Rensselaer Republican, Volume 20, Number 47, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 July 1888 — FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE. [ARTICLE]

FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.

BariMM tar the Fool Hiller. Detroit Tribal e. •‘What we want,” shouts the free trader with a mouth a yard wide and all cotton. “ia cheap Ami every time he goes by a clothing store, and see* full suits marked $7..V1, or $lO, or sl2. or sls—cheaper than he ever saw before in this country or any other - lie feels as though the fool killer wen* right behind him with an apology for having so long neglected his duty. The Democratic party has always boen on the wrong side of public questions. In IBfiO it advocated the cause* of the Rebellion by denouncing 'the Federal caused loiter it opposed the granting of - snlisidies to railroads, by the aid of which our western country has been so grandly developed. It opposed sjiecie resumption. It opposed our national banking laws. It opjiosed the homestead laws. It op]M»se<l the Fifteenth Amendment, aud now in this age of enlightenment, when every reading man and every patriot ought to lie advocating {irotection to American industries, they avor the removal of all restrictions, placing American workingmen and American manufacturersjn competition with the manufacturers and illy-paid, illv-fed laborers of Europe. The Democratic party ought to be defeated so decisively in 1888 that they would never recover from it. No intelligent citizen need be deceived as to the policy of the Democratic leaders. The tendency of tlm> party towards free trade has been evident for years. In their latest platform, as they always have, they attempt to dodge the issue, hut the free trade message of J resident Cleveland so committed them that the task of explaining their peculiir j*osition becomes all the more exasjieratine. In the meantime Harrison and Morton and Protection will sweep the country aud there will be* no further need of Cleveland’s pan-electric administration after March 4th next. In the meantime, also, let us not forget that the great prosperity* of the I'nited States is due alone to our system of protection which has fostered every branch of manufacture and production. Out interests still - demand this protectior— the farm as well as the workshop, with workingmen commanding ample work at ample wages, the demand for farm products is so enhanced that prices are maintained at a profitable standard. The Democratic partv propoaeft to paralvze every branch of business and with the enactment of their principles info Jaw will come the hardest times this country' has ever known. The Mills bill may not do this, hut it is the wedge that will eventually lead to this result. Trust American interests to the honestv, patriotism and wisdom of the Republican party and we will enjoy a century of prosperity only equalled by the last quarter of a century. The test .of a man's character is the judgment of his. neighbors. In ISS4 Grover Cleveland was defeated in his city and county. Erie county giving §a majority of 1,490 against him and the city of Buffalo a majority ot 1,053. The former eitv auditor of Buffalo says that city will give twice the majority' against 'hitn this year that it did four year years ago. Indianapolis, on the contrary will give General Harrison the.largest majority in its history. The home vote in the next election will show the difference between real worth and false pretenses, between genuine, manly character and a • swaggering assumption of it. Prose sion and Practice Omaha World. Cleveland said that **. constitutional amendment should oe passed making the President ineligible tor re-election'; the case joined to him to be so serious as th*t. And now lie is a candidate !wuh. How? 0 prostitution of “the patronage of this great office.” By reason of “the allurements of pow- ; er.”* ■ * By reason of “the tern ptat ion to retain public place. \ By reason of the availability found in him bv “a horde of officeholders”whose real is “born of benefits received and fostered by the hope of favors yet to come.” ' Alas, poor Yorick! Kngl sh »iii Au,eric»n Farm- rs, Free traders who dwell with unction on the low prices at which the English farmer gets his manufactured articles, and the high prices which the American farmer pays for his, and attribute the cheapness in the one case and the dearness in the other case to the “blessings of free trade” or |he “villainy of the robber tariff" are humbly and respectfully requested to read these extracts from an Englishmans reply to Sir T. H. Farrors last essay on free trade: And here it may be well to notice what, without disrespect, may be termL_'. ed the cant of the English free-trade partv, as to the high prices which the fiscal poliov of the United States compels the Western farmer to pay for his farming plant and domestic comforts. This chord has been played on so often, without adequate inquiry, that there is probably a feeling abroad that the agriculturists in the, Western States are absolutely' handicapped, because they mainly supply with their implements and utensils, their clothes ana their furniture, their domestic necessaries and luxuries, from the production of their own continent. The Cobden Club writers and orators have lieen especially eloquent on this point. They took it so much to heait several years ago that, by the Mr. Mongtedten’s pen, they even addressed a species of electoral address to Western farmers. In that production some of the wildest assertions and misstatements of which we can conceive it possible for any con- — troversiat writers to be guilty ‘Were ad- — vsneed.—*•••*• * But, if we recognize the importance of a. fact that was reported so long ago as 1881, that for one English plow sent to our Australian colonies there are nineteen American plows; if we go into our own shops and Bee the American, novelties, many of them especially suitable for fanning and gardening pa saws, forks; spades, shovels, hoes, harrows, “cultivators,” rakes, mowers, and reapers, all cheaper, and equal if not of better quality than our own; if we remember that it* is by no means an uncommon

