Rensselaer Republican, Volume 21, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 October 1888 — Page 4

THE REPUBLICAN- ■■■ ‘ Thursday, October 25,1888.

National Ticket.

For President, BENJAMIN HARRISON, Ifor Vice President, ILVI P. MORTON, of New York. _

IT IS TOO LATE, MR CLEVELAND.

>We Have enlered upon Ao Ciusade for Free Trade.”— jifoffa thc JPrftuifnCt lttir.r.qf acreptan<y. WQ awW I**o dtz.yi "■/*££ Well, Mr. Prcsiiknt, if what you say is Ifue, what shall wo do with the foi Ip wing palimony of your friends? “Wo arc entering upon,a- most feariul Presidential contest, the most important since that of 1860- Mr. Cleveland, by his message, tor which I most sincerely honor him. has challenged the protected industries of the country to a tight of extermination.”—Senator ' *—^' T —~ The Democratic Party is a FreeTrade party, or it is nothing. The Democratic Party will make a PreeTrade tight in 1884. If it loses, it will make another ia >IBBB. The conflict between Free-Trade and Protection is irrepressible and must be fought out to f,he bitter end.” - Henry Watterson. “I desire Free Trade and I will not help to p< fleet any law that* stands in the way of Free Trade.”—Roger Q Mills “All trade should be as free as posEble.” -dSpiiakerCarlisle. .... , • ‘♦JJr. Cleveland has burned his ships; he stands before the country ps the champion of Free-Trade against Pro-, tcction. If he is re-elected, Protection will have received its death blow.”— flenry George. “lam a free trader. The Mills bill is a step in that direction. The only fault is that the step is not long enough, \Ve will carry on an aggressive campaign. All our efforts will be directed to convince the voters that the Bill itself is not Free-Trade. We’ve got to do this or be defeated.”—Congressman Breckenridge, of Arkansas. “If this Bill means anything it means a long step toward Free-Trade,;because it has put many of our leading productions on the free list.” —Congressman Campbell (Dem ), Ohio. ‘ Add to the free list as many articles as possible. Reduce duties upon every dutiable article to the lowest point pos. sible.”—Secretary Fairchild. “It would be a glorious consummation of this debate could we only have gentlemen on the other side join in this invocation to pacer and to type and to the hearts of honest men, to clear the way for British Cobden Free-Trade.”—S. 8. Cox. “It is certain that the arguments which President Cleveland urges are those which Cobden used to employ 45 years ago. and which any free tnrtier could employ now London Times. ‘TorAmerican,party pprJJm “TresidcnTfeels compelled to character ize the attempt to brand him as a Free Trader, as a deception of his ene Tnies. For all that, the electorial conflict now in progress is a conflict ;,tween Free-Trade and Protection, and nothing less.”—London Daily News, July 6. i “President Cleveland's message, to Congress will not fail to attract the attention which it deserves. It marks the beginning of a serious movement in the direction of Free trade. * •* * The doctrines of Free-Trade have beet: preached to the Americans in vain hitherto.' We seem at length about to witness a new departure:”—Mancbes: ter Examiner and Times. “The message must be taken to prove that the President and the demo ciatic leaders have finally decided that they have nothing to gain by keeping miusUies with the Protectionists. They " have from whatever* motive resolved to adopt a Free-Trade policy.”—Saturday Review. > * “It would hardly be possible to put the Free-Trade case more clearly or more strongly, and yet such is the force of the words that President Cleveland shrinks from the nse of the term Free Trade- in fact, he declares that those who taunt him with being a Free-Trad er are wrong.”—London Times, July 6. Neighbor McEwen is striving frantically to keep Mr. H. E. James out of the democratic party but it is noticed that the party leaders have no hesitation in recognizing Mr. James as a Democrat from way back. For instance, al the Democratic: rally yesterday Mr. James was chief marshal, and rode resplendent, onia fine gray horse, at the head of the procession: while neighbor McEwer was compelled to do the dirty work of getting out an infamously false and slanderous circular, in regard to the cutting of the rope of the Democratic flag pole; and while we are speaking about this matter we will do Mr. J ames the justice to say that; be our opinion what it may of his political course, past and present, we do not believe he would have stooped to the dirty Work of getting out that circular.

