Rensselaer Republican, Volume 21, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 October 1888 — Page 2

WHICH SHALL IT BE?

Protection or Free Trade? These are the principles involved in thia campaign: la protection right? la it wise and a good business policy for Americana to support and indulge in, or is free trade advisable? If protection is right im>rincinle and wise in practice, let’s keep it. If wrong or injudicious, it zhould be abandoned. It is not a question of surplus or the rate per ce.nL of duty that should be levied, unless it is sunk to the level of a “tariff for revenue only,” and that does not in the least involve the principle of protection to American labor and American industries. It is a question of markets, from the standpoint of both parties. The Democrats argue that, the tariff is a tax on the consumer on whatever he wants to buy. This is, at best, but a one-sided or half-sided view of every person’s interest “The poor consumer’’ is an object of their deep sympathy. Wbat about the producer? Who are the producers and consumers that are so vitallv interested in A mgrican markets? Are they separate and distinct people, or are they one and the same? If not,who are the exceptions? Every man (except the exceptions) is not only a consumer, but a producer also. He is a producer first This is his first interest He must produce something before he can buy and consume. He mn-t sell something to put money in his pocket before he can buy anything. No matter whether it is the product of the farm, the factory, the shop, the product of his brain or the product of his muscle, or the two combined, if his product is the caily labor of his good right arm, he must sell it before, he has anything to buy with. He is first interested in that market which pays him the most That policy which helps a man to increase his income is his nest policy., It is a laudable ambition upon the part of any man to try and honestly increase his receipts; and whatever amount bis income may reach, he can spend it all in any country, high tariff or free trade, if he chooses; but his chances for saving a part of it is best when it reaches the greater sum. It is what a man saves that makes him wealthy. No law can make a person economical, and no law can make him save much if he receives but little. Suppose he saves, say, twenty per cent, of one-fiith.of his income. If he receives s2,< 00 per year, he can spend $1,6u0 and have $4 i) left; if SI,OOO, he can spend SBOO and will remain; but if he receives but SSOO, he can only spend 140 , and have bat SIOO more at the end of the vear than when he began, and soon. At $1 per day for 30 > working days, by being very economical and saving the one-fifth, be could only lay up S6O per year. .. It needs no student of political econi omy or MUls bill to teach so plain a lesson. The laboring men of the United States are t pre-eminently producers, and that policy which enables them to increase their incomes, that they may not only live well, but save something for old age, is certainly for tbeir best i nterests. If they domt receive it, they can neither spend nor save it The only really exceptions to this are the beggars, the gamblers and those who having retired from toil on a liberal surplus. They are the strictly consumers, with no interest on the side of thte producers. The millionaire, who having ceased from toiling, is a consumer, and, unlike Grover Cleveland, they regard a surplus as a thing to be proud of. Their worry is not to get rid of it but to buy cheap and keep it growing. lam in favor of that policy in America that enable Americans to increase their incomes, and that’s the “effect'oTV good markeUrd sell in. With the money in one’s pocket the American people may be trusted to buy well, and it matters little what articles cost if one.has nothing to buy with. There is no country on the footstool where articles of necessity can be produced cheaper than in the United States; if incomes are reduced and the price fade to the level of English labor. There’s no middle ground between sh« extremes—a protection that protects or absolute free trade. They are distinct principles. A tariff for revenue only is taxation to carry on the’Government devoid of the protective principle. Free trade is a tax in advance on incomes, great or small, but proportionally greater on the small income. The question of surplus and the question of taxation to support the Government are distinct from the principle of protection. If it is wrong to protect one’s own, wrong to enable the American producer, whether a laboring man or an employer of labor, to increase his income, to sell his product in a good market, then a protective tariff is fcrong. But, believing it right in principle and judicious in policy, I have the honor to Subscribe myself,

Labor In Europe.