thing for a Wood street warehouse-man to give the preference to a parcel of cot-1 ton manufactures from the United States instead of from Lancashire, and that these are absolutely cheaper to the Western fanner’s wife than they were to an Englishwoman; if we regard the fact that we import , boots and shoes, and that their prices, as well as those for "hosiery anil prints, are ns cheap,*if not cheaper, in the United States as with us; if we l>ear in mind also that ordinary furniture is always, reckoned on as being at least 10 j>er cent cheaper across the Atlantic than with us, to say nothing bf the notorious cheapness of dairv utensils, whether of wood or of crockery, and of .clocks, so largely exported to Europe—if we look at these and kindred facts, ami remember also that not only are 1 domestic provisions to lie had in the far West at a minimum of cost, as compared with the whole world, but that even tea and coffee, not indigenous to the country, are several pence per pound cheaper in the United States than in England—we arrive at the conclusion'that the Western fanner is, after all, not so unhappily handicapped. Furniture is cheaper, coffee and tea are cheaper, cotton goods nearly as cheap in all cases, and much cheaper in some cases; shoes are as cheap, fanning implements cheaper, and the purchasing power much greater with and to the American farmer than to the English farmer. SirT t H. Farrer, like all free traders, assumes that the mission of the United States is to Bnpplv “cheap” food Jor England and to receive “cheap” manufactures in exchange for it; but the English critic, who has |iyed, in his United States, says: “He lias not told us that the whole £97,000,000 of food exported from the United States is not <me-tentli of the whole production. In other words, 92 per cent of food produced in the United States is for home consumption; only 8 per cent— a surplus, the ; proceeds of which, afterpaying for transit, etc:, may be regarded as all profit—is able to be exported. A simple fact of this kind at once blows away the theory that we receive food from the United States because it is “the most profitable way” in whic h their labor and capital can be employed^’ It is protection to American manufactures that lias secured to our farmers a home market for all but 8 per cent of their products, and which promises a speecly home market for all of them.

111-KU sen oi Free Trade. Sew York Tribune. Free trade takes two disguises, and gets mad whenever, in spite of any disguise, it is called bv its right name. One disguise is “surplus reduction.” President Cleveland put this diaphanous mantle over his free trade message by declaring that Congress had to deal with a condition, not with a theory; that it must reduce the revenue in order to prevent commercial disaster, and could not reduce the revenue properly except by reducing protective duties. The intentional fraud here is in the latter clause. If it be granted that reduction of revenue is an imperative duty, Mr. Cleveland still knows that all the Republicans, and many of his own party, in the aggregate more than a majority in either House, would vote on tlie Instant, if permitted by Speaker Carlisle, to cut down the internal revenue. The entire sy.;plus, or any desired part of it / *s’n be taken off by repealing taxes.- on tobacco and leaving the States to collect tin* Whole or any part of *fle taxes on liquors. The Dretence t Vax any reduction of the tariff is in order to meet the “conditipVflhat confronts us” is a consc*' —l'and deliberate falsification.

