UMASS/AMHERST '\.niysm^^r^,^^^^^r,^^^ r.iKiAA'^.'' I'^^/sA.^' W»*«s^sS&^«^ A^^O>s^,^A ■On^A ^'^A-/^A_ A, W^^cC ^nAn.^A^;^^A/^'^:^. :yv¥^^^'' a*.'2'^d^A.A, V':^':%/^M;i^i^;ji'^^^'^^ 'zfsm^A^wMr^'wnM ^v-CC-' / "^ ' LIBRARY MASSACHUSETTS AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE Source v^X3i 1755 h6 This book may be kept out TWO WEEKS only, and is subject to a fine of riV -E CENTS a day thereafter. It will be due on the day indicated below. UlC 4 1894 FEB 3 1897 FEB 17 1897 FEB 18 1899 IV.'.R S 1899 DATE DUE 1 (i^^^ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from Boston Library Consortium IVIember Libraries http://www.archive.org/details/Gommentsoncurren1921horr THE TRIBUNE MONTHLY. Ck'.JLA ( f <"< V... ' OL. III. JULY, 1891. NO. 7. / ISSiS OF Ai OFF MR EX-CONGRESSMAN HORR'S COMMENTS ON CURRENT QUESTIONS. SILVER -THE TABIFP— TIN PUTES^THE — RECIPROCITl LIBRARY OF TRIBUNE EXTRAS. $2 a Year. Single Copies, 25 Cents. THE TEIBUNE ASSOCIATION, NEW-YOKK. Hn BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. SILVER— THE TARIFF— TIN PLATES— THE COMMERCIAL MARIJSfE-RECIP It O CITY. SHORT TALKS WITH VOTERS. THE WOliST OF MUSOPOLIES. With 400 votes against 300 the Ohio Demo- cratic Convention adopted a free-coinage plat- form. The opiwsition was not weak in ai-gu- ment nor uncertain of pm-pose, and yet when outvoted it accepted the platform which 30 delegates held dangerous to the country and un- just to its millions of working people. It was well said by one speaker that the voters of Ohio had no occasion to sacrifice their own prosperity in order to emich the few million- aire mine-owners of silver States. Neverthe- less, the millionaires had their way, and under pi-etence of assailing monopolies they committed the Democrats of Ohio to support the worst and most hurtful of all monopolies. This same Democratic Convention denounced without measure the new Protective Tariff, on the ground that it oppressed the people for the benefit of capitalists engaged in favored indus- tries. But no other industry ever has been petted and favored as the mining of silver would be if the policy of the Oliio Democrats should prevail. The convention thinks it an outrage that a duty is placed on raw wool and on tin plates. But suppose Congress had provided that every pound of wool produced in. the country should be purchased by the Grovernment at a price nearly 30 cents per pound above its market value, and should be stored in public ware- houses, and that legal-tender notes should be given to the producers which all other citizens should be compelled by law to accept in full satisfaction of all debts or claims. That would be indeed an outrageous burden, and yet it is f ^ecisely what the Democrats of Ohio propose to do for the benefit of the millionaire mine-own- ei-s, while they bitterly oppose any attempt to secure a better market for the products of 5,000.000 farms. Supiwse Congress bad enacted that every povmd of tin plates produced in this country should be purchased by Government, and in addition all the tin plates that any foreigners might see fit to send hither, and that legal- tender notes should be given for the entire quantity at such a rate that instead of S3 0,- 000,000 it should cost over §40,000,000. Would there not be strong reason for denounc- ing such a plunder of the many for the benefit of the few ? But the same Democratic Con- vention which rants and raves about the duty on tin plates solemnly resolves that Govern- ment must pay about one-third more than the market price for ail the silver that may be delivered to it, so that the yearly product of American mines, which is now worth about $51,000,000 in mai'ket value, shall be sold to the Government for § 7 2 , , or more. The new tariff has not a single provision T^hich would take from the people half as much money for any purpose whatever as, the Free-Coinage bill would take from them for the benefit of the few o^vn.ers of silver mines... The wool duty, according to the declaration of the candidate nominated for Governor by the Democrats of Ohio, has made wool "elieaper than it was before. If he were less of a demagogue and more of a student, he would probably be aware that woollen goods cost no more now than they did before the new tariff was enacted, and that not only "because the for- eign importers have reduced the cost of goods as much as the new tariff added to the duty, but also because the American manufacturers them- selves sell at prices as low or lower than were BIG ISSUES OF »AN OFF YEAE. charged six months ago. The pretence that the people are burdenecl is simply false and fraudulent, but if it were true, all the loss that could be imposed upon them by duties on wool- len goods would be insignificant, compared ^-cith the direct loss alone ^-s-hich the free coinage of sil\'er would involve. Pretending to oppose monopolies and legislation for the benefit of in- dividuals, the Democrats of Ohio have com- mitted themselves to the worst and most mis- chievous of all forms of legislation against the public welfare and for the benefit of a small class of citizens. WAGES AND LIVING. The tariff question turns at last mainly upon the condition of the working people. One would suppose it an easy matter to show, as the ex- perience of almost every middle-aged man tells him, that there has been a great improvement during the last thirty years in this respect. But memories are treacherous. The habits of to-day have ton often blotted out altogether recollections of the experiences of other years. The man who lives to-day in comfort, earning good wages as a mechanic or artisan, often fails to remember what his actual circumstances were when he began active life, or if he remem- bers, attributes the difference rather to his own rise in the world than to any change in the general condition of the wage-earner. Hence it is that detailed information on this point always comes to the mind as a sort of revelation, surprising and to many scarcely credible. There are not a few who have this Eeeling, as they peruse the statements made in a recent article by "The Boston Commercial Bulletin '' on the condition of the working peo- ple half a century ago. It first quotes a letter from an old cotton-mill superintendent : Tlie hours of work were then from 5 a. m. to 7 or 7 :30 p. HI., with 30 minutes for breakfast and i'y minutes for dinner. Women to a greater extent than now were employed ; cMldren of tender years were niamerous in the mills. The pay of !he ordinary day laborer was 75 cents, and spinners on hand miiles rarely averaged $1 for fourteen hour? "f toil. 'Hie worlc of the wea' ers was exacting ami tiresome in tlie extreme, and 66 2-3 cents per day was above tlie average pay. In comparison wVrh these figures "The Com- mercial Bulletin" says : The compensation of a wage- worker shows a marked Increase. The women of the weaveroom now average $8 per week of sixty hours, and the men $10 a week, while mule spinners average from $11 to $12. The wages of masons, carpenters, painters and other out- door laborers have doubled within the last fifty years, and tlieir hours of labor materiaUr lessened. Thus it is clear that the wage-earner has a far greater purchasing po^^■er than he had in former times. The question need not here be discussed whether wages are as high, even now, as they ought to be, or whether hours of labor ought to be still further reduced. The ques- tion is whether the conditions in this counti-y have been such as to benefit the wage-earners, and as resjjects wages received the statements given by the paper above quoted correspond with all other evidence attainable. But as to the mode of living in working families the same joiunal says : The meat brought on to tlie table of the wage-worker of that day was pork. Coffee, tea, milk and sugar were used sparingly, and molasses was almost In- variably used for sweetening. Satinet for winter wear and nankeen for summer use were the garments of men and boys alike. Cowhide covered the feet of the boys in \vint6r. During the other montlis tliey went bare- foot. Their winter garments included neitlier under- shirts nor overcoats, but the woollen comforters served instead. Calico was the ordinary dress for women, and but few varied tlierefrom even on Sunday. In the tenements stoves were unltno'wn, carpets were beyond the occupant's means, and the walls were unadorned with paper or pictures. Chairs were of wood only. The featlier bed was usually for the comfort of the parents, and the younger members slept on straw. One room served for their sitting-room, dining-room and Idtchen, and the garret was rarely sepai'ated by a pai'tition. The rug before each bed was of braided wooUen rags. Tliese operatives, it mnst be remem- bered, were native American men and women wlio came from country towns. It is scarcely necessary to add anything by way of strengthening the contrast which these statements so forcibly make. He who has vis- ited any of the manufacturing towns of New- England, though it be for only a day, is well aware that the ordinary condition of the work- ing people is now far from that described so graphically in the foi-egoing exti'act. The jour- nal from which these statements are quoted says with truth : The operative's house, with its modern conveniences, untaown to tlie manor house of the first half of the century, and alike productive of health and comfort, though of much higher rental, demands no greater per- centage of Ms earnings than did that of an earlier day. In all else the cost of living has not materially in- creased, manufactured goods consumed In the families being materially lower in price. Whatever diilerence there is in some of the ll-sring expenses is accounted for by the improved quality of goods purchased. The lux- uries of a few years ago are the necessaries of to-day. It is not intended to imply that the whole change, wonderful as it has been, is due to any single cause. But no one who investigates with care can fail to be convinced that the large pro- portion of it is due to that American policy which has defended the working people of this country against direct competition with the laborers of other lands. It has enabled them to ask and employei-e to pay a much higher rate of wages for labor, and at the same time has 15ia ISSUJKS ON AN OFF YEAR. placed within theii- re.ith substantially all the necessaries of life at a much lower cost than they formo!ly paid. It is for this reatson that the Intelligent and thrifty workingnien of nia- ture age arc almcjst without 6xc<,'ption hearty believers in the American policy of Protection, and ready to do their utmost to prevent its over- throw. SQUARfyi-r THE CIRCLE. The Democratic party is rallying around the old standard of Free Ti-ade. Last year tliere was only one leader of the pai-ty in Ohio who ventured to proclaim himself a Free Tiader without equivocation and reserve. This year the Sbite Convention condemns Protection as an iniquitous policy, favors " a tariff levied for the sole purpose of producing a revenue sufficient to defray the legitimate expenses of the Gov- ernment economically administered," and calls for a graded income tax. A tariff for revenue only was what the Democratic National plat- form demanded in 1876 and 1880. This is what the Ohio Demoei-ats now want, but being mindful of the fact that England with its reve- nue tariff' is compelled to tax incomes, it adopts that feature of the Free-Trade system. By de- manding the imposition of the income tax, they emphasize in the most practical way their ab- solute conversion to Free Trade. In fact, they virtually revive the tariff plank of the Demo- cratic National Conventions in 1856 and 1860, which declared : The time lias come for the people of the United Slates to declare themselves in favor of free seas and progres- sive free trade throughout the world, and by solemn manifestations to place their moral Influence at the side of their successful example. A revenue tariff' and taxation of incomes not only embodies the free-ti-ade ideas of England, but also revives the revenue system of the Confederate States when they were the Solid South in rebellion. The secessionists were Free Ti-adere. In the constitution adopted by the Confederate States the powers conferred upon Congress excluded Protection. Free Trade was made the foundation of the Confederacy as shown by the following extract from the defini- tion of the legislative powers : To lay a.Tid collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises for revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defence, and carry on the government of the Confederate States ; but no bounties shall be granted from file Treasuiy ; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industiT ; and all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the Con- federate States.— (Confederate Constitution.) The Ohio Democrats have thus squared the oii'cle of their historic past. By declaring them- selves to be opposed to the "iniquitous" policy of Protection and to be in favor of a tariff for revenue only and of the imposition of income taxes, they return bag and baggage to the Free-Trade lines of the Buchanan, Bieckinridge and Douglas conventions, and support with the moral influence and example the traditions of the Confederate Congress. Our friends in Ohio have the advantage of knowing exactly where the enemy is encamped. lyCOAfE-TJXATIOy AND FREF. TRADE. "The Sun," in that spirit of courageous in- dependence which is characteristic of that well- conducted Democratic journal, condemns the inconsistency of its party in Ohio in opiw&ing " all class legislation" and favoring at the same time a graded income tax. It describes an in- come tax as class legislation of the woitit sorb, since that sys-tem divides the community into the honest and the dishonest, and imposes at once a tariff on integrity and a bounty on perjury. It shows that in 1870, when the ta^s was still in ft roe as a war measure, it was paid by one adult male out of every thirty. That " The Sun" 'oonsidei-s a complete demonstration of its character as class legislation. The de- mand of the Ohio Denioci-ats for a graded or unequal income tax it denounces as a clamor for " a final outrage in the way of class legisla- tion," since it " would divide the free and equal citizens of the United States into various classes : one class paying nothing, another class paying 5 per cent, another paying 10 per cent, another paying into the Tieasuiy half of their incomes, and so on up to the class which suffers an absolute confiscation of the earnings of its skill, intelligence, energy and accumulated .'savings." This is all true and cannot Tse controverted. In the attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the Farmers' Alliance fanatics the Ohio Dem- ocrats have stultified themselves and condemned themselves out of their own mouths. Not oilly have' they committed themselves to class legis- lation on a tremendous scale, but they have also invited unpopularity by demanding a re- vival of the most odious methods of war taxa- tion—methods which, as "The Sun" justly re- marks, cannot be enforced' without the estab- lishment of " a system of inquisition and espion- age repugnant to American ideas and abhorrent to the free citizen." The Ohio Democxate, however, while con- victed of folly in opposing and favoring class legislation in the same breath, are consistent from another point of view. They have re- corded their rancorous hostility, not to the Mc- K.inley Act alone, but to the whole policy of Protection. They want a tariff for revenue only, and as little of that as possible : and fore- seeing that the expenditiu-es for National ad- ministration and for payment of interest on the war debt must be met in some way, they fall back upon the English plan of taxing incomes with communistic modifications. What they want is Free Trtde, and they aie logical enough BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAft. to couple with, it a system of filling the National exchequer grounded upon English methods. The Republicans throughout the country are under pressing obligations to the Ohio Demo- crats. National issues were defined at Cleve- land in the sharpest possible way. TBE OCEAN MAIL ACT. The Postmastei'-Generars proposals for ocean mail seryice will inevitably be received with coolness and uncertainty by the steamship- com- panies and vessel-owners now in the carrying trade under the American flag. These interests were disappointed by the failure of the Naviga- tion Bounty bUl, and they have not yet adapted themselves to the requirements of the Ocean Mail Service Act. Of the two measures, the first offered immediate relief to the shipping interests, which had been suffering from several decades of National neglect and from the active competition of foreign subsidized lines, while the second was a creative measure designed to increase the efficiency of the American steam- ship service already in existence and to promote the establishment of new lines. If the fir_st measure had been adopted there would have been a quick and enthusiastic resi>onse from all the corporations now struggling for existence against untoward conditions. The act which was passed will compel them to make large in- vestments of capital in the building of new ships before they can derive substantial benefits from it. It may also subject them to competition from new interests to be created by it. It is less of a relief measure, but offers encourage- ment for active measures on their part for im- proving their service. The letter published on another page brings out these points with lucid- ity and force. It will be natural under these circumstances for the American lines forming a remnant of a once-powerful commercial marine to be exceed- ingly cautious and deliberate before committing themselves to the new policy, and earnestly striving to avail themselves of the opportunities opened to them. There are some considera- tions, however, which ought to have great weight in influencing their decisions after their managers have had sufficient leisure for reflect- ing upon the situation. The measure which their representatives and the shipping leagues advocated was based lupon the system of navi- gation bounties adopted by France and Italy. While that policy has been useful in developing the commercial marine of each of those coim- tries, the results have been somewhat disap- pointing, and have excited abroad some contro- versy respecting the practical efficiency of the methods adopted. Indeed, it will be apparent to any' one who closely studies the commercial statistics of those nations that more beneficial tesults have accompanied the direct payment of steamship subsidies when that system has continued ■w'ithout reference to the bounties. The German and English Governments are em- ploying the latter system to a very large ex- tent, and it may be said to be the preferred method of promoting the development of com- merce now in operation in maritime Europe. The new Shipping Aot is grounded upon the best and most satisfactory experience of com- peting nations. It is, therefore, less open to criticism in this country from political op]>o- nents than the Bounty bill would have been, and is more likely to remain in force for a long period. This inherent probability of permanence is an element to be considered by shipping in- terests seeking to enlarge their investments and to inoi'ease their business. They require a rea- sonable degree of assurance that the new policy is not a tentative measure liable to be modified and coimteracted by hostile legislation. The payment of navigation bounties was a French and Italian expedient, not sanctioned by Ameri- can practice. The policy of converting the mail service into an agency for the development of shipping interests was adopted under Demo- cratic Administrations before the Civil War, and has been sanctioned by maritime Europe. The new act is grounded upon principles which in- sure its permanency and thereby invite the confidence of investors. The most rigorous economist cannot find fault wth it, for it is evident that it will cost less for the Govern- ment to create an auxiliary navy of high speed by paying well for mail transportation than it will to continue indefinitely the construction of fast cruisers for the navy. The new act, while it was weakened by the amendments offered to it in the House, remains a logical and creative measure, and will yield in due time a large in- crease of transportation facilities under the American flag. OCEAN MAIL PliOPOSALS. The Postmaster-General's circular inviting bids for ocean mail service marks the beginning of a new policy which aims to restoi'e the Ameri- can flag to the seas. The details of the recent act passed by Congress have been exhaustively considered, and comprehensive action has been taken to carry out the intent of the legislation. The Postmaster-General has had a most diffi- cult duty to discharge, and he has succeeded ad- mirably in opening up the whole subject on such broad lines as to test the