Rensselaer Republican, Volume 21, Number 2, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 September 1888 — FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE. [ARTICLE]

FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.

r : H»rrUon and the Chinese. There could be' no better evidence of the. invulnerability of General Harri; son’s public character and record than the Htudied effort to misrepresent his position on the Chinese question. In the place there is no Chinese question. There was such a questtoir in California several years ago, hut it ha- been settled by treaty stipulation, and is no longer a live issue. It is nothing but a reminiscence, even in the section of country where it was once*a vital issue. However, as a matter of history, it may he worth while to say that General Harrison's record on the Chinese question, when it was a question, is in perfect harmony with his whole record ns a friend of American labor ami American workingmen. The attempt to distort and misrepresent his attitude on this question at this late day only proves how hard pressed his political enemies are for campaign material. In his votes on ttie Chinese question Senator Harrison was actuated, first,-by a desire to exclude pauper immigration and contract cheap-labor, and. secondly, by a determination not to violate existing treaty obligations, or to establish a precedent which might be used to prevent honest and voluntary immigration from abroad. Every vote east by him is in harmony with this position, as the record shows. Ashe said in supporting the hill to prohibit the importation of foreign contract labor: “The evil sought to be guarded against is that men living in foreign countries where the' rate of wages and the condition of labor is so different from what it is in this country, shall not there, under the strain there is upon them, make a contract which, of course, is governed by rates of wages there that put them in the power of the person furnishing the money when they come to this country, and ha'-ea tendency to import the rales of foreign labor and establish them here.” This is the key to Senator Harrison’s record on the Chinese question, viz.; How to exclude Chinese coolie and pauper labor without establishing a precedent that might be used to exclude honest, voluntary, unassisted immigration from other countries. The first Chinese exclusion bill was introduced by Senator Miller, of California, at the first session of the Forty-sev-enth Congress. It was referred to the Senate committee on foreign relations, and reported back with amendments. Pending consideration of the bill Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, offered an amendment as follows:

“That this bill shall not apply to any skilled laborer who shall establish that he comes to this country without any contract by which his labor is the property of any person other than himself.” This amendment was simply a declaration in favor of the admission of honest, unassisted immigrants from abroad, and Senator Harrison, to his credit be it said, voted for it. [Congressional Record, Vol. 13, Pan 1; page 1,716.] Another amendment was offered, as follows: “Provided further, that any laborer who shall receive a certificate from the United States consul at the port where ire shall embark that he is an artisan coming to this country at his own expense and of his own free will,' and has established such fact to the satisfaction Ot such consul, shall not he affected by this bill.” Tins amendment, like the other, was intended to keep the door open for honest, voluntary immigrants, and Senator Harrison voted for .it. [Congressional Record, Vol. 13, Part 1, page 1717.] In harmony with these votes Senator Harrison voted ip favor of every amendment calculated to protect existing treaty obligations —and- —independent foreign immigration. On the passage of the hill lie is not recorded as voting, being absent from the Senate. The? bill was vetoed by President Arthur, and, together with all the Republican Senators—Allison, Hawley, Sherman, Ingalls, Wiiidnin and others —he voted to sustain the veto, the vote resulting ayes 29, nays 21, only Miller, of New York, in addition to* the Pacrtitr coast voting for the bill. [Congressional Record, Vol. 13, Part 1; page.2ol7.] What is known as the Page hill, reported from the House, was . passed in the Senate on April 10, 1882, by a vote of 32 to 15. Mr. Harrison voted in the negative, together with Allison, Hoar, Ingalls, Hawley, Sherman and others, he, with his Republican colleagues, having again attempted to secure proper amendments to the measure. Only Cameron, of Wisconsin, and Miller, of New York, beside the Pacific coast Senators, voted-for the Page hill. On May 3; 1884, a supplementary bill was passed in the House, and on 3d of July, 1885, in the Senate. For jli :s hill, In the-Senate, the vote was,ayes 43, nays 12. For this bill Senators with wh<3m Senator Harrison had been aeting vatedlHe would have voted for it had he been present in the Senate, but he was absent, and is not recorded as voting. Of the Republican Senators prominently mentioned for the presidency, only Hawley voted in the negative, as did Mr. Edmunds, and the New England Senators generally. At the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress; Mr. Fair, of Nevada, introduced a bill in the Senate [S. 1919] which was referred to the committee on foreign relatione. Senator Harrison was appointed a member of that committee on the oth of April, 1886. * [See Congressional Record Forty-ninth Congress, first session, page 31( 6.] ihls bill was favorably reported by that committee to the Senate, unanimously, April 29, 1886, by Mr. Sherman, the chairman of the committee. On page "4958 of the Record, Mr. Sherman states that the committee was unanimous in the report, and explains the-provisions of the bill. The bill was somewhat discussed May 26, 1886, and the amendments reported from The committee were agreed to. [See Record, page 4959, et seq.] The bill passed the Senate, without division, June 1, 1886. See/Record, Forty-ninth Congress, pages 5iC9, 5110. « Not to extend the citations the Congressional Record shows that at every stage of the discussion and on all of the different measures that came before the Senate, Senator Harrison, while favoring the exclusion of the Chinese coolie and cheap contract labor, voted against ignoring treaty obligations then in force, and also against excluding honest voluntary foreign immigrants who might seek our shores. Of the bill finally passed by by the Senate and rt ported from the committee unanimously Senator Harrison concurring in it, voting for it, both in committee on its passage. Senator Mitchell, of Oregon, one of the strongest anti-Chinese Senators, said; “I have no kind of doubt that it is as strong

