Rensselaer Republican, Volume 18, Number 1, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 September 1885 — ISSUES IN OHIO. [ARTICLE]

ISSUES IN OHIO.

The First Formal Speech by General Foraker in the Ohio Campaign. Position of the Republican Party on the Tariff and Other Questions. The Difference Between the Democrats in 1860 and the Republicans in 1884. The Hon. J. B. Foraker, Bepubllcan candidate for Governor of Ohio, delivered his formal opening campaign speech at Portsmouth on the Ist inst. He first called attention to the manner in which the Democratic party was put out of power in 1800, and compared this with the way in which the Repub.ican party was put out of power in 1884. 'lhe Democracy was defeated in iB6O because the people wanted to condemn the principles and policy of the party. But not so was the Republican party turned out of power as the result of the election of Mr. Cleveland. Instead of its principles and policies being condemned, it enjoys the exceptional gratification as it goes out of power of an unaualitied approbation, for all that it has done for the twent,y-iour years it administered the affairs of our Government, by the whole American people, Democrats and Republicans alike. Ton will search its record in vain to find a single measure of national importance that has ever been adopted by it tjiat the people are displeased with at this time. Inasmuch as the only ground upon which the Republican party was seriously assailed by our Democratic friends in the last election was that of dishonesty and corruption, I want, before quitting the matter, to go further than to simply point out the fact, as I have done, that we have been exonerated from that charge by our Democratic friends, and give some additional testimony to the same effect. It is without doubt most desirable that our civil service should be improved in some important particulars; but it is nevertheless true that, notwithstanding whatever defects there may bo in the methods governing appointments to the civil service, our civil service has nevertheless been, under Republican administrations, the best that any country has ever been blessed with in the history of the world, so far as both efficiency and fidelity are concerned. As proof of this I wish to submit here again for the consideration of the people of Ohio some figures that I have presented on 1 other occasions, but which cannot be too much kept in view. Every patriotic man who has the credit and good name of the American Government at heart ought to be proud of them, whether he is a Republican ora Democrat. They are at once a high testimony to Republican official fidelity, and a high example worthy of emulation by our democratic friends. I sincerely hope when their lease of power is ended they may present as creditable a record for themselves as these figures proclaim for us. What I refer to are figures which no Democrat can challenge the correctness of figures that no Democrat will attempt to dispute. They relate to frauds and defalcations under the different administrations. The only criticism 1 have heard of them has been that they do not necessarily show all the frauds and defalcations that have been committed under Republican administrations. However that may be, they do show and are, therefore, perfectly just* for the purposes I use them, all the frauds that have been committed under Republican administrations of the same character as were the frauds committed under preceding administrations. They are, therefore, an absolutely just measure for comparison between Republican administrations. They are figures which show the amount of loss to the Government by defalcations and peculations of all kinds on the part of public officials on each SI,OOO of public moneys handled by them under the respective administrations of our Government, from Washington’s down to the present administration. They show what these losses were on each SI,OOO of public moneys handled: Under Washington's administration $2.22 John Adams' 2.59 Jefferson's 2.75 Madison's ’ 4.16 Monroe’s \ 8.58 John Quincy Adams'..... 4.97 Jackson's,., 7.52 Vanburen’s 11.71 You will notice that under the most thoroughly representative Democratic administration we have ever had, these losses are far greater than under any other administration. Under the Harrison and Tyler administration these losses were $6.40. Under Polk’s administration, $4.08. Under Taylor and Fillmore’s administration, $4.19.