practical value of the act. The circular may be regarded as tentative in its effects. It is designed to call in proposals for a fast ocean mail service in American bottoms from six Atlantic, four Gulf and three Pacific ports, and to improve postal communications with Europe, South America, the West Indies, Central America, Australia, China and Japan. The I'ostmaster-General BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAE. T has acted uiwn the principle that the first work to be accomplished is to ascertain practically what can be done under the provisions of the act. By inviting proposals for mail service in the broade-st possible way he appeals strongly to American enterprLse and capital to take ad- vantaare of the new law and to supply the Na- tion with an iinpi-oved and largely developed commercial marine on the high seas. We have described this circular as the be- ginning of a new policy. It would have been more accm-ate to term it a 'reversion to the en- lightened Demociatic policy which prevailed be- ijore tlie Civil ^Var— that of making the mail service a medium for the development of ship- ping interests. In 1855 under a Democratic Ad- ministration the amount paid for mail service to vessels sailing under the American flag wiis $1,936,715, and there was not a year of that decade of Democratic Congresses when con- siderably more than §1,000,000 was not ex- pended for that purpose— often nearer $2,000,- 000 than ••?1, 000,000. When Mr. Vilas took it upon himself to veto an act of Congi-ess passed for the relief of shipping interests, and to cut do\\n the amount paid to American ves- sels for mail service to the beggarly simi of $43,319, he vias not acting as an old-time Democrat. The Republican policy of convert- ing the postal service into an active agency for promoting the development of the American carrying trade is one nhich has been repeatedly sanctioned in the past by Democratic Congiesscs. It is one that can heartily be supported by all Americans on broad, patriotic groimds. The United States during the last two years has been asserting its dignity as a continental and maritime I'ower. An international con- ference has been held at Washington in order to facilitate continental exchanges of produce and manufactures. A second conference at- tended by representatives of the maritime Powers has efl'ected in the same capital a re- vision of the rules of the sea. The Government is now offering in the Eeciprocity policy a large -measure of unrestricted trade to the Southern republics on the basis of equitable exchange. Another year will v\itness the dedication of the World's Fair held in commemoration of the -greatest maritime exploit in history and the large-st exhibit of the industries and products of the American Continent that has ever been collected. All these great transactions have required an immediate and radical change of poUoy respecting the commercial marine. That must first be restored, and then the promi.se of two brilliant years of American diplomacy and of the development of the export trade as the result of Reciprocity conventions, the World's Fair, and of a vast increase of National pres- tige, will be fulfilled. President Harrison and the Postmaster-General are in hearty sympathy with the shipping legislation of the last Con- gress, and are making an earnest and broad- minded effort to carry out an enlightened pol- icy. The appeal made to old-time mercantile energy and maritime pride ought not to be neglected. GOrEKNuR CAMPBELL'S ERROR. The speecii of Governor Campbell, of Ohio, upon his renomination was intended to make the taiiif the leading question of the cam- paign. State issues he was willing to consider subordinate and comparatively unimportant, as he well might. The silver question he was \\illing to ignoie, his followers being almost equally divided thereon. But he imagined that the taj'ift' question was one on which his sup- porters would be united and zealous. It is a pity that Governor Campbell did not inform himself as to the facts before he ventured into speech. If he had done so, he would not have been so ready to charge that the tariff had burdened and plundered the people. It ought to have occurred to him that, if he had any excuse for saying that wool had been cheap- er since the new tariff was enacted than be- fore, there had been no additional biuden im- posed by that duty, and the circumstances as to other i)roducts might have been substantially the same. But it pleases some men to speak first and look into facts afterward. In that way, no doubt, he came to make some assertions about the tariff which have no sort of relation to the facts. It is not true that imixjrted prod- ucts generally have been rendered moi* costly by the new duties. On the contrary, though most articles have not been changed in price at all, it will piobably astonish the Governor to find that nine-tenths of those which have ia any way altered in price have declined. Ho will search a long while, and probably without success even then, if he tries to discover any class of ai'ticles which command a higher price than a year ago. Some of the reasons he may not be able to comprehend, and others he will obstinately refuse to admit, but it may be profit- able to mention a few of them, nevertheless. This country has been the most imjxjrtant and profitable customer of foreign producers in many branches of industry. When it was pro- posed by means of higher duties to stop undue dependence upon foreign production, the manu- facturers abroad saw that they Tvere obliged to give up the American market, or to sacrifice the whole or a part of their profits. In scores of oases already known they have reduced their selling price fully as much as the addition to the duties, and are now delivering goods at exactly the same prices duty paid that they charged before the new tariff went into effect. This is the explanation of increased or un- changed imports of important classes of goods in spite of the higher duties now imposed. In some products the foreign manufacturers have BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAE. been helped by a remarkable decline in cost of raw materials. But this decline has not been accidental. A material part of the whole world's supply had been taken' for many years to meet the American demand. The new duties threat- ened to cut off that demand. The foreign man- ufacturers thereupon named the figures which they could aff-ard to pay for the materials, in view of the new duties, and producers found themselves forced to take those prices or to lose a great part of their market. It is a literal fact that the thi'eatened withdrawal of American custom has put down prices of some important products all over the Western World. Governor Campbell had better look into these things before he talks again. He will find that in a really astonishing number of cases foreign- ers have been obliged to pay the whole of the new duties imposed by the McKinley Tariff bill for the privilege of selling at all in the American market. It will puzzle him to show that these duties have in any ^vay or to any ex- tent proved a burden to American consumers. THE LEAGUE AT WORK. AVith Mr. Clarkson's return the active cam- paign of the National League will begin. Its opportunities are great and manifest. The im- portant campaigns this fall happen to be in those States where the League is strong al- ready, and where it has given proof of its utility in awakening public interest and in organizing its members for hard work. In New- York, Ohio and Iowa especially, where the results of the elections will be highly significant, it pos- sesses a great army of energetic workers who only need to be infused with the zeal which distinguishes its president. Mr. Clarkson suc- ceeds in nothing more quickly and certainly than in inspiring others with his own courage and force. His knowledge of the situation in the West wU enable him to render the League with Tts peculiar methods of work highly ef- fectual in counteracting the influence of the Farmers' Alliance. Nothing in the history of the development of that organization offers proof that its strength is drawn from the impossible plans which ambitious politicians have per- suaded it to assume- Primarily it is the result of the social instinct. Undoubtedly, the farm- ers generally have felt that their profits were tower than they ought to be, and have been disposed to listen with an inclining ear to any scheme that promised higher values and freer money. But unlimited coinage and the Sub- Treasury scheme are not the cause of their present association. They are rather a result of it. The farmers organized largely from class sympathy and under a social compact for self- defence against combinations intended to ad- vance the prices of Tnachinery, freights and other necessities, and to depress the price of fruits and grain. Their political movement was a later undertaking into which they were borne and driven by demagogues. Although the last elections wei'e far from showing that the average farmer has identified himself with any of the wild schemes ofBcially advocated by the Alliance, they did show that the organization was dangerously strong in half a dozen States whose continued fldelitj' to Ee^ publican policies is mnst important. The Re- publican League better than any available in- fluence is competent to draw the farmere of Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas and Ohio back into- their relations \vith the Republican party. By close and complete organization, which shall in- clude evei-y citizen whose inclinations are toward" Republican principles, by the maintenance of club-rooms constantly open for discussion anj friendly intercourse, by frank debate in open meetings where the interchange of views shall be invited freely, and by such a thorough dis- tribution of Republican newspapers as will in- sure to every voter the opportunity of under- standing the aims of the party and the results of its administration and legislation, a force can be exerted upon public opinion which will inevi- tably bring out many thousands of Republican, ballots that might otherwise be lost. The League movement promises great advantages and desei^es the hearty support of all who wisht Republican policies sustained. MORE TRADE AND LESS TAXES. According to Senator Carlisle, whatever the- McKinley bill did or did not, it was sure to cause an increase of taxation and a decrease of importation. The Senator obtained this result- by arguing that the duties being generally in- creased, import-ation naturally would fall off, but not so much as to prevent the heavier rates of duty from drav\ing a larger revenue than ever from the people's pockets. There are several points in which the Senator's statement was, weak, but the chief was in its blind disregard of the free-list. Like his fellow Free Traders, he never thinks of the free list. His speeches- had no room for the fact that it provided a free im]Kirtation 10 per cent greater than that of the Mills bill, including goods imported in 1889' to the value of !S365,406,000, on which the people had paid taxes of more than $65,- 000,000. It is possible to obtain now a fairly good idea of the influence which the new tariff is exerting on revenues and importations. The McKinley bill went into effect on October 6, 1890. Taking the seven months beginning with the following December and ending with last June, it is seen that the total importation of merchandise amounted to 55493,437,678, as against §471,025,966 in the same months of the year preceding, and the revenues from those BIG ISSUKS OF AN OFF YT;.U?:. imports in the peiiod ombiaced in 1890-'91 amounted Ui Sii3.l2(J,07fi 14, as against $136,033,381 69 in the period of 1889-'90. At the same time our exports of domestic produce have greatly inci'eased, amounting to 8510,- 021,807 during the seven months specified in 1890-"91, as against !r482, 155,402 during the same months of the year before. These are facts— hard, unyielding facts— and they send Mr. Cariirtle's speculations to the ground. The precise figures of revenue and importation dur- ing aach of the months mentioned are shown in the following table. The figures are oflBcial : O O I- 00 .- t- CO CO a g CI o s c-. te a 5 01 »H N IH 1 r3 00 5 CO o LO lO 1-^ o o h- 1 3 o 00 5: p? 1 1 1 1 C O I- r1 ,H w ci tc to CO o CO 'X c rt o ':! ci n « ub CD ,!« » O § g O O 5! ra ^ O 51 o H rt rH n I". 00 t- t- ,t-l r-t j,. o o « o 10 ■^ a iH o z ^ Q a ?1 O :i B g r^ a ei d ■* ^ S g < g The effect of this table is crushing upon the Free Traders. It shows how accurate and faith- ful vx^ere the representations made by the au- thors of the Jlcls^inley bill as to its effects, and how utterly mistaken were those offered by its opponents. Trade is freer than ever. Reve- nues are smaller. We do more business and we pay less taxes. The free importation of 1889-'90 in the total indicated above was $161,589,912. That of 1890-'91 was §241,- 130,314. rn~otber words, access to such needed foreign goods as they do not or cannot them- selves produce is less hindered to the people than ever before, -ivhile foreign goods compet- ing with their own ai« held back that theirs may have the first chance in their markets. So long as racial lines, political divisions and in- dustrial ine^iualities remain to mark off one nation from another this must be the policy ol a well-ordered community. • BUILD UP I HE LKAGCE. From everj- point of view it is important to the success of the Republican c-ampaign in New- York this fall that the Convention of League Clubs which is to be held at Syi-acuse on August 5 should be largely attended. In Ohio the League, working in perfect harmony with tl\e regular organization, as everywhere it should and nuist work, is giving a remarkable impetus to the Republican campaign. The League movement has nevei' extended so fai- in New- York as in some of the other large States, but it is powerful and can reaidily be made much more so. The work done liy President Me- Alpin and his associates in the Executive Com- mittee of the State League has insured a large and enthusiastic convention. By so much as its size is increased, its efficiency in promoting party interests will increase too. It ought to draw together 2.0 00 delegates. Between now and August 5 many clubs may be formed if our friends in the country districts •nill act upon the suggestions contained in the letteis that have been so extensively addressed to them by Colonel McAlpin. It is a common American experience that volunteers make the best sol- diers. That is one of the theories of free gov- ernment. It should operate to render the League eufliciently strong and \\eU organized to carry every election precinct whei-e a fair fighting chance can be found. It is gratifying to know that the regular partj' organisation has encouraged and assisted Colonel McAlpin's work. The part;\' leaders in almost every county are active in promoting the formation of clubs, and are lending the benefits of theu- experience towaid solving the diffi- culties which in country districts especially stand in the 0.^ 10 34 • , ,r 1 ^ 1889 10 JO'S 8 54 IS 7212 10 35 ic^n worlcmen suiter becau.se they pay more lor Jyy^ 19 72'" 7p"o 10 311-. lij^-'"^ import 85-2 00 Drawers (wooUen) 85-2 00 26- 40 Hosiery (cotton) 31- 55 24- 75 Hosier.y (wooUen) 24- 75- Undershirts (cotton) - 7a 38- 76 Undershirts (woollen) 38. T* This lirm says that American mannlacturers have taken advantage of the Tariir bill and have used it to raise prices but the retailers have not raised prices to the public except in a lew cases. Shirt musiin, 5 to 12^ cents a .yard, same as before September 1. Sheetings, 15 to 35 cents a yard; mostly the same as bel'cre, but a lew grades slightly cheap- er, (^tton ginghams, lower grades, 8 and 10 cents, the same as lormerly ; better grades, 18 and 20 cents, an ad- vance of 2^ per cent. Sateens, 10, 12^2, 18, 20 cents, same- as lormerly. Imported goods, about 10 per cent higher than lormerly. BRILL BROTHERS. Sept. 1, 1890. Jan. 35, 3893.. 20 each Collars, 4-ply each, 10- 20 25 pair Cull's, 4-ply pair, 11- 2 50 Shirts 50 Drawers (cotton) 15- 4 50 Drawers (woollen) 98- 50 Hosiery (Balbriggan).. 15. 100 Hosiery (woollen) 19. „_^_ — ;_._ ,.,„._, ^g_ .. 98- $2 50 50 4 50 50 loa 1 98 4 50 COTTON GOODS. MACT & CO., isiuor Straus— Selling prices of cottoe goods have not changed since fall. The reason is we had % stock on hand. New goods cost more, and will have ta be sold higher. Advances will be from 5 to 7% ner cent on most domestic cotton goods. We are selling some new goods at same prices as in the fall, but lire losinsr money on them, and it is only a question of time when the rise must come, WOOLLEN PIECE GOODS. BROWNING & WARD— Domestic goods have not yet Increased in Diiee, owing to the stock for next spring hav- ing been bought last summer. For next fall's goods there is a prospective advance of 5 per cent on the better classes. and 10 per cent on the cheaper grades. HENRY HENRICI— Domestic woollens have not. changed since September 1. but there is a prospect of about 5 per cent advance for next faU. TiiJBLE LINEN AND BLANKETS E. J. DENNING & CO. Sept. 1, 1890. Jan. 15, 1891. 40-$2 00 per yard. ..Table cloths (imported). .. 40-$2 0(> $1 00- 6 00 per doz Napkins (imported) $1 00- 6 00 3 75-12 50 Blankets 2 90-12 ott O'NEILL'S. Sept. 1, 1890. Jan. 15. 1891. 35- 4212- 69 p r yd.Table cloths. 3'?i2- 45- 6» 82V$1 50-tl 85 per doz. ...Napkins... 90- $1 50-$l 85 2 00- 2 50-3 00 Blankets $2 00- 1 50- S OO CARPETS. W. & J. SLOANE. Sept. 1, 1890. Jan. 15. 1891. 50- 85 ijer yard Ingrains per yai'd 50- fl5 $1 00-$l '50 per yard Brussels per yard $1 00-s 1 25- 1 50 per yard Mooufttes per yard 1 25- 125- 1 50 per yard... — 'Velvets p'r ,)ap:l 133- 1 75- 2 75 per yaid Wiltons per yaid 1 75- 3 00- 5 00 per 'yaid Axminsters per yad 3 00- 5 00' (W. & J. Sloane furthermore authorized the statement. that in the ordinary run of carpets the prices in the coming spring will be substantially the same as they were last spring (1890), the only change being the variations in prices of special patterns and special linos of imported rugs, but their variations in prices- will be no gpeabsr ttaa they have been every year.) >-$l 50 150 1 50 BIG ISSUKS OF AN OFF VEAJi. E. J. Sept. 1, 1890. 75 one price only... $1 25 one prloo only... 1 50- 1 00 1 33 one price only... 2 20 one price only... IS.J- 2 06 DKSSLNa & CO. Jan. i.i. 1S91. .one price only 75 .one price only SI 25 L50- 1 UO .one ijplce olil.v' 1 25 .one price only 2 25 185- 2 00 . ..Ingrains.. ...Brussels.. ..Moquottes . ..^^^1vet3.., ...Wiltons.. . Axmlnsters Kept. 1, » 25-* 00- 1 1 25- ] 1 00- 1 1 75- 2 1 50- 2 IS'JO. 75 per yard. .. 35 per yard... GO pep yard. . . 35 per yard.. 25 per yard... uO per yard. .. SHEPP 1890. 75 per yard... 25 per yard.. . 50 per yard... 50 per yard... 00 per yard... 00 per yard... J. & J. DOliSON. — Ingrains .. ..Uriissel.s . ..Moguettes... ....Velvets ....Wiltons ..Axmlnsters... .Ian. 15. IbUl. .per yard $ 25-* 75 .per yard 90- 1 35 .per vard 1 35- 1 00 .per yard 1 00- 1 35 .per yard 1 85- 2 25 .per yard 2 75. 4 60 ...per : .VKD KNAPP & CO. .Inn. 15. 1891. d, * 50-* 75 ,. _ d, 90 1 25 per val-d, 1 25- 1 50 per yaid, 1 00- 1 50 per "yard, 1 60. 2 00 per yard, 1 30- 2 00 ..Ingral ..Uriisa. ..Moqiiet TOOLS. PATTERS0J1 BROTHERS. Sept. 1, 1890. Jan. 10, 1891. « 50-* 80 Aies $ 50-$ 80 50- 80 Hatchets 50- 80 50- 80 Trowels 50- 80 110- 135 Brade's English Bricklayers...- 110- 135 .Aiuerlcaa Bricklayers 4c 90- 125 jVmerican Plasterers 90- 20- 40 American Pointing 20- 14- 65 Bit Braces 14- 6 perm Out Nails prr Ih, 6 5- 6 per Ih.. Finishing Cut Nails. .ijer m. 5- 6 ijer ll)....WIri Cut Nails pir lli, C ... jj,^ 125 40 10- 40 75- 60. .Units, i!( ...S(inarr.s, 40 75- 2 50 .. 90-$l 75 .$125 $2 25 .>Vood'-ii ja .... 90 I ja'ek $2 00 Sept. 1, 1890. 75 WvoS smoothing .. $2 10 Hon smcothlui; $2 10 5- 15 ...Ghiiiets 5- 15 Screws. 12 Good *6 liicli screws -S gross 12 28 G-ood 1^ inch screws 'S) gross 23 Mr. Patterson saM: " The only tilings in our line allected to any extent by the McKinley bill ai'e cutlery, by wlJch I mean pocket and caning Itnives, i-azors and similar tl)ing3 Imported Irom Sheflleid, England. The eilect ot tlie bill will be to bring AKerican goods of this class Icrwaid." J. H. DRAKE'S SONS. Jan. 16, 1891. Aj^es $1 00-$2 00 Hatchets 20- 100 Adzes 100- 2 00 Trowels : «0 90-$l 50 Braries' English Bricklayers' 105- 170 60- 100 Jjuericau Bricklayers' 50- 100 75-125 riusterers' 75-125 Pointing 3- 5 Cut nails, per in a- 5 4- G Flaishing nails, i^er ID 4- 10 Wire nails, per ro 10 50- 100 Augers 50- 100 5- 15 Flits (3 square) 5- 15 8- 50 Rules tV 50 26 Squares (iron) 25 60-2 00 ..squares (steel) 50-2 00 100- 2 00 Disston's hand saws ^ 110- 175 66- 160 Buck saws 75- 175 25- 75 Chisels 25- 76 5- 30 Tack hammers 5- 30 15- 25 Iron hammers 15- 25 35-100 Steel hammers 35- 100 75- 80 Jack planes 75- 80 2 00 Iron planes 2 00 160 lion and wood planes 150 60 Ircn planes, smoothing 60 110 ...Iron anil wood nlanes. smoothing... 