Rensselaer Republican, Volume 21, Number 9, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 November 1888 — Page 2

THEY ARE FREE TRADERS

Ooncl tsai ve Proof of Democr««ic Hot- '' tility w America’s Protective 8y»teni. utterance* ot Prominent Democrat* fn CoßfreM Thai Fully Commit the Pnr«y to the KngUah ttoetilne ot Free Trade. To the Editor of the New York Tribune. _ It is astonishing how difficult it is in ”this world to get things called by their right names, and yet th F e names are not the essential things except as affording short and concise terms which finable vou to designate the object without circumlocution. The horse has a different' name in ev< ry 1 mguage, and yet is the same aninal to every eyq. The difficulty of gettiag the true name attached to things is much enhanced when the true name reveals sinister designs. No criminal,Tor instance, likes to have his action described in legal terms. It is much easier to get the photograph of an honest man than the? • ountenance of one who is to adorn a gallery consecrated to study by detectives. The sitter ip -the last case goes into contortions which at once spoil his beauty and render his identification difficult. Nevertheless, whether tlie face is in repose or in motion, the same man is in front of the camera. So with ideas and principles, the essential thing is to get at the verity, under whatever name they may be called. In this campaign the purpose of the President’s party friends is to down protection 'by slow degrees; no slower, than is absolutely necessarv for the success of the plan. In order to do this they commenced operations at the beginning of thi? session of Congress by intrusting the formation of a bill to reduce the tariff to a committee. at the head ot which was Mr. Mills, of Texas. As soon as the country was thoroughly aroused to the nature of tye bill, its framers and supporters found that there was so strong a feeling iu favor of protect ion throughout th ; country and within their own party, that they have latterly taken upon themselves the task, not only of denying the tendencies of their bill, but denying their own intentions. When the meeting of ratifiacation in New York took place, the feeling was so strong that large job lots of Congressmen were sent over that citv to asseverate the contraiy of what,amid the great applause of their fellow-members, they had declared on the floor of the House. The notable instance of Mr. Mills will be touched upon later in detail.

All of them seemed to be anxious not to be called free-traders. They seemed after the launching of their craft to haye the same dread lest it should be christened “the Free Trader” as did Grover Cleveland when he wrote tbe one-topic message which proposed the plans and laid the keel. It becomes, therefore, highly important to find out what these gentlemen say in what, under our American newspaper system of reporting the doings of Congress, is the profound and confidential secrecy of the House debates. We must put the camera upon them at moments when they did not expect to be put into the gallery to be examined by all good citizens; The faces will be more natural than when they are contorted for the stump, after the discovery thaTEhe peo*" 1 pie do not want “free trade,” under whatever name the odor may be given forth. Of course no will expect that these gentlemen wili wear their hearts on their sleeves and boldly announce in precisely the language which will be most dangerous to them and their party the views they really possess and mean to put into action. It is only in their incidental talk that they use the phrases which reveal the ultimate goal of their designs. Out of some of the very speeches which are carefully prefaced with denials of Lee trade tendencies crop the indications which show what is below. These things pervade every speech delivered by those who belong to the dominant wing of the party and control the party action. Not"onc : e, bat many times, during the debates have these men been invited to deny their allegiance to free trade, and never once, when surrounded by their associates, have they dared so to do. In each case they have had to put the distance from Washington to New York between them and the faces of those who know their real sentiments. Some detached sentences will show how they feel. It is perfectly true that many sentences which I shall quote are inconsistent with other sentences in the same speech, but in no case inconsistent with the whole speech, its purpose and intent. For instance, Mr. McKinney, of New Hampshire, who" has joined himself very cordially to the dominant wing of his party, but who has tqo many flourishing industries in his districts not to deny that he is a free-trader, forgets “in the heat of debate” all about his exordium, and in the ecstacy of his peroration bursts forth into this invocation, which even Frank Hurd might envy: “Give us a free and open market with the world. .Break down the barriers which a false system has built around _ >» ÜB. Mr. McDonald, of Minnesota, also, who had heretofore been careful to put the word “high” before the word“tarifT’ and to say “we are no free-traders,” bursts the barriers before he gets through and declares in so many words that “American manufacturing industries do not need protection any longer,” and speaks of the “legalized robbery called a protective tariff” precisely those words. No wonder he says, “I am frank to say this bill does not meet my unqualified approvah lam not fully satisfied with it. because it does not go far enough.” These last expressions were so common in the debate, sanctioned as they were at the outset by the declaration of Mr. Mills that “the bill we propose is not all we could have asked,’’that t is a marvel that any attempt should be made to disguise the tendency of the prjsent action, sind to turn away from future action which its framers intend to take, should the present scheme be successful. The declarations against protection as a system were not confined to any section of country or any class or condition of members. They were not confined to the South nor to the West. They were hr widespread as the President’s* party. Taey were uttered as well by members who have not yet made for themselves a national reputation as by the members majority of the committee on means, that secret tribunal which not only framed the bill in darkness but terward fanned out amendments to the eserving faithful. “The protection system has violated