■ The second disguise of free trade is “tariff reduction,” or “tariff reform/! or “freer trade —not free trade.” Here the false pretense is that existing duties are far too high, and can be greatly reduced without at all impairing reasonable protection of home industry. The pretended tariff reformer in Congress solemnly argues that an excessive duty on steel rails makes domestic rails too high, though he knows perfectly well that large quantities of rails are actually imported under the present duty, and yet that the present price compels a large number of the rail mills in this country to stop work. He knows that a lower duty would only close more of the home manufactories and admit instead a greater proportion of foreign rails, and he is guilty of deliberate falsification when he pretends that the reduction will not impair the production of home industry. He knows that the duty on tin plate is not excessive, but is simply ineffective because too low, and that in this case a higher duty would cut otf a large revenue that is not needed, and at the same time encourage an industry that would be worth millions to this country.' But behind the conscious fraud there is a great deal of unconscious blending of free trade theories with ho nest opposition to supposed excess of duties. Many a man really thinks, as Mr. Cleveland argues in his message, that the lower duty would benefit home industry by giving it cheaper raw materials and a larger market for products. Thus lie is governed by the theory of extreme free traders, though he may not know it. Ignorance is his excuse, but it does not change the fact that his reasoning and his practical measure are those of free trade, and can be defended on no other ground. In his stupidity he calls people liars who tell him what his proposal actually means. They have the sense to know and he has not.

~ : At a meeting at Paterson the Democratic orator from California shouted that the platform and the party were not for free trade, and those were liars who said so. The context made it evident that the man was falsifying. He knew perfeetlv well that it was the breaking down of protection that he and his party really sought. But the leather-1 ungeil speaker only uttered with intent to deceive the same untruth which many others utter ignorantly. Because they can not comprehend the distinction between free trade principles and the principles of protection, they posture before the public as tariff’'reformers, when in fact they are only Tree traders, too ignorant toinost wbaUthtW'are-oT what they ini tend. 1 ; * • Tm tlirap Coat Question. Thanks to ex-Senator James O’Brien, for a letter so clearly exposing the dis loyal anna of the I>elnocratic party that Republicans may well use it as a campaiga document. True. At-was written for no such purpose; it was addressed to Mr. Randall as a recognition of his service to the Democratic party in resisting

But the entire letter is, nevertheless, a strong argument against the policy to which tne Democratic p§rty, in spite of Mr. Randall, is irrivocably committed. It was printed in “The Herald” on Monday. Said a Democrat to Mr. O’Brien: fam not going to be diverted from protec-ting my home and family by any such humbug as the cry, “You want whisky free, and you want to tax the necessaries of life. Nor will I, said he, vote for a candidate for Congress who will vote as Texas and Kentucky want him to vote. There they have-black labor, fed on hog and hominy, and I am not%illing to help men,into office who want to force me and my family to their level. i - This man strikes strong and hard. But Mr. O’Brien himself is not at all behind, and he warns the Democratic party that the workingmen will vote againßt it if the Mills bill is passed, saying: They insist that our country attained its greatness by a system of protection to our manufacturing interest and our workingmen. To withdraw this protection ami thereby cripple, if not destroy, these industries, and reduce our mechanic's to the condition of the European labor, seems to them to beagreat wrong, and many of those who earn their living by honest industry say that they will not submit to Ik* robbed of their employment, which is the source of their livelihood. It cannot be expected that they will vote for candidates who seek to close their workshops by changing our laws so that English manufacturers can Rend their goods here and undersell their employers. It does not require argument to show to the workingman that he cannot get money unless he can get work, and he cannot get work if the mill where he is employed has to close; because what is made there can be purchased in England, sent here and sold for less price than it can be manufactured by his employer. They say, “what does it matter if I can buy my clothes a little cheaper, if I have no money to buy either food or clothing?” Is it not better to keep in this country what it costs to produce a manufactured article than to send its cost to England, even if our people have to pay an increased, price for the article?