1 10 5- 10 Gimlets 5- 10 25 2 00 Braces 25-2 00 Screws : WHITE, VAM GLAHN & CO. This arm's prices were identical with Ihos-.e of Drake's Sons, except In the following items: 6- 10 Wire nails e 50-100 Buck saws 50 1 00 1 00 1 00 UAL,!,, (illEl'i'liN & CO. I, 1800. Jan. 10, 1891. 100 A.xes 75-126 100 Hatchets 30- 75 Adzes 1 2.j Bilcklayeis' trowels (Brades, £ng.). 1 25 — Bricklayers' trowels, Amerlcaa 75- 100 Po'nting trowels, American. 25- 40 Nails : Cut nails, ITi 4 Wire nails, m 6 175 Saws 100- 175 100 Buck biivvs 75-100 Chlsi/ls, ij-inch 14 ...llii ...Tacks, pep paper.. 60 50- KUGL,EK Si W01.L.EJJS. 1, 1890. Ja $150 Axes 125 Hatohels 150 Adzes 1 10. .Trowels, bricklayers' Eug. brades.. ....Trowels, bricklayers', American... 40 i'lowels, j)Olntiug 1 35 Tro^veI8, i last -rl ig , 1891. >-$i SO )- 126 >- 1 50 >• IIU i- 110 >- 40 10 ...."laiiiiet; 10 40- 90 Braces 40- uo 100-175-190 Ratchets 100-175-190 8 Rules, boxwood lo 00- 85 JjQuarus 00- 83 145- 150 — White beech planes, Utrmau 145- 160 (Used by uerman cabinet makers.) 4 and 5 Tacks 4 and ft 11- 2 50. -Screws, per gross, accoid'g to size.. 11- 2 30 WILLIAM H. UKCKRICH. 50-$l 00 Axes 5b-*l 00 40- 75 Hatchets 40- 75 $150-300 Adzes 150-300 75- 130 Trowels, bricklayers' 75. 150 iNo English used.) 75- 160 Trowels, plasterers' 75. i go 15- 35 Trowels, pointing 15. 3; 4 Cut nails (average price" per ID) 4 5 Finishing nails (avei-age price per Di). g 6 ...Wire nails (average pnce per 11))... 73 Augurs 75 7- 30 Rnles (boxwood) 7, 30 25 Squares, iruu 25 63 Squares, steel 155 150 Saws (average jwice) 150 25-50- 100 oV^",'-" s,a*XS-- 23 50- 100 18 Chisels. 14-mch IB 22 Chisels, ^-incll 2^ 28 Chisels, 34-lijch -jg 32 Cliisels, 1-incli ' 32 50 Cliisels, I'-j-luch 50 70 Chisels. 2-iuch 70 50 Hammers, steel " 50 5. 25 Tack and iron liammers " 5. ofi 75 Jack planes 75 175 i™i planes .';; 173 100 White beech jack inn e5 White beech smoothing... ' bs g Tacks, per paper "" x 7 Gimlets ■■ ; 50-150 wvc Jiraces .. 50-150 3 Screws, ^s-lnch up co 1-inch, per dozen 3 6 Above %, ordinary sizes y SHOES. ALFRED J. CAMMEYER. Sept. 1, 1890. Jan. 16 1591 $5 00-$7 OO.Lidies' Fr. kid Louis XV heels,H.S.$5 00-$? no 5 00 Same, P. L. tips 6 00 5 00 Cloth top, P. L., H. S 5 00 3 50 P. L. foxed, Fr. kid tops 3 go 5 OO..P.L.Samp.,Kang. tops, P.L.tlp.H.S. 6 00 4 CO.Straight-goat foxed, kid top, goat tip. 4 00 4 OO.Fr. kid Waukenphast, P.L. tip, H.s. 4 00 2 50- 5 00.. ..Kid button, P. L. tips, H. S 2 50- 5 00 .150 Gaiters. 100 160= 6 00. .Kid shoes, button, common-sense... 160- 6 00 3 00- 3 50.Kid-foxed Kangaroo, kid top, H. S. 3 00- 3 50 1 90. Kid -foxed Kangaroo, kid top, H.S. 190 Low shoes and slippers : 3 00- 4 00 P. L. Oxfords 8 00- 4 00 3 00- 3 50 French Idd O-Xfords 3 00- 3 60 150- 3 00 Kid Oxfords 1 go- 3 OO 12.5- 3 50 Kid Oxfoids, box toe 125- 3 50 100- 3 50 Opera sUppers 100- 3.S0 Misses' : 1 50- 3 50.Soolma kid. straight goat, Curacoa kid, button, spring heels 150- 8 50 1 50- 2 50 Kid button. P. L. tips 150- 2(0 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAH. 6 00- 2 50- 6 00- 5 00- 6 00- 4 00 2 50- 6 00- 2 00- 100- 1 00- 150- 2 50. -Kangaroo top, straight goat foxed, spring heels 2 50 3 50 Kid common-sense 150' 1 50..0hild's button. Am. kid, Fr. Itid.. 1 00 1 00 Infants' Men's: 7 00 French calf, H. S 5 OQ. 4 50 American calf, H. S., welt 2 50 7 00 Cork sole. H. S 5 00- 6 00 P. L. cloth tops, H. S 5 00 6 00. French calf, lace. H. S., double sole American call, H. S 4 00 7 00- ..Calf WaukenoUast. H. S 2 50. 8 00 French calf, H. S., boots 6 00- 6 00 American calf. H. S., boots, Slippers ; 2,50 Real alligator 2 00. 2 50 Goat opera 100. 30 00 Embroidered opera 100 2 00 Pumps, P. L 150 Boys' 4 00 Calf. H. S 4 00 8 00 Calf, M. S 3 00 175 Veal calf 175 2 00- 3 00 American calf, welt 2 00- 3 00 4 00 P. L. (dress) 4 00 2 00- 4 50 Waukenphast 2 00- 4 50 175-200 P. L. Oxford 175-200 150 P. L. pumps 150 2 00 Slippers, alligator 2 00 90- 160 Goat slippers (opera) 90- 150 100 Arctics 100 35- 50 Rubbers 35- 50 125 Men's Arctics 125 75 Men's rubbers 75 60 Men's sandals 60 35- 50 Men's Im. sandals. 25- 75 Liadies' rubbers 125- 175 Ladies' Arctics 125- 175 30- 75 Misses' rubbers. 125- 150 Misses' Arctics 125- 150 "Tou ma.v say," said Mr. Camme.ver, "that this talk about the McKinley bill increasing the price of shoes is all rot. The.y are going to be lower instead of higher. If any manufacturer should say 'oo ma. 'I am goiiig to raise prices/ I would say to him, 'Let me have your portrait to hang In my office. It would be a curiosity.' " EDWARD DAT, Sept. 1, 1890. Women's: 1891 and 1892. 150- 2 50 Am. kid. button. M. S 150- 2 50 3 50- 5 00 Imported French kid, M. S 3 50- 6 00 3 50- 5 00 Imported French kid, H. S 3 50- 5 00 125- 2 50 Am. kid, O.Kfords 125- 2 50 2 50- 4 00 French kid. Oxfords 2 50- 4 00 25- 50 Rubbers 25- 50 125- 3 50 Black kid slippers 12,5- 3 50 Misses' : 125- 2 50 Kid, button and lace 125- 2 60 20- 35 Rubbers 20- 35 Men's : 175- 3 00 Am. calf, M. S 175- 3 00 4 00- 5 00 Am. call, H. S 4 00- 5 00 5 50- 8 00 Flench calf, H. S 5 50- 8 00 2 50-4 50 P. li. shoes 2 60-4 50 60- 80 Rubbers 50- 75 100- 150 Arctics 100- 150 Slippers. 2 50- 400 Gentlemen's alligator 2 50- 4 00 100- 2 00 Imitation alligator 100- 2 00 125- 2 50 Goat, opera. 125- 2 50 75- 2 50 Embroidered, opera 75- 2 60 100- 150 Felt slipper 100- 150 Youths' : 115- 2 00 Am. call, M. S 115- 2 00 Boys' : 150- 2 60 Am. calf, M. S 150- 2 50 (Mr. Day said: "Shoes are not only as cheap as they were in September, but orders are now being placed for next winter at lower rates than last year. There Is a tremendous home competition among manufacturers. Re- tailers are going to get better shoes next year for less money. I keep a sign up which says, 'On account of the McKinley bill we can sell 60-cent rubbers for 40 cents.' ") B. NATHAN. Sept. 1, 1890. - 3 50 27- - 1 50 2 00 - 1 00 2 85- - 7 00 4 OO- - 4 50 5 00- - 7 00 4 35- - 6 00 50- )- 6 00 125- )- •> 00 - 8 00 2 50- - 6,00 139 1 39 •- 2 50 1 25- 1-30 00 - 2 00 2 00 4 00 5 00 $3 50-$8 00 1 90- 5 00 5 00- 9 00, Jan. lO.fegi. Women's : French kid $3 60-$8 00 Dongola kid 190- 5 00 ...Patent leather 5 00- 9 00 Rubbers 27- 85 2 00 High button Arctics 2 00 2 25- 6 00 French kid Oxfords 2 25- 6 00 2 85- 7 00 Patent leather Oxfords 2 85- 7 00 135 White bid slippers 135 8 50 Sathi slippers 2 85 125- 3 50 Black French kid 125. 3 50 3 00 Dongola kid 2 00-3 00 Patent leather shoes 3 50 45 Rubbers 27- 45 Arctics 2 00 f Men's ; 5 00 American calt, M. S 2 85- 5 00 5 00 American calf, H. S 4 00- 5 00 8 00 French calf, H, S 5 00- 8 00 9 00 Patent leather shoes 4 35- 9 00 160 Rubbers 50- 150 2 00 Aictics 125- 200 Slippers : 3 50 ....Genuine alligator 250. 8 50 Imitation alligator 89 2 00 Goat opera 150-2 00 Embioidered opera 89 200 Felt slippers 125-2 00 Boys- : American calf, M. S 2 00 French calf, H. S 4 00 Patent leather shoes 5 00 L. M. HIRSCH. Sept. 1, 1890. Jan. IB, 1891. $3 75 Women's imported French kid $3 75 3 50 4 50 — Wonien's imported French kid -J 50 4 50 160- 300 Women's Dongola 150- 3 00 2 65- 3 98. .Women's 1st qual. itid, P. L. tips.. 2 65- 3 98 2 65 -Women's French kid, P. L. tips.. 2 00 2 89 Wonien's P. li. Oxfords 2 50 2 35 ....Women's French kid Oxfords.... 1 sy 175 Women's P. L. slippers 125- 133 100 Women's white kid slippers. ..-. 75 175 ...Misses' French lud, 1st ctuaiity. .. 135- 160 100 Misses' pebble goat 100 2 35 Misses' P. li. vamp 2 35 1 75 ..Misses' straight goat, spring heel.. 1 50 Boys' shoes : 1 25 Veal calf, M. S 125 150 American calf, M. S 150 2 00 French calt, M. S.-.- 2 00 shoes ; 1 00 90 Youth?. -Veal caU, M. S.. .Split calf, M. S. 100 90 Fren,;h calf, M. 175- 2 00 French calt, hand sewed 175- 2 00 150- 175 American call, hand sewed 150- 175 Men's shoes : 100- 2 00 American calf, M, S 100- 2 00 2 50- 3 50 French call, M. S 2 50- 3 60 2 50- 3 75 American call, H. S 2 50- 3 75 3 50- 4 50 French call, H. S 3 50- 4 50 Men's slippers : 59- 89 imitation alligator 59- 89 150- 2 50 Genuine alligator — 75- 125 Goat opera 39- 150 Kmirro derecl opera.. 50- 2 50 75- 1 25 39- 1 58 50 Felt slippers 25- 60 .Women's rubbers 50- 75 Women's arctic^ 50- 75 20 Ohliorfn's rubbers. 20 25 Misses' rubbers 25 50- 75 Misses' arctics 50- 7i, 35- 50 Men's rubDers 35- 50 75-100 Men's arctics 75-100 (Mr. Hirsch's superintendent said: "We are reducing prices on all lines of shoes, and suall continue to do so until our spring trade sets in. Mr. Hirsch laughs at any one who tries to scare him about the McKinley bill.") S. COHN & BKOTMKR. Sep_t. 1. 1890. Jan. 16, 1891. $3'56 ■ Women's French kid $4 tfo 2 00 Women's Don.cola kid 2 25 2 50 Women's Dongola kid 2 75 2 50 Women's Dongola P. 1j. tip 2 75 5 00 Women's kid, llrst (luality B 60 1 00- 4 50... .Women's French kid. P. L. tip.... 5 00- S 50 4 00 Women's Frencn kid, plain toe — 4 00 2 75 women's bright Dongola 3 00 Women's bright Dongola, 3 25 .French kid 8 25 2 50 3 50 175 1 25 2 75 2 00 2 00 2 75 2 50 150 175 2 00 2 50 150 200 260 3 50 200 8 00 4 60 6 00 Women's P, L. Oxford ties 3 00 Women's French kid 3 50 Women's P. li. slippers 190 Women's white iiid 135 Misses' French kid 3 00 Misses' Dongola kid 2 25 Misses' straight goat 2 25 Misses' P. L. vamp 3 00 (Dongola) Misses P. L. tip spring heel 2 50 Misses' plain Dongola 150 Misses' plain Dongola 2 00 Misses' straight goat 2 00 Misses' straight goat 2 50 Boys' shoes ; Veal call, machine sewed 150 American calf, machine sewed — 2 00 American calf, hand seized 2 50 French calf, hand sewed 3 50 Men's shoes : ....American calf, machine sewed 2 00 American calf, hand sewed 3 00 French calf, machine sewed 5 50 French calf, hand sewed 6 00 BIG ISSUES C/F AN OFF YEAR. Men's slippers. ■ 00 Imitation aUlgator 100 100-2 50 Goat opera 1 UO- 2 50 225- 8 60 GenuLni' alligator 2 25- 3 50 100-800 EnibroWcTua opura 100-3 00 100- 160 Felt suppers 100- 150 (Mr. Colin said that he haU liicruasiU tlie price ol n'omen's and ralssos' shoes, owing to the lact that leather waa lilgher. Ho was lound to be the only dealer wiio had marked his shoi's higher than they were on September 1.) GEOCERIES. PAKK & TILFOUD. 6ept. 1, 1890. Jan. 16, 18'J1. Canned Goods : 25 Salmon, 1 ih case 20 25 Lobster, 1 ir. case 25 28 Shrlniiis 1 11 eaae 28 22 Corned beef, 2 II) case 22 40 Corned beet, 4 II) case 40 Sardines : 38 Boneless, =3 lb tins 38 28 Boneless, =4 lb tins 28 80 Boneless, >2 II) tins 80 25 Bones, ^ II) tbjs 25 18 Bones, ^j Ih tins 18 17 Ftrris's hams 15 80 amolied beef tongues, each 75 Bacon ; 35 Irish bacon, per II) 88 88 English Wiltshire, per Ih 40 Cheese : 15 American mild cream, per 11) 15 26 American dairy, peril) 25 100 Edam, each 100 Lard : S3 3 11) palls 85 55 5 U) palls 50 110 10 ill palls 100 Butter ; Jan., 1890. Jan. 16, '91. ..Creamery, per H).. au i./rtaiuerj(, pur ill ao 50 ...Fancy Phlla.. ^2 1^ prints, per lb... ,55 80 Fancy Darlington. J-.; m prints, per 11) SO Coireos ; 84 Eoasted Java 36 86 Koasted Mocha 30 80 Boasted Maiacaibo 30 80 lloasted Kio 30 Firm handles no unroasted. Suear : 65 Cut loaf. ul:e. 7 16.- 62 65 Crushed, pk^. 7 fl) 52 63 Powdered, pka. 7 II) 52 60 Granulated, uks. 7 11) 50 48 White A, pkE. 7 II) 47 45 E.xtra C, pkg. 7 II) 45 Flour : ■25 Pillsbury, per bbl 6 50 Pillsbur.T, per hall bbl 3 50 Pillsbury. has. one-eighth bbl 85 7 00 Plants, per bbl 6 50 7 25 ...Washburn's gold medal, per bbl... 6 50 Meal : 20- Teliow and white, 7 B) 20 28 Graham flour, 7 11) 28 4 00 .Rye, 7 II) 5 Oatmeal (AIuou), per 11) 5 7 00 Oatmeal (Alcron). per bbl 8 00 135 Irish oatmeal. 14-11) tin 135 10 Scotch oatmeal, 1-11) paper 10 90 ..Buckwhea-t dour, per bag of 25 IB.. 90 30 Buckwheat flour, per 7-16 bag 30 Potatoes : 8 50 Potatoes, per bbj.' 450 130 Potatoes, per basket 165 45 Potatoes, per peck 60 28 Egfrs, per dozen 35 80,40,60.80 Oolong, per 11) 30,40,60.80 75 Oolong (Formosa), per Hi 75 30, 40, 60, 75, SO.English breakfast.per It), 30, 40, 50, 75, 90 100 H.YSon, per » 100 60, 75, $1 .lapau, per It). 100 Orange Pekoe, per It) i 00 '" 125 Flowery Pekoe, per II) 125 Canned vegetables : 35. .Asparagus, Oyster Bay, No. 3 tins,. 36 15 Lima beans. No. 2 tins 15 10 String beans. No. 2 tins 10 18- 25 Strlngless beans. No. 2 tins 18- 25 12, 13 & 15 Corn, No. 2 tins 12, 13 & 15 15, 25 & 28 Peas, No. 2 tins 15, 25 & 28 25- SO Peas, French 25- 80 15 Pumpkin, No. 3 tins 15 15 Succotash, No. 2 tins 15 12 Tomatoes, No. 3 tins 12 Starch ; 50..Klng3ford's sliver gloss, 6-Tn box.. 90..Kliigslord's sliver gloss, 12-11) box.. 7.Kln".-fiird's silver gloss, 12-lh box, S) 9 — Klngsfoid's cornstarch, per ID From California : 36 Apricots, No. 3 tins 85 White cherries, No. 3 tins 85 Black cherries. No. 3 tins 86 Egg plums 35 Green gages 35 Nectarines 86 Peaches 8.5 Baitlett pears 45 Apples, gallon cans. 44 15 Blackberries, No. 2 tins 15 18 Blueberries, No. 2 tins 18 20.. — Dumson plums. No. 2 tins 20 80 Pineapples, No. 2 tins 30 Pineapples, No. 8 cans 40 .._. Quinces, No. 3 cans 32 Rasi)berrles, No. 2 cans 30 Strawberries. No. 2 cans 30 Olives. De Luequcs (bottles) 25 Marlnees (bottles) 25 (lOrd'on & Dllwortn's %-gal. Jars. Queen olives 125 Queen olives, 27 oz, bottles 55 Queen olives, pt. bottles 40 Crackers. 20 Bents, per lb 20 12 Butter, per Ih 12 10 Soda, per II) 10 85 Soda wafers, 2 II) can 35 86 Milk waters, 2 It) can 35 25 Bottles Shrewsbury's catsup 25 (Joseph Park said: "It Is hard to base any calculations this year on certain things in our line, such as apples, butter, potatoes and eggs. Eggs are, of course, higher and scarcer than last year at this time, owing to the cold weather. They were naturally cheaper In September than now. The apple crop was almost a failure last year. So were potatoes. I think that much good potato land In Northern New-York, wl\lch has not been culcl\ated for years, will be tilled this spring. Butter is of course higher than It was In September, but is no higher than It was last January. We have to rely on California Xor most of our canned fruit.") ACKER, MERRAIL & OONDIT— Prices like Park Si TUford'a. A member of the firm said : "The McKln- ley bill has made no perceptible change in our retaU prices for groceries, canned goods and flour. Wines, cigars and liquors— the imported brands— have been raised by the bill. Starch, which is on the free list, is higher now than in September. We are Free Traders here. By an arrangement, our prices are the same as those of Messrs, Park & Tilford." A. T. ALBRO, Sept. 1, 1890. Jan. 16, 1891. IS- 25 Salmon, No. 1 tins 18- 25 18- Lobster, No. 1 tins 18- 30- ;. Shrimp, No. 1 tins 30- 25- Corned beef. No. 2 tins 25- Sardines. Hams. Niagara and Baltimore, H) 15- .Bacon, Niagara and Baltimore, B).. 16- Smoked beef tongues, each 80- — American mild cheese, per lb 14- English dairy, per It) 25- Edam, each 100- Lard. 3-lt) pails 35. 5-It) pails 55- 10-11) pails 100- Butter. Creamery, per lb 35. — Darlington, ^-Ib prints, per D) 40- Cofliee. Roast Java 35. Roast Mocha 36- Roast Maracaibo 32- Unroasted Maracaibo 27- Unroasted Java 80- » Unroasted Mocha 81- Sugar. Cut loaf, 7 lb 52- Crushed, 7 1b 52- Powdered, 7 lb 50- Granulated, 7 lb 48- White A. 7 lb 44- BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAU. Hour. Extra C, ,7 W - ^ ^„ PlUsbury, bbl 50. Pillsbury, ^n bbl 3 50 PlUsbury, ^ bbl... Yellow and wliite meal, ' Grabam Flour. ....Extra quality, bbl 7 00 Extra quality, ^ bbl Extra quality, 7 W..... Rye flour, bbl Rye flour, H bbl Rye flour, 7 Iti Oatmeal. Akron, It) — Oatmeal, Akron, 200-16 bbl .. ..Oatmeal, Irish, 14-ffi cans 1 oj' Oatmeal, Scotcb, IB papers.. Flour, buckwheat, 23-11) bags. 6 00 .Eg Teas. 80, 40, 50, 60, 80 Oolong 30, 40, 50 60 80 50 75, 100 Oolong, Formosa.. 50,^5, 1 ou 80. 90 English breakfast..... .--.- <»- 90 so, 60, 60, 80, 1 00 Young Hyson 30, 50, 00, 80, 1 00 4o,%,'^.^-:--.v.:-^"J?K^".^-V/^:-^:::4o,|'iS 35 . .Oyster Bay asparagus, ^o. 3 tins... o| 18 .........Lima beans. No. 2 tins lo 25 StringU'ss beuns, .No. 2 tins ^o 15 Corn, No. 2 tins Ig 38 Peas (domestic), No. 2 tins i& 30 Peas (French!, No. 2 tms dU 18 ....Pumpkin, No. 3 tins J-g 18 .' Succotash. No. 2 tins.. la 12 Tomatoes, No. 3 tins i- Catsup, Shrewsbury. 45 Quart bottles 45 25 Pint bottles ^g 18 ...la pint bottles -lo Fruits .Apricots, No. 3 tins. ..^i.i..,„™, ^■- - • ^'i iwiilte cherries. No. 3 tins 3S .Black cherries. No. 3 tins ^3 ....Egg plums, No. 2 tins 2d ...Green gages. No. 2 tins ^? Poaches, No. 3 tins.- -o- .Pears, Bartlett, No. 3 tins 35 Ai^ples, 4-quart cans au Damson plums. No. 2 cans ^g ...Pineapples, No. 2 cans -» Qviiices. No. 3 cans 30 Raspberries, No. 2 cans -o ....Strawberries, No. 2 cans 40 Olives. Crescent, small bottles 25 Gordon & Dilworth's. Queen, 2-quart jars $120 Queen, IVpint jars oo Oraciiera. Bent's water, ID 20 35 •Sept. 1, 1890. Butter, It) 12 Soda, It) 10 ..Soda wafers, 2-11) cans 35 .Milk crackers, 2-11) cans. Jo JACKSON & 00. Jan. m,_ 1891. . .Strawberries, No. 2 cans 35 Quinces, No. 3 cans 3d Damson plums, No. 3 cans 35 . Pineapples, No. 2 cans 3o ..Imported olives, pints 40 Imported olives, quarts 60 .Apricots, No. 3 cans 35 White cherries,. No. 3 cans 38 Egg plums, No. 3 cans 3o Green gages. No. 3 cans 3o Peaches, No. 3 cans 40 !. ..Bartlett p';ars. No. 3 cans 38 Oyster Bay asparagus. No. 3 cans.. 35 ..litma Beans, No. 2 cans .Strhig beans, No. 2 cans 18....'. Corn, No. 2 cans a 50- 11 50- 15 50- 7 50- 19 00- 14 00- xa 00- 2 80- 2 80- 3 50- 1 40- Poiatoes, basket Ic --i^otacoes, peck ^ t li^ggs, ordiinary, per doz.. 5 logo's, extra iresh 4 Starch, laundiT, per tl) S.arch, corn, per li) 1 Sugar, cut, 7 It) ^ Sugar, crushed, 7 IB t .Sugar, White A, 7 fl) 4 ' SiJgjr, po)Vdered, 7 ID ! Sugar, granulated, 7 IT) £ Sugar, Jixtra c, 7 H) '■ Coffee, Roast Java ; Coffee, Roa^t Mocha ; ■] Coffee, green jyiocha i iCoITee, Green Java t 100 ;...Lard, 5 and 10 tD tins 6 Creamery butter i Butter, Ph.ladelpnla. 3-11) prints — ( Butter, Darlington, =2-lt) prints — i Cheese. American mild cream, 11) ] Englisli dairy, It) i Edam, each II Salmon, No. 2 tins i Lobster, No. 2 tins : Slirimps, No. 2 tins : Corn beef. No. 2 tins ' Boneless sardines, ^-11) tins 1 Boneless sardines, ^2-lt) tins : Ferris's hams, ID Raltinior,"' bacon. It) Smolted beef tongues, ID FUENITUEE. B. M. COWPER'XHVVAIT & CO, 1, 1890. Jan. J.5, 1891. Lounges *3 50- Couches - 9 00- Solas 12 00- Turkish chairs 16 00- Eas,y chairs 8 00- Window chairs 20 00- Reclining chairs la 00- Settees 14 OO- Rattan chairs 4 00- Rattan rockers 4 00- Ladies' desks 5 00- Wall cabinets 3 00- Piano stools 3 00- Whatnots 1 75- Mantle mirrors 10 00- 1 Looking glasses 100- holished top tables 3 00- Marble top tables 3 00- Fancy brass tables 3 75- . Clocks in marbic, iron, walnut and cherry 150- Parlor stoves 4 00- Extension tables 3 00 Sofa tables 8 00 Leaf tables 175 Side tables 4 00 Sideboafl'as 8 00- $300 Cane dining chairs 100 Leather dinine chairs 2 00 Sofas, couches, lounges. In leather, 7 50 1 65 3 50 7 50- $300 90 rep, haircioth and carpet, etc. .'. 5 00 90 Wood top tables 100 4 80 Refrigerators 5 00 4 50 Stoves and ranges 5 00 11 00- 300 Chamber suits, marble and wood tops $12 00- 23 00 '-- "'■"" 4 50 4 50 1 40 47 00- 1 90 6 00 95 ^„,„ ,,„. . 15- 18 18720,30 .'.Peas, No. 2 cans 18,20,30 ■20 22 25, 30. ...Peas. French. No. 2 cans. ...20, 22, 25, 30 20 Succotash, No. 2 cans ^o 13- 15 Tomatoes. No. 3 cans 13- lo Teas : 40,60,80 Formosa Oolong *2' S9' S2 60, 70, 90 English Breakfast 50, 70, 90 40,60,80 Young Hy-on 40.60,80 80 Gunpowder 80 80 Japan (uncolored) 80 Flour. aeO PlUsbury, bbl 50 .«75 Jones & CO. s, bbl d 7o 20 Yellow and white meal, 7 ID — 20 30 Grahan. flour, 7 ID 30 30 .TT.. Rye flour, 7 It) 30 40 Akron ortmefil 40 eO Irish oatmeal 60 )e _ Scotch, 1 ID paper 10 30 Buckwheat Hour, T as., 30 450 Potatoes, bbl 4 60 Armoires 30 00 Wardrobes 5 00 ChilTonlers ..-. 5 00 Washstands 150 160 Cabinet folding beds 50 00- Bedsteads 2 00 Dressing bureau 6 50 Bedroom tables..* 100 Painted suits 12 00 Iron bedsteads 4 00 Looking glasses 50 Bureaus 3 00 .Bed sofas, couches and lounges. „10 00 Upholstered folding cots 150 Wood and canvas cots 75 Ladies' work tables 10 00 Fancy chairs and rockers 150 Rattan chairs antl rockers 4 00 Cane chairs antT^oclcers 75 Spring beds 10.0 Hair matresses 10 00 ...Wool mattresses 8 00 I' Cotton mattresses 6 00 Husk mattresses 6 00 Straw mattresses 100 Excelsior mattresses 2 00 ' Jute top mattresses 3 00 9 50 7 50 5 50 5 50 95 1 90 4 50 ""Ipfock top mattresses 5 00 5 50 Fibre hair mattresses 6 00 90 Blankets and comfortables 100 190 Axminster. Moquette 2 00 qo Body Brussels 100 §5 '.'. 3 piy ingralE 90 (These quotations are bottom prices, running up »o- cording to grade of goods.) FLINT &, CO— Prices have not changed anj', and U BlU ISSUES OF Ali OFF YEAli. 17, there Is any cliange It will not bo felt befoie ncMt fall. capable also of producing steel bars, and the finest BAUMANX Bi;us.-PrlceB have practically ''<>'■ ^^^"^^^ Steel rails in the world are made here to the annual •luce buiJtembcT 1. Mij slight changes there have been ,«„,,,-., ^ ^ ■ ,„„ r^, were downwaid. amount of 2,111,544 net tons in 1890. There are JOsjHUA GKEGG— Prices ol lurnlture have not vaiieu a score of American mauuriicturcrs who can pro- ttt all. duce all the bar steel i-equii-ed to make all the READY-MADE CLOTHES. steel plates necessary to supply the entire Ameri- HACKETT, CAKllAKT & CO.