The Greencastle Democrat, Greencastle, Putnam County, 1 September 1894 — Page 3

GMUSBY’S LAWSUIT.

A Prairio Fire Settled the Case Amicably. W O N ’ T be trampled on by Seth Stubblefield no longer!” spu t tered Farmer Griffsby, in a towering raK'e. ‘‘I’ll hev the law on him. that’s what I’ll do!” Mrs. Oritfsby w a s washing' clothes in the back yard, where a bent and gnarled old apple tree made a shady spot for her tub. “What has Seth Stubblefield been a-doln’ noir, Hiram?” she asked, in a querulous voice. “What's he been tL-dnin'?'' snarled the farmer. “Ain't his cows been tromplin’ my cornfield ug'in, an’ ruinated more'n a acre of corn? Pretty nigh ready fur the second plowin’, it was, too! Hut I’ll put a stop to it afore long. Human natur’ can’t stand everything, an' if he don't fix up his end of the division fence, or keep his cattle out o' my field, I’ll sue him! I’ll sue him fur damages as sure as eggs is eggs!” “It’s no more'n you’d ought to ’a’ done long ago,” assented Mrs. Grigsby, clapping a handful of softsoap on a homespun sheet and rubbing it vigorously on the wooden washboard. "You’ve been too easy with him, Hiram. “I shan’t be easy with him no longer,’ assented Hiram, aggressively. “I shall go and see Squire barnacle this very day.” And, striding to the stable, he saddled the sorrel cob and proceeded to put his threat into execution while his anger was still at fever heat. It was not so very long since the Grigsbys and Stubblefields had been

"I’lX HAVE THE I.AW ON HIM.” the best of friends and neighbors. Scarcely a week elapsed without a visit between the two families. Hiram Grigsby and Seth Stubblefield exchanged work at corn-planting and harvest time, and their wives consulted each other on such momentous questions as soft-soap, or apple-hutter making, and the relative merits of Plymouth Hock and black Spanish fowls as layers and setters. Tom Grigsby and ben Stubblefield, well-known lads of sixteen and seventeen years of age, had been chums ever since they were "little tackles.” They attended “deestrick school” together in winter, and went gunning or fishing, and helped each other pile shocks in the harvest field in summer. The "daughters of the two families were also on the best of terms. They exchanged patchwork scraps and basque patterns, confided important secrets to one another, and were, in fact, kindred spirits in every respect. This friendly intercourse continued until the feud broke out, and all neigh- 1 borly feeling was at an end. How the trouble began, or which party was most to blame, it would be hard to 1 say. Doubtless there was seme fault on both sides. At all events the hatchet was dug up, and hostilities were carried on, until, from sympathizing friends, the two families became relentless enemies. Farmer Grigsby fenced up the little pool which ran from his spring, and from which his neighbor’s stock had been wont to quench their thirst for years gone by. Farmer Stubblefield at once retaliated by blocking the private road through his woods pasture, thereby forcing the Grigsbys to drive two miles further around in hauling cord-wool, or taking their garden truck to market. The well-trodden foot-path across lots was neglected and grass-grown, and when the rival factions met at church meetings, or basket-picnics and other rural gatherings, they turned their heads aside, or glared at.one another with uncompromising hostility. So the feud kept growing, until at last it culminated in a lawsuit. “He’ll sue me. will he?” blustered Fanner Stubblefield, red with anger. “Let him go ahead, I say. He'll find out two kin play at that game. I don't care if my cattle did tromp down his growin’corn. AVhat'd he turn his pigs inter my medder fur?” “I'd make him smoke fur it yet, if 1 was you, Seth,” put in Mrs. Stubblefield. "He 'l?ws he kin scare you by goiu’ to law.” “That's what 1 know,” replied Seth, grumpily. ”1 lit he’ll haul in his horns afore I'm through with him. Pll show him whose ole hog eat up the grindstone!” It was early in the springtime when the suit was brought, but owing to the law's delays it was still unsettled when harvest-time came on. Farmer Grigsby's crops had turned out well that year. His hay was put up in long ricks in the barnyard, where his wheat was’ also stacked, awaiting the coming “thrasher.” On a certain Saturday. Mrs. Grigsby and her daughters were busy with the week’s baking. Haifa dozen pies, a gallon jar of seed cookies and a goodly supply of light rolls and crusty