Under Pierce's administration, {3.58. Under Buchanan’s administration, $3.81. Buchanan’s administration was the last Democratic administration. When it went out the Republican administration of Abraham Lincoln came in; but Lincoln came into power with a great war on his hands. He was compelled to raise an army of a million men and put them in the field, and maintain them there for four years, to suppress a gigantic rebellion. He was compelled to raise and put on the ocean, and maintain it there, a great navy. To carry on this stupendous work it was necessary that he should have thousands of men handling the public moneys, where, in times of peace, one man has been sufficient. It was necessary also that these representatives of the Government should, handle thousands of dollars each where in time of peaoe there had been one dollar handled. But that was not all. Amid the turbulent excitement and pressing necessities of such a war it could not be expected that the highest care could be exercised in the selection of public officials. Besides that, war always brings with it, as one of its greatest afflictions, a sort ofdemoralizatlon that makes men less careful than they are disposed to be under other circumstances You would naturally suppose, therefore, that the losses under Mr. Lincoln's administration upon every SI,OOO of public moneys handled would be far greater than they were under any previous administration of the Government. But not so. It was not until the Republican party came into power with Mr. Lincoln as President that the people of this country were made to know what it was to have honest and faithful public servants; for under his administration, notwithstanding all the difficulties attending it calculated to promote losses and frauds and defalcations, the losses upon each SI,OOO of public moneys handled, instead of being $3.81, as they were under Buchanan’s administration, were but 70 cents. And then came Andrew Johnson's administration, and these losses were still further reduced until they amounted for each SI,OOO to but 67 cents. And then came Grant's administration. He was President for eight years. It was dnring his administration that my worthy opponent. Judge Hoadly, who had uhiffl that time been an ardent Republican, became so dissatisfied with the Republican party because of its alleged corruption that he ctould not any longer stay in it, but exercising his reserved rights, Withdrew from it in order that he might find what was claimed by him to be a niore honest, incorruptible, and congenial party association. That is to aay, he left the Republican party because it was too corrupt to stay in, and joined the Democratic party in order that he might help, among other things, to elect Henry B- Payne to the Senate of the United States. But you will observe that when he quit this party because of its alleged corruption, instead of these losses increasing, as such a charge would lead you to suppose they would, they fell straightway from fifty-seven cents, as they had been under Johnson’s administration, to only twenty-four cents under Grant’s administration. And then came the administration of President Hayes, for whom Judge Hoadly seems to have no respect or patience whatever, probably among other things because 'of the fact that under his administration these losses fell to only three mills on every $l,0oo! And now our Democratic friends have found, among other things, that under Chester A. Arthur's administration these losses' amoun'ed to but one mill and eight-tenths of a mill on every sl,ooo'of public money handled! May it not be possible that the result of last year’s election was not to "turn the rascals out/ but to "turn the rascals in r" At any rate, I feel warranted in repeating the assertion that there is nothing in the mere fact that the Republican party is out of power to discourage the fa th of any Republican in the principles of Republicanism. After touching upon the Southern question, the Mullen outrage, and the business policy! of the administration he came to the discussion of the wool and tariff questions: Two years ago our Democratic friends arraigned the Republi an party all over the State upon the charg) of having reduced the tariff duty on wool. They promised the people of Ohio that if they should be returned to power they would restore the tarifT duty on wool of 1867. We answered in that campaign that the Republican party was not responsible so-- the reduction of tariff duty on wool, and pledged ourselves to the wool-growing interests of the Btate to restore that dnty at the first opportunity. We have not had an opportunity to act npon that pledge; but our Democratic friends have had such an o< portunlty. Mr. Converse introdnoed a resolution in the House of Representatives providing for a restoration of the duty of 1867 on wool; but his resolution was overwhelmingly voted down by the Democratic party by a practically unanimous

vote, the Republican party, by a practically unanimous vote, voting for lr, as we agreed ‘ in Ohio that it should da On the floor of the Honse of Representatives, when that measure was pending, the attention of the Democratic members was called to the fact that the Democracy of Ohio had made a solemn pledge to the wool-growers of Ohio to vote for the restoration of that dutv. But in answer it was tauntingly said that the Democracy of Ohio were not the Democracy of the United States; that the Democratic party of the t’nion would not recognize or honor any such pledge; that, on the contrary, the Democratic party was opposed to such restoration, and they voted accordingly. Afterward Mr. Morrison introduced a measure which provided for placing some articles on the free list, and for a horizontal reduction of twenty per cent in the tariff duties upon all other articles, wool included, and for this measure the whole Democratic party, with practical unanimity, voted, while the Kepublican party, almost to a man, voted against it, and thus, so far as the Honse of Representatives was concerned, it was demonstrated and made matter of record that instead Of restoring this tariff duty of 1867, they were ready to violate their pledge In a refusal to do so, and to add the further injury, which would have been a practical destruction of the wool-growing interests of , Ohio, Of still further reducing the tariff by twenty per cent. But they went further. When the National Democratic Convention met in Chicago in June of last year they refused to incorporate in their platform a