Correspondence Chicago Inter-Ocean. You are, in my opinion, sound on the tariff question, and if you have any friends who are “on the fence” send them over here where, if they will study the conditions of the British- laboring man, they will soon see the necessity of K>tectingour home industries. The ndon laborer is fairly well paid, as he gets about $2 where our American laborer gets $3. The provincial workman, however, does not fare so well, as his wages average but little more than half as much as the American —say about three-fifths. Now the cost of what they eat forms the great problem here, for it is their main expense, and it is a fact that they do not live over half as well as their "American brothers. Meat is so expensive that they only get it once or twice a week, while fruit —well, an American workman eats as much fruit in a week as an Englishman does in a year. They spend less for rent and get correspondingly less for their money. What they wear costs much less here, although they dress very common as compared with our people. Our American laborer may be said to be a prince compared with people doing the same work here. Now I find this due to two causes. First, competition with the almost starving masses of continental Europe, and, secondly, to overproduction. The products of Belgium, Hollaud, Germany, France and Italy can be found here in nearly every shop, and England is to-day largely at the mercy of a people not as well paid or as well fed as her own. These nations are to-day competing with England in nearly every

market oi the world, and are cutting into her sales abroad to sycb an extent as to produce an over production here. This condition of trade wjth the present assured failure of th? crops induces the Britisher to look to the success of the Democratic party in the United States as their only relief, and as viewed from this standpoint, the political issues is “free trade versus protection.’’ How an intelligent laboring man or an American manufacturer (and their interests are mutual i cun vote the Democratic ticket with its present free trade principles, is to me an unsolved problem. If a large proportion of the earnings of the workman were paid out for goods from Which the Government derived a- heavy revenue, the case would be it is, lie buys sparingly qf cltWvof goods, leaving the -.wealthy ancWrairly well-to-do. class of ’peoplp taapay ftffly four-fifths of the tarjff Hoping I may be pertnitled to return and cast a vote for a party whoje battle cry is (bf should be)->.‘‘Protectibh for’ American homes and industries,” I remain, yours for protection. T-X.

ln<lfa:)»po’ik journal , In order that the people of Indiana may appreciate the infamy of the present management of the Hospital for the Insane they must understand the character of the managers. Dr. Thomas H. Harrison, president of the board, was appointed as a dirty worker in politics for the express purpose of running the hospital as a political machine, and because of his known unscrupulousness in in matters of that kind. He had no interest in the insane as a class, no acquaintance .with the management of other institutions of this character, and no qualifications whatever for the position. He was not even a respectable politician. He was made president of the board of managers partly as a reward for dirty work already done, and partly to secure further services of the same kind. He is simplv a dirty worker in politics and An active partner of the SulHvan-Coy ring. The other members of the board are B. H. Burrell and Philip M. Gapen. Burrell is a negative hian, and has not figured much beyond approving the general policy of the board. Gapen has co-operated actively with Dr. Harrison in prostituting the institution, except when absent from the state. In 1885-86 he Spent a year in Arkansas, running a saw mill, but regularly drawing his salary of sso a month as a memher of the board, without attending a single meeting. For some time past he has been John E. Sullivan’s business manager, drawing pav from him and from the hospital at the same time, and also looking after Sullivan’s contracts with the hospital. The board maintained close relations with Simeon Coy until he was sent to the penitentiary, and still maintains close relations with Coy’s successors in the ring management, of which Sullivan is the head. Under this management the Indiana Hospital for the Insane has for several yeanFpast been a cesspool of corruption and a breeding ground-for the most outrageous abuses and inhuman practices. The institution, instead of being a noble State charity, dedicated solely to the welfare anil comfort of the insane, has been made a house of refuge for political workers, and a source of profit and plunder to the HarrisonSullivan ring. The welfare and comfort of the insane have been a secondary consideration. To put money into the pockets of favored contractors the insane have been fed on diseased meat and wormy butter. Thousands of pounds of oleomargarine have been furnished the inmates as butter and paid for as such. They have been deprived of their trained keepers and nurses and subjected to raugh -and unkind.. treatment . by inexperienced persons, appointed through political influence alone. Within four years 648 changes were made in the hospital force. Many of the persons thus appointed were ignorant, brutal and utterly devoid of sympathy for ,|h® insane. Patients have been kicked, whipped, knocked down and stamped on, and maltreated in various ways. The insane, sent here from all parts of the State, and for whose care and treatment “thg institution is SQPr:, ported by the people^ as if their interests stood in the way of those of the corrupt ring controlling it? Year after vear tjiey have awarded contracts to John E.“ Sullivan by which Dr. Fleteher says. t.hey “paid the highestprices for the poorest goods.” Sullivan’s contracts under tne present management aggregate several hundred thousand dollars, and out of the profits he has contributed largely to the Marion county, corruption fund, to the defense of the Coy gang and other ring projects. His hold on the hospital board is complete. He.has them under his thumb. At his request they have, in violation of law, loaned him money out of the hospital contingent fund, Dr. Harrisonremarking at the time that ’‘the boys are pretty hard pressed now.” This was when Sullivan had been putting up money freely for the defense of Coy and other indicted members of the ring It is impossible to exaggerate the extent of the rascality, corruption and cruelty that have beep going on in the hospital for years past There is one remedy. Turn the rascals out.