a hill as could be drawn and at the sariitf time have kept within the provisions of our treaty.” And Senator Fair, of Nevada, said: “It is one of the best bill# ever reported by! any eommittee on the subject.” * - Enough of the record has been cited to show that General Harrison’s position on the Chinese question, when jt was a live question, was thoroughly honorable to himself and consistent with Republican principles. The objection to his -record on this question does not come from the section of country where it was once considered vital. The California delegation at Chicago made a bold break, for General Harrison, and the other Pa cific coast States which contributed to his nomination did not do so until they had satisfied themselves that his record on this question would be perfectly satisfactory to the people of the section who might he supposed to have most interest in it. The attempt to revive the Chinese question in this part of the country is as absurd as it would be* to make an issue of the alien and sedition law or the embargo act of 1815. Especially does it come with poor grace from the advocates of free trade.’ The impression they seek to create is that General Harrison is not sound on the American labor question, yet every one of these papers is in favor of opening our doors to the pauper labor of Europe by free trade. Even if it were true, as they falsely assert, that General Harrison was against restricting the hordes of Chinese immigration, his offense against American labor would be trivial compared with the advocacy of Grover Cleveland’s free trade “ policy that would bring American workingmen in direct and runious competition with the millions of underpaid laborers of Europe. It does not become the advocates of free trade to assume to champion the cause of American labor by misrepresenting General Harrison’s position on the Chinese question.