— Prices are so lar reauoeo can demand for tin plates, and at least three such from what tliey were last fall that no proper idua or the mainilacturers, Cai'iiegie, Phipps Iionif-.tic wool cloth has not yet Increased In price. Indl- Chester, have given notice that they are now caUons are that It will rise .1 trlUe by next fall, but that eijuipped to make steel bars. .So far as any in- wlU not airect the retail price of clothing. eonality that may exist bfiweeu tliem and British KOGEHS, PEET & CO.-Prlces have not changed any gtegi barmakers is concerned, it is obvious that since September 1. The reason Is that material for goods ^^ ^ ^^.j,^ ^ ^^ now being sold was bought last spring. Material for next . . J. , ^ . . , ° spring's goods was bought last summer, and consequently "ars for tm plates, precisely where they stand spring clothing will not be any higher. They are now buy- vvitli regard to the making of other forms of bar ing material for next fail and winter, and indications are steel, so tluit as they have competeil triumphantly that they will Oien have to charge from one to tliree dol- ^^m^ foreign producers in these other forms, they lars more for the better class of suits. Cheaper grades „f ^.^_^ ,^^ ^^^ .^^ ,^^^_. clothing, hov.ever, vflli not cliange In price. Clothes made f , . i -^froni imported cloths will cost from 5 to 7^2 per cent more, ''■n trade, but the advance will not bo felt in the retail trade before There is no difticulty, tlien, aljout the first and next fall. chief step in the tin-plate industry— the manu- RAYMOND & co-Men's suits l*at were from 812 to ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^j^^ ^^^ j ^.^.^^ ^^ $35 are now from $10 tc $30. Boys' suits that were from ... ^ , » . .., .. , ,, , $5 to $14 are now from $1 to $12. Overcoats: thereafter to he coated with tin, are to be rolled. Sept. 1. Jan. 15 The second step is the rolling process, and that, ^nfoo *20 00 ^'^°' *® already solved, it was a principal argu- 20 00....I;!..." 10 00 ment of those who opposed the new tin-plate du- Reductioiis ar.^ owing to lateness of season. Some ties that there were no black plates made here spring goods will be a trifle higher to dealers, but not to ^^ ^^^^ ^.^^ ^,^p^, .^ tin-plate making, and they consumers. In regard to foreign goods prices are being , , , ■ . , , . , reduced in Europe, so that goods wUl be about the same ^sked what was to be gained by increasing the in tlilB country as formerly. duties on the tinned product when its base was • wholly wanting. These persons overlooked the •VTriAT^ X^/-\Tt riiTVr "DT ArpTTC! ''^^"^ ^^^^ ^^^ ciualities of sheet irou aud sheet JNUV> r Uxv iiJN irLiAiJib. steel used in the production of fine kitchen uten- sUs and galvanized irou (wliicli is simply a sheet WHY THE NEW DUTIES WEEE LEVIED AND "^ ^"" sf'^'^l '^o'^ted with zinc) were already made TTTTTAm mTTT-.-,T tt . ..7- , t^^ttt^ 'Q f'is couutry lu enormous quantities, and that WHAT THEY HAViJ DONE. ^, , .. , , , , • ^, , , v, .„ the plants capable of making them needed but slight additional equipment to roll the finer quali- THBT HAVE BEEN ANTIOtPATED BY REMARK- ,ig, „f .^gj .j^^^t^ ^^^ ^^^ .^^ pj^^g^ The AmCri- ABLE EXHIBITIONS OF AMERICAN ENTER- can product of sheet iron and sheet steel for roof- PRISE WHICH LEAVE NO DOUBT OP ^^S, galvanizing and domestic purposes, such as THE SUCCESSFUL EST ABLI shmeot: ^'^"^ '^,^'^'^"' °* Stovepipe, conlhods, breadpans, etc.. already amounts to quite 200,000 tons, a product- OF THE NEW INDUSTRY. ive value of not less than 815,000,000. Some With a singular fatuity the Free-Trade advocates slight changes were made by the McKinley Act in have consolidated their opposition to the new the tariff on sheet steel for the especial purpose of Tariff biU upon its tin-plate provisions. They rendering our iron and steel workers competent have, however, this excuse for their policy, that to go ahead with the manufacture of that partiou- if they are forced to admit that a new industry lar quahty_ of steel sheet used for tinned plates, ol immense proportions has been created here by and as many as four firms— Jennings Brothers & the tariff they are robbed of their only effectual Co., of Pittsburg; the St. Louis Stamping Corn- argument against Protection. When the McKin- pany ; P. H. Laufman & Co., of ApoUo, Penn., and ley bill went into effect the American people were the United States Iron and Tin-PIate Co., of Demm- consumers of 737,735,029 pounds of tin plates an- ler, Penn.— are now producing such plates. There nually, and not a single pound of them was made are certainly as many as sixteen or twenty other or tinned in the United States. They had cost establishments to wliich their production is per- the jieople at the foreign price in 1890 §23,074,214, fectly easy, and which of course wiU produce as and during the period of twenty-five years ending the demand for them increases, with 1889 the tremendous sum of §320,037,362 Getting down at last to the real question that had gone from America to England for tin plates, confronts those who advocate the policy of ruak- There is nothing essentially difficult in the manu- ing our own tin plates and of saving to our own facture of tin plates. As a present mechanical labor and capital the enormously profitable trade problem it is utterly insignificant. It consists, which has hitherto gone unchallenged to England, first, in the manufacture of bar steel. That, of it is found to consist of nothing whatever beyond course, is now of no account in the problem, for any the possibility of oui being able to coat with tin plant that is capable ol producing steel rails is a home product of steel already provided or safely J 8 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. guaranteed. How much of a question tliis is contrary, although we take fuUy three-fourths of any one can judge for himself. It is impossible the entire output of the Welsh factories, although to imagine a simpler process than the coating of they exist only for tliis market, they are selling black plates with tin. It is the work of thirty their product here at a price greatly in excess minutes. The plates are washed in sulphuric acid of its fair value, and the chief argument of those to get out all imperfections, and then in clear American metal-workers who desired Congress to water. They are rublied with sand to render their surfaces smooth, and are dipped in palm-oil, which serves as a flux. Then they are dipped in tin, sometimes in one pot of metal and sometimes in two or three, and then they are allowed to become cold and are rubbed down. Tliat done, the tinneU plate is ready to be assorted, packed and sold. What there is in this process to discourage American ingenuity it is difficult to perceive. What there is in the way it has to be done to dis- courage American labor is quite another matter. From beginning to end it is a manual process. The plant is simple , and wholly inexpensive. There is a pot of acid, another of water, another of oil and two or three of metal, a box of sand, a box of sawdust and a sheepskin rubber. That is the sum and substance of a tin-nlate factory and the product of the factory is great or small in direct proportion to the number of these sets of pots contained within it. Each set, however, must have seven workmen, and they must do all the work by hand. They must soak the plates in the acid by hand. They must wash them in water by hand. They must rub them smooth and dry by hand. They must din them in oil by hand and in the metals by hand. They must rub tliem down by hand. The entire process is one of manual labor. There is a ma- chine consisting of a series of rollers, which, after tho plates are coated, is used to make their surfaces bright and smooth, but the function of this thing is to scrape off the metal, not to put it on. or. in other words, to economize tin at the ex- pense of the auality of the plate. It is not used at all in the manufacture of the best auality of tin plates either for roofing cr domestic purposes. Its one object is to cheapen the manufacture by reducing the thickness of the coating and by so much as it is used the plate is deteriorated. But except for this machine, the process of tin-plate making is a process of human labor. The prob- lem, as it really exists, relatesi to the rate of wages paid abroad and the rate demanded here. In Wales aU labor is cheap. The best me- chanics receive wages that no American employer would thinii of proposing. Female labor is also extensively used in the tin-nlate factories and it is half as chelap again as the cheap male labor. It being perfectly clear that there is no climatic or mechanical dif- ficulty in the way of our providing ourselves with ova own tin-plates, that we already produce the bar steel and are equipped to roll this kind of sheet steel as we now roll other tinds, and that the difficulty relates to wages, and to nothing else, here, then, is the question : Is it worth while by taxing foreign plates heavily to give our manufacturers the chance to take our market? It is admitted that there would be a fail' opportunity for controversy here if we were obtain- ing as consumers the benefit of the cheap labor of Wales. But that is not the fact. On the increase the tin-plate duty eo that they could manu- facture here was that they would be able, not- withstanding their increased expense in wages, to sell at even lower rates than the foreign product was bringing in the summer of 1889. Their propo- sition to the American people, reduced to its sim- plest terms, was this: You are now buying 360,- 000 tons of foreign tin-plate annually, on which there is only a revenue duty; in 1889 you paid for this product, including the duties, $a8,'J81,- 668 ; all that went to employ foreign labor and to sustain foreign industry ; you paid for the iron and steel imported in those plates much more than you paid our protected steel-workers for the iron and steel used in domestic steel rails and sheet st«el ; you received, as consumers, no bene- fits from the cheap labor employed in making these plates and tinning them, but they cost you as much as if they had been made at the Amer- ican rate of wages ; your three-quart coffee-pot that cost you 25 cents cost the British maker less than 11 cents; your pint tin-cups that cost you 5 cents cost him less than 2 ; your twelve-quart dishpan that cost you 35 cents cost him less than 14 ; he charged the American workingman 50 cents for a dinner kettle that cost Mm only 12 cents, and these comparisons fairly illustrate the difference throughout the tin-plate trade be- tween what his goods, cost him and what he got tor them from the American public. We ask you, then, that a high tariff be levied on his products, and we wUl make such products here ; we will increase the American consumption of American iron-ore by 1,000,000 tons annually, of limestone 300,000 tons, of coal and coke 2,000,000 tojis, of pigiron 400,000 tons, of lead 5,500,000 pounds, of tallow and oil 13,000,000 pounds, of sulphuric acid 40,000,000 pounds, and of lumber 12,000,000 feet; we will employ 35,000 Ameri- can workingmen, and pay them $20,000,000 in wages, and we will sell you tinware cheaper than you get it to-day; we will do this substantially within a period of six years from the date of the new tariff, or, if we fail, you can take the in- creased duty away ; it can do you no great harm meanwhile, for the foreign tin-plate-maker is al- ready charging you prices so much greater than his expenses that he can have no honest pretext for a further increase, and if he makes a further increase it will prove all the more conclusively that we should build up this industry at home, and subject those who sup- ply its product to that same form of competition which has reduced the price of galvanized iron sheets from 7 3-4 cents a pound in I'SSO to 4 1-4 cents in 1889, of 'out nails from $3 68 per keg ia 1880 to $1 60 in April, 1891 : of steel raUs from $67 25 per ton in 1880 to $29 25 in 1889, $31 75 in 1890, while all this time, and, indeed, for fifty years, the price of tin-plate has remained at about the same figures, $6 in May, 1880, $4 25 in June, 18,89, $5 05 in June, 1891. BIG ISSUES OF AK OFF YEAJt. 19. Vheae wpre tlie arguments that convinced Con- gress of tlie wisdom of transforming the tin-plate ■duty from a revenue duty to a protective duty. ■Certainly, if tlie desirahility of protection can 1)c admitted at all, it must lx> in these circuni- «tanccj. The facts beinj]; eoi-.ceded. it U possible to hold with regard to them only one of two posi- tions—either that the duty should be raised or the American rate of wages should be levelled to the European scale. The principles which apply •here apply in all ti'ades, and if it is proper to abandon the tin-plate industry to foreigners merely because, paying lower wages, they can produce cheaper, though we, who take thrce-fourtlis of their produce, obtain no benefit from their cheaper production, then, of course, every other industry •sliould be abandoned for the same reason, or wo •should accept tlie conditions of their free com- petiticu and reduce our labor with our tariff. ■Congress did r.ot take the fiee-trade view. It raised the tariff, providing that the new rates sliould go into effect on July 1, 1891, and that if by July 1, 1897, the product of domestic plates in any year between those dates has not equalled •one-third the amouut of the plates imported in any year bctwee:i those dates, tin-plate on October 1 following should go on the free list. Nothing could be fairer than this, and its fairness will be admitted by such Free-Tradcrs as are not essen- tially incapable of seeing more than one side of a question. It simply affords American metal, ■workers the chance to see what they can do. The new tariff has not yet gone into effect, but already the free-trade press is crying out with a funny air of triumph, and as if the whole con- troversy as to our power of production under the new law had lieen settled before it Tias been so much as opened, that no American tin-plates are now bjing made except for the purpose of political «how. Tlu3 is not true, but what if it were? If the challenge thrown out l)y the new law is accepted, and if the Free-Traders are willing to stand or fall— as certainly the Protectionists are— upon tihe issue, it can scarcely l>e pretended that the time to test the law's cfHcacy is before it has gone into operation ! The proper time is fixed in the law— on July 1, 1807. If by that time nothing has been accomplished, Protectionists ■wUl be compelled to admit that something has gone wrong. They are not alarmed, however, at the prospect. American enterprise has already accomplished a remarkable work. To make light of it is to be silly, to deny it is to be dishonest, and to claim that American skill is unequal to the task is to insult the most inventive and successfully indus- trial nation on the globe. American tin plates are already selling in the open market— not in large quantities, of oouxse, nor in great varieties, but sufficiently to satisfy their manufacturers that they can easily and profitably produce at current prices. Several of the manufacturers now at work are themselves enormous consumers of tin plates, a fact which has stimulated them to make haste in establishing their works. They are themselves using their entire product, and would do so were it many times greater than it now is, but this of course does not affect the practical point that they are commercially producing. Such establishments are the St. Louis Stamping Company, NortoTi Brothers, of Chicago, and Somers Brothers, of Brooklyn, all of wliom are now tinning plates and Imilding mills to roll their black plates from the steel bars. The United States Iron and Tin Plate Company, of Denmmler, Penn., P. H. Laufman cperiraent shows bad results. But the only way to find out how it will work is to give it an houe.st, fair trial. Of course this method will not please the man- ufacturers of the old world or their allies, the " revenue reformers, " on this side of the ocean. They fear that it wiU work well, and that fear will prompt them to seek its repeal before any chance is had to test its practical working. It is not the well-being of the people of the United States that these foreigners seek to promote. They desire to get possession of the marfcets of tliis country sim- ply to help themselves ; by no means for the pur- pose of aiding us. Remember that it is not the first time that Re- publicans have been called upon to stand by their colors when the surroundinss looked dark. Im- mediately after the first battle of BuU Run the very men, both here and in Great Britain, who are now so full of joy were exultant at our defeat and called for an abandonmcint of our cause. Yes, they even declared that the contest had been decided against the Union. Abraham Lincoln answered their triumphant yeU by calling lor 300,000 more men. The future historian will write it down that what seemed a terrible disaster at the time was really a blessing in disguise. After five days, of fearful fighting in the Wilderness, almost any other Gen- eml than Grant would have advised a retreat, or at least the digging of trenches and building ol fortifications. Not so with this matchless soldier. His order was : " Let the men rest to-night ; wg go forward to-morrow." And so they did. Once the country went wild on the Greenback craze. The elections went badly, and the oredi* and prosperity of the Nation seemed to be threat- ened. The enemy said then : " You RepubUcana must yield ; must back down ; your resumption business will ruin the Nation." Some timid men in our own ranks recommended the heeding of such ad\T.ce, but wiser counsels prevailed. Out ■ party was right and kept steadily on in the line of duty. Resumption came, and with it not ruin but prosperity. So say we now. Protection is right. It has done wonders for the building up of this country i it can do much more in the future. The MoKia- 23 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAE. ley bill is a protective measure, drawn with, great care and ability, studied, revised and amended by able men. Its lines all run in the right direction. It was made for the purpose and the sole pur- pose of building up our own country ; to help the business of our own peo- ple. That is what the men who framed that bill believed it would do. I agree with them. The records of the past teach that such must be the reisult. To do all these things, the bill must be put into, operation, and ample time must be given to develop its merits. Great industries do not spring up in a day. Ajmple factories for the making of such an article as tin-plate cannot be built in one night. The only test of such a measure is to, be found in its practical workings. So give this bill a fair, honest, faithful trial. It is no time now to be taUiiing even about amendments. To any free- trade Democrats wlio insist upon tinkering with this bill at the present session, one reply only shoMld be made. Tell them to keep quiet, to take a rest. The bill as it is can be defended, if it shall need any defence. The falsehoods and mis- representations about its provisions can and will be explained. When understood it will be found that no bill was ever enacted more in the inter- est of our entire people. Believing that the measure is a good one, let the word be passed among the entire rank and file : " I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer." E. G. HvORE. THE ALLIANCE IN DANGER. A WORD or TIMKLY WASNING TO SINCEEE FAEIIEES. CONCENTRATION UPON THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH THE FARMERS' ALLIAaSlCB WAS ACTUiAIJjT ORGANIZED ABSOLUTET NECESSAiRT. I desire to say a few words to the men who are just now controlling the Farmers' AlHanco and other similar organizations in the United States. No man is more ready than I am myself to admit that, for a few years past, the men who live by tUling the soil have been in serious trouble throughout the entire coimtry. The price of farm products has been low. ruinously low. Fanners have struggled long and hard to get ahead in the world. Each year hasi found them no better off than the year before. Indeed, in many cases, they have run behind, in spite of all they could do. Year after year came one disaster after another, until they began to ■lespair of ever get- ting relief. IN'o wonder tnat, linally, they began to look about to see if they could not find some remedy for their feai'ful condition. Upon doing so, they found the country full of organizations formed for the purpose of protecting their mem- bers and their spoeial interests. Many of these combinations s?cmed prosperous: some of them showed grea.t power and m.arvellous results. Why could not farmers do what others did ? What rea- son could any one urge against their malnngi the attempt? Hence sprang up the Farmers' Alli- ance, the Patrons of Husbandry, and kindred or- ganizations, all over the country. They were- all born of a deep sense "f actual wrong, whiclv