declaration favoring a i betoration of the duty of 1867 on woo 1 , and in the same platform in which is contained the declaration that X have referred to, viz., that “the Democracy of Ohio are the friends of the agricultural and wool-growing interests of Ohio'," is contained another plank, which approves and reaffirms the N ational Democratic pi a tform of 1884. And so it is, therefore, that alongside of this declaration of the platform on which Judge Hoadly stands, that "the Democracy of Ohio are the friends of the wool-growing interests of the State,” is another which retuses. by approving and reaffirming the national platform, to favor a restoration of the tariff on wool. In view of these broken pledges, in view of the refusal of the Democratic party to favor, Mr. Converse’s resolution, in view of the support of the Democratic party of the Morrison Dili, in view of the action of the National Democratic Convention, and in view of the approval of that action by onr last State Democratic Convention, it would seem t* be the height of impudence for anybody to claim that they are the friends of the agricultural and wool-grow-ing interests of Ohio.” They would be ashamed to do so if it were not that it seems impossible for a Democrat to be ashamed of anything. When the Republican party came into power in 1860, as I said in my opening remarks, we had a free-trade policy established and enforced in the interests of cotton, the claim of the cotton planters being that unless they could get their corn and meat and other articles of food and' farm products necessary to enable them to feed their slaves and carry on their operations at the. cheapest possible price, they could not raise their cotton and send it into the markets of the world in successful competition. The result was just what they contended for, so far as the farmers of the Middle and Western States were concerned, that they did get all their farm products at the lowest possible price. Com was so cheap that it would not pay the cost of transportation, except to the very limited quantity required by the South. The result was that each year a large surplus was burned for fuel in some of the Western States, for the want of a market in which to sell it. There were no growing interests, no foundries, no factories, no mills, no machine shops, no great industries of any kind springing up throughout the agricultural regions at which labor could be employed, and a r on-producing class created to constitute a market for the farmer. The result was that the farmer had to confine himself to the production of Such staple commodities as could bear long transportation, and he was compelled to content himself with such unremunerative prices therefor as that to a large extent he realized nothing whatever from his labors. But when the Republican party came into power and enacted a tariff law, it had the wisdom to see that the policy which it was inaugurating—protection—would be as important to the farmer as to the manufacturer or any other class of people, and therefore, while levying protective tariff duties that led to the opening of our mines and Ore beds, the bui ding of furnaces and mills and factories and forges and foundries and machine shops, and the estab- ’ lishmentof every other conceivable industry of which our country was capable, thus creating home markets for the farmer at which he could sell his corn and his wheat and oats and barley and potatoes and all kinds of garden products, it also provided that there should be a protective tariff duty levied upon Tht importation into this country of every bushel of wheat, rye, oats, barley, potatoes, corn, and eyery other kind of product that the farmer could bring forth, to the end that after it had created thiß home market, it should be preserved to the enjoyment of the American farmer, to the exclusion of our Canadian brethren, and all the nations of the earth who might want to come into our country to supply them. And so It is, therefore that in the protect've tariff policy we have pursued there have been established for the American farmers the most abundant home markets, and these markets have been assured to them as against all outside competition by tariff duties levied on all their products. No language can fittingly describe the beneficial results of this policy. Some idea of it may be gathered from the fact that in the twenty-four years the Republican party administered the affairs of the nation, our aggregate wealth was swelled lrom $14,000,000,000, which represented the total wealth of this country accumulated during 250 years of American civilization, to the enormous sum of $45,000,000,000, which is estimated to be the wealth of the country as it now passes to the control of the Democratic party. In other words, under the twenty-four years of Republican rule the country more than trebled its entire wealth of 1860. Every farmer who is old enough to remember the price of his products before the war can by comparison of these prices with what he realizes for his products to-day see that the purchasing power of his products has been doubled and trebled. A horse that brought S6O before the war will bring $l5O now; a cow that brought sls to S2O before the war will bring S4O to S6O to-day: a dozen of eggs that sold fQr 3 cents beforethe w&r_ will bring from 10 to 20 cents a dozen now. “Before the war ■ft” took a pound of butter to buy a pound of nails; yon can now get a pound of nails for a pint of skimmed milk.” And so yon may run through the whole list of farm products and the result will be found the same. But it is said that while it is true that what the farmer has to sell brings him a better price, yet it avails him nothing because all that he buys costs him more. Nobody says this, however, except only theoretical freetraders, who only read books and never look to practical results. The exact reverse is the truth. Everything that the farmer buys, from a combined reaper and mower to a pocket-knife, is from 100 to 500 per cent, cheaper than it was before the war, and while 50 to 100 per cent, cheaper, it is. at the same time from 100 to 500 per cent, better. Every article of clothing that he wears, from the hat on his head to the shoes, on his feet, costs him less and is better- Theoretical free-traders talk about the farmer being taxed on bis clothes, but I doubt if there is a farmer in all the State of Ohio who wears a single article of clothing of any kind that has passed through the custom house. Everything is