After Two Months. N. Y Tribune. General Harrison in every respect is a stronger candidate to-day than he was when nominated two months ago.. His record as a gallant soldier in the field, a distinguished leader of the Indiana bar, and a sagacious legislator with an honorable ami useful career in the United States Senate is without flaw, crease or wrinkle. The Democratic press hits had leisure to scrutinize his speeches and public acts, and to ascertain whether he had ever done or said anything which could be used against him in a Presidential canvass. Feeble attempts to convict him of inconsistency in his record on the Chinese question, of hostility tp the interests of workingmen during the labor riots of 1877, and of contemptuous disregard of the principles of Civil Service reform have been abandoned as soon as made. Defamation has recoiled at ouce upon the detainers, and only served to prove that General Harrison’s'reputation is invul nerablc. Eight weeks have passed, and our friends the enemy have nothing to say against him. They can only repeat the silly fling with which they greeted his nomination that he is the grandson of his grandfather, as if it were anything against him that an earlier Harrison should have won. the battle of Tippecanoe and the tariff canvass of 1840, or that a still earlier Harrison should have signed the Declaration of Independence. The Republican leader is not only a stroTig candidate from his unblemished reputation and honorable (farcer as a soldier and statesman, but he is also a man of intellectual resources apd sagacious judgment. Since his nomination be lias made as many as eighty speeches in Indianapolis in answer to edngratulatorv addresses, and he has in variably left a favorable impression upon the delegations who have listened t 6 him and upon the iarger audience in the country which has attentively followed his words. General Harrison does not commit his speeches to memory and repeat them after the President’s mechanical fashion. He is an effective extemperaneous speaker, with a good "command of language, and tin* rare, talent of striking at the core of every question which he discusses. No mediocre politican banking on the name and fame of distinguished ancestors could have delivered the' series of wise, sententious and even brilliant speeches which have been heard in Indianapolis. He has not dealt in safe commonplace and glittering generality, but has discussed with intelligence, courage and dignity the living questions of the day; and he has made no mistakes, although speaking under most arduous and trying circumstances twice or even three times in twenty minutes. General Harrison’s delneanor since his nomination has tended to increase his popularity and voters, This “haughty patrican,” as he has been described by our friends the,- enemy, has shown himself to be a man of the people. Audiences of workingmen have retired from his presence impressed with the conviction that lie is in sympathy with them and glad to take every man by the hand. With simple dignity and unaffected courtesy he has received all the delegations which iiave visited him, and modestly disclaiming conspicuous merits of his own, has directed the attention of the country to the grave questions of econonlic policy and National interest wi(h which it is now confronted. This is a leader who daily attracts support by his wise words and dignity of manner, and who is growing steadily in favor with thoughtful, men of all parties. India would be a good country for a Democrat to go to. It has free trade, and a nice, juicy, succulent leg of mutton can be bought for 15 cents, when it costs 15 a pound in the protected United States. But meat is not the only cheap thing in India; laborers can be had'in any number at 5 cents a day. The Hindoo workingman has to toil'three days for enough money to buy the muttojp—Los Angeles Tribune. Tfce Redaction of ibe Mi Is 1 The Democratic press and the pseudoRepublican journals which preach free trade,’ but pretend to support Harrison and Morton; are parading with great show of exact information the claim that, while the average per cent of the present tariff is 47.10, the average under the Mills bill would be only 42.78. This is the statement originally made by the Committee on Ways and Means, and published officially" as a foot-note at the end of the tables, showing the estimated effect on the revenues of the proposed legislation. It was prepared by the clerk of the committee, and, notwithstanding the outrageous falseness of the claim in fts intention has*been repeatedly exposed, the organs and speakers of

the Democracy keep on circulating the statistical lie, for Such, ih purpose and effect, it surely is. The falseness of this representation lies in the fact that it leaves out of the calculation the proposed additional free list, a very important factor in the case. It is very likely true that if no account were taken of that list the showing for goods dutiable under both the and the bill would make the showing he has claimed. But that would be another case of Hamlet with Hamlet left out. The proposed additions to the free list yielded last year a revenue of $19,778,590, or, in round numbers, $20,000,000. The additions to the free list cover no less than 142 differeht kinds of imports, including a great many farm products besides wool, such as potatoes, beans, peas, flax, etc* The total reduction in the revenue for the year would he, it is estimated, $49,486,240, two-fifths of it being by the free list extension. In other words, the total revenue would be reduced, from *179,363,722 to $116,313,548. This reduction, based on all the articles, free listed and reduced,amounts to about 23 per cent instead of about 5 per cent, as claimed. It is impossible to excuse this trick on the plea of stupidity. When the clerk of the Committee on Ways and Meads made the statement, “average rate of all dutiable goods under present latv, 47.10; under proposed bill, 42.78,” he knew just what he was about. He intended to convey the Impression that, after all the Republican hue and cry over the free-trade character of the Mills bill, the actual average reduction was only 5.32 per cent, and that is the way Mr. Mills himself represented it in his Chicago speech. Not one of them all has failed to put that meaning into the language used, albeit, on close examination, it does not exactly say so. The New York Post the Chicago Tribune, and all that class of newspapers are trying to deceive the people by resort to this sort of underhanded trickery. At this time there are a good many Republicans who do not understand the facts in the case, but they will long before the campaign closes.