farmers believed, they were suffering from the hands of organized capital and a favored tew ; and they started out with the full determination to right that wrong at all hazard. The feeling wasi natural, and tlie effort to benefit their con- dition was commendable. These various organizations grew with great ra- pidity, and seemed to be animated bj' one single- purpose, that of securing relief for real distress. In the outset the leaders of each and ever.y one of thenb declared openly and repeatedly that they were- going to unite with no political party and would be controlled in the interest of no political as- pirants. They further declared that they should support for office only .such men as were pledged to support their needed measures, men whom they believed were • in sympathy with the- objects they had in view, and the members of no existing party would be shown any preference. In the early days of their organizations they seemed sincere in sucli utterances. But the moment their strength be- came apparent from increasing numbers, men be- gan to seek membership from purely poUtieal motives. Then came the dangerous point in their existence. The cemetery of dead organizations of this kind in the past is fuU of graves, on the headstones of which is written one and the same- inscription, "Died of political intrigue." Just the moment the people of the country ever come to believe that such an organization is sim- ply an annex of any political party, its purposes- begin to be questioned, its integrity becomes doubtful ; it loses the sympathy of honest frienda and its power for doing good begins to be weak- ened if it does not cease altogether. Indeed, worse than that, it wUl soon be looked upon with suspicion for having abandoned the good work it started out to perform, and for having become the tool of mere political tricksters. I have already admitted that there is a plenty of good, honest work for such, organizations. Great good might be accompUshed bj- them if they worked simply with an ej'e single to tlie busi- ness on hand. The recent action of the Farmers' AUianoe in stepping aside from its regular work and passing resolutions, at the solicitation of partisan leaders, against the passage of the Elec- tions bill, illustrates exactly what I mean. That is a bill for the simple purpose of securing to all the workingmeu of this country their constitu- tional right to have a voice in the election of our Federal office-holders. Pray what is there in such a measure that should call for a protest from a body of men assembled for the purpose of benefit- ing the cause of agriculture ? What has that bill t« do with the price of grain or the transportation! of hogs and cattle ? How does that reach the ■no.M^er of dairy products or the payment of farm. mortgages f In what way does that bill tend -to create monopolies and give wealth an undue ad- vantage over men who live by tilUng their little farms? Why should a body of men congie^ja^i bk; issues of an off yemi. 23 for the special purpose of looking after the Inter. ests and well-being of farmers turn aside from ita regular work to grant a request coming from a set of men who are simply trying to stifle at the polls the voice ol' more than one milUon legal citizens who Live by tilling the soil? Such exhibitions of partisan zeal as that must shake the confidence of thinking farmers in the real object of their delegates, and, in the end, must lead up to disintegration and death, because the great mass of our farmers have been noted in the past for their love of fair play and honest elections. Another point. Tlie farmers of the United States have also heretofore been distinguished for their conservatism, for being level headed. When other men became excited and unreasonable, they kept cool. When otlier men rushed olf into "isms" and side-shows, the farmers kept straight, ahead in old and well-beaten paths. When the country was in danger from civil foes, they were self-sacrificing and patriotic. When some men started out with hair-brained schemes for the abolition of poverty and the destruction of values, they remained true to the tradition of the fathers and stood by the experience of the ages. Of such a record our farmers have reason to be proud. The danger now seems to be that their new organizations will fall un- gages, incurring risks and suffering losses for 2 per cent a year! The scheme is so visionary and absolutely beyond the legitimate purposes for which Governmenfs are instituted, that no man of business sense will ever entertain it for a single moment. Yet, we flnS such a scheme meeting with favor in the delibera- tions of these new organizations. Were our Gov- 24 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAH. ernment once to enter upoai any such business, we would instantly become the laughing-stock oJ all sensible men the wide world over. What a notion it is that all the ills and diffi- culties of life can be obviated by passing statutes ! The creation of value comes only through work of some kind. What Governments should be in- stituted and supported lor is to see to it that all have a fair chance m the production of values. There is no reason m the world why a Government should go into the banking business which would not also lead it to engage in every other kind of business in the known world, and that would end in Socialism in its rankest form. My word for it, it will be a long time before you will get the able, thoughtful farmer of this country to indorse any such wOd scheme. Another effort that is being made is to lead the members of these organizations into the camp of the Free-Traders. Heretofore, a lar^^e proportion of the farmers of the United Spates have been Protectionists. A large majority of them stm believe in Protection: As they examine the ques- tion more carefully they will see that their only salvation in the future hes in building up new industries, which will divert the stream of sur- plus laborers from agricultural pursuits and turn It into channels of other kinds of productive employment. They will understand that this can never be successfully done unless our laws are so framed as to give our own workmen preference over the cheaper labor of the outside world. Let me repeat, if these new organiza- tions insist on joining hands with the cohorts of free trade, they will drive from their ranks large numbers of men who would otherwise work in hojmony with them-men who have no faith in these dootjines which originate among the cap- italists and manufacturers of England, and which are adopted and advocated in this country mostly by the importing agents of those foreign gentle- men. There are many gray-haired farmers now living on the cultivated lands of the United States who distinctly remember the woe, the distress,* the actual desolation among the farmers of 1857, brought about by the low tariff enacted by the Demooratio party. These old men will never con- sent to repeat that experiment. Hence, I again say, if the members of these new organizations would be successful, would seek to secure length of days for their associations, they must rise above partisan political connections. They must devote themseU^ to the work they first assumed to do. Just so sure as they enter into an allianoe to pre- vent an honest ballot and a fair count for all our voting citizens, just so sure as they adopt the wild vagaries and impracticable dreams of the be- lievers in fiat money, just so sure as they persist in an attempt to lead their followers into the camp of the English-loving, American-Tiating Free- Traders, just so surely will their power for doi»g good be destroyed and the days of their useful ness be numbered. E. G. HOEB NEW SUGAR EEFINEKIES. o'lr: I liave been reading E. G. Horr's articles in your Weeiay issue. You invite Inquiries, so liere goes a question to Mr. Horr. Can you tell me how in the world it is, tliat the merchants are buUding sugar reflneries In Baltimore now that we have free sugar, or I may say free trade m that article? Why build sugar refineries now when they would not build them under protection ! J. K. Baltimore, Md., March 12, 1891. Our correspondent has evidently omitted to ex- amine the law on sugar, or he would hardly have put his question in that shape. Granulated and refined sugars are not on the free list, only sugars below and including No. 16, Dutch Standard. No. 16, Dutch standard, is a grade of sugar usually known as " Coffee C" in the markets of this country and is a nice article of common sugar for table use. The higher grades of sugar are manufactured in refineries from low- grade, dark-colored sugars which are not fit for family use. These low-grade sugars are all on the free list, but the refined article has a duty of 1-2 cent per pound, so as to enable our citizens who run refineries to pay better wages than they pay abroad and to give them the advantage over foreign manufactures in our own markets. You are mistaken in your inference that no one under the old law built reflneries in this country. There were many in the United States, and, un- less I am misinformed, several in Baltimore. The reason why more are being- Iniilt in that city now, is that some men, having money, have con- eluded that with low-grade sugar free they can make money refining sugar, ev^n with a low pro- tective duty of 1-2 cent a pound on foreign refined sugar. I hope they will succeed in the enterprise and make their investment pay. Sugar, Botli low and liigh in grade, will be cheaper to our consumers under the McKinley bill than ever before. If, at the same time, we build more prosperous re- fineries and then still more, if the bounty on sugar stimulates the growth of beets and the man- ufacture of low-grade sugar at home, I will l>e almost happy concerning- the situation on the sugar question. What says J. K. ? E. G. H. — ♦ ■ — HENEY CLAY ON PEOTECTION. In 1824 Henry Clay, in one of his wonderful speeches, made the following statement: It is most desirable tliat there should be both a home and a foreign market. But -with respect to their relative superiority I cannot entertain a doubt. The home marhet is first in order and paramount in im- portance. This home market, desirable as It is, can only be created and clierislied by the protection of our own legislation against the inevitable prostration of our industry wliich must ensue from the action o( foreign policy and legislation. If I am asked why un- protected industry should not succeed in a struggle ■with protected industry, I answer: The fact has ever been so, and that is sufticient. I answer the uniform experience evinces that it cannot succeed in such a struggle, and that is sufficient. If we speculate on the causes of this universal truth, we may differ about them. Still the indisput-able fact remains. The cause of protection is the cause of tiie country, and it must and "will prevail. It is founded on the interests and affections of the people. It is as native as the granite deeply embosomed in our mountains. In spite of such a declaration from such a man we have no end of the puny college striplings who go up and down our country claiming that men of brains are never protectionists, and that the great American system has in it no elements of permanency. Go and aslc Henry Clay and he will tell you to go and aslc the " graaiitB hills of New- England" whether they po.ssess staying qualities. Truth may now ami then receive a set-back, but in tihe end ti-uth is a stayer!— (R. G. H. BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. 25 ABOUT MILLIONAIRES. A REMARKABLE LIST AND WHAT IT TEACHES. A FREE-TRADE LIE ABOUT THE TAIRIPF EFPECTU- AliLT NAILED TO THE COUNTER. I desire to call the attention of the readers of The Tribune to the following list, which is taken from "The "New-York World" of Sunday, the 7th of December, 1800: Men of Millions. —The Greatest Aggregation of Wealth in the World.— As fortunes go nowadays in America one of $10,000,000 is not considered particularly great. There are thirty-live fortunes of that or greater magnitude in tliis country. There are three men who are worth 1*100,000,000 or more. The list of the Americans who count their wealth at $5,000,000 and above is as follows: John D. RoolceteUer tfl25,000,000 William Waldort Astor 125,000,000 Jay Gould 100,000.000 Cornelius VanUerbllt 80,000,000 Willlani K. Vanderbllt 75.000,000 ■CoUls V. Huntlington 40,000,000 Russell .Sage 35,000,000 John I. BlalT 30,000.000 William Rock«toller .-. 30,000,000 Dalaud .Stanford :)0.000,000 Mrs. HcU.v Cfreen 30.000.000 Wllltam Astor _ 30.000,000 Darius O. Mills 25.000,000 Philip D. Aimour 2.'), 000, 000 Mrs. Mark HoplUns 25,000,000 Charles docker estate 25,000,000 Henry Hilton 20.000.000 L. S. HIgslns estate 20.000,000 ■George Westlnghouse. ir 15,000,000 Anthony D. Drexel 15,000,000 J. Plerijout Morgan 15,000,000 Andrew Carnegie 15,000,000 •Oliver H, Payne 1.5,000.000 Frederick W. Vandorbllt 15,000,000 - always designated by weight. 28 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAU. After a while certain pieces of gold and silver came to be called by some simple names, and the people came to talk about the value of property, as expressed by a certain number of these named pieces or coins. In that way people came to lose sight of the exact weight of metal in each piece. Different nations gave a different name, according to accident or fancy, to the piece in most common use among the people of each nation. In that way, value came to be expressed by naming the number of certain coins. That value was stUl reaUy determined by the weight of pure metal contained in each coin, though not always thought of when naming them. In this way, Anally, the people came to demand a uniformity of metal in each named piece, and so resorted to legislation which was simply intended to fix the exact amount of pure metal contained in each size of coin. Thus, by slow growth, the governments of the world learned to select certain metals as a standard of value with which prices could be measured and named. By a similar slow process a definite measure of distances was long ago fixed. Originally the space between two places was designated by p.aces, or so many times a day's journey. Those terms were soon found to be indefinite and variable. To-day we use the terms "inches," "feet," "rods," " miles," as being something very simple and easy, yet they are the result of long ages of slow growth and careful, patient study. The same can be said of weights. So the terms " sovereigns, " "francs," "doubloons" and "dollars " are the out- growth of long and slow development. Each nation finally named how much of each metal should be contained in each of its coins ; and for many centuries the unit of value has been fixed by each nation naming a certain coin as its stand- ard, and then naming the amount of pure metal that should be contained in each coin, declaring by law that aU contracts should be drawn ex- pressing amounts to be paid with that unit as the measure of value. The United States called its unit of value the "dollar," the same as the "foot" is made the unit of measure for distance and the " pound " the unit of measure for weight. The term " dollar, " used in that way, had no, definite meaning until the amount of pure metal to be contained in each piece was fixed by the same statute. It matters not what name each nation may give to its unit of value, the coin so struck off has, in the markets ■of the world, simply the value that is determined by the weight of pure metal contained in it. Hence, the moment any coin leaves the nation that has coined it, its value is at once determined by its weight, precisely the same as it would have been ages ago, when it had never been formed into the shape of coin or stamped by the Government. Some nations made their standard of measure a certain amonnt of silver ; others, a certain amount of gold. The common use of the two metals as money soon led to an attempt to fix the Tatio of value between the two. In this way, in this country, it was ordered that a gold piece called an "eagle" in order to be worth ten dollars must have in it an amount of gold which would be worth exactly the same amount as the weight of silver which was first contained in tern silver dollars. It can readily be seen that if these two metals never changed at all in their relative value the value of an eagle or any other gold coin could be reached with great ease and with perfect accuracy. GOLD THE STAWDASD IN AMERICA. The first unit of value in the United States was the silver dollar, which, according to law, must contain 371 1-1 grains of pure silver. The same act provided that 24 3-4 grains of pure gold should be the equivalent of the silver dollar of 371 1-4 grains. The amount of pure sUveir contained in a silver dollar has never been changed in the United States. In 1849 an act was passed directing the coin- age of gold dollars. They were issued the same year and contained only 23 22-100 grains of pure gold. The act of 1873 made this gold dollar the unit of value, instead of the silver dollar. This is the act which is said by the silver men to have " demonetized silver. " The present weight of the silver dollar is 412 1-2 grains including the alloy, and that has been the weight of the silver dollar of the United States since 1837. Previous to that time it weighed 416 grains; but the increase in weight was in the alloy and not in the amount of pure silver con- tained in each piece. Since the passage of the act of r873, sUver, as compared with gold, has greatly depreciated iu value. By that act our Nation became what is called " a gold standard nation. " Immense quan- tities of silver, since the passage of the " Bland Act," have been coined into silver dollars con- taining 371 1-4 grains of pure silver, which was tor so many years the standard of value in the United States, and hence they are commonly known as " standard" silver dollars. But the silver from which these dollars have been coined has been purchased by the Government at its gold value. Consequently while the Government is- sues each standard dollar as being equal in value to the gold dollar (which is, now the unit of value in this country) it does not put into such silver dollar neaily as much silver as such a gold dollar will purchase. Hence we have in circulation in the United States a large amount of silver money, which can be used in this country at its, face value, which in the markets of the world is worth less than 75 cents on the dollar. The men who are in favor of the " free coinage" of sUver insist that the demonetizing of silver, by decreasing its use, has cheapened silver ; and that by the same act which made the gold dollar our unit o,f value an enornious increase m the use of gold was occasioned, and, that, consequently gold has appreciated in value. The men who believe in the gold standard claim that the depreciation of silver has been brought about by the large increase of production and by the cheapened pro- cesses of mining and smelting ; and they also claim that the value of gold has been nearly sta- tionary compared with other products of the world. HOW PAPER MONET CAME TO BE USED. While, at an early day, nearly all the money of the world was either gold or sliver, at a very BIG ISSUUa OF AN OFF YEAK. 