■■■ —■— Republican Mass ' ■■" f at Rensselaer, Irid., NOVEMBER Ist. AFTERNOON and EVENING ■ HON. J. R. G. . FITKINS, ex-Gov. of Louisana, Hon. ta f. Sayers, speaker of Indiana Legislature, ORATORS OF THE DAY. Torchlight - Procession

At the thirteen presidential elections since 1830 New York has only given its electoral vote five times to the democrats, and peyer . twice in succession. The Indianapolis Journal vouch-: es for the statement that the DemI ocratic State Central Committee has already received one hundred and forty thousand dollars from the East as the first installment of a colossal corruption fund to be used in Indiana. The Democrats know as vfell as they know anything, that, on a fair, square vote, inevitable defeat awaits them, and their only hope for success depends upon bribery and fraqd'. The term 1 ‘war tariff ”as applied to the present schedule of import duties, is as, utterly false as was the 400 million surplus lie in 1884. The tariff has been subjected to two thorough revisions since 1865,-in 1870 and again in 1883, Besides frequent minor changesand reductions. The result of these changes and revisions is that 60 million people now do not pay as : large an annual reuenue into the government treasury, as did 20 i millions in 1865. Over five hun- . dred articles have been placed on the free list, since 1865, and the ' remaining duties have been so re- , duced and re-adjusted as in effect 1 to reduce the tariff to much less ‘ th an hMf “of what~if “~Ws in war , times. publish in another place.a ■ statement upon the constilution- , ality-of local option in Indiana, by nine of the most eminent lawyers . in the state. This opinion calls to • mind the deliberate dishonesty bf j a certain prohibition orator who? a . few months since, during an ad- ) dress in the court house in this town, quoted the opinion of Hon. Will Cumback, as expressed in , 1884, wherein Cumback held that local option was unconstitutional, but the lecturer carefully refrain- . ed from making any mention of Mr. Cum back’s position in 1886, t wherein he frankly and manfully t admitted that after a more thor- } ough and careful study of the I question and the laws and autfior- • ities bearing upon it, lie was con- . vinced that he had previously been ) in error and that he had no longer - any doubt whatever as to the conx stitutionality of local option. The Hon. S. 8. Cox* of New York, a man of long established national reputation, and a recognized leader of the Democratic - side, in Congress, recently spoke t about tfie Hon. W. D. Owen, in an 1 interview, as follows: ' “I like that man, Owen. I nev- ’ er took much notice of him till recently. I was in the chair when

Mr. Owen arose to make an extemporaneous reply to Mr. Bynum’s attack on General Hrrisoa. His composure as he arose my Attention, and in a very few I discovered the secret of of his strength. Il is bis self-re-liance and wererunningagainsthimX would never attack him nor gay anything to arouse him; for, if you push him you develop u power that Isl likely to beat yon. Look out for him in Jndtana-"pedities.- He is—always ready to act when action is called for,*and is bound to come to the front. There is real strength in Mr. Owen, and I like him.” Rey. R. 8. Dwiggins said, during his speech in tfie court house, Saturday evening, October 13; that “a local option law would be unconstitutional and in proof of hia assertion cited the decision of the Supreme Court on the Maine law, as rendered by Judge Perkins in 1855. Mr. D wiggins certainly has not forgotten the Baxter Law for which he voted during tfie session of 1873, which which was sustained and pronounced constitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Groesch, 42 Ind., page 574. The principle of local option is found in the stock law and the law authorizing aid to railroads. A proper heading, wording and perhftp’s some other legislative forms,~ and a local option law would be? constitutional without a doubt. The idea that three-fourths of the Republican and forty per cent, of the .Democratic -party would join the measley little Prohibition party is too ludicrous to talk about, Republicans gre such from principle and not for the sake of notriety. “The first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people and the purity of their homes. The Republican party cordially -sympathizes with all wise and welt directed efforts for the promotion of temperance and morality.” The trouble with the Prohibition party is, its efforts are neither wise nor well directed, and therefore does not have the sympathy of good Republicans. Temperance Republican. * > . . *

HOW IT IS DONE.