the letter and spirit of the Constitution,” said Mr. Shaw, of Maryland, in his speech of April 35. “Sir,” said Mr. O'Eerrell, of Virginia, on the first day of Mhy, himself in favor of the iron-ore “tax” because iron ore is produced in his native-village, “Sir, I believe commerce between nations should be relieved so far as possible from all fetters and all restraints,” and himself at last, bursting all fetters apd restraints, denounces “the blood-sucking protectionist;” “Sir, ’ said Mr. Dockery, of Missouri, though anxious lest any outsider should call 'him a “free trader,” “Sir, the present system is fundamentally wrong in its operation and fundamentally ridiculous in the pleas set up for its continuance.” Mr. Landes, of Illinois, a little bolder, declares that “a tariff for protection ia indeed a piece of finesse to persuade men into slavery.” From the State of Henry Cl ay comes Mr. Carruth, who tells a prosperous and successful people that “this tariff is a most insidious enemy,” that “it is really stealing our substance and destroying our lives.” Breaking into metaphor, he exclaims: “It is not a highwayman who badly gallops upon the public road and boldly demands your money or your life, but the sneak thief who in an. unconscious moment [sic] filches your purse." His colleague, Governor McCreary, from the same State, follows up the attack by talking of “the robbtry which protection brings.” Hatch, of Missouri, who throws into his position to protection the whole force of a strong mind and a vigorous body, puts his feelings into a single sentence when he declares that “the whole system was so conceived in greed and avarice, and it has been maintained from that day to this by misrepresentatton and fraud.” Not only born bad, yon see, this demon of protection, but has held its own with undeviating wickedness. Major Martin, fresher even than Mr. Mills himself from the plains of Texas, and whose bump of caution- has not yet been enlarged by the blows coming from a protectionist world, declares in a set phrase which that future eminence likely to happen to any- Texas statesman may hereafter cause him to repudiate in New’ York: “I am opposed to the protective policy of our government,” which declaration, liable to be so troublesome to his future fame, hO supplements with a prophecy that “the day of protection is fast drawing to a close.” Mr. Lane, of Illinois, s gnalized his first year in Congress by an essay from which I cull a few sample's which show that he has not yet learned, like some of his more experienced bretheru to look one way and row another. “The protective system is unAmerican and is a perversion of the’ laws of nature, of God and man.” “This barbarbic policy shall and will have to go.” So well does he like the phrase “Protection is a delusion and a snare” that he repeats it like a refrain, with just that little variation which the genius of the English language seems to require, “Protection is forever a cheat and delusion.”