This reasoning fits precisely with that of General Harrison, the Republican candidate, who insists that “the cheaper coat means a cheaper man or w oman under the coat.” To the workingman the first necessity is to have employment and sufficient wages to buy a coat of any kind, and if Democrats take away that employment or deny him such wages, he has no cause to be glad because it promises to make coats cheaper. The Republican party submits proof in overwlielinabundance that protection has reduced the cost of coats and other wollen goods —so much, indeed, that the Democrats in Congress who support the Mills bill were scarcely able to believe their eves when Mr. sfcKinlev produced before them a suit of clothes bought from Mr. Morse, a Democratic member from Boston, for $lO. Republican policy has done this, and at the same time has raised wages more than 30 per cent, and increased the number of persons ployed in woolen manufacture *' -.re than 200 per cent. That i« U policy which ••does in truth -urotyet labor. The Democratic pql!... opens the doors to ; foreign w<y->( and woollens, closes American -milts, drives out of employment of great army of American workers, and then, when they have no work and no wages, offers them coats a little cheaper, but not so good, being made largely of shoddy. Mr. O’Brien and his Democratic friends make one mistake, however, which they need to correct as quickly as possible. They talk w’ith an “if.” Democracy must be defeated, they say, if it passes the Mills bill. A THtteT later these men will have more sense. When a man tries to stab you, Mr. O’Brien, do you call it good sense to stop him after he gets his knife to vour heart? The Mills bill, when passed, would shut up thousands of woollen mills, and the time to stop mischief is not after the works have been ruined and the workers have been left destitute, but right now. That is what the Republican party is doing. The bill will be beaten probably by Republican votes; nine out of ten, yes, nineteen out of twenty, of the votes against it will probably be the \ otes of Congressmen whom Mr.. O’Brien s party oppose. And nine out of ten, yes, probably nineteen out of twenty of the votes for the bill will undoubtedly be the votes of the party which Mr. O’Brien and his Democratic workingmen support. Defeat; its bill to-day, and then give it a new Tease of power, and the party will certainly come in with the same or a worse bill at the next session, and claim w ith justice that the country had approved its policy. This is a time for American workingmen to have practical common sense: They know what they ought to do; They can defend their industries in one wav surely, and in one wav only, by defeating the party which has for fifty years fought constantly against protection; by giving the power in every branch of the Government to the party which has for thirty years contended bravely and consistently for protection. They can give, by their votes in the doubtful States, a power equivalent to that of 54 Representatives and 12 Senators to General Harrison and not to Mr. Cleveland.

“in Infamous Proposition.” N. Y. Tribune: The Republican National platform contains a contingent proposal for the abolition of the Internal Revenue system. Mr. St. John, speaking on Staten Island, Friday night, on behalf of Prohibition, saw fit to characterize this as an “infamous proposition,” which the people of this country would never endure. “The Republican party is wrong.” he declared, “in proposing to take the tax from whisky because it is wrong to take a tax from any iniquity.” Mr. St. John has an infirm memory that is not efficient for any period longer than thirty days. He has forgotten the platform adopted by his own Prohibition party during the last w eek of May. He must allow us to refresh his memory by quoting directly from that platform the following passage: The Prohibition party, in National Convention assembled, acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all power in Government, do hereby declare 4. For the immediate abolition of the internal revenue system, wliereby-our National Government is deriving support from our greatest National rice. That is the platform on which General Fisk has been nominated, and which ultra-temperance men are now supporting. It declares unequivocally and without reserve for the immediate aboli-

tion of the Internal Revenue system. Yet Mr. St. John, referring to a contingent proposal of the Republican National Convention for the abolition of the satpe system, after various other expedients have been employed to dispose of the surplus, says that "it is simply “infamous.” He does not perceive that he condemns his own platform as “an, infamous proposition.’'