allude to but one more fact aira^ that is, the whole world over, all kinds of staples have in the last ten years declined 831-3 per cent. If any one wants the facts let them read David A. Wells’ “Recent Economic Changes,” and especially that chapter devoted to the causes of this universal decline. The aim of this article is to be lair. High tariff,: and competition induced thereby, have something to do with cheap goods. Just as I pointed out the other day, ^has something to do with wages. BuMhat doesn’t satisfy your McKinley worshiper. * He insists that raising duties cheapens prices through competition, and that is the sole cause of their decline. It is a suffident answer, to such a claim to ask, “Then why don’t you raise them to 500 or 1,000 per cent, and make us all happy?” D. P. Baldwin. Logansport, Ind., May 3e, 1893.

TARIFF PARAGRAPHS. The price of wheat in 1864 in New York was: lowest, |1.75 a bushel; highestrJSLjS. The subscription price of thellttkville Republican that year was the snip as now—#1.50 a year. Three-, fourths of a bushel of wheat would therefore pay a year's subscription then,1 while for some years back it has taken two bushels to pay a year’s subscription to a paper that oooly asserts that everything the farmer raises will buy more now than at any previous period in our history. The taxpaying power of wheat shows a still greater difference when' compared, with ”frce trade times.” In} 1854 a bushel of wheat would pay local( taxes in Adams township on #3S&now. a bushel will pay on considerably* less than #100.—Rockville Tribune. I This is sheep-shearing time and we are momentarily expecting the Delphi JoiSnal to explain to the sheep-xttfeers of Carroll county why it is thatrtne Me- j Kinley increase of the tariff oafwoed did not increase the price of wool. We feel ■ confident The Journal will spit on its hands and tackle the question before the season is over, if it does not do it immediately, and that is why we are holding our breath. We know it will not let the inviting opportunity pass. It is true, the price of wool has actually gone down' under the McKinley hill, hut wedon't expect The Journal to say anything' about that. It will only explain why it did not go up.—Delphi Times. Every Democratic state convention, sc far, has recognised the tariff as the leading and absorbing issuo for the coming campaign. And just so it is with Republican conventions. A more clearly defined issue was never accepted in the history of the oountry. The Republicans are compelled, too, to accept and pretend to vindicate the most extreme phase of prohibitory tariff taxations—even McKinleyjsm—or abandon their organisation.1 Like “the old man of the sea" on the gening shoulders of Sinbab, McKinleyism is a deep set barnacle that can not be scraped off without sinking the ship. —Noble County Democrat. J Republican papers see dire hayoc threatening tl^lprosperityof the country because a slight increase harden made in the state* tax, but they nave nothing to say of increases of federal taxation.' The state taxes in Miami county are not, one-thirthieth as much as the sums collected for federal purposes. — Peru Sentinel. _ I Under the old law the tariff on tip plate was #3.15,.whereas it is now #4.75, or #3.00 in advance. Recently The Democrat showed that the price to the tinner had advanced #3.35. Does not this plainly show that the tariff steal keeps just behind the tariff rote?-rFrankliu County Democrat. There is a very general desire to know where is the laboring man whose wages have been advanced since the McKinley hill became a law. On the other hand it is very evident that the purchasing power of the poor man's dollar has beep impaired.—Daviess County Democrat, j .The persistent attempt of the McKinleyites to naturalise an imported sheet of irpn dipped in imported tin by imported workmen is as ridiculous as the attempt of a New York dude to be an $uglwhmau.—Jladi^on Herald,

SUBSCRIBE FOR • • /C The Pike County Democra - ■ w The best local paper published in Southern Indiana, ffc&ontains more interesting home news each week than any other paper published in the county.

LB HAVE IT ; f \ It contains all the county news and also publishes full reports of the circuit and commissiouers’ court. 6 It gives the news of the different townships, and each we^h contains Rev. DeWitt Talmage’s sermons, and the latest news by telegraph. 3 ;_ PER & When in the city don’t fail to call and get a sample copy of The Democrat, andjf you are satisfied with it give us your name and we will send it to your address.

m i no mum v • . Jsj unexcelled for fiiie work.^ We have the reputation for artistic printing of all kind, and will duplicate ' the work and prices of nny city office. When in need of any work iu our line don’t fail to give us a call. \ *1