manufactured in this country, manufactured by American mechanics, and cheapened in price, far below what it cost when under free trade, times it was imported into this country by American competition. The most important farming implement is perhaps the combined reaper and mower. All who are of middle age can remember when reapers were first invented and brought into use, and they will remember also that they were crude, awkward ungainly, and almost unserviceable, and yet cost from S3OO to S4OO each. They could cut the wheat, but they did not rake it, much less bind it. But to-day the reaping machines of the country not only reap but rake and bind also. The machine of to-day is of the most skilled workmanship, apparently absolutely perfect as a piece of mechanism, and of the very best quality of material. It is no exaggeration to say that it is 500 per cent, better than its predecessor that cost S3OO. But now you can buy one of them anywhere for $l4O. Take another illustration. I recently talked with a gentleman who is connected With the Columbus Buggy Company. They make and sell annually about ten thousand buggies. Their standard buggy, sold ten years ago for from S3OO to $350. At that time it was made with iron axles, and a very inferior quaJityjOf workmanship as compared with that which' produces it to-day. The varfiish, the leather, the cloth, almost every article that entered into its construction at that time, was of foreign manufacture, made by foreign laborers, fed by foreign farmers. But to-day all those articles are of American manufacture, made by American laborers, fed by American farmers. One item alone will indicate what has occurred in this business. Until five years ago they used iron axles. They cost at that time, when they qnit the use of them, $4 a set. That was cheaper than they had ever before been’ bought At that time they quit the use of iron axles because there had sprang up in Ohio, at Cleveland, and at Coßhocton, and elsewhere in other States, establishments for the manufacture of steel axles, and these establishments had so perfected their machinery, and their workmen had become so skilled, ami their other facilities so improved, that they were able to produce steel axles at a price that made them preferable to iron ;.xles; land the steel axles which they thus and then commenced to buy have!, by reason of competition between these establishments and others throughout the country, since continually cheapened as the result of that competition, . until they to-day cost but $2 a set. And as it has Iwen with the steel axles, so it has been J with every other article that eaten into the

construction of a buggy. The result is that by the protection that encouraged these industries to start we have been given establishments that have constituted home markets for the former, largely added to the wealth of the country apd enabled the production and sale of a buggy tUnX. cost, ten years ago, S3OQ for $135, and thereby • made it possible not for one or two fai mers ixi a community to have a buggy, as w& the case thirty 'years ago in this country, but for any farmer who is in anything like reasonable circumstances to enjoy such a luxury. And as. it has been in the matter of reapers and buggifes, so too has it been with everything in the natttre of a necessity that a farmer has use for. Instead of being dependent upon a foreign market, which Is uncertain and variable, and which will not in any event take more than a fraction of onr product, the American farmer has been given a home market which is absolutely certain, which is right at his door, and which last year took over 98 per cent, of the corn product and more than 75 per cent of the entire wheat product of the United States. Not only is it a market that thus largely consumes all that the farmer raises, but it is a market, th-t pays better prices than were ever, realized before or that can be again if it should be destroyed. And as it has been with the farmers, so too has it been with every other industry. It has been the policy of the Republican tarty not only to protect the manufacturer and the farmer, but to protect every other class, including especially the wage laborers of the country. And what 1 want to call particular attention to is the fact that while the prices of farm implements and buggies and all other American products have been continually cheapening and cheapening and cheapening in the manner I have described, yet that cheapening of prices has not been In any instance at the cost of the laboring man. For if yon will go into the Columbus Buggy Company's works at Columbus, Ohio, and make inquiry, or go into any of the machineshops at Springfield,' Ohio, or into any of the mills, or forges, or furnaces, or foundries of the State, you will learn that while common labor may have varied somewhat during the last ten years, yet it is substantially as well remunerated to-day as at any time daring this period, and that skilled labor commands also practically the same prices. The cheapening is the result of improved machinery and the increased skill of workmen. A buggv-dash that cost $5 to make ten years ago can be made to-day by the aid of machinery for $1.25. Sewing that oould be done a few years ago only by stout men is to-day done with the greatest facility by machinery operated by women. The prosperity Which the country has enjoyed has not belonged to any one class—it has been participated in by every class—it h»s been universal. From mere selfish consideration, therefore, every man should favor a protective tariff, as opposed to a free-trade policy for America. But it is also the patriotic policy. When Abraham Lincoln called an army into the field to defend the life of the nation a million men were ready to respond, but, to the discredit of the country, it was not able to put clothes on their backs or guns in their hands. The result was that we gave them shoddy unitor ms that would scarcely hold together, and Austrian muskets that were almost more dangerous to stand behind than in front of. But before the war was over every soldier carried a gun of American manufacture, and when the war was ended, and that great army came marchipg home from its great victories, it wore the best uniforms that any soldiers were ever clothed with, all made from American wool, grown upon the backs of American sheep, and manufactured in American mills,all brought into life with Aladdin-like magic under the invigorating and inspiriting impulse of a protective tariff.