brown loaves had already been drawn from the oven and set on the wide pantry shelf to cool. A home-cured ham was gently simmering over the stove, and the twelve o'clock dinner was under way. Farmer Grigsby sat moodily awaiting the coming meal, when Tom Grigsby dashed into the house. “Forest fires!” he shouted. “The fence has caught, an’ it's almost up to the stacks!" In a moment all was confusion. The farmer seized a spade and rushed to the rescue of his crops. His wife and daughters eagerly followed, each armed with a stout cudgel, to assist in battling with the devouring element. For weeks there had been a drought leaving the grass and underbrush as dr}- as tinder. The flames swept rapidly forward. Rail fences and fallen brushwood crackled in the fierce heat. Bravely the anxious family fought for their possessions, only to be baffled and driven back by the relentless flames. Overcome at last by exhaustion and despair, Farmer Grigsby dropped hia weapon and groaned aloud. “The crops must go!” he sighed, hopelessly. “I am a ruined man. If we can save the ole homestead, it’s more’n I expect.” But, even as he spoke, an encouraging shout was heard from the deserted footpath, which led "across lots.” “Keep a stout heart, neighbor. We'll see you through!” Every eye turned in the direetion of tile cherry sound, to behold the stalwart figure of Seth Stubblefield hurrying forward, a stout spade on his shoulder. At his heels came his son Hen, carrying a long-handled shovel, and following closely after him were Mrs. Stubblefield and Susan, the one bandishing a rake and the other a hoe. New strength was infused into the Grigsby family by this timely reinforcement. and all hands fell to work to baffle the advancing enemy. The men, with their spades, beat out every fresh blaze made by the spreading flames. The boys tore down endangered fences, and carried the rails out of harm’s way. The rake and hoe, in the hands of the women, were used to good advantage in drawing dead leaves and other debris away from the line of the encroaching fire, and the girls brought water around in tin pails and handed dripping gourdfuls of the refreshing element to the thirsty and perspiring workers. Their heroic efforts were crowned with victory at last. The persistent foe was conquered, with no more serious loss than the destruction of a few rods of rail fence. “An’ we’ll turn in an’ give ye a railsplittin’ to make thrm good,” volunteered Farmer Stubblefield. “An’ now your wheatstacks ami hayricks is safe, neighbor, 1 reckon we may’s well be gittin’ along,” he added, mopping his face. “If you'd only ’a blowed the horn to let us know you was in trouble we'd 'a got here sooner. But, anyhow, the danger’s all over now. ” “Yes, thank you, ole friend,” answered Hiram Grigsby, in a stifled voice. “I hadn’t the right to expect no help from you, after bein' so mean as to »ue you—” “Pooh! pooh! I’d 'a been meaner'n pusley if I’d stood by an' saw your crops burnt up. An’ you done right to sue me. I’d ought to keep my part o’ the fence up,” confessed Farmer Stubblefield, eagerly. "But I'll pay all the damages my cattle has done in your cornfield. An’ I'll—” “You won’t—you shan’t!” interrupted Hiram. “They hain't done nodamage, an’ I won’t hev a cent—” Here the worthy farmer broke down. His feelings choked further utterance, and grasping the hand of his late enemy, he gave it a hearty shake, which was quite us heartily returned. “HI sell every hoof o’ stock on my farm but what I’ll keep ’em from

CARNEGIE’S MIND. What the tireat IVnnnylvanla Manufacturer IVa<l in Ills Mlnil When Talking of Duty on Iron* We published two or three days ago a dispatch from London saying that in the Kn'roseering Review's report of an interview with Mr. Andrew Carnegie that gentleman remarked that in his opinion the United States no longer “required protection,” meaning a protective tariff, and we infer from the remaining works of the very brief dispatch that his opinion was based upon a comparison of American and foreign prices of the products with which he, as a manufacturer of iron and steel, is most familiar. A few weeks ago Mr. John Sherman, in the course of a long speech against the Wilson bill and in support of the McKinley tariff, made some remarks about the products of Mr. Carnegie’s factories and the duties on them. He undertook to show that the memorable conflict at the Homestead works had been caused by a reduction of duties on iron and steel products in the McKinley act. We quote the follow-

ing:

“The reduction of duties on iron and steel was almost universal, and the duties on the kind of heavy articles niade by Carnegie were reduced very largely On beams, girders and joists there was a reduction of more than 25 per cent., from 1'/ cents to 9-10of a cent per pound. On railway bars, the articles that the Carnegies I suppose more largely make, the duty was reduced from 815.66 a ton (it was 817) to 813.44. It was the reduction of the duties which caused the trouble.” And yet the government's official reports, which this ex-secretary of the treasury undoubtedly believes to be trustworthy, show that while the average ad valorem duty on all imported iron and steel products was 35 per cent, in the year ending on June 30, 1890, the last year of the old tariff, it was 55 per cent, in the first full year of the McKinley act. and rose to nearly 63 per cent, in 1893. We take from the treasury department's reports the following summary, prepared for the use of congress, and which, in all probability, was lying on Senator Sherman’s desk while he was delivering that speech. It gives the value of imports, duties and average ad valorem rate of duty on iron and steel and all manufactures of the same for the years mentioned:

Arerafje Ad Yal Jlnte of

Duties J Hit ft

competition in the home market And if Hie pending senate tariff bill should become a law the same assertion could justly be made as to many of the duties in it.—N. Y. Times.

i15,3SI.I75 35.37 16.519.325 55 40 21,916,117 82.87

GRASI’INO THE HANn ENEMY.

HIS I. ATE

tromplin' on your corn!” declared Seth, recklessly. “Blamed if I care what they tromple on, so you an’ me air friends ag'in, like we used to be!” responded Hiram. Here Mrs. Grigsby spoke up: "You ain’t a one o’ you goin’ homo without your dinners!” she asserted, determinedly. "So come right along to the house an’ sit awhile.” And her command was obeyed without a word of dissent. Mrs. Stubblefield insisted on lending her aid in the kitchen, where she was soon enjoying a gossip with her old neighbor, while the girls fell to setting the table, with much cluttering of dishes anil chattering of tongues. Tiie heads of the reunited families sat on the vine-shaded porch, contentedly discussing the price of wheat and hay, and the two boys, overjoyed at the new turn of affairs, celebrated the happy occasion by swapping jackknives. The pies and seed-cookies and boiled ham, intended for the Sunday dinner, were not spared in the forthcoming meal, and if the table did not groan under its burden of good cheer it was only because groans would have been out of place on such a festive occasion. And thus ended Farmer Grigsby’s lawsuit.—Hclcu W. Clark, iu Gulden Days.

Vahie of Import*

1990 ? 43,437.868 1992 29.816,634 1893 34.860,868

1894. (1! mos.).. 19,452,783 So it appears that in spite of that “almost universal reduction of duties on iron and steel,” the sum paid in duties in the first full year of the McKinley tariff on less than 830,000.000 worth of iron and steel products was greater than the sum paid in the lust year of the old tariff on $48,000,000 worth. It also appears that in 1803 there was a still larger increase of the average ad valorem, the rate rising to 62.87 per cent., as against 85.37 per

cent, under the old law.

This marked change was due both to a reduction of the cost of iron and steel products abroad, (a reduction even more clearly seen in this country), and to an increase of duties in certain parts of the McKinley tariff’s iron and steel schedule. There were reductions of duties, it is true, but as a rule the duties so affected had been prohibitory in the new one. Mr. Sherman was unfortunate in his selection of examples. The old duty on steel beams and other structural shapes of steel had been prohibitory in the old tariff, in spite of the towering ring price maintained here by a combination, which, by the way, no longer exists. The new duty was also prohibitory. The old duty on rails made it impossible to import rails, although the rail combination was exacting a high ring price in this country. Owing to the marked reduction of the cost of production here, the new duty lias also been prohibitory. It is to this reduction of the cost of manufacture in this country anil the resulting reduction of prices that we desire to direct attention. Mr. Carnegie had this in mind. The price of steel beams lias fallen from $67.93 per ton to $28. This decline is due in part to the dissolution of the combination, in part to lower prices for raw material, in part to the perfection of manufacturing processes. If there were no tariff duty, steel beams could not be imported profitably. The price of rails has fallen, but in the rail-making industry ii combination still exists. It has been shown, however, that if the domestic price wore determined by competion it would not pay to import rails even on a free trade basis.