Notto be behind his colleague, Martin, in the display of the prophetic instinct, Mr. Hare, of Texas, disclosed at once his ignorance of the future and his knowledge of the sentiments and purposes of his party when he announced that “a protective tariff must go down with thernonoplies it has created.” Mr. Townshend, of Illinois, chairman of the committee on military affairs, whose constant re-election shows him to representhis people, and whose constant and unflagging utterances of the views of his party show his devotion thereto and his knowledge of its purposes, asseverated in open House, May 12, that among the “principles and doctrines which have been advocated by the Democratic party from its foundation to this day » * » is opposition to protective tariff.” But is is hardly worth while to linger so long on what one of the members of the majority of ways and means called the “militia of fight ” The “regulars,” the line-of-battle ships, the authorized exponents of the faith, have not been behind-hand in the use of unguarded expressions which reveal their real intentions. Mr. Bynum, of Indiana, who seemed so anxious on the last days of the fiveminute debate to show that his bill was really protectionist, allowed himself to sav in the earlier days of the first debate, •‘To show how American labor has been pillaged and plundered by this masked robber of protection I have obtained” certain statistics. . - . Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas, who twice refused invitations and opportunities in the .five-minute debate to declare himself against “free trade” asseverated in his speech in the general debate, “This is the kind of protection we have to-day. • • • This, Mr. Chairman, is not only a foolish but it is a wicked policy of protection that it behooves a people to prevent or escape from.” Mr. Wilson, of West Virginia, another member of the ways and means, roundly talks in quite contemptuous fashion of “such an antiquated and mediaeval device as a protective tariff.” Thus have spoken some of the lights of the President’s party, of whom some are greater and other lesser lights; some were “militia” and some were regulars; but they were all in the same battle on the same side. It is worth while now to see how some of the field marshals and officers of high rank stand, as also the commander-in-chief and tbe second in range, who was selected because he had seen Rome and wa« about to die. The leader selected for the operations of the President’s party in the House of Representatives was Mr. Mills, of Texas. He was selected with his antecedents fully known, and after much and painful deliberation. The country- staggered under the surplus for many weeks while it awaited the choice of Mr. Mills. We are. therefore, justified in regarding Mr. Mills as the exponent of the President’s party. So universal is the sentiment that he represents tbe party that Mr. Henry George,a bold and outspoken free trader, and consequently a bold and outspoken supporter of the President and his measures, seems to have come to Washington on purpose to examine with his own eyes and other organs of sense the leader in the House of his party. rt After full and fair examination, Mr' George returned to New York, and over his own signature pronounced Mr. Mills a “free trader from base up.” But, fortunately, Mr. Mills’s position does not rest upon the opinion of even so competent an observer as Mr. George. Four years ago Mr. Mills, having perhape at that time more freedom of utterance than he has now, made a speech on the 15th day of April, 1884, which can be found in the Record, which itself defined his position then:

“We must remove, both by legislation and diplomacy, every hindering cause which prevents the free exchange of the product of our labor in all the markets of the world. We must unfetter ievery a> mandiet every muscle strike for the highest remuneration for its toil. We must let wealth, the creation of labor, grow up in all the homes of our people. Then every industry will spring forward at a bound, and wealth, prosperity and power bless the land that is dedicated to , FREE MEN, FKEK LABOR and FREE TRADE’"— ." I ', """ The capitals are not mine, but those of Henry George, who makes the quotation with due eihphasis, so that the faithful may wink incredulously, one unto the other when an inaccurate newspaper man makes Mr. Mills deny the truth. In order that be might have room to declare his repentance, if be had repented. tbe passage was read to him in open House on the 6th day of June, 1888, and he made no reply In order that Mr. Mills might not- fail to remember that he once knew what free trade is when he saw it, Mr. Burrows, of Michigan, read to him an extract from another speech of his, as follows: “Our policy should be to take the smallest arnount of taxes we can by customs, and we should gradually decrease the amount until our custonis taxes come alone from non-competing articles entering our custom houses.” To this he also made no reply”except to demand a vote. Really that was the only reply he could make. He was looking then and there into the eyes of too many men who knew what his real sentiments w*ere. Yet only a few days before this unrepentent silence Mr. Mills had been to New. York, and, according to the report of the New York Times, said, “No Democrat desires free trade.” Of course no one believes that he said it. It only shows how newspapers misrepresent public men. But why should we spend so mg,ch time upon details as to individuals, when, one scene in the White House lights up the entire group? Mr. McComas, the able young member from Maryland, on the 2d of May put to the President’s friends the point blank question: Why in this debate has every friend of the Mills bill lauded tbe English free trade tariff, which only levies duties upon articles not produced at home? Has any frien'd of this bill in this debate uttered one sentence in favor of the American tariff systeni, which discriminates in favor of the home producer and laborer?’ I will pause and yield a half minute to any member oh the Democratic side to name the sentence or the member’s name who uttered it. This challenge, broad as it was, could be answered in only one way, and accordingly Mr. Hooker (Dem.,), of Mississippi, responded with a frankness and fullness which some of his shivering Northern colleagues must have envied: “No, There was no one; and you won’t hear any Democrat utter one.”