'ft early date people besan to use as evidence of value " promises to pay" certaiu sums of money These written promises were undoubtedly in com- mon use long bcfori- such a thins sis a bunk not« was ever Icnown. By a slow pruccHs of growth, banks were authorized by law to issue their own promissory notes as money. After another lapse of time, Gavernnients issued tbo promissory notes of the nation itself to supply the needs of the Gov- ernment. These, iiov^ever. were always simpl.v promissory notes, and had no other stflndin?, with this c.vceptlon, that the Government made them a lesal tender for tlie payment of debts between individuals, sometWng: which no nation, so far as I know, has ever done for any notes issued by any individuals or by any banking institutions. Out of tills power, assumed and exercised by the gen- eral Government, lias grown up the notion that the Government, by its mere edict, can create value in legal tender notes. The history of the world proves beyond all con- troversy that such legal tender notes can be kept at i)ar witli the coin standard of the country onlj- when they are redeemed by the Government on presentation in hard cash. They arc subject to precisely the same fluctuations as are the notes of Individuals and corporate institutions. Very larjre sums of such paper obligations have been issu- ed by various Governments of the world and have afterward become absolutely worthless. The as- slgnats of France, the Continental money of the United States and the legal tender notes of the late Sonthern Confederacy may tie given as instances of the utter absence of value in such paper money, except when constantly redeemed by the maker in gold or silver money. The exchanges of the world to-day are very largely carried on without the actual use of either gold or silver. By the nse of bank checks, sight drafts, and Clearing House oerEiiicates business to the amount of many millions of dollars is trans- acted every day without the counting or handling of a single coin or a paper dollar. OTving to these facts, people have come to look upon paper rep- resentations of money as the money itself. They forget that each and every one of these transac- tions, if genuine, can be traced to the gold or silver which is always the real, though not apparent, basis of the transaction. THE " FREE COINAGE" IDEA. All of these things combined liave created the impression among very many people that the Government by its mere fiat power can give ac- tual value to silver or gold without regard to quantity, and tO' paper promises without provid- ing for their redemption in metal. Hence a large number of people in the United States have come to believe that if the Government of the United States would pass a law making 371 1-4 grains of Sliver our unit of value, and then declare that a " dollar" containing that amount of pure silver should be the equivalent of a gold dollar contain- ing 22 8-10 grains of pure gold, the two pieces would instantly become of equal value, or nearly BO, all over the world. They therefore seek to have the law so arranged that every individual on the face of the earth who shall bring to the United States Mint 371 1-4 grains of silver shall receive for the same a coin named a " dollar" from the Government, and that such silver '■ dollar" shall be a legal tender for all purposes in the United States without any regard to the price of sil- ver in the markets of the world. Tliat is wliat is now meant by "free coinage of silver." It such were to be the result, it the two " dollars" would at once become equal in value, no one would op- pose the free coinage of sliver. Many people do not believe that this Nation alone can produce any such result. There are those wlio do not laelieve, even if all the nations of the world should agree upon the ratio between tlie two metals, that all of them combined could keep the ratio the same at all times. Those who do not desire the free coinage of sil- ver claim that such coinage would result in driv- ing the gold out of the United States, and that all our business would very soon be done with a cheap currency which would derange commeTClai transactions and work a great hardship to people who work for wages and those who have invested their means in loans. The silver men claim that such a law would advance the price of sUver and decrease the price of gold so that the two metals would be equal in value at the same ratio as in former years, and that money would become cheaper only on account of its greater abundance, and that such a result would make it easier tor people to pay their debts and obtain a living. There are those who believe the free coinage of silver would simply put large profits into the pockets of men who o\vn silver mines, or who are holding silver bullion on speculation, and that the (jtovernment has no more right to fix the price of silver by legislation and then take all the silver at that price than it would have to fix a high price on wheat or corn and oats, and then take those articles at such advanced price, to the great advantage of those who have them to sell, but at the expense of the rest of the people. SO RASH EXPERIMENTS. This question of money is one so complicated in all its bearings, so far-reacMng in. its im- portance, and so intricate in its workings, that experiments with new theories and new methods should be entered upon with gi-eat caution. Any effort to do business with a depreciated measure of value must always end in disaster. Value is sometliing that cannot be given to an article by legislative enactment. All forms of paper money must be of necessity simply ■' promises to pay " in something of actual value. Any effort to make a small quantity of any arti- cle equal in value to a larger quantity of the same article must end in failure. Oui' Govern- ment should stand ready to join with the other nations of the world in agreeing upon some ratio of value between gold and silver, so as to keep both of these metals in use as legal money. Afi long as other moneyed nations refuse to enter into such an arrangement it seems to me idle for the Government of the United States, single-handed and alone, to attempt to force any fixed ratio upon the world. If legislation is wisely taken it seems to nie 30 BIG ISSUES OF AN OIT YEAiJ. that it will be confined to utilizing the silver produced in the United States, and not looking after that of the Old World. This can safely be done by enforcing our present E.ws. In doing this there is little risk. Why then resort to the experiment of " free coinage " for the silver of all nations, especially when such a plan is con- demned by a large majority of the men in this country who have had great experieiuee in finan- cial matters ? I do not claim to be much of an authority on the money question. Indeed, the more I study It the less certain I am as to wliat will be the result of lany proposed legislation For that reason, I would let well enough alone. Under no possible conditions does it appear to me best that we should make it an object for the people •of the Old World to bring their silver here for coinage by ofEering them-a chance in that way to dispose of it at much more than the value which is accorded to it in the markets of the world. How couJd such a law benefit our own people? I would have the laws' of this country so framed as to bless, first and all the time, the people living m the United States. E. G. HOEB. DUTIES AND WHO PAY THEM. QUESTIONS BY AN ILLINOIS MAN. DO THE POOR OR THE KIOH. THE FOREIGNER OR THE CITIZEN, PAT THE DUTIES ON IMPORTED GOODS? To the Editor of The Tribune. Sir : I, a farmer, would like to have the following questions answered through the columns of your valuable paper. Answei-s by E. G. Horr preferred: 1. AVould a duty levied on an article produced in this country, or one not produced here, bring moro money to the Treasury, a like amount being consumed! 2. What Is the proportion of rich to poor in the Trnlted States? Draw the line where a poor man ends and a rich one begins that was used by R. G-. H. In Ws article on the "Tariff of Great Britain." B. The proportion of tariff paid by the rioh and poor in the United States. 4. The amount of tariff coUected in the United ■States for the year 1890. 5. Give the names of a few importers that you Unow who are compelled to contribute tariff funds to inn tills nation and do not get It back from the con- sumers. A clear, concise answer to above q^uestloms would add much to the information of myself and others who are not informed as to the above.' Yours respectfully. SAMUEL HOLMES. Beason, lU., May 20, 1891. I am somewhat in doubt as to whether this correspondent has so shaped 'his first inquiry as to ask the real question he intended to. No duty is ever levied on any article produced in this country, but we do levy duties on similar arti- cles that are produced in other countries, and fiuoh. duties are paid only on such articles as come in from abroad, and never on any articles When produced in this country. iWhen a duty is levied on any kind of an arti- cle none of wMch is produced in the United States, of course more money woukl go into the Treasury from that duty than would Ije collected from duties on that kind of goods if part of them were produced in this country. For example, if one-half the starch used by our people were made in our own country, and one-half of it abroad and a tariff dutj' should be levied on starch, as a matter of course only one-half as much money would be collected from the duty on starch in that ca.se as woulfl be collected from that same duty if we consumed the same amount of starch and made none of it here but imported it all. It seems to me he might just as well have asked me whether the whole of a thing is greater than a part of it. Such a question leads one to fear that it is not asked in good faith. In my work I am always striving to get at the truth, and it is not pleasant to have ques- tions asked except in that same spirit. I hope my fears are groundless, and I will not take counsel of them, but will answer him candidly as one really seeldng information. In reply to the second question, will say that in the article he refers to I used the term poor as applying to those people in England who own no lands, no houses, very little of any kind of property, and who live from hand to mouth upon their daily earnings, such as they are. I used the term rich nabobs as applying to rich ipeo- ple— the titled nobility— the few land-owners and the wealthy merchants and bankers of Eng- land. Does Mr. Holmes dispute the statement as to the comparative number of these two classes? Now, he wants to know on the same basis what proportion of the people in the United States are rich and what poor. I have not the data at hand, so as to be exact, but nowhere near as large a proportion as Will be found in England. I will venture this statement that when you get among what are usually called the common people, you will find in the United States twenty men who are in comfortable circumstances where you will find one in Great Britain. Again, you will find in Great Britain one hundred poor people born in that country— I mean people who have not a hundred dollars' worth of anything in the world— where you will find one born and living in the United States in like destitution. What says our friend Holmes to that statement? Is it true ? Does it give him any information ? Is he able to learn any lesson from such a fact ? To me it is full of meaning. Is not this answer to his second interrogatory definite enough for all prac- tical purposes? As to the third question, it is impossible for me to give the exact proportion of tariff duties that are paid by the rich and by the poor in the United States. So much of these duties is paid by the foreign producers in order to get their goods into our markets that the problem is a difficult one. Then again a very large amount of our duties is collected upon luxuries, articles that are used only by the rich. We levy duties on that grade of goods even when they are not produced in this country, and when we know such duty will increase the cost of the article and wUl be collected trom the consumers. But suoU lilG IsavaS OF AN OFF YEAR. 31 consumers can nlTonl U> pay, and iii suck ciises the ■duty is for rpveiiiip only. Tlie duty on diamonds, Telvet car|)cts, higli-priccd chinaware, ricli laces, expensive sillcs and costly liquors is largely tluu kind of a duty, l)ut none of it is paid by the iahoring classes. Indeed, onr worlting people use very few goods that are imported from abroad wliioh are not either on the free list or wliich are not of those olassi'S, of which our manu- facturers have reduced the price, so that our people are getting tlicui much cheaper than they would be a1)le to had we not established the making of them in the United States. T state that as a simple fact, not as a theory. Is it or is it not true? Since sugar is on tiie free list very few duties are paid by our poorer peo- ple. That was a free-trade tariff, and should have been rcpealocl long ago. A large part of tliat duty did come out of tlie laboring classes. Yet the Free-Traders and Taritf Ktformers in Congress voted .solidly against removing that dut.y. Wliat says our correspondent, was that or was it not a good thing to do? Free sug-.ir was one of the leading features of tlic McKitiley bill. It has cheapened sugar for ever.v family in the United States. Do not forget that the duty on sugar was a revenue duty, not a prot-cotive duty; and such duties are nearly always paid by the consum- ers. Fourth— The duties collected on the importation of foreign goods during the year 1890 amounted to the sum of §325,428,888, of which Sr)5,16l>,7 03 40 "were collected on sugar and molasses. Your fifth and last question is one that I am under no obligation to answer. So far as I now remember I have never claimed that any mere importers ever did much to help run this Nation. As a rule 'they are simply middlemen, who get all they can and pay nothing e.Kcept what they can charge up to their consumers. Our own merchants often do their own import>- ing and i>ay tlie duties tliemselves, and then of course tliey count sucli duties as a part of the cost of such goods and charge their consumers accordingly. But that does not prove that the duty is not paid by the foreign producer. If he has taken the duty out of his price on the goods the merchant may pay the Government the money, but it comes, all the same, from the foreign ma.nufactui-er and is not added to the cost of the articles to the ultimate consumer. Let me illustrate. I need some horses, we will say, to do work in the pine woods. The price of horses is fixed by the market in this country. The home supply is so great that the price ia fixed here. I conclude to buy some horses in Canada. I go there, and do I pay the Canadian his price for a team, without regard to the duty ? By no means. I compel him to put such a price on that team as will enable me to pay the duty and leave the cost for me just what I would have given him for the team if no duty was charged. If you do not think so, go over there and try to buy a pair of pure-blooded mares and see how you will come out. The Canadian farmer will ask you for the mares of the same quaUty for working purposes §60 more than for a span of geldings. Why? Simply because he can sell his mnres tor breeding purposes, and they come into this country free of duty. It will l)e use- less for you to tell him that you want them for work. His reply wiU be, " Then hunt up another team, and I will hunt up another customer. If I sell tliem to you simply as work animals I must deduct the amount of the duty before you will purchase thera ; but as 'brood manes' there is no duty." He knows very well who must pay the duty on a work team. Am I right about this or not? It seems to me so clear that I am some- times inclined to get out of patience with a man who says he cannot see it. If sueli is not the case, pray why do the foreign producers care so much wlicther a duty is high or low? If our people, the consumers, pay the duty, then the foreign producers can get the same price lor their goods, be the duty high or low. Wliy do the foreign producers get up mass-meetings and de- nounce our tariff laws it it, makes no dilTerence in the price they can get for their wares? Let me tell you simply as a matter of information wiiy they act in the way they do; why they send up such a cry ot distress the moment the duty is increased in this country on any class of goods that they have been selling largely in the United States. It is simply because they know from past experience that such a tariff will start tlie making ot the same kind of goods in the United States ; that the producers in the United States will drive down the price, and that if they get their goods into our markets after that they v'lil have to do so by payni!,- the duty them- selves, and that the sum paid will never come back to them from the American consumer. Know- ing that, no wonder they protest. There is no theory about this ; it is a simple statement of facts as to what has taken place scores and scores of times within my memory. Such a result has always followed the levying of a duty on the protective plan. If I am not correct about this, why do the for- eign manufacturers all claim that these duties really come out of them ? They do so claim in their public utterances and in their carefully- prepared resolutions. You never hear any such claim made as to free-trade duties. Why ? Be- cause duties levied on articles that camiot be economically produced in tliis country do not lead to the production of any such articles over here, create no new supply, bring about no competi. tion, and so leave the markets still open to the same vendors, and whatever the duty is it does not come out of the producers, but out of the consumers. The moment you le^-y a protective duty on any article that can be economically produced in this country, you instantly set our people to producing that article, and then we com- pel the foreign producer of similar goods to pay the duty if he would get into our markets. AIL of those foreign producers will tell you that the duty comes out of them. Do they or do they not know how that is ? So my answer to yoiu' last question is that every foreign manufactm-er who sells any article of merchandise in the United States on which a tariff has been levied, if similar articles are being economically produced in large quantities in this country by our own manufact- 33 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAE. urers, then every one of such foreign manufact- urers is compelled to contribute to the support of this Government, in order to get into our mar- kets, and he does not collect the money s,o paid baok from the consumers. It is invaribly deducted from the price paid the foreign producers by our merchants, and so there is nothing to collect back. You ask for a clear and concise answer to your questions. My answers are clear to my own mind, but it is impossible for me to tell whether they will satisfy you. I have not aimed at brevity. but have tried not to be obscure. You may not be convinced, but what I try to do is to so state my propositions that any one can readily see what I am trying to get at. I hope I have at least done that much in this instance. E. G. HOEE. THE TARIFF A BLESSING. A CLEAN-CUT STATEMENT OF THE REAL DOCTRINE OF PROTECTION. SOME COMPIilOATED AND PONDEROUS QUES- TIONS, IN ■ THE PUREST IDIOM OE THE " HIGHER CULTURE " OF BOSTON, OLBARLT AND HAND- SOMELT ANSWERED. To the Editor of The Tribune. Sir- Mr. Horr slated substantially April 15 In Tremont Temple that protection stands or faUs vrith the proposition that protection Itts cheapened the price of our protected goods. I respectfully submit, in be- half of the Boston Question Club, the following ques- tions for your tjioughtful consideration, and hope for an early reply : 1. Why, if it cheapens tlungs, should a tariff he put on and thus cheapen wheat and other products, which form such a large percentage of our exports ? Is it desirable for us thus to cheapen for foreigners the main bulk of what we have to sell abroad ? 2. Wlule claiming, by our protective tarifl, to have cheapened the price of steel rails, glassware, cffocliery, carpets, etc., why do Protectionists aslr, JlcKinley-hke, In the same breath, for an increase of tariff on these self-same articles, to compcusato them for the greater decline of pcice in free-trade England? Is not the necessity of increasing our protection from being under- sold by Free Traders prima facie evidence of a greater declhie of their commodity prices t]ian of oucs? Is not the very asking of an increased rate of protective duty on an article an open confession that Its price has declined more rapidly outside than inside our pro- tected borders ? Else why should we now need hlglier duties than in ISeo ? 3. H 's not the direct primary mtent and effect of ^ariS protection from being undersold generally been to increase the prices of these protected goods ? Then, unless reaction is greater than its parent action, how can the tariff's reactionary, price-reducing effect be greater than its primary price-increasiiig effect? 4. Does not this primacy dearncss proportionally check consumption and consequent production, thus diametrically opposmg that enlarged scale of the world's production which is so undeniably essential t/O cheapness! D. WEBSTER GEOH, President Boston Question Club. No. 616 Wasliington-st., Boston, April 18, 1S91. In answer to this letter from so high a source as the Boston Question Club, permit m»s first to restate just what positions I did take in the Tre- mont Temple debate, and what I also believe to be the positions taken by all Protectionists who have given the subject careful study. The state- ments which I made at that time, as clearly as- was in my power, were these : WHAT MR. HORR SAID IN BOSTON. 1. That there is no civilized nation in the world that does tnot levy some Irind of ta,riir, duties and hence there is no such nation known as a purely free-trade nation. Is that statement true or not ? What says the Boston Question Club ? The members of that club may believe in abso- lute free trade ; may believe that all custom houses should be demolished. I know nothing as to where they stand upon that question, nor does it matter in this debate, because that is not the position against which I was arguing that night. What I desire to do in the outset is to see if we cannot agree, as I go along, on certain existing facts and so in the end eliminate many difficulties from this discussion. 