A REPUBLICAN.

I . , ’ Approved. Vetoed Gren’t«... f. 575 .J,* Haye’ 307 Arthur 738 Totals 1.611 ( T , So. from Grant to Arthur, there were 1*614 pension bills approved, and three were vetoed. How stands tht> case with President Cleveland. In the Fortyninth Congress 949 pension -bills were passed. The Constitution plainly says thas “if the President approve the act he shall sign it.” Hence, if he does not sign it. he does not approve. Of these 949 acts— President Cleveland vet0ed......... 124 Disapprov. d (refusi d to sigul 151 Pocketed and deleatsd 6 .1 Total number dlsapproved...2Bl Approved and signed : 668 Grant signed „.... ....... -97 7 per cent Hayes -'. 100 Arthur “ 100 “ " Cleveland '* "0- “ “

TpTftfl RiftipgiL ■ - ■ -• • Head of the gang (to conductor of train in Dakota) —This train must go back! We have established shot-gun Conductor (amazed)—What for? There’s no yellow fever here. Course there ain’t, but you’ve got Eli Perkins on board, hain’t ye?

INDIANA'S DARK STAIN.

Pensions.

Shotgun Quarantine.

FACTS OF HISTORY.

It ia conceded that our country at this time ia enjoying an unprecedented de- ; gree of prosperity; that it ia peculiarly ' blessed above all other nations of the I earth in' all the elements of material wealth: that here in the last quarter of a century has been, nurtured into being one of the grandest and most stupendous industrial systems.of any age—a system employing over $4,000.000,000’0f capital, and turning out ,n nual)y’ more than $2,500,000.1 00 worth of manufactured products. That there is a cause for this phenomenal prosperity, this unprecedented growth and development, goes without question. What is that cause? ‘Wej&ave twogreat political parties in-tbis country, each striving ffiastery. The Republican party, marching to the conflict under the banner ‘oh which is inscribed “Protection to American Industry,” is vehemently maintaining that this, wonderful prosperity which the country is enjoying has been brought about wholly through the instrumentalities of the Republican system of protection. — The Democratic party, on the other hand, is also marching to the conflict under their banners, on which is inscribed, “Free Trade,” and are just as vehemently contending that this prosperity is not due to the Republican" system of protection, but that it nas been brought about in spite of it. Mere assertions ge for naught unless we can substantiate them by indubitable evidence; therefore we will endeavor to brush aside the mist and the fog surrounding thia question, and let in the light of history. The first real protective law enacted in thiscountry was in 1824. What was the condition of the country for a few years previous to the enactment oi the tariff law of 1824? Mr.' Sargent, the historian, says: *~lhe condition of the country in 1824 was far from prosperous. The amount of our exports had diminished to an alarming degree, while our imports of foreign goods had greatly increased. The country was drained of its currency and its commerce was crippled. Nor was there any home market for the staple productions of the soil. Bqth cotton-planters and wool-growers shared i n the general prostration; and even the farmer had to sell his produce at a loss, or keep it on hand till it was ruined. Labor could with difficulty find employment, and its wages were hardly sufficient to supply the bare necessities of life. Money could only be procured at enormous sacrifices. Distress and bankruptcy pervaded every class of the community.” Such was the terrible condition of the country during the seven years previous to the enactment of the tariff of 1824. Of the beneficial results which followed the enactment of the tariff of 1824, we have the testimony of the immortal Clay himself. Eight years after the protection system had been adopted as the policy of the country, and after recalling the gloomy picture he had presented in 1824, Mr. Clay said: “I have now to perform the more pleasing task of exhibiting an imperfect sketch of the existingstate—of the unparalleled survey we behold cultivation extending, the arts flourishing, the face of the country improved, pur people fully and profitably employed, and the public countenances exhibiting tranquillity, contentment and happiness. And if we descend into particulars, we have the agreeable contemplation of a.people out of debt; land rising slowly in value, but in a secure and salutary degree; a ready though not extravigant market for all the surplus products of our industry; innumerable flocks and herds browsing and gamboling on ten thousand hills and plains, covered with rich and verdant and whole, vi 11 ages springing up, as it were, by enchantment; our exports and imports increased and increasing; our tonnage, foreign and coastwise, swelling and fully occupied; the rivers of our interiors animated by the thunder and lightning of countless steamboats; currency sound and abundant; the public debt of two wars nearly redeemed, and, ■ to crown all, the publie treasury overflowing, embarrassing Congress, not to find subjects of taxation, but to select the object which shalTbe relievedfroni the impost. If the term of seven years were to be selected of the greatest prosperity which this people have enjoyed since the establishment of their present Const it ut i ou, it w o aid be exact ly that period of seven years which immediately followed the’ passage of the tariff of 1824.” This prosperous condition, as here related by Mr. Clay, continued until the year 1833, when the Democrats of the South, in a fit of insane jealousy, caused by the marvelous growth and prosperity of the Northern States, demanded and succeeded, by the aid of their Democratic allies of the North, in securing the repeal of the tariff law of 1824, and substituting in its stead the compromise measure of 1833, which provided for a gradual reduction of the tariff, until free trade should virtually prevail. During the existence of the compromise measure of 1833 we have undoubtedly the finest illustration of the beneficial effect of the protective system, as well as the evil resulting from tree trade. It is a well-known fact that as the tariff was as contemplated in the compromise^measure, the condition of affairs Sraduallv changed; the currency became eranged, labor was unemployed, and things went from bad to worse, nntil it culminated in the terrible financial crash of 1837. Our manufacturing interest was overwhelmed, stagnation and ruin was on .every hand. Then followed the protective tariff’ of 1842 ? which continued in force until it was repealed by the free trade measure of 1846. Mr. Clay, in speaking of the good effect of the tariff of 1842, says: “It seems to me thafcjf there were ever a beneficial effect from any_public measure fully demonstrated it is that the tariff of 1842, beyond all controversy, relieved both government and the people of the United States from a peculiar embarrassment, bordering on bankruptcy.” And again, in a public letter written after the repeal 61 the tariff measure of 1842, and the substitution of the tariff for revenue only of 1846, Mr. Clay said: “I believe the system of protection, not withstanding the opposition which it has encounterea, has pushed the Nation forward half a century in advance of where it would have been if the doctrine of free trade, had always prevailed in our public council.” : ~ Mr. Hudson, a Democratic member of the lower branch of Congress, who had voted for th# repeal of the tariff of 1842, and for the adoption of the free trade ' measure of 1846, in a speech delivered