The Mills bill, which the Democrats will make a law if they carry the coinihg election, cuts-the very heart out of the protection principle in the tariff, excepting mainly a few favored productions, either of southern states or Democratic communities, and makes an average reduction of the tariff of more than 30 per cent. Yet by a little aitful juggling with figures and a total disregard of the truth, the democratic orators and papers, are proclaiming that thejaverage reduction of the tariff is less than four per cent*, and that whoever says the Mills bill is a free trade measure, or that the Democratic party is a free trade party, is a liar and a slanderer. We now propose to explain and illustrate, in as few and simple words as may be, the manner by which the free traders aie seeding to destroy the protective system of this country, and trying to deceive the people as to the fact: The present tariff’is levied on about 800 different ar tides pt he rate per cent, of the tariff ranging from 2 or 3 per cent on sojne articles, to upwards qf 100 per cent, on others. The Mills bill puts about 160 of these *BOO items, on the free list and makes great reductions in many others. We will now suppose, for the sake of shortening the illustration, that the present tariff is levied on only 10. different articles and that the Mills bill puts three of the ten on the free list and reduces the tariff on most of the others, which is very nearly exactly in proportion to the manner in which the Mills bill actually deals with the tariff. We take at random the following ten articles and assume that the per cent* of the presentiariffon each is what is stated opposite each arti; cle, the figures being only approximately correct: PRESENT RATE OF TARIFF. Iron 30 per cent ’I ' _

Wool $0 “ Sugar 80 “ “ ■ Cotton goods 50 “ “ Woolen “ 50 “ “ Steel 40 “ “ Grain 20 “ “ Crockery ‘4b “ “ Lumber 20, a “ Ripe 100 “ /“ Total 470 “ Of-•eour.se to find the' average per cent, of tariff we have only to divide the above sum total of the per cents, 470; by 10, the total number of articles enumerated. The result gives 47 as the average per cent of the tariff. shall suppose that the Mill bilFgetsTn its work on the above ten articles in about the same proportion in which it ghple tariff: MILLS bill. Iron 20 per cent. Wool free list. x '-' Sugar * 68 per cent. Cotton goods 40 “ “ Woolen “ 25 “ Steel 22 “ Grain free list. Crockery 25 per cent. Lumber free list. Rice 100 per cent Total per cent. 303 Now to find what the average reduction of the tariff on the articles is we have only, to’divide the total 303 by the number of articles, 10, which gives 30 per cent, as the average tariff of the Mills bill and the difference between 47 and 30, which is 17, gives the percent. of the reduction. A frtti of 47 to 30 equals a reduction of over one third, or more than 36 per cent, which is what the Mills bill actually does to the tariff. And now* to illustrate the method the Democrats adopt to make it appear that they have reduced the tariff only from 47 to about 43 per cent. Instead of dividing the above total of 300, in the Mills bill list by 10, the number of articles under consideration, they divide by the number left after excluding the three articles placed on the free list. The result of 300 divided by 7 is approximately 42. Thus, by means of this entirely false’ and deceitful method, they try to make it appear that an actual reduction of from 47 to 30 per cent, is only a reduction of from Iff 48 [WP —“““ This is no fancy sketch, but illustrates exactly and truthfully the very means by which the advocates of free trade are now seeking to humbug the American people. By the same method they might, with just- aa-’-Hiuck,truth and honesty as they now use, have wiped out the entire tariff, except, say, on two articles, sugar, 68 per cent, and rice, 100 per cent., and thenhave setup the claim that they had actually increased the tariff from an average of 47 per cent, to an average of 84 per cent.

LOCAL OPTION CONSTITUTIONAL.

