Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 35, Number 16, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 October 1902 — Page 6 Advertisements Column 1 [ADVERTISEMENT]

Indiana Debt SMIOayqiWMMqpMMlyiUpMgMiMaMgaitoWWTjMSE ’SWi - £ ... . AV ______________ , ______ r Total Debt 1696$ I Total Debt. 189Z-$G20Q615'2 i Red action for thcYeardfr 720000 \ I I TotalDebUß9B-$5.80Q615»2 r | Reduction forthe Year4oo,ooo * Total Debt.lß99S 5.187.615 « Reduction forUicYcarsG 13000 I L_ _ j—l 1i TotalDebtl9oo-$ 4704615 “ I L_ - —J (i fatal Debt 1901 H 204615? i RedMtionttethddu4sooßoo 4 I _ - - J , ; . !’’ ItalDebtßffiWfilS! I 7 “ ?• MmOaifrMiirtDnOOt) { > ' ' 4 1903. ’II 1 ■ ’ : ’ ISO 4 ’ - LmerestßedihiononSiyteDebt. \ Interest perAnnuin on State DebUß96 $243125 1897-Annual lnterest-$200.925 > Reduction oflnterest for YearS 42800 ' ■■■ ~ . ——- J—J f IB9BAnnual Interest-$185925 Reduction Of Interest forYenrS 12,000 1899 Annual Interest-$170565 u Reduction oflnterest tbrYear-f 18360 \ l9ooAnni/al lnlerest-$ 156.075 •» Reduction of Interest tbrYearJl449o ' iBOI Annual Interest-SMW7S __ < RedudionotlnienstforYearl 15000 ' ' • y--t * 1902 Annual !ntercstsloLs6s ; 1903 / VCW'A L r-i aW 1904 Presented above are diagrams prepared by Gov. Durbin and used by him In his speeches throughout the state. The one shows the annual reduction of indebtedness beginning with the first year of the administration of Governor Mount to the present itme. The other diagram, In like manner, indicates the reduction of the annual Interest charges by years. The blank spaces showing the years 1903-1904 represent the two remaining years of Gov. Durbin’s administration. When the statement is carried forward to include these years, Indiana’s public debt will be wiped out and the interest thereon will cease. The diagrams are self reversed they represent monuments of the fore* sfg‘'it, inter;ri'ty anci business capabilities cf a Republican administration.

THE FAKE ISSUE OF INDIANA DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP. Mr. Democrat, the leadership now predominant in your party in Indiana was in the saddle in 1892. Under that leadership thjp Democratic party came Into power in every branch of the federal government in 18S3 and had a chance to manifest its antagonism to the trusts. Wfrat law vfas passed for their curtailment? wha! trusts were put out of business as the result of LEGISLATION ENACTED DURING THAT PERIOD OF ABSOLUTE DEMOCRATIC SUPREMACY? Tariff reform is pushed forward at this juncture as a cure for the evil. WE HAD A DEMOCRATIC TARIFF REFORM LAW WITHIN THE MEMORY OF EVERV PERSON OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE. What trusts did It destroy? What relief did it bring to anybody? Who got anything out of the last Democratic administration excepting J. Pierpont Morgan, the trust magnate, who drove a thrifty bargain for a sale of bonds made to supply deficiencies in government revenue caused by a tariff for revenue law that produced ruin, but not revenue? WHAT IS THE USE OF THEORIZING AS TO THE EFFICACY OF TARIFF REDUCTION AS A TRUST CURE. OR THE SINCERITY OF DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IN ITS CLAIM THAT IT WOULD, IF ENTRUSTED WITH POWER, REMEDY THE TRUST EVIL. WHEN THAT SAME CURE AND THAT SAME LEADERSHIP WERE BEING PUT TO THE TEST ONLY SEVEN YEARS AGO. AND FAILED TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING EXCEPTING TO BRING UPON THE COUNTRY THE WORST "HARD TIMES” PERIOD WITHIN THE EXPERIENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? If the tariff is the mother of trusts, who brought Into the world the trusts which infeat every country in Europe? Who brought into the world the one hundred and fifty trusts formed In this country for the control of commodities on which there is no prootection? If the tariff is the mother of trusts, why did none of them go out of business under the Wilson-Gorman tariff law, when legitimate enterprises went to the wall by thousands? If the fault rests in the non-enforcejnent of existing laws, as alleged by Mr. Olney, why did net the only Democratic administration this generation has known, with Mr. Olney as attorney general, enforce them? If the nesd is for additional laws, why did not an administration Democratic in every branch, enact such legislation during a period of absolute Democratic control? If, as Mr. Bryan has often alleged, a constitutional amendment Is necessary in order that effective legislation may be had, why did the Democratic members of the Fifty-sixth congress, by their solidly arrayed opposition, prevent the submission of such an amendment to the American people? THE CONTENTION THAT THE WAY TO KILL THE TRUSTS IS TO DESTROY PROTECTION IS CONCEIVED IN INSINCERITY, AND ITS ADVANCEMENT IN LIEU OF ANY PRACTICAL PROGRAMME IS IN ITSELF AN OPEN CONFESSION OF INSINCERITY ON THE PART OF DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP. *