in Congress on the sth day of February, 1848, in speaking of the tariff of 1842, said: r “Then our finances were in the most prosperous condition, there being a surplus of ten millions of dollars in qur treasury, afidnolr, under the’ dberatiori of the free trade measure of 1846, we are on the verge of bankruptcy.” - . Clearly the free trade measure of 1846 failed to accomplish the object for which it was intended, for we find as the years went by, that the condition of the country did not improve, but that stagnation and distress was the prevailing disease. Mr. Fillmore, in his message to Congress in December, 1851, says: ‘Our manufacturing establishments are broken down by competition with foreigners, the capital invested in them isl lost, thousands-of honestand industrious citizens' are thrown out of employment, the destructon of our manuractori.es leaves the foreigner without competion in our markets, and consequently raises the price of the article sent here for sale. President Buchahan graphically describes the condition oi things in his message to Congress, December, 1857: Tn the midst of unsurpassed plenty in all the productions and in all the elements of wealth, we find our manufactures suspended, our public works retarded, our private enterprises of different kinds abandoned, and thousands of useful laborers thrown but of employment and reduced to want."’ We thus see how the good ship of state had been drifting aimlessly from protection to free trade, and from free trade to protection ever since its organization, but now soon to become safely anchored in the harbor of protection. Early in March, 1861, was introduced into the lower House of Congress, by Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, the first Republican tariff measure. This bill was thoroughly protective in its every, feature. This measure readily passed both Houses of Congress and soon became a law. It is useless to enlarge on the beneficent influence exerted by this measure. That it has stood the test of a quarter of a century; that the manufacturing industry of the country has advanced with gigantic strides; that the Nation to-day is occupying the most exalted position among the nations of the earth, is the best evidence of this measure. « With these facts before us can we, as patriot American citizens, afford to lend our influence in turning back the hand of time; in clogging the wheels of progress? •

An Insult to Labor.