DANGEROUS PROTECTION. It I'orruptN iiii<4 Hefuira to Hr A tiollnlle<l. Nothing better illustrates one of the inherent evils and dangers of protection than the late situation in congress. We refer to the objection against protection duties urged so strongly by Congressman Tom L. Johnson, viz.: the difficulty of abolishing them. Mr. Johnson’s main reason for preferring an income to a tariff tax is that an income tax can be abolished without opposition from wealthy individuals and corporations, while the mere suggestion that tariff taxes ought to tic reformed downwards arouses the powerful opposition of thousands of millionaire corporations that fatten on protection. We have not, since the adoption of protection in 1861, had a fair and open discussion of the tariff question, either in congress or on the stump. The beneficiary of protection is always on hand with liis ‘'subtle power” as Senator Caffery calls it. He frightens or discharges his employes who are inclined towards free trade. He refuses to advertise with the free trade editor or ha purchases a controlling interest and changes the policy of the paper. Ha employs speakers to tell the people that protection is entirely for the good of his dear employes. If lie loses at the polls lie carries Ids ease to congress where, by bribery and corruption, he usually gets the decision reversed. Several times since 1800 the republicans have tried to reduce duties. In every case they have been unable to keep their promise with the people liecause of the corrupt influence of greedy protection corporations. They ^ have succeeded only in reducing revenue duties that they might advance protective duties. Grant, Garfield, Arthur and Sherman all believed in free raw materials and in revenue duties. They were unable to resist the pressure of protected interests which had given large campaign contributions and which employed hundreds of lobbyists at Washington with large corruption funds. At last, unable longer to control, frighten or buy voters they were brought face to face with a congress elected to reform the tariff on free trade lines. The situation was desperate, but they did not give up hope. They resolved to save as much McKinley ism as possible from the wreck. They established big corruption otticcs at Washington and made a study of men and conditions at the capital. They were unable to “swing” the house, hut did succeed in frightening its ways and means cornmittee so that it dared not bring forth a radical revenue bill. In the senate they have not only held their contrfi over all republicans, but have made a few friends in democratic ranks. A system which has maintained itself for thirty years by the suppression of free speech, by purchased votes, and by bribed legislators is not compatible with American freedom. One or the other must go. Which shall it be? 11. W. IL THEY CAN’T CROW.

Hrpulilicans Have No Cnuse to Crow Ovn Doiiiorrats for “CoiltHing the .Sugar Hofluurn.” The Chicago Inter Ocean asks if the Times “lias noticed any republican coddling the sugar refiners.” We don't mind saying to our McKinley contemporary in Chicago, in strict confidence, that we have. The sugar refiners and the sugar trust have never been coddled so tenderly and never again will lie coddled so effectively and profitably as they were coddled by the republicans in 1890, in the McKinley tariff, and as they have been under the operation of that tariff since that year. The republican house empowered the trust to collect from consumers a tax of 40 cents on every hundred pounds of refined sugar, and the republican senate, under the guidance of Mr. Aldrich and against the loud protests of some republican journals, enlarged the trust's taxing power by adding 20 cents per hundred. The trust now admits that it lias collected this tax of 00 cents, and that the tax yielded in in the first three years of the McKinley tariff a clear profit of "between $30,000,000 and $85,000,000,” a sum far exceeding the entire value of the trust’s property. Will the Inter Ocean say that the trust has not been well coddled by the republican party and a republican senate? The pending Gorman sugar schedule, bad as it is, gives the trust only about three quarters as much as it receives under the McKinley nw. Mr. Aldrich, the tariff leader on he republican side in the senate, adnits that the trust's bonus in the Gornan schedule is only 40',, cents per undred, us against the McKinley tarff s 60 cents, and the Rhode Island sentor, as we have shown, is on very good erms with this powerful monopoly, re not the republicans contending for lie preservation of the McKinley tariff: -N. Y. Times.

PROTECTION BEATEN.

ENTITLED TO CREDIT. Tho Gootl Work Done by tlio (ienuliie

Democrats.

The democrats in both houses of congress, with but few exceptions, nro entitled to credit for doing all that it seemed to them possible to do toward the fulfillment of the pledges with respect to the tariff which their party made in 1803. They have made an honest, earnest and persistent attempt to obey the popular mandate delivered when the present democratic congress and president were elected. They are deserving of great praise for wresting what they have wrested from a protectionist senate, and for holding out so long as there seemed to be a ray of hope atainst the protectionist amendments which that body thrust so plentifully into the Wilson bill. The democrats of the ways and means committee labored with great zeal and industry, and finally produced a bill which was fairly acceptable to those who meant what they said when they voted for a tariff for revenue only. They did not produce a perfect bill by any means. They did not produce a bill which was satisfactory to most of their own number. But they did produce one on right lines, based on right principles, and making a long step toward the final goal of commercial liberty and the ultimate abandonment of the entire policy of supporting and enriching favored industries by levying forced contributions upon others. They went ns far as they believed it possible to go, in view of the known character of the senate, toward the total abolition of tiie republican system of legalized

robbery.

