Rensselaer Republican, Volume 27, Number 37, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 May 1895 — CAN NOW GET FACTS. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

CAN NOW GET FACTS.

PUBLIC PRINTER PEDDLES OUR TRADE STATISTICS." An Interesting Comparison bf Ciis--toms Receipt^—What the Wilson Tariff Has Accomplished—Farmers Are TiredofDemocratic Sneers.” —~ k - Fifteen Cents a Copy. ; The expense of printing the monthly summary of imports and exports has always been paid out of the general ftnidyapproiirkijed for the printing of the Treasury Department, and Congress has never been concerned, either directly or indirectly, with its issue until now. The full amount of money for the printing of the department for the current year was appropriated as usual, and under ordinary circumstances there would have been no question as to the issuance of the regular monthly report. The Public Printer, however, under the new authority with which he Iras’beeu ordained by Congress, has decidedly that the monthly summary is a “document,” ami therefore comes under the general provision*of the new printing law, which provides t hat the

head of -an executive department shall not print more than one thousand copies of any document not expressly authorized by law. As the summary is mentioned in no law by name or by implication, the Public Printer has refused to print more’than one thousand copies for the use of the department. The statistics, however, can be secured under Sectiop 69 of the new law regulating public printing, which reads as follows: “Sec. 69. A catalogue of •'Government publications shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Documents on the first day of each month, which shall show the documents printed during the preceding month, where obtainable, and the price thereof. Two thousand copies of such catalogue shall be printed in pamphlet form for distribution.” The Public Printer is compelled by this section to sell copies of the monthly summary of our imports and exports, which he now holds to be a “document,” and he has begun -to sell the “document” at the rate of fifteen cents per copy. This is the first intimation the public has had of this fact, and it is to be hoped that the additional revenue thus acquired vill be appreciated at the Treasury Department in these days of uncomfortable deficiences.

Receipts and Deficiencies. The customs receipts during the first seveji months of the McKinley law were $127,123,942, those of the first seven months of the Wilson law are $96,547,646. The internal revenue receipts under the McKinley law were in the first seven months $80,488,340; those of the first seven months of the Wilson law $59,359,610. The total receipts during the first seven months of the McKinley law were $219,583,107, those of the first seven months of the Wilson law were $161,744,668. The total receipts during the closing seven months of the McKinley law were $197,584,324, against $161,744,688 in the seven months of the new law, with importers rushing In their new goods and buyers filling the shelves which they had permitted to Become empty in to get the benefit of the new tariff. So take the new law any way you may, compare its operations with the McKinley law at its beginning or at Its ending, and you will find It ata disadvantage. There has not been a single month since the new tariff weut into effect without a deficiency. The average deficiency has been $6,000,000 a month, while the McKinley law showed a surplus of $21,000,000. or an average of $3,000,000 a month, in its first seven months. Even in all the unfavorable conditions of its last seven months, it only created a deficiency of $2,000,000 a month, against the $6,000,000 a month which the Wilson law has shown under the favorable conditions in which it found the markets for foreign goods.

Here are the figures, side by side, 1 comparing the operations qfthe Wilson law with those of the McKinley law in its first or last seven months; the reader can take his choice: Receipts, first seven months Wilson law, $161,744,668; McKinley, $219,583,107. Receipts, last seven months of ciency first seven months of Wilson law, $43,507,322; surplus first seven moaths of McKinley law, $21,609,397. —New York Tribune. It? The Wilson law is not a protective law. It is not a free trade law, though it looks more toward free trade prindplJ'sTtra'n any other, it is not a rev- ~ enue tariff law. It is simply a nondescript, made up of deals and compromises, and opeii bribery. Its protective features are cliiefly for the benefit of trusts—notably the sugar combine ami the Standard Oil. It has not given work to one single American toiler, but has robbed thousands of them of the employment they had. It has not raised the standard of wages' in a single American industry, but has lowered it throughout the country. It has uot opened a foreign market for a barrel of "pork or a bushel of wheat or a dollar’s worth of manufactured goods, but has destroyed a considerable portion of the

foreign markets already possessed by Americans. It has not brought a dollar of money into the country, but lias sent millions put.—Buffalo Express. The Farmer's Tired Feeling. The American firmer is getting tired of Democratic sneers at the home market. He has been studying in the light of practical experience. The demand of his products is undiminished, but he feels the effect of the scarcity of cash through slack work aud small wages, occasioned by the operation of the new tariff law. The farmer probably feels most sensibly and keenly any impairment of domestic industries. The fields are dependent upon the factories. They work together and usually benefit each other. The foreign market buys now from 6 to 8 per cent, of our farm products; while the slurred and despised home market consumes from 92 to 94 per cent. The more this home market is protected in its varied sources of vitality, the better it is for the farmer. He has no chanpe in Europe except in times of war or famine.—Hawkeye, Burlington, lowa. No man does Lils best who works only for pay.