Washington, Oct. 19.—1 f there is not one act above another that should cause the laboring men of the country to put their feet down upon the neck of President Cleveland’s administration, it is the one which Senator Teller, of Colorado, exposed yesterday and to-day in the Senate. He nulled back the hypocritical veil from the face of some of the inside workings of the administration, and showed that, under Indian Commissioner Atkins, contracts were given for hundreds and hundreds of road and farm wagons to Cherry, Marrow & Co., for four hundred of their wagons, made by penitruiiary vvirvivtßf anti ititviitivu lor anti used in the Indian Territory. There were subsequently other large orders given by government officers for these wagons. Whether the President made a pocket veto of the bill making it a crime to use for the government convictmade goods, with an eye to these very contracts, is conjectural. This is what Senator Teller wants investigated. But the infamous part of the business, in connection with the laboring man, is the fact that these contracts were made in competition with others who employed union labor, the Studebaker wagon works, of South Bend, Ind., for instance. The lessees of the Tennessee convicts pay about 25 cents a day per man for their work, while the Studebakers pay from $1.59 to 73 a day. The law provides that the contract shall be let “to the lowest and best bidder.” President Cleveland has by -his various acts, including his pocket veto of the bill mentioned, said that the convict bid was not only the lowest, but the best.

Cleveland and Hill.

Washihgton, Oct. 19.a-“What won’t President Cleveland and his party managers do?” Every body in Washington had this thought, if he did not give it utterance, to-day. Indeed, the announcement that the President had consented, for the sake of “harmony,” to go to New York and sit beside Governor Hill at a public demonstration to give evidence of his “good will” toward that official, causing a broad smile to play over the faces of not only Republicans, but all Democrats whose anxiety for party success has not made them very grave. It is well known here that President Cleveland has repeatedly refused to endorse Governor Hill by letter, and his action in consenting to go to New York and give an oral indoraementis interpreted to mean that his party managers have plainly told him that it has come to this or defeat, and he has accepted the alternative. Mayor He vitt is to be urged to eat crow from the same dish with Cleveland and Hill. Republicans in Washington regard this last act of the President as indicative of desperate party straits, and if the Republicans needed anything to give them courage anew, they have it in this announcement. There are very few people in this city'who believe President Cleveland’s presence in New York will lend any material assistance to his party.

The Influence of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

St Louis Magazine. In 1852, at the age of 40, an American woman published a book that has since gone the rounds of the civilized world. No book ever printed —not even the Bible—has ever sold as largely as this one. When the historian of the Twentieth century sums up impartially the causes which led to the abolition of African slavery in the United States, he will state that this one book exerted a more powerful influence that all the denunciations of the pulpit, the inflamatory appeals of the orator, the great debates on the floor of Congress, tbe sensational influen<» of the stage, and all other causes combined. “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” set the nation thinking, arguing, investigating, and lines of belief and conduct which before existed only vaguely and indefinitely, became drawn henceforth. What’s the matter with a howling mob? It’s all riot.

WHO PAYS THE DUTY?