A curious little letter from the gentleman on the President’s ticket whose Roman firmness the proposed ribxt administration is expected to need—in all things perhaps except civil service reform—reveals the sentiments of the one who is to be second in command. It seems that Mr. Thurman, habituated as he was to the customs of the Roman republic, had a scruple which the President, himself a man of scruples, did not share, aga nst “assisting” even by so much as a letter at a meeting called to ratify his own nomination. The Tammany braves, not understanding the customs of ancient Rome and fully sympathizing with those of modern Buffalo, were angry because Thurman did not write a letter. Thereupon the noble Roman wrote an epistle to Mr. Cox to explain his feelings. Now Mr. Cox had made a speech fuller of free trade than an egg is of meat. Mr. Cox is a believer in Bastiat and would no more think of denying free trade in New York than Mr. Mills would think of denying free trade in the House of Representatives. If you want to know what the country- would have to expect of Mr. Thurman. if ever promoted, listen to the enthusiasm over Mr. Cox’s speech: “I have not thanked you,” wrote he under date of July 21, “for your magnificent speech on the tariff, which ought to immortalize you.” Surely this is a recognition of free trade cordial enough to satisfy the stanchest friend of Great Britain. As to the views of the President himself we must have recourse to the great fact that the substance is what sensible people are after, not the name. If his views are utterly, ab-olutely and emonstrably free-trade does it make any difference if he denies the title? The close of his message—the one-topic message—reminds me of the caricature which Carlyle describes in his French Revolution. The cook went out into the barn-yard and said to the fowls: “How would you like to be cooked?” and they all replied: “We don’t want to be cooked at all.” Said the coos severely: “You are dodging the question; it is a condition which confronts you; not a theory. Free trade is entirely-' irrelevant,” After a whole message not one sentence of which sounds in protection it always did seem to me that the declaration that free trade was not involved in the discussion, was an exhibition of monumental nerve. It is as if Wendell Philips had closed one of his wonderful attacks upon s avery with a declaration that the question of the abolition of slavery was entirely irrelevent, or as if Robert Ingersoll had finished one of his assaults on the Bible by declaring that Christianity had not been alluded to. What is the essence of free trade? It is the belief that all importduties are added to the price at which imports could be bought if no tariff law existed, and that all protected domestic productions are enhanced in price by the amount of the du tv on like imported ai tides. But the President states this fundamental belief more strongly than even the Free-trade Club would dare to state it. Whoever believes that statement is either in favor of abolishing the duties or in favor of visible wrong; is either a free-trader or palters with his conscience; and the horns of the dilemma are so close together that there is no room for a grown man between them. Why should all the English newspapers, who have no motive to conceal their real opinions, recognize with one voice their new found friends’ Whv do all thc free trade c 1 übs push themselves to the front, unless they know that they are welcome and at home? , When Mr. Garrison, of Massachusetts, addresses himself to a Democratic audience st Hyannis, on July 21, what

» . more fitting words could he use than to say: ;.' • ~•••■ . ■ “I am myself a thorough believer in absolute free trade. I look forward to the dav when custom-houses will be regarded as an emblem of barbarism —an anomaly and an anachronism in a true republic. At rhe same time Tam awkre that tbe Democratic party makes no claim to be a free trade party. Shall I therefore decline to recognize its steps in the direction of progress? On the contrary, I bail it with joy and hope.” While the English manufacturers and the English newspapers, Henry George and his free trade clubs, Mr. Garrison and his co-believecs, hail the first outset of the President’s party with joy and hope, can those who believe 4 in the other .doctrines shut their eyes to a truth so clearly displayed, to a picture all the of which are as plainly visible as the the black Clouds of a rising storm? Thomas B. Reed. D. C., Aug. 20, 1888.