Opinion ol the Ablest Lawyers in Indiana. Many of the third party Prohibition advocates in this state are declaring that the indorsement of local option by the Republican party is a delusion and a snare, because local option will be declared unconstitutional. In taking this position the “Prohis” manifest more of their animosity to the Republican party than they do of a desire to speak the truth. The Supreme Court of this state has, time and again, affirmed the constitutionality of local option in various matters, and once directly sustained the local option of the Baxter lihuor law. Persons who * are in doubt on this subject may easily be satisfied by referring to the Indiana reports as follows: 34 Ind. page 182; 83 page 553; 42 Ind. pages 547 and 560. The stock law is a familiar illustration unquestioned validity of just such local option as is desired for the control of the liquor traffic. The supreme courts of Connecticut; Maryland, Minnesota and Arkansas have sustained local option,

and it has not been assailed in Michigan or Illinois. The law 1 in Michigan went down under a constitutional defect in its title. Fin- . . -i :y ally: Jf the Republicans are victorious in Indiana the Supreme Court will not be arrayed against local option by political considerations. 'The third party advocates must find a petter objection to lochl option than its alleged unconstitutionally. Their candidate for President, Garferal Fisk, says it is “a good thing in some localities as an educational force.” This “good thing” is attainable in Indiana through the success of the Republican party only. There is, therefore, only ope course left open for honest men who desire the benefit of this “educational force.” They must vote the Republican tickets —— In this connection -sye append the statement of nine of the ablest and best known members of the Indianapolis bar, in which they uhhesitatingly and publicly express their opinion, over their own signatures, that local option is constitutional. Here is what they say: “Local' option~is"’constitutional "in Indiana. Whoever asserts the contrary has not exaniined the law or willfully misstates it. Many statutes containing, the local option principle have been approved, among them the stock law, the law authorizing aid to railroads, and that known as the Baxter law’ of 1873. “The latter was fully considered by the supreme court'in the case of Groesch, 42 Ind. 547. It provided for a petition for a permit to be signed by a majority in a particular localityso that permits might be granted or withheld according to the local sentiment. “It embraces the exact principle of local pption.' It was upheld by the court without dissent. The case has never beeji bverniled or modified, and is.the latest on the subject. : )‘lt is supported by abundant authority in other states—42 Conn., 346; 36 N. J., 42Md., 71:21 Vt.. 456; 24 Minn., 247; 35 Ark., 69. Nor does such legisla? tion violate the constitution of the Unjted States—lß Wallace, 129; 112 U. 5.,205. “A local option law. like a law upon any other subject, needs only to be given a proper title and comply with the usual formalities of legislation to be constitutional. A law of this character recently condemned by the Michigan supreme Court was held tobeunconstitiftional.not because of the principle of local option, but because it lacked the necessary legal form. “There need be no fear such a law properly framed would be held to be unconstitutional by the supreme court of Indiana. “The case of Groesch has been often ’ approved by out court,and tlic authorities in support of it hate greatly multiplied elsewhere since that option was announcedF • ■— “John M. Butler, John B, Elam, “John S. Duncan, Ghas.,W. Smith, “F. Winter. W. H. Ketcham, “W. H. Calkins, R. Hill, ”W. H, FL Filler, Ccmmittee.”

FOR TEMPERANCE PEOPLE

Where the, Liquor Men Stand _ In this Campaign, uThe following circular letter is being sent to saloon keepers and other liquor dealers in this state. We believe that every saloonkeeper in Rensselaer has received a copy of the circular, and know that some of them have. The circular is in print but the signiture of the firm is in hand-writing, and there is no question of its genuiness. The parties sending out the circular are Thieme & Wagner, well known brewers of Lafayette. The following is the matter in the circular: ( Thieme & Wagner. BREWERS. Lafayette, October, 20,1888. Dear sir: We enclose herewith a copy of a document which is being circulated by the Republican managers among the Prohibition Fanatics to show that Gen. Harrison, is in secret sympathy with them in their attack on personal freedom. We also enlose a copy of a legal opinion of nine Republican lawyers, two of whom ( W. H. H. Miller and John B. Elam) are the law partners of Gen. Harrison, which is being circulated among Prohibitionists to show that the local option law, to which the Republican party pledged itself in its'.State platform, is constitutional. It is qertain that if the Republicans carry Indiana this law will be passed. You know what that means. It is prohibition whereever the majority of the people of a county wish it. It means a hard fight and great expense for a liquor seller to get a license to carry on bis business. , We enclose also extracts of the liquor law which the Republican House of Representatives passed: at the hi st legislature. It will , show just how much Trotible it will be to get your license if they succeed in this election. We hope you will not be de-