It is assumed as an established fact by every advocate of the British dogma of free trade that the American consumer of imported goods pays, in addition to the price of the goods, the full amount of the tariff, whatever that may be. And not only that, but they claim the consumer of like goods manufactured in this country pav 8 . in addition to the cost''of the goods, an amount equal to the tariff, andlhat amount is a bonus of the manufacturer over and above the price at which he would sell thenr at a profit, under free trade. This is a claim which, if true, would be capable of demonstration or even an attempt made to prove it; by any advocate of free trade, who assumed it as one of the premises of his argument. This is no new argument against a protective tariff. It ia as old as the discussion itself, and that is as old as the which authorized Congress to impose duties on imports for purposes of revenue and for promoting the public welfare. It has been proved many iimes that a protective tariff is not a tax that is paid wholly by the consumers of the imported goods upon which it is levied. The very fact that the British manufacturers and importers of foreign manufactured goods have always taken such a lively interest in having our tariff abolished or reduced, ought to be sufficient evidence that they, at least, do not believe this claim, though the doctrine was originally promulgated by British advocates of free trade. But we are not confined to a mere unexpressed admission upon this point. British manufacturers do not hesitate to declare that they are compelled to subtract the amount of the tariff from their own profits. A prominent manufacturer of Bradford. England, tha center of the worsted industry of that country, not long ago said: “The truth is, the higher the foreign tariff the lower we must make our goods, and the less we can afford to pay our laborers. The least possible reduction in the U. S. tariff will be a good thing fer Bradford, but how it will affect the industries of tbat country I need not say. We are obliged to sell our goods in France at the same price we did before they enacted the higher tariff, and the Bradford manufacturers are paying that duty, not the French consumers. I know from practical experience what I am talking about.” What is I rue of French duties in this respectistrneofAmerican duties. It, as this man’jfacturer declares, the manufacturers of Bradford have to sell their goods in France at the same prices they did before the protective tariff in that country was enacted, and we do not doubt it, then the same holds good in reference to this country, and those and other manufacturers are compelled to sell their goods as low here, with our protective duties, as they would with merely revenue or no duties at all. Again, at a recent meeting of the hardware trade at Sheffield, England, an eminent manufacturer, addressing the meeting, inveighed against the American tariff. He said: great care, and such examination has demonstrated that the English manufacturer is paying at least one-half the tariff on all goods exported to America, and we must break down the tariff, at whatever cost, or it will build up American ri ;als to the extent, at least, of supplying entirely their own market; and then England will have to pay the whole tariff, or lose the market, and when that point is reached she will have to compete with the American manufacturer in every foreign market now almost exclusively our own.” The question may well be asked if our tariff duties are not paid, to a great extent, at least, by th e fdfeign manufacturers, instead of the American consumers, why are those manufacturers so much elated over every prospect of a reduction of the tariff, and why are they so willing to make such long ’ and continuous efforts, and even to spend large sums of money to effect that object? Another English manufacturer, a few years since, while lobbying at Washington in favor of the passage of a bill making a horizontal reduction of some twenty per cent, in the tariff, confessed to a free trade Congressman that “the protective tariff duties in the long run came almost wholly out of the foreign producer; that if they only came out of the domestic consumer the foreign manufacturer would not care a button about our tariff laws.” That is undoubtedly the case, and it is perfectly natural, and is common sense. The British manufacturer lays no claim to philanthropic motives in this matter, and his treatment of his own working people would give the lie to it if he did. Could he but break down American competition, which he believes free trade would enable him to do,' he wouldhave no hesitation in making the “domestic consumer” pay twice as much as the percentage of the present tariff, We may safely conclude that British manufacturers are not going to spend millions of dollars and years of effort, as they have already done, to secure a repeal or reduction of our tariff laws solely in the interest of American consumers, if they are securing the full price of their goods In spite of the tariff.. It is only those theoretical politicians who hope to make capital for the Democratic candidate in the coming election who make such a claim, and they find it convenient to make a cloak of assumed anxiety for the poor consumers, in the hope that by an appeal to the cupidity of the ignorant and unthinking they may gain a few votes. There is not a doubt but that the duty on all goods imported into this country, which acts as a protection to domest c manufactures of the same kind, is largely paid by the foreign manufacturer and importer,’and the American consumer is amply compensated for any small portion that may fall to his share, if he is a workingman, in, higher wages and more constant employment; in largely increased demand and consequently higher prices for his products, if he is a farmer, and all classes, workingmen, farmers, manhfacturers and merchants, in the increased prosperity and progress of the country, in the development of its resources and the conversion of its raw material into rnerehantahle wealth bv its own labor. As evidence of the anxiety of English manufacturers in the question of protect tion and tariff legislation in this country, it will be remembered that only a few years since Mr. Thomas Bavley Potter, M. P., and Secretary of the British Cobden Club, spent the summer and fall in this country advocating the cause of free trade and the election of free trade Congressmen. In the following year Samuel