Duties Reduced by Republiccans.

Bouton Journal. One of the Democratic party’s favorite modes of atteinpting to impose upon uninformed voters is to assert that our present tariff is a “war” tariff, and that the Republicans have never consented and never will consent to change it. How false such assertions are the Nashua (N. H.) Telegraph very nearly shows in this compact statement of some of the tariff changes for which the Republican party is responsible: \ The Republican party reduced the duty on steel rails from S2B to sl7. The Republican party abolished the duty on coffee. The Republican party abolished the duty on tea. The Republican party abolished the duty on hides. The Republican party abolished the duty on camphor. The Republican party abolished the duty on indigo. The Republican party abolished the duty on maccaroni. The Republican party abolished the duty on nutmegs. The Republican party abolished the duty on bleaching powders. The Republican party put sago on the free list. The Republican party put shellac on the free list. The Republican party put raw silk on the free list. The Republicun party put tin bars on the free list. The Republican party abolished the duty on anthracite coal and reduced the duty on bituminous from $1.25 to 75 cents per ton. These are some of the things which the Bourbon shriekers about the “war tariff” never refer to.

The Tariff and Farm Values.

New York Mail and Express. In his excellent speech in opposition to the Mills bill, Congressman Burrows showed how diversified industries have increased the value of farm lands. It is a table which cannot be too closely studied by the farmer. No one denies, of course, that protection diversifies the industries of a country. The most ardent free trader will admit that this has been the result of protection in this country. His objection is that the diversification has been too expensive; that the manufacturers hffVe not paid for the aid they have received from the tar ff. We shall see, however, that the value of farm lands is greatly increased whenever the industries of a community are varied; that where the per centage of farmers is smallest the value of farms per acre is largest, and where most of the community is engaged in agriculture the value.of the farm land is lowest. Mr. Burrows divided the States and the Territories into four groups. In the first he placed that part of the country where less than 3 > per cent, of the people are engaged in agriculture; the second over 30 and less than 50; the third over 50 and less than 70; the fourth, 70 and over. The average value per acre of farm land in the 30 per cent, group is $38.65.—1n the group where more than 30 per cent, and less than 50 per cent, of the population are farmers, tbe value of an acre of farm land is $30.55. In the third, it is $13.53; in the fourth group, 70 per cent, and more, the value of farm lands is only $5.18 an acre. How can any one say, after this showing, that the protective tariff has not helped the farmer?

The Sentinel and Workingmen.

Indianapolis Sentinel. May 21,1873. “High wages, high prices and a constant effort to make them all higher, is the mistake of the times. A rebellion against Chinese labor is impending in California, because the Chinamen can learn the trade and make shoes, or anything else, at half price, and get rich into the bargain. What is the secret of this? The Chinamen’s policy is to live on next to nothing, He outflanks the American by cheap living. But the idea of anything cheap is repudiated by your American laborer. He looks at the style and luxury of the rich and works himself into a. fury to live the same way. You can not sell any but the choicest of beef, the superfine flour and the choicest coffee to a miner or mechanic. He will not have the best in reality, but the most costly. He calls constantly for higher wages, and does not see that his high wages increases the cost of everyjjring, lifting everybody higher and higher above ground to fall further at the crash by and by. * * * The American laborer would do well to study the policy of the Chinamen in his policy of economy as well as of cheap labor.

Insulting Language to Soldiers.