2. I stated that among civilized nations there are two methods of levying tariff duties. One is called the free-trade method ; the other is desig- nated as the protective system. I then stated that under the free-trade plan duties are always levied on articles which the nation levying them does not produce, and that under the protective system such articles (except luxuries) are put on the tree list, and that we levy our duties on importations of those articles which our nation does or can produce. I cited the case of Great Britain, as an instance of a nation which levies its duties on the free-trade plan. I stated that she ooUeots over §100,000,000 each year by reason of tarifl! duties, and that the great bulk of those revenues are levied on tea, coft'ee and tobacco. Am I right in those statemeniB ? I further claimed that whenever a tariff is levied on this free-trade plan (that is to say, on goods the like of which are not produced or can- not be produced in the country where the duty is levied) that such a duty always increases the cost of the article to the ultimate consumer; and when levied on such articles as tea, coffee and tobacco, which are in such common use, that such duties must be paid mostly by the working people of any nation which levies that kind of a tariff. Will the Boston Question Club turn itself into an answering club and tell me whether that posi- tion is correct? England collects as I have stated very large tariff duties on those three articles. Who pays those duties ? Most clearly the men who consume the tea, coffee and tobacco. As in England the poorer people number fuUy six hundred to every one rich nabob, and, as each one of those poor people cohsumcs nearly l-he same amount of those articles that each rich person does, it follows that the great bulk of those duties are collected from the laboring classes. Is that a fact? My next statement was, that under the pro- tective system articles the like of which we can- not produce are placed on the free list, and that BIG ISSUKS OF AK OFF YE.\JR. 33 v/e levy our iliities on foreign articles the like of which we can produce in this country for two purposes: Fii«t, to obtain revenue. Secondly, to give our own people control of our own markets and tluis foster and huild up Industries in the United States, and secure good wages to our work- ing people. I then stated that such duties are paid lart'ely by the foreign manufacturers who are compelled to make these payments in order to get into our markets witli their surplus goods, and that such duties are seldom added to the cost of the aricle to the ultimate consumers. Is that or is it not true ? 3. I further claimed that duties levied on the protective plan tend to build up industries here in tlie Liiitcd States; that under that system a very liirge numl)er of mauufaoturing establish- iiienis have been biiQt and run in this country for mii-iy years wliich never would have beeu established and maintained had it not been for the protection thus given. Is that a fact? 4. Sly next position was that when such in- dustries are once established, they open up a field for American irmenuit.v, set in motion the spirit of Yankee invention, and, by large and uninter- rupted operations, cheapen the actual cost of pro- duction, bring into power the great law of com- petition, save the enormous fees of the importers and, by all these agencies combined, result in these products being sold to the ultimate con- sumers at a lower price than when these goods ■were procured from abroaii, and in all jirobability at a lower price than they would have l)een sold for had no such industries Ijeen estabhshed here in the United States. Do not 'the facts bear me out in that statement? I then stated that unless, in the end, this sys- tem does result in cheapening the cost of goods to the ultimate consumers, and also in paj'ing labor Oetter wages than it receives in any other countries, then I would abandon my belief in protection. I further asked that my free-trade friends sliould agree, if I could show that such protected arti- cles had been constantly going down in price since we began their manufacture in this coun- try, and that during all that time labor had been better paid than in any country which levied a free-trade tariff, then, in that event, they should ■stop calling the protective system "robbery" and should admit that it had worked well for the people of the United States. I now submit to the members of the Boston Question Club whether these are not precisely the positions I took in that debate. I next stated that whether the price of such protected goods had gone down or up in the past thirty years of our protective tariff is a question of fact and not a question of theory. During all those years we had tried the plan thor- Qughly and knew how it worked. I then cited the cheapening of steel rails, cutlery, salt, farming im- plements, glassware, cotton goods, clothing, all kinds of silk goods, wire nails, paper and paper pulp, etc., etc. 1 closed by asking any one in the audience to name a single article, the bulk of which we produce in this country under the protective system, that has not been thus cheapened. Did my opponent name one ? The president of the Bos- ton Question Club, who seems to, have been pres- ent, did not name one ; he has not named one in his letter, but has gone bade to theorizing. I now ask again is that sta'ement correct ? Aiu such an icles all cheaper now ilian tliey were before we began their production in this country? 5. I further stated that a tariff levied for reve- nue only always places the rate of duty at a point which will produce the most revenue for the Gov- ernment, and that such a tarilV, of necessity, gives fweign protlueers command of our markets and is to all intents and pui-poses a free-trade tarilf ; and further, that from such a tarilf none of the ad- vantages of the protective system can possibly fol- low. Is nut that statement also true ? WHY A FEW DUTIES WERE INCRE.\SED. I will no.w turn my attention to the statements in Mr. Groh's letter, and will begin witli tlie second question, leaving the first one for the closing of this article. The first pact of the second question is as follows : " While claiming by our protective tariff to have cheapened the price of steel rails, glassware, crockei-y, carpets, etc., vAhy do Protectionists ask, McKinley-like, in the same breath, for an increase of tariff on tliese same articles, to compensate them for a greater decline of price in free-trade England ?" My answer is that the duty in the McKinley bill on steel rails and ou over 140 other articles is decreaseti and not increased, and tliat where it is increased, it is not done for the purpose of compensating Protectionists or any one else for the decline of prices in the Old World ; but in every instance it is increased for the purpose of enabling our own manufacturers t« carry on their business without a loss, and continue to pay the larger wages prevalent in this country. There is not an instance, so far as 1 am aware, of an incre.ise of duty in the McKinley bill, where such increase was not made simply to foster and build up the manufacture of that article in this country— for the simple purpose ol protecting that industry. Pray, of what use would a tariff for the purpose of protection be if it were not high enough to protect ? We have no power to determine at what starvation point the foreign manufacturer shall compel his workmen to toU^ but we have the power to prevent him from driving the wages of our own workmen down to anywhere near the same point. So, wherever it was found that the tarifE formerly levied on an article had not been suffi- cient to protect oui- workers in that particular industry, then it was increased simply and solely to enable our producers to keep control of our mar- kets, to insure good wages, and to enable our factories to be run continuously so as to cheapen the cost ol production. DECLINE OP PRICES ABROAD. "Is not," the club asks, "the very asking of an increased rate of protective duty on an article a confession that its price has declined more rapidly outside than inside our protected borders ?" It may or it may not be such an admission; but whether it is or not, what has that to do with this question? What Protectionist ever claimed that the building up of our home industries did 34 BIG ISSUES OF AlSf OFF YEAE. not also clieapen tne product abroad ? I as- suredly made no such claim. Of course the establishing of a large industry in the United States and the production on a large scale of any article of merchandise will increase the supply, aiid the tendency wiU be to drive down the' price of that article all over the world. No doubt steel rails have been produced in England cheaper and cheaper, the same as they have in the United States. We soon took advantage of all their improvements. They soon took advantage ol all our inventions. And hereafter, just so long as they pay only one-half as much for labor as we pay, no doubt they will constantly reduce their price of production, the same as we do ours. But what has that to do with the question? The real thing that must be decided is this : What would have been the price of steel rails, not alone in the United States, but all over the world, if we had never established the industry in this country and had never made the large quantities we pro- duce here at home ? I assert that the history of the productions of our country demonstrates beyond all power of contradiction that in case there liad be<>n no sup- ply here there would never have been any such decline in prices anywhere. If this is not the case, will the Boston Question Club tell me why tin- plate has not been cheapened within the last twenty years here in the Uuited States the same as other products of steel and iron have been cheapened ? The part of tin-plate which is pro- tected by our tariff is the 96 per cent of that article which is iron or steel. If free trade in any article would lead to the establishment of an industry, why have we not been making our own tin-plate for the past twenty years ? And if, on the other hand, protection does not lead to the es- tablishment of an industry, |Vhy is it that the passage of the McKinley bill has already started so many companies irito e'^iiatence which are now . preparing to manufacture those goods in this country ? Dare the Boston.- Question Club accept the re- sult in this one industry as a test of its free-trade theories, as against the protective system ? If the doctrines of its free-trade members are true, tin-plate, from this on, will be continually dearer to the consumers in the United States. If the pro- tective doctrine is true, then when these indus- tries are once fully established they will increase the supply, improve the methods of manufacture, dispense with the large commissions paid to the middle men, and in the end will cheapen tin-plate to the ultimate consumers of this country. I am ready now and willing to accept the result in this case as a test of the truthfulness of my position. Time will soon show which theory is the correct one. Dare the Free-Tr^de Question Club of Bos- ton accept so simple a solution of this question ? I ask again, who ever claimed that the result of building up an industry, and so cheapening the article, in this country has not resulted in its also -being cheapened abroad ? That, of course, is always the result. The moment you take away the markets of this, country, you .create a glut in the Old World, and you may drive down the price faster over there than here ; and yet it would often be the case that the oheapeniug of the article, here or there, would never have occurrecE had the industry never been built up here. So. if we should permit our industries to be crippled, and finally ruined, the supply would Ije less, and the price would again advance all over the world. The simple law of supply and demand, other things- being equal, would produce that result. England may alwaj'S undersell us in price just so long as. she gets her labor for one-half the price we pay for ours. Hence it becomes a simple question of the wages of the workingmen. What says the Boston Question Club ? Are wages better in this- country than they are in free-trade England ?' Do you beheve in legislating so as to keep good wages in this country or not ? DIRECT ACTION AND BACK ACTION. Your third question starts out : " Has not the- direct, primary intent and effect of tariff pro- tection from being undersold generally been to in- crease the price of those protective articles ?'' No,, far from it. Of coui'se the intent is to prevent foreigners, from underselling us in our own mar- kets, and that has seldom ever resulted in an in- erease, either primarily or secondarily, in the price of protected goods. But even should an in- crease take place in the price for a short season, while our manufacturers are getting the business- in hand, that will very e,oon be made up by the decrease in price which uniformly follows. Hence, the only question of importance is whether our system results in a permanent reduction of prices. As to the second part of this third question, I have not the slightest idea what it means. I am not posted on the great doctrines of actions and reactions, know nothing of the laws that govern double and twisted reflex action or back action, and do not at present propose to tackle that sub. ject. I did not know, until your letter stated it, that reaction is the child of action. All this m!^ be very profound, but it is entirely too deep for me. Life is too short to be taken up with that kind of play on words. " PRIMARY DEARNESiS." 4. " Does not this primary dearness proportion- ately check consumption and consequent produc- tion, thus diametricaUy opposing that enlarged scale of the world's production, which is so un- deniably essential to cheapness ?'' No ; it does nothing of the kind. In the first place, there is seldom any "' primary dearness." In the second place, the consumption of an article depends very much more on the wages of the masses, which enable them to have something to purchase goods with, than it does upon th© cheapness of any articles. The consumption of articles has constantly increased under the protec- tive system. No doubt large and constant production always leads to the cheapness of goods. The very aim and intent of the protective system is to enable the people o f the United States who produce manu- factured goods to run their factories continuously month in and month out, year in and year out. That is the great factor in producing cheap goods all over the world. So Important is this that a BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. 35 large cstablisUuiciit winking iu\l time the whole year round can pay a larger price for its raw material, pay larger wages to its workingmen, and then undersell to the ullimate consumer, the men who employ cheaper labor, who consume cheaper raw miiterial, but who work witli many interrui^ tions. Is that a fact, or is it not? I say it is. Wliat does the Boston Question Club say? WILL PROTKCTION' CHEAPEN WHEAT. I now come to your lirst question : " Wliy, if it cheapens things, should the tariff be put on, and thus cheapen wheat and other products which form such a large per cent of our exports?" Listen ! It does not follow because a protective tariff, wliicli leads up to large factories and gives constant employment to large numbers of men, and thus cnaliles them to take the greatest ad- vantage of labor-saving machinery and the great power of the division of labor, and so cheapens products— 1 say, it does not follow that the same rule will apply to the products of the farmer. Farmers' products are not manufactured in a weelc or a day. The price of farm products depends largely on matters entirely outside of the cheap- ness of labor or the continuous operation of mills. The wheat crop can be raised only once in a j'ear. No invention, no continuity of labor, will pro- duce a greater number of crops. Tlie amount of wheat raised is limited by the amount of acreage. There are no such limitations upon those produc- ing manufactured goods. I do not claim that the tariff on wheat in the United States, at the present time, will have very much bearing upon its price, so long as we export that article largely. A taritT on that article just now has very little effect, nor was the tariff placed on wheat with a view of affecting its price materially at the present time. Such, however, was nut the case with mosf farm products. The production of wheat in the United States, in ex- cess of our own consumption, is growing less and less each year. There has been a decline of about 10,000,000 bushels a year for the past ten years. In a little while the entire product of wheat in the United States will be consumed by our own people. The moment that that point is reached, the price of wheat wUl be affected by an attempted importation of wheat from abroad. When that time arrives the farmers of this coun- try will need protection against the cheap labor of India and Russia. It is clear to me that the law which cheapens the price of manufactured goods by continuous operation of large factories does not apply with anything like the same force, if at all, to the prod- ucts of the soil. Of course an increased price of an article like wheat or any other farm product would in a very short period stimulate the pro- duction, and result perhaps in cheapening the article ; but in that case the competition would be between our own farmers paying the same price lor their labor, and all contributing to the support of our Government alike. Such a competition would be healthy and should always exist in every cotmtry. That is entirely a different thing from permitting the people of every nation under the gun to dump their surplus farm products into this country, and so disturb and ruin the marJicts of our own farmers. But why do you Free-Trade'rs ask me this ques- tion, You claim that the levying of a duty on an article itself increases the price of tliat article. I believe the price of farm products has been too low in this country for the past five yeais. You will admit, will you not, that an article may be too cheap ? Would you not hke to do something to enable the farmers to get a better price for their grain and horses and hogs ? What says your cliib ? The McKiuley bill attempts to aid these farmers Viy gi\ing them control of our home markets. Are you in favor of that or not ? What says the Boston Question Club ? Would you like to do anytliing that would give these farmers re- lief? The price of a farmer's products determines his wages. The constant anxiety of every Protection- ist is so to manage as to keep up the price of labor in the United States. We make no exception as to classes. We would like to have all the prod- ucts of this country bring a fair price. All the products of the farm are too cheap the moment they get below a point which gives good wages to the men who till tlie soil. Tiie same may be said of the articles produced by all workmen. Cheap- ness alone does not determine the desirability of any system. We care not how cheap you make an article, so long as you do not compel the ex- istence of cheap men aud women, ciieap laborers. Xo nation can be called prosperous that adopts any system which permanently cheapens the work of its men and women below the point of a good, de- cent li\-ing. The same law which might increase the price of the product of the farm may decrease the price of manufactured goods. The same law which wouki raise the price of wool in the market, when ajjphed to continuous manufacturing of wool into [abrics, might result in cheapening the fabric. Existing experimenis prove this stateuient to be true. The result of the Mclvirfty bill, I hope and beUeve, will be to increase the wool product of the United States, to give farmers a better price for their clip, and at the same time produce better and cheaper worsted goods than we have been buy- ing in this country. This may seem anomalous to the members of the Free Trade Club of Boston, but it is clear in my own mind. Here again the result that follows will be the test of whether I am right or wrong. I would not give a fig for any theory if the facts that foUow do not sustain it. A PIJSTAL QUESTION TO THE QUESTION CLUB. I am perfectly satisfied that the McKinley bill will restUt in giving farmers better prices for their products, and also in keeping the price of manu- faotured goods low for the ultimate consumers of these goods ; that it will insure good wages for all laborers in the United States ; keep a large amount of money in this country that would otherwise go abroad : and thus, while securing prosperity to our individuals, will build up and enrich this Nation. I really beheve this. If Protection shall do this , then will the mem- bers of the Boston Question Club also rally tp its 36 Bia ISSUES or an off yeae. support? You predict ruin to tMs country from the operations of that law. I promise exactly the opposite results. Time will demonstrate which oi us is correct. It will then be an existing fact, not a theory. I do so wish that I could get you Eree-Trade gentlemen to agree to abide by the logic of some actual event. Visionary men are always theoriz- ing. Practical business men are always watch- ing results. One takes lessons from his imagina- tion the other from exjierience. li. G. HOliR. IS A HIGH TAEIFF NECESSARY FOE REVENUE ? NO ; THAT IS NOT THE POINT AT ALL ; A HIGH TARIFJ' IS FOR AN ENTIRELT DIF- FERENT OBJECT. To the Editor of The Tribune. Sir: I would be pleased if Mr. Horr would answer these (luestions : First, Does It not take $400,000,000 annually to pay the expenses of the general Government 1 Cau this amount be annually raised without a protective tariff 1 Second, li you decrease the present tariff 30 per cent, as the Democrats want, what amount of money will be actually collected? Third, If we had free coinage of silver how much more money would be in circulation than we now have t Fourth, Is not the Alliance working in the interest ■of the Democratic party? Respectfully, C. K. BOSTICK. Henry, Tenn., June 26, 1891. 