P. Morley, M. P., and a prominent member of the Cobden Club, spent the season here on the same mission, delivering frequent addresses in favor of free trade and against the policy of protection. He went so far as to threaten the people of the United States that if they persisted in compelling the manufacturers of Great Britain to pay a high tariff on their exports to this country, they would have to retaliate by imposing a tariff on American breadstuff's and provisions. These members of the British Parliament, finding that the American people were becoming disgusted with their interference with the political and financial affairs of this country, and tbat they were probably doing tbe cause of frea trade more harm than good, finally withdrew from the canvass, and for a few years they nave not taken a uersonal part in our elections, but English editors and writers continue to advocate the Democratic cause from their side. It will thus be seen that the people of great Brittan—that is, the manufacturers and exporters—are more interested in this question of free trade, or tariff re4 uctionJn thig country .than .we., ai e. simply because they are compelled to pay the whole or a large portion of the tariff themselves. They know that any reductian in our tariff will be added to their profits, and hence their anxiety to aid in the success of the Democratic party in this coming election. They know that if the Mills bill will cut down $60,000,000 annually it will put the lion’s share of that amount into their pockets instead of into the Treasury of the United States. Whether tha consumers of this country save anything by this measure or not is of the least concern to them, so long as they reap their share of the advantage. It is strange that there should be a man in the United States, whether he be Democrat or Republican, who can not see the merits of this case—or rather its demerits, so far as this country is concerned. While there is little prospect of more than a nominal reductionini tße prices of competing imported and domestic • manufacturefl goods, it is certain that the enactment of the Mills bill would be followed by a very large increase of imports, which would necessarily displace the same amount of domestic products; even though no reduction in price took place, and there would be just to that extent a reduction of domestic production, requiring not only the discharge of thousands of operatives in the industries affected, but a consequent reduction of the wages of those retained. Every ported manufactured goods deprives one thousand American workmen of a year’s employment. It will therefore require but a comparatively small increase in imports to turn a hundred thousand workmen out of employment which could have but one result, and that would be a reduction of wages to all the wage earners of the country, whatever may be their empltmnent, .whether in so-called protectea or unprotected branches of labor. The success of the Democratic party in the coming Presidential election meanz the final passage of the Mills bill, or something worse, and that means some tens of millions of dollars from the United States treasury into the pockets of British manufacturers, not only without any adequate compensation to consumers in this country, but at the actual reduction of wages, and the total or partial closing of hundreds of manufacturing industries. There is not a product of our manufacture to-day but would be disastrously affected by this concession to British importunities; that is exorbitantly high, in comparison with the wages of labor, or as high, by such a comparison as are the same goods in England. There is not an article 4hat would be affected by theeontemplatecl reduction of the tariff whose price will be reduced twenty-five per cent., and yet.it is almost certain that wagez will be reduced at least fifty per cent. Where then would be the advantage of the sacrifice, except to the British producer? This is in every respect a moderate and conservative statement of the whole case. An Open Letter to President Cleveland. Honored Sir—ln vour late message

you say: “i suppose it is needless to explain that all these duties and assessments ("tariff duties! are added to the price of the articles upon which they are levied.” If this be true, I would ask why the tariff is not a good thing for the farmer? I have taken some pains to inquire among my farmer friends as to the amount of their annual sales from the farm, and I find that the tariff is of material benefit to them. The first column is the amount of produce sold; second, the tariff on the same; third, the amount the farmer receiyes by reason of the tariff over and above what he would receive if his produce was admitted free. Hay, 10 tons st 12 per ton 2 >,CCO Wheat. 500 bush, at 20c per bu5h........ 100 00 Corn. 400 “ at 10c “ " 4> 03 Oats. 400 •* at" “ •' 40>0 Hairs 200 lbs. st 2c per lb ..4 00 Bacon, 100 lbs. at 2c “ “ ~. ......2 00 Hogs. 10 bead. (800 lbs) at 2c per lb 6f 0* Butter. 153 lbs at. 4c rei lb i6ou Lsrd. 100 lbs at st 2c • “ 2»n Potatoes, 150 bush, at ;isc per bu h.... 22 50 MMhO If you are correct then the average Kansas farmer is benefited nearly S3OO by reason of the tariff. This is equal to the whole amount the average farmer spends annually for clothing and groceries, etc., so that it seems to me the farmers of the country are directly interested in keeping the tariff as it is. I see, however, that by the “Mills” bill, which the country understands you to favor, the tariff is taken off of the most of the farmer’s products entirely and greatly reduced on all of them. Is this fair? Is it right? It looks to me like the same old effort of Southern free traders to degrade farm labor. His wheat, hay, corn and hogs are the finished product of his labor, as much as much as the steam engine of the machinist or the railroad iron of the furnace. With great respect for the office you hold, but abhorence for your principles,

Millwood, Kan., Sept. 29, 1888.

A Disastrous Kentucky Duel.

Texas Siltings, Mrs. Blood (to the Colonel, who has just returned from fighting a duel)— Oh, Colonel, you look distressed; is it possible you have injured ydur-sntago-nist? • Colonel Blood—A devilish sight worse, my dear. I killed a valuable mule in an adjoining Ibt,and I s’pose I'll have to pay for him.

A. G. CHASE,