Extracts from Cleveland's Veto Message—Dependent Pension bill. Feb.. 11.188". “I cannot believe that the vast army , of Union soldiers, who have contentedly resumed their places in the ordinary avocations of life, justly regard the present pension roll, on which their names appear, as a roll of honor, desire at this time and in the present exigency to be confounded with those whc through such a bill as this are willing to be objects of simple charity, and to give a place upon the pension roll through adeged dependence. In the execution of this proposed law under any interpretation, a wide field of inquiry would be opened for the establishment of facts largely within the knowledge of claimants alone : and there can be no doubt that the race after the pensions offered by this bill would not' only stimulate weakness and pretended incapacity for labor, but put a further premium on dishonesty and mendacity.

PROTECTION OR NOT.

TlwT>»ilt *Q<t the Workingman, Commercial Gazette. In your issue of the have some questions asked by “One of Them” relating to the effect of protection on the condition of the workingman. Now, it is well known by all the workingmen that competition among themselves will reduce wages, and the thing to decide is will protection or free trade cause tbe most competition. Of course, we are told that tbe Mills bill does not mean free trade, but we know that, in Hamilton at least, any Republican that leans toward free trade is claimed by the Democrats. In one case, that of Dr. Beeler, great joy was manifested because a “great reader and sound thinker” had left the Republican ranksand joined the Democracy. Mr. Beeler, while he admits that to look backward over the path trodden by Democracy he can see that is pleasant to his eyes, still is willing to join the procession, for being a “great reader and sound thinker,” he knows it is marching in the direction of free trade, though the first stride is not as long as he would wish, Mr. Beeler has discovered that the duty on plate glass is very high, and if it were removed so that the article manufactured at home would come into competition with that from abroad the the price would come down correspondingly. This is a maxim—the markets might rule differently. Now if this be true, who would stand the reduction? The jnanufacturer will have his profit or close his shop. If he is compelled to sell for less he must cut down expenses, that means less wages, and if these, cannot be cut down enough to give him a fair profit, he will close his factory and become an agent for the imported goods. Then as the demand for this class of labor has ceased in that locality,, the workmen must seek a new trade pr a new location. If he looks for another trade he comes into competition with some brother workman and helps to reduce his pay. If he follows his trade into foreign lands, the locality looses a good citizen, and the farmer that sold him potatoes, the miller that sold flour, and shoemaker and tailor that clothed his feet and body, loose a good customer. Self-interest should decide all to vote for protection of this industry. A, few years ago the citizens of Hamilton wishing to benefit the city, voted a large sum of money, donated considerable land, besides giving other material encouragement to have the Niles Tool Works locate here. This was done because it was well known that the Nileses would employ a large number of men, and with their families would become citizens of Hamilton, and spend their wages in our markets. Would the citizens who voted this money and land to have the shop locate here show good judgment in voting to reduce the wages of these men. > * Last spring every citizen of Hamilton was made glad by the report that the Niles had secured from the Government a large contract for making some heavy machinery. This meant to men in this shop plenty of work, and to the men in the other shops it meant that while the men in the Niles were busy there was no fear of competition from them. To the farmer bringing his produce to market, and to the butcher and groceryman it meant hungry customers with cash Io buy, so that while the biles alone had the contract all were benefitted. Now, suppose the Niles had discovered that by a reduced tariff, this same machinery could be made in Europe and delivered in New York for less money than they could turn it out of their shop what would be the result? The Niles Company would simply say to their men: “If you want to share with us in doing this work you must submit to a reduction in wages, for we can not compare with the shops in Europe and pay American wages.” This would mean less comforts for the mechanic and his family. The farmer would sell less corn and potatoes, the butcher and groceryman less meat and coffee, while the men in the other shops would be very liable to have a hungry competitor. Self-interest should induce the mechanic, farmer, butcher and grocer to vote for protection. So thinks Another One of Them, —

Protection to Agriculture.