The house, led for the time being by

such men as Tom Johnson and I)e Witt Warner, went further than the committee and voted for free coal, iron and sugar and the immediate stoppage

of the McKinley sugar bounty.

A majority of the democratic sen- than the measure offered by the senators stood ready to go even farther ate they have fought as long as thers than the house, making larger reduc- WB s the slightest chance to succeed tions on manufactured goodsand going and have abandoned it at the demand farther in the direction of ad valorem 0 f business when success against a rates. But presently tliey found them- protective senate majority was a selves confronted not only by the re- demonstrated impossibility.

In)|>»rtant UrductloiiH in th« McKinley

Iflgh-TarifT Duties.

Whatever lias be-n gained has been wrested from a protective body. The country concurs in Mr. Wilson’s report. Tiie senate has a majority for protection. There are thirty-seven republicans, three populists and seven democrats who are champions of prohibitive tariffs on articles produced by their friends and therefore for all prohibitive tariffs—protection consisting in being for the other fellow’s tariff if he will be for yours. From this protective body the tariff reform democrats have wrested a reduction of sugar duties, free wool, lumber and salt and a great curtailment of tariffs on the textiles which the masses must buy for clothing. An income tax is secured, which relieves taxation on tiie household and places a share of federal expenses upon the wealth whose concentration has been favored by federal laws. Not all that the house contended for and the country desired has been obtained. The sugar trust has not been severed from government partnership. Iron and coal are still taxed, and the commodities into whose cost they enter are still to bring higher prices than the people should pay. But, as the chairman of tiie ways committee, himself as bravo a champion as a cause ever had, says to his friends, when men have done their best.according to their capacity and judgement, they must fall back on the consciousness of duty done. For the democrats of the house the voters of the party have nothing but approval What obligations came to them under the laws and the instructions of their constituents they have discharged with promptitude. There has been no departure from principle. In their proposition to reform the revenue they were moderate and business interests were never left in doubt. The contest for a better bill

ffiV’’ discovery <fF‘HUT'^vonderful deposits in the Mesa bn district. It is true that in many branches of the iron and steel industry, and in branches where the present tariff is equivalent to from 70 to 100 per cent., there is now no need of protection, for the prices of the domestic products are lower than the prices of the foreign products would lie if those products •hould be imported free of duty. Tiie McKinley duties upon the products in question yield no revenue, for obvious reasons, and serve merely to invite the formation of combination ! to suppress

Sh«*f*p Don’t Live on TnrifT. The part which sheep will play in he future development of the United dates is further discussed upon page 37 in a letter from southside Virginia, .urge areas of unoccupied hind iu the outhern states may now be acquired t very low prices, anil an opportunity xists for herding sheep in that section pon the same plan which is pursued t tiie west. Under any tariff system, • wie number of sheep acquired for mut- | ton purposes in the United States must | increase with the growth of populai tion. Tim dimunition of free lands in | the westT ami the many disappointments which have been suffered by ! settlers in certain sections beyond tlio Mississippi, will inevitably draw at* ! tention in the near future to tiie cheap agricultural lands in New England and tiie southern states.—Wool and Cotton Reporter. —The sugar schedule as it now stands may fairly be considered a sine yua>' aou.—Boston Herald.

publican senators in solid array but by this body reenforced by enough senators calling themselves democrats to defeat any bill not acceptable to them and the interests they repre-

sented.

The question with the loyal democratic senators then was not what tliey wished to do but what it was possible to do. They contested the ground inch by inch, and yielded to the renegade senators no more than they were forced to yield. The result was a badly mutilated hill, but it was that or no bill. Tliey had saved much that was valuable. The bill, bad as it was, was still vastly better than the McKinley monstrosity, and they accepted it as better than nothing. The house lias at last done tiie same, but not without making prolonged and heroic resisicnee. Tlio house conferrees, headed by Chairman Wilson, struggled long and manfully against the bail amendments, forced upon the bill by the senate renegades, and their democratic associates in the house supported them without wavering until they became convinced that the choice lay between the mutilated bill and none at all. The majority of the democrats are entitled to high praise for making a courageous and determined fight and saving the bill from wreck. It is not their fault that the measure is not far better than it is.—Chicago Herald. SOME GOOD FEATURES.