Comparative W<ges. FIGURES COMPILED FROM LATEST RETURNS MADE BY LONDON BOARD OF TRADE. New Yi.rk Press. England. United State* Bookb'nders *6 00 >ls 00 to $lB 00 Brnshmskers 6 00 Iff 00 to 20 OO Boilermakers : -7 75—— IS 50Brickmakers 0 54 11 86 Bn klayer- 8 00 21 00 Blscksmitbs 600 ’ 13 00 8utcher5...7................ “ 1 0.00 12 oo Bakers.... 6 *25 12 75 B Hxt fnrnsoe keepers 10 00 18 00 Blast hcpi'ce tillers.... 7 50 14 00 Boltmakers...... 6 50 16 50 Bolt cutters 3 00 10 00 Coal miner..:... 5 88 13 00 Cotton-milt hands. ... 4 00 6 72 carpenters 7 50 15 00 Coopers 6 oO 13 25 On iagemakere G 75 13 00 to 25 00 Cutlery COO 12 00 to 20 00 Chemicalß 15 to 000 13 00 to 16 00 Clockmakets ....; 7 00 18 00 Cnbinetmskers 7 00 18 00 Farmhands 300 650 to 000 Gla sbl iwers.... .TUT 6 to 900 25 00 to 30 00 Glass (tartly skilled! 6 to 7 00 12 00 to 15 00 Glass (unskilled) ...... -2 to 400 700 to 10 00 Glovemakt rs (girls).... 2 (X) 600 to 900 Glov. makers (men) .. 4 50 10 00 to 30 00 Hatters 6 00 12 rt) to •24 00 Heaters and rollers ... 10 to 12 00 20. IKCth' £0 00 Iron ore m tier 5........ 5 50 12 00 Iron moulders 7 SO Xa 00 Ton per ton, finished 2to 3.00 531 to 871 Instrument makers... . 700 IS 00 io 20 W\ Laborers 4 10 8 00 Lonrst oremen ......... 8 oo 15 00 Linen thread, nn n. .. 5 00 7 50 Lire - tliread, women 2 35 5 22 Machinists...... 8 50 18 OU Mase n - , -8 On IT DO Printers; 1,000 ems. .. 20 *:0 Printers, week bauds 6-<5 13 4u Patternmakers 7 50 18 00 Pain ers „7 i 0 15 00 PliimbPis...... ............ ’ 8 00 18 00 Plasterers 7 JO 21 OO Pott' rs ...... ......... . 8 67 lk 30 Po i Her.' 7 00 - 18 00 Pare mi'kers. ’ 5:0 12 (X) to : 4 tX) Puddiers.ner week ... S to to (X) 18 tX) to 20 rtf QuavevVaen 000 12 001 o —ls 00Ropernakers 525 900 to 12 00 Ra'lway engineers ... 10 00 21 00 Railway firetat-n ...... 5 00 12 00 Shipbuilding. Boilermakers ....«• 7 00 14,05 Maeninist* .....t , 7 oo 14 01 Coppersmiths........... 7 6 50 16 00 Platers. ...7 8 (X) 18 05 Drillers ; 600 12 00 Riveters. ...TT.;;:-...... 8 00 17 00 Riggers 5 50 11 00 Patternmakers 8 00 24 00 Salimakers-... : 0. 00 . 700 to IOfG Silk, men 5 09 10 0 silk, women 2 50 - 6 00Besrfmakers ...1 50 to 225 000 to ,9* 00 Servants, month' ...... 5 00 12 (1 Bhoemakers. 600 IK 0 Stationary engineers 7 50 15 00 to 10 00 Soapmakers ... 5 00 ID (0