The question has been discussed generally with reference to its destruction of American manufactures, but there is equally involved the home market of ninety per cent, of the fruits of our agriculture (the pittance of ten per cent — six per cent, excluding' cotton—should not be considered except by the cotton growers. Of the cotton crop seventy per cent is exported and the rest is manufactured here. Of the other agricultural products, ninety-four or ninety-five per cent, finds a market here, and only five or six per-cent, is 'exported. The chief argument used by the opponents of a protective tariff is that it is oppressive upon agriculture. It may be upon the production of cotton, but to the other branches of that industry it_is as nourishing and protective as to the cotton or woollen fabrics, or ironor steel goods. Paper is a necessity in one form or another, in business and domestic life, and its manufacture is an absolute support of agriculture. In the year of 1887 the value of the product of the paper manufactories of the country was $95,000,( 00. Paper is made from vegetable fiber, rags, old paper, straw, corn stalks, wood and grasses, amounting in value in 1887 to about sso,ooo,OnO,and in addition to this $20,000,001 in chemicals and other substances were used in its manufacture. It is fair to say that more than one-half of the value of all the paper we use is a contribution of waste material,or fibrous products, which would be of little or no value except to manufacture into paper. Woollen goods also illustrate the benefit of protection to agriculture. In the last census year the value of our woollen fabrics was about $267,000,000, and last year sloo,o>.o,oooin value of American wool was purchased and manufactured into them. The product of the starch industry amounted in 1880 to $7,500,(09. Its manufacture afforded a market for ss,ooo,ouoin corn and potatoes, and I have been assured that the product for the last year has required 4,<'00,000 bushels of potatoes and 15,000,000 bushels of corn. ■ In the census year of 1880 agriculture contributed twenty-nine and a half million pounds of broom corn to the broom industry. Tbe amount contributed to

the manufacture of glue in 1880 was nearly three millions of dollars—-largely a waste product from slaughtered domestic animals. Soap "which the Mills bi}l puts on the free list, in its manufacture consumes from $12,000,000 to $15,000,000 in animal grease, a large proportion of which would be waste except for that great industry and the manufacture of crude glycerine, of which 9,000,000 pounds were made 5 n the year 1887, all from the same agricultural products. The curled hair industry, which furnishes us with mattresses pnd goods of like character,utilizes an absolutely waste agricultural product—except for it—the hair of slaughtered domestic animals, cattle, hogs and horses. The value of the raw material is not less than $1,750,000 yearly. Of glucose, $17,0C0,000 worth is manufactured annually in this country, consuming 20,000,( 00 bushels of corn. Each individual farmer may not contribute to the quantity of hair or fat of domestic aninjala that is utilized, nor to the immense amount of straw made into paper; his potatoes may not be disposed of to the starch factory, or his corn to the glucose factory, but the total consumption of those agricultural products of the various industries increases the price and every farmer receives his proportion of benefit from the increase.

Comparative Wages.

FIGURES COMPILED FROM LATEST RETURNS MADE BY LONDON BOARD OF TRADE. New York Press. England. United States Bookbinders... 16 00 H 5 00 to lIS OT Brushm-kers 6 00 15 00 to 20 00 Boilermakers 7 75 16 50 Brickmakers 3 54 u Brii klayers 8 00 21 00 Blacksmiths 6 00 13 00 ; Butchers ... 6 00 12 00 I Bakers 6 25 12 75 j Blast furnace keepers 10 oo 18 00 B ast Inpnace fillers.... 7 50 14 00 I Boltmakers ■ 6 50 16 50 ‘Boltcutters 3 00 10 00 Coal miner 5 88 13 00 Cottoti-mill hands. ... 4 60 6 72 Gu-petters 7 0 15 oO ’Coopers 6 oo 18 S I Csr.iagemakers 6 75 13 00 to 25 00 Cutlery 6 00 12 00 to 20 00 Chemicals _ 15 to 600 13 00 to 16 00 Clockmakwrs 7 00 , -18 00 Cabinetmakers . 7 00 18 00 Farm bands 300 650 to 900 Gia sblowers 6 to 900 25 00 to 30 00 Glass (partly skilled) 6 to 700 12 00 to 15 00 Glhss (unskilled) 2to 400 700 to 10 00 Glovemakers (girls).... 200 600 to 900 Glove makers (men).. 4 50 10 00to 30 00 Hatters 600 12 00 to 24 00 Heaters and rollers ...HO to 12 00 20 00 to -gO 00 Iron ore mmerss 50 12 50 Iron moulder* 7 50 15 22 iron per ton, finished 2to 300 531 to 800 Instrument makers... 7 00 18 (X) to 20 00 Laborers 4 10 8 40 Longshoremen!'. 8 00 15 4n Linen thread, men. .. 5 00 7 00 Linen thread, women 2 35 5 00 Machinists 8 50 18 71 Mason-* ■ 8 00 2100 Printers, 1,000 ems. .. 20 00 Printers, week hands 6 15 13 00 Patternmakers 7 50 18 00 Painters........ 7 10 15 00 Plumbers 8 00 18 00 Plasterers 7 50 21 00 Potters 8 67 18 00 Polishers 7 00 18 00 Pspermakers 520 12 00 to 24 00 Puddlers. per week ... 8 to 10 00 18 00 to 20 00 Qnarrymen 600 12 00 to 15 00 Ropemakers 525 900 to 12 00 Railway engineeis ... 10 00 21 00 Railway firemen ,5 00 12 30 shipbuilding Boilermakers ....... 7 00 14 55 Machinists..... 7 IX) 14 40 l 'oppersmiths 6 50 16 00 Platers 8 0Q 18 5o Drillers 6 0G 12 50 Riveters 8 00 17 50 Riggers ... 5 50 11 to Patternmakers ...... 8 00 24 T OO Saltmakers 600 70C to 10.52 Silk, men .. 5 00 10 02 Silk, women 2 50 6 2n Scarfrfakers 150 to 225 60# to 925 Servant 6, month ...... 500 12 CO shoemakers...., 6 00 18 42 Stationary engineers 750 15 00 to 19 <:

Prices Now and Then.

The South Bend Tribune has made a careful examination of prices of farm and and store products,;?which is of great value in the discussion of the tariff question. It shows conclusively how much better off the farmers are under the protective system than they were under the free trade system between 1840 and 1860. The Tribune has taken the prices from account books, the day books of four farmers furnishing the information concerning the prices of 1858. According to the figures a farmer sold his produce at the following rates in 1858: Wheat, per bushel : $ 63« Wood, per cord.—. ...... . 2.50 Hay, per ton 6.0 D Corn,per bushel 25 Oats, per bushel.... .. 23 Eggs, per d0zen......, 06 Butter, per pound .... 10 Total., $9,771 He bought artiles needed by him at the following prices: 1 Studebaker wagon... $130.00 Rio coffee per lb 15 Brown sugar, per lb . II Granulated sugar, per lb ~ 15 Rice, per lb 4 07 Green tea, per lb 1.00 Syrup - 75 Salt, per barrel...,,. .. • . 2.40 Ovara Is, per pair 50 Calico, per yard ; .. 12| Bleached muslin per yard./:...... 16 1 set granite cups and saucer*.... 75 1 set plates ........... ..... 75 1 set knives and forks 1.50 1 dozen half pint tumblers 1,50 Wheat sack... 30 T0ta1....y. $140.21 J The prices < n 1888 for produce are as follows: Wheat...;.......... $ 88 Wood, per cord r 5.00 Hay per t0n.... , 12.00 Corn, per bushel ~ 50 Oats, per bushel . ..< 30 Eggs, per doz 14 Butter, per lb 15 Total $18.97 While the farmer pays for what be needs as follows: 1 Studebaker wagon.., ...»$65.00 Rio coffee per 1b..?..?....... .......... 20 Brown sugar, per lb 06 Granulated sugar, per lb. i. 09 Rice, per 1b... 08 Green tea, per 1b...... 75 Syrup, per gallon 45 Salt, per barrel ........ 1.(*5 Overalls, per pair ........ 40 Calico, per yard...... 05 Bleached muslin, per yard 09 1 set granite cups and saucers 45 One set granite plates 45 1 set-knives and forks _...... 60 1 dozen half pint tumblers 60 Wheat sacks 21 Total .........$68.48 The difference is enormous. In the free trade era the farmer sold produce at the rate of $9 77 j for which he now receives $18.97, very nearly double. And he bought articles for which he paid $140.211. which he could now purchase for $69.48.