Much IIiih Boon Calm'd by the Passage of the i itntT Dill. The democrats of the house for reasons admirably stated by Chairman Wilson and Speaker Crisp, accepted the senate tariff bill, with all its imperfections and its shame, rather than to get none. Like tiie “held up” passengers in a helpless stage coach, they yielded to the political highwaymen of the senate without pretending to make a virtue of tiie necessity. As a vindication of democratic principles against the betrayal of the four trust agents and speculating senators who forced the surrender, tiie house with surprising promptness and unanimity passed a bill making all sugars free, and also separate bills uutaxing coal, iron and barbed wire. This action was at once a challenge to thu senate and a promise to the country. It mitigates the surrender. It proves again that the popular branch of congress remembers the pledges of the party and respects the demands of the people. There is this further compensation for the humiliating result: It will relieve the country, for some years at least, of the fear of another general tariff upheaval. Had congress adjourned without passing any bill tariff agitation would liave dominated to elections and have been revived at tiie December session even if President Cleveland had not felt constrained to call an extra session. If President Cleveland shall permit this bill to become a law no party would dare to propose tearing it to pieces again immediately. Nor can McKinleyism bo restored during the next three years, even if the republicans should venture upon the issue and control the next two grosses. Mr. Cleveland's term will not expire until March, 1897. His veto cannot be overridden by tlio next congress, and the congress to be elected in 1896 will not meet for more than a year afterwards. Even those who arc most disappointed in the bill will soon come to consider three years of peace preferable to further suspense, anxiety and business depression.—N. Y. World. The tariff, ns finally passed while in many respects it fails short of the expectations of the country, is an enormous step forward in tlio direction of reduced taxation, a step that will never he retraced. Prom this time the fixed policy of the country will be toward the gradual reduction of import duties.—Philadelphia Times.

That atrocity, the McKinley bill, is about to be wiped from the statute books by democratic vot«is. The pledge of 1893 to the people is redeemed as far ns the people have conferred the power. The tariff reformers could not control a tenate to which a majority of real reformers hail not been elected. The house has shown what honest reformers can do by passing bills for free sugar, free iron, free coal and free barbed wire. Having placed the blame for the incompletness of the reform where it belongs, the house democrats can adjourn in the “consciousness of duty

done.”

Now that tariff legislation is at an end for this congress, business men owe to the country an increased activity and confidence. The elements of prosperity are nil with us. Set everywhere the example of faith and energy. Doubts about the laws are at rest. There is nothing else for business men to doubt except their own strength of will. Matters will not come right of themselves. Men must make them right. It is just about a year since the acute financial trouble began. It is just about time for the sharp revival to begin.—St. Louis Re-

public.

OPINIONS AND POINTERS. The McKinley monstrosity lias been beheaded.—Toledo Bee. The best tiling about the revised sugar schedule,is that it is a still greater improvement over McKinley’s. The farther we get from McKinleyism the better, every time.—Boston Herald. Republican organs are trying to scare the men who have had no wages under the McKinley law with tlio threat that tliey will have “lower wages” under the democratic tariff.— Chicago Herald. McKinleyism at least is dead, and its vile offspring is' already doomed. Only let the people, whose cause has been so ably and so nobly led by the men who stood true to the Wilson hill, now take up the battle, and “protectionism” will meet its Gettysburg in November.—N. Y. Herald. If business is so improved by tiie settlement of the tariff question for the time that the gain is apparent to the most obtuse observer, the fact will prove so damaging to McKinleyism as to render it a losing game to clamor for the restoration of McKinley duties. —Boston Transcript (rep.). The new bill, whatever its defects, is bettor than its predecessor. It sounds tlio knell of McKinleyism, and, if it does not reduce tiie profits of all bloated trusts, the fault is nut with the democratic party, but with the freebooters in the irresponsible senate, who will doubtless be dealt with in due time.—N. Y. Morning Journal. ——If anybody thinks tariff reform sentiment is less strong throughout the country than it lias been let him follow the proceedings of the democratic conventions and meetings that are being held in various sections of the country nowadays. No step backward is the unanimous cry. If this strong, popular sentiment is not heeded in Washington those who are blocking the way might as well prepare fur permanent retirement from public life. That is their usual destiny.—Boston Herald. The lesson principally to bo learned from this tariff contest and its impotent conclusion is that when the republican party made the protected interests a partner in the government it in fact made them the governing partner in the firm. The way to cure the situation, so intolerable to the people, is not to reduce the interest of the protected manufacturers, but to dissolve the partnership altogether. The way to reform the tariff is to abolish it. There can be no half way measures with vice, and protection is nothing but economic vice—the prostitution of government to the. ends of private profib—Chicago Times.