ceived by Republican professions of friendship after you consider this evidence. Your business ihterests andours are at stake. The party that is advocating local option is our enemy h is you want to protect your interests go to tfie polls on election day and do all yo& cahTd defeat them. " - Respectfully - ThIEMR & WAffNERs The “document”’ referred to in the first paragraph of the circular is a sheet containing from a speech delivere4 by Gen. Harrison at Danville, Inff., Nov. 27, in which his high, consistent end eminently practical views upthe temperance question and the necessity of the overthrow of the liquor league, are set forth in his usual dear and forcible manner. Tho document referred to in the second paragraph, namely the opinion of eminent lawyers as to the constitutionality of local optiqn in this state, is given elsewhere in this paper, in full.

PRICES SOW AND THEN The Difference Between Expenses in protective and Free Trade Times.

The South Bend (Ind.) Tribune has mads a careful examination of prices of farm and store products, dvhich is of great value in the discussion of the tariff question. It shows conclusively how much better off the farmers are under Protective system than they were under the Free Trade system between 1840 and Xrib T une has taken the prices ffom the account books and the day books of four farmers furnishing the information concerning the prices of 1848. Recording to these figures a farmer sold fiis produce at the following rates in 1858: Wheat, per bu........... .8 63J Wood per c0rd.,—..... 2 50 Hay per ton, 6 00 Corn per bu 25 Oats"per bu 23 Eggs, per doz 6 Butter, per lb XP T0ta1..,. 89 77| He bought articles needed by by him at the following prices: 1 Studebaker wagon..: ..8130 00 Rio coffee, per lb 15 Brown sugar per lb 11 Granulated sugar, per lb. 15 Rice, per lb 7 Green tea, per 1b..,. 1 00 Syrup, per gal 75 Salt, per barrel .... 240 Overalls, per pair....... 50 Calico, per-yard 12| Bleached muslin, per yd, 16 1 set granit cups and saucers 75 1 set plates., 1 set Knives and forks.., 1 50 1 doz. |pt tumblers...... 1 50 Wheat sack 30 Total?.. 8140 21 The prices in 1888 for produce are as follows: . Wheat.. ... L_ 88 Wood, per c0rd.......... 5 00 Hay, per ton. 12 00 Corn, per bu . 50 Oats “ 30 Eggs, per doz . 14 Butter per lb 15 T0ta1...............818 97 While the farmer pays for what he needs as follows: One Studebaker wag0n...865 00 Rio coffee, per lb 20 Brown sugar, per lb 06 Granulated sugar, per lb.. 09 Rice, per ft).... 08 Green tea, per 1b......... 75 Syrup, per gal 45 Salt, per barre 1.......... 100 Overalls, per pair........ 40 Calico, per yard L... , . . 05 Bleached mslin, per yard.. 09 One set granit epps and saucers One set granit plates 45 One set knives and forks.. 60 One doz. | pint tumblers.. 60 Wheat sack. 21 Total 869 48 The difference is enormous. In the Free Trade ora the farmer sold produce at the rate of 89.77 J for which he now receives 818.97, very near double. And he bought articles for which he paid 8140.214 which be could now purchase for 869.48. 7 The Chicago Inter Ocean says that there is no disaffection among the Scandinavians, but that the Swede aiyl Norwegians .are nearly all Republicans. Theßwedish Republican club of the Fifth Ward of Chicago numbers about 250 members, and the secretary, 'Gdstaf Lundberg, writes: “The chib is unanimously in favor of K‘ x?tion. and is determined to work next fall in order to draw, their straw to the stack for the man whom they think will do the most to. keep the American lai >orers protected from competition with Europe, where the poor wages, among other things, have made men leave their homes and their country for this grand republic,'’