1. The expenses of the General Government are fully §400,000,000 each year. They will ■continue to reach that amount so long as, the sum paid for pensions remains as large as it is at the present time. This large amount of money could all be raised without any protective tarifE by simply levying duties on the tree-trade plan. Suppose our duties were levied on tea and coifee, and on other articles, the like of which are not produced :yL this country. Then we would obtain the revenue, only no matter how high such a duty might be, it would not be a protective tariif, as there would be no productions of that kind in tlie United States to protect. 2. Again, suppose that the duties were le^'ied on some articles, the like of which are produced in this country, but that such duties were lowered 30 per cent, and levied simply for the purpose of revenue, and not with the view of protection. More mooey can often be raised with a low tariff than with a high one. A tarilt duty levied simply for revenue will always be placed at such a .point as will increa;Se the amount of importa^ tions, and thus increase the amount of revenue collected. The objection to a duty of this sort is that it always gives the foreign manufacturers the advantage over the home producers, being levied expressly so as to bring in all the foreign goods possible and prevent the sale of oui own home-made goods as much as possible. It is ai- rways the aim of men who believe in " a tariif for revenue only" to fix the duty levied at just that point which will encourage the foreign mak- ing and the importation of goods and discoMrage fthe manufacture of such goods in the United States. The men who believe in the protective system aim to reach an exactly opposite result. They always put the duty so high as to give our own manu- facturers an advantage in our markets over the foreign manufacturers, and, in that way, to in- crease the home production, and, as a matter of course, decrease the importations. Although the rate of the tariff may be a high one, the importa- tions are much less, and the duties collected are also less, than if a lower rate of duty had been levied on a much larger quantity of goods. It is at just this point that the two systems differ. The Free Traders only take into account the raising of revenue ; the Protectionists look after that, also, but they never lose sight of stimulating and making possible the home produc- tion. The former plan must of necessity en- courage foreign manufacturing, and discourage the making of goo,ds here in the United States. The latter plan encourages and builds up home enterprises, enables our manufacturers to pay higher wages for work and still be prosperous and never stop to inquire whether the men who make the same goods in the Old World wUl be benefited or not. Sometimes more revenue will be collected under the one system ; sometimes more under the other ; each case being governed by the circumstances which surround It. The Free Traders claim that nothing should be made in any country which cannot be made in competition with the rest of the world. They do not take into account the conditions as to wages, labor and capital which are known to vary so much among dif- ferent nations. Protectionists claim that each nation should tal^e cai-e of itself; should pro- duce the greatest possible varieties of commodi- ties ; should manage to grow and make every- thing that can be economically grown or made within its borders, and that, where conditions vary, laws should be so framed as to enable the men in each nation to control the markets of their own country as against the producers of the same goods in other countries. It will be readily seen, therefore, that the result of reducing the tariff rates 30 per cent might be to increase the amount of duties col- lected. It would ail depend on the manner of Wuch ,rveduoflLo|n. The Free Tradejrs are con- stantly claiming that the McKinley bill has raised the rate of duties; yet they all admit that it will diminish the revenues collected. Why ? Because, first, it put sugar on the free list, whioh out off at one stroke $55,000,000. Secondly, because whenever the dut.y was raised it was to enable our people to make more of those arti- cles ourselves ; and no duty is collected on the goods wliioh ■vve make ourselves. A Protectionist never worries about the loss of jeceipts from any particular duty, when it comes from having been able to supply some market with Jiome-made goods. That is precisely what he started out to do. Why should he feel badly for having accomplished just what he hoped and desired to accomplish ? 3. It is impossible to tell whether free coin- age would ejid in an expansion or in a contraction of the money in circulation except by actual experiment. Secretary Windom claimed that Bia rsSUES OF AN OFF YEAJ?. 37 there would be less iiiuiiey in circulation after tlie pafisa«e of such a law than now. Tlie advo- oaites of " free coinaKc" claim that the volume ol circulating mwliuni would be lar^'cly iucreased. What soenis to me to lie by far the more serious question is this : " Would the money in circula- tion then be as good as the money we now have ?'' We can now convert every dollar that is in circu- lation among the people of the L'nited States into a dollar wliich is good everj^vhcre on tihe face of the eartili. Oould that be done after free coin- age of silvei' has lx>en made legal, with the same amount of silver in each dollar as our standard dol- lar now contains ? I do not know. I am afraid not. I csire not how much good money we have In circulation in tills counfry. The more the better. I would very much dislike to have our people compelled to do business with a depreciated currency. Men who work for wages, men who consume products (and wo all do), cannot afford to deal in depreciated dollars. All commercial na- tions are compelled in the end to settle in the money of the world. No kind of juggling can es- cape or avoid this final result. 4. I cannot answer .your last question, because I do not know. I am not in the secrets of the Alliance. I hardly tliink that the originators of the Alliance had in view in the beginning the benefit of the Democratic party. That the Demo- crats are trying to capture the organization now is no doubt true. If they succeed, that will tie the end of the Alliance. Tlie Democratic party has always been ready to coalesce with any and every new party, liut always with one and only one re- sult. After the swallowing has taken place the Democratic party "goes right on for ever," and the new party is never again heard of among men. R. G. HOER. AEE NATIONAL BANK NOTES TAXABLE ? A MISSOURI READER THINKS THEY ARE NOT— MR. HORR'S REPLY. To the Editor ol Tlie Tribune. Sir: In your Issue of May 6, Mr. Horr In answering the inquiries of C. M. Woods, says that National bank notes, nnlilte t!ie gree.nbaclis, are taxable for township, city, county and State pui-poses. I do not so under- stand it and would call Mr. Horr's attention to Sections 3,701 and 5,431 of the National Bank act. Bethany, Mo., May 8, 1891. A. CUMMINGS. I desire to thank Mr. Cummings for his letter. At the time T made the statement in repl.v to Mr. Wood? I did not suppose there was a particle of doubt of its accuracy. I knew that for years, in the business world, the two kinds of currency had been treated as I there stated. He can imagine my surprise upon receipt of his letter. Upon examination of the sections of the law to which he refers I do not wonder that he has come to the conclusion he has. Yet, notwithstanding that those statutes, upon their face, seem to bear 'out his statement, still the conclusion is so clearly against what I know to have been the pre- vious practice of business men, that I have made a more careful examination. The present Controller of the Currency, under date of May 14, writes me: "In regard to whether or not National bank notes are subject to local taxation, I desire to say that that has been a moated Question for some years, and the court of last resort has never decided the question so far as I know." In a recent case, in the District Court of Jackson County. Iowa, at the April term of this .year, it was decided in the case of Dunham vs. the city of Maquoketa, that National bank notes are subject to local taxation. I refer to the May number of "The Banking Law Journal," published at No. C3 Pine-st., New-York, pages 277 and 28.'). Upon examining that case. I And the court uses the following language: National bank notes are not in any Just and proper sense obligations of the United States. They show upon their face that they are the obligations of par- ticular banks, to wliom they have been delivered and by whom they have been put in circulation. The Government Is bound for their ultimate redemption, but this redemption Is not made by the Government ont of Its own funds, but out of the proceeds of sales ot Ifovernnient bonds belonging to the banks, and by them deposited with the Government as a security for sncU redemption. The duty ol the banhs to redeem their own circulation rests primarily upon them : and It Is only wlien a bank falls or refuses to redeem Its own circulation that the Governtnent can be called upon to make such redemption, and this, as has been stated. It does out ol the proceeds ol the sales of the bonds deposited with It by the bank to secure such redemp- tion. The law ol this State declares bank bills to be taxable. The circulation notes ol National banlts are neither more nor less than bank bills. There Is notliing in the laws ol tlUs State that would exempt Ihem from taxation and nothing In the acts ol Con- gress properly considered that would prohibit such taxation. Qpon examination of the report of a former Controller of the Currency, made by Henry W. Cannon in 1885. on page 47, it wDl be seen that this question had at that time frequently been- asked at his office. He states: "The question ol the liability of National bank currency for tax- ation arose in the case of the Board of Commis- sioners in Montgomery County vs. Elston (.32 Ind. 27) and it was decided by the Supreme Court of that State that National bank currency is not ex- empt from taxation by the local authorities be- cause they are not obligations of the United States in any proper sense of that expression. In a case, however, before the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi, Home vs. Green, it was de- cided the other way. In 1873 a case was decided in North Carolina in which the court held that National bant notes are liable for taxation." Mr. Cummings, being a lawyer, will readily see that while my former statement is not entire- ly beyond question, still that up to date the weight of the decisions favor the truth of my statement. WUl he be kind enough to examine the case carefull.y and then write me his revised opinion ? Nothing pleases me better than a com- munication calling in question any statement which I make, especially when accompanied by a. reference which seems to point out my error as clearly as did the statutes referred to in the letter of Mr. Cummings. I think, however, that that gentleman, when he maikes a careful exami- nation of these cases, will come to the conclusion that he by nO' means had so clear a case against 38 BIG ISSUES OP AN OFF YEXR. me as he supposed, wlien he penned his brief note. Be that as it may, I thank him lor calling my at- tention to what seemed to him an inaccurate state- ment. What we should all aim at is to be riffht, and never forget that we are all Uable to make mistakes. E. G. HOKK. WAGES AND THE TARIFF. ■ STEADY WOB.K AT LOW WAGES" NOT THE BEST, BY ANY MEANS. WOUHD THE COUNTBT HAVE BEEN BBTTEK OFF IF AMBHIOA HAD NOT BEEN SO AT- TEAOTIVE TO IMMieRANTS? To the Editor of The Tribune. Sir : lu Mr. Horr's reply to the remajJi of a, resident of Lj[nn, Mass., that "steady work at low wages Is much better than hlgli wages at unsteady employ- ment," he mentions the fact that the Important factor In the labor question is a good market for the products of labor, and that the cMef disturbing element is a glutted marliet. Now, will Mr. Horr answer the following questions? 1. Do not high wages produce a glut in any cer- tain direction, sooner than low wages, by drawing more labor m that direction 1 2. Do not the higb wages of tills country Induce the vast labor Immigration, and is not this immigration the chief cause of a glutted labor market 1 3. Do not these Immigrants, who were induced to come to this country by higli wages, now constitute nearly the entire mass of wage-earners in this country, largely to the exclusion of our own laborers ; and do they not form the main body of labor strikers, now so inimical to the business of tills country 1 4. Would not " steady work at low wages" have prevented undue Inimigratlon , avoided overproduction and gluts, and warded oil strikes, and would there not have been more real peace, prosperity and happi- ness m tills country than at present? Sincerely yours, T. P. DOUDLES. Leesburg, Penn., June 15, 1891. In answer to yoiu' first question, I will saj' that high wa-ges are alwaj's much more attractive to people who work than low wages; that more people will seek work, other things being equal, when it pays well than will try to get it wliere the pay is poor; and that the greater the number of workmen employed in any given land of work, the more goods of that kind will be proddced ; but whether a glut will follow such increased production depends entirely upon the quantitj' * of suoli goods consumed. It often happens that , the increased production does not keep pace with the increased demand or consumption. One can never tell whether a glut will follow increased production without first knowing how many of such articles will be used or consumed. It is very easy to produce a glut in the market for any commodity wliich people stop using and so stop buying. It is not easy, however, to produce a glut in the market for an article when the num- ber who use it are every day increasing and where the quantity used by each individual is . also daily growing larger, lliese all seem to be self-evident propositions, which need no argument to enforce their adoption as being true. 2. There is no doubt in my mind that the high wages paid for labor in this country are one of the main inducements whicli lead such vast numbers of people to leave the Old World and seek homes in the United States. I have stated such to be the fact hundreds of times in the last fifteen years, and mj' Free-Trade friends have denied such is the case just as many times. I stUl believe the statement to be true. No doubt this largti im- migration would increase the supply of working- men in this country and would lead to a glut in the labor market unless tliere should be a correspond- ing increase in new industries and an enlajge- ment of old industries sutlicient to absorb all the extra help. In case there should be such an in- crease, immigration would produce no glut in our labor markets. For example, witli all this immi- gration, there is no glut in the hired-girl market ; nor do I think there is to-day any such number of unemployed men in this countrj' in any trade as some people are constantly claiming. The great bulk of our people can find worlr at fair prices if thejf really seek for something to do. Still, the tendency of this constant influx of laboring people is to cheapen the price of labor. It seems to me beyond dispute that such a result must fol- low such a cause. Hence I answer the second question in the affirmative. 3. " Do" not these Immigrants, who were in- duced to come to this country by high wages, now constitute nearly the entire mass of wage-earners in thiis country, to the exclusion of our own labor- ers ?" Very far from it. There are a large num- ber of such immigrants, and of course the places filled by them are not occupied Ijy native-born Americans. But when you say " nearly the en- tire mass" the statement is very wide of the mark. If we could get an actual count of the people in the United States who work lor wages it would be found that nowhere nearly one-half of tliem are foreigu-born. I know such is not the general im- pression. The statement of our correspondent has been repeated so many times that it has come to be believed without careful examination. I find that since 1820 there -have been only 15,3.51,009 foreign-born people landed in the United States. True. 11.148,335 of those have come since 1855; that is, within the last thirty- five years. Notwithstanding that laot. I doubt il over one out of eight of the people now in this country were born abroad. Are there not to-day more colored wage workers in this country than the entire foreign wage laborers combined ? Al- most every one of these colored laborers is native born. I am fully convinced that for every man and woman in this country, working lor wages, who was born in some foreign land, there are at least three who were born in the United States. I am in hopes when the tables of the census are completed that we can learn the exact facts as to this question. WhUe these foreign immigrants are by no means as numerous as our correspondent seems to tliink, still there are enough of them greatly to increase the supply of laborers ; and were if not for the vast number ol new works which are being constantly organized, the labor market lUO ISSl'ES OF AX OFF VFAR. 39 •would Ions ajjo liave liei'ii ulutlcU. As It Is I hartUy think we luive u supply ul workiuKuieii greatly iii excess of the actual needs o£ the coun- try. As to the other portioin ot the third nuestioii, my observation coincides witli the susircstlon of Mr. Pondles. I tliliik a larse ma.iorily ot the men who pngase in strikes are foreign born. At least, such has ^)een the case witli the strikes which I have myself witnessed. It may be that such is not the case with strikers on the railroads or In the cases of skilled worlrmen. However, these are mere impressions and not founded on ■suflicient knowledae of facts to warrant statins my conclusion with much emphasis. 4. Let me now repeat your fourth uuestion as that is the one wliicli demands a careful answer. ■"Would not 'steady work at low wages' have prevented undue immisratlon, avoided overpro- duction and gluts and warded ofTetrikes? Would there not have lieeii more real peace, prosperity and happiness In this country than at present ?'' I do not see how cousfamt work by the people in this country would have doterjied people Jrom comiuK here ; but no one can doubt tliat low •wages would have operated in that way. provided they were low enough. Any condition ol affairs which would have made it ajipear that the people wlio, work over here were worse off ithan tlte same class of people in the old world would liave prevented tlie large ma.ioiit.y of immisiants from coming to this country. But is it not a little strange that au.v one should ask. " Would not such a oonditioit of aft'iurs have been Iietter lor our people P" This is really the question : " Would not low wages, constant work, poor food, bad clothes, little education and uncomfortable houses have rendered the attruction-s of this country so small that few foreigners would have come to seek homes among us?" I think such would have been the case. Then think of .the balance of the question : " Would not our own people have been more peaceful, more prosperous and more happy ■with low wages and the inevitable accompaniments of low wages.?" Cholera, yellow fever, pest- ilence, famine and poisonous snakes would tend to keep immigrants away from a country ; but one would hai'dly tliinli: of naming those things as soiuoes of happiness to .those living in the country. The fact tliat so many people seek liomes in the United States is conclusive proof that they expect to better their condition. If low wages are conducive to peace, prosperity and happiness, why do not all these people stay where wages are low ? Peace, prosperity and happiness . are a grand Trinity. It is diflicult to think of three more de- sirable blessings of a material nature for the liuman race to seek. That continuous work and Tlittle pay will insure their possession is to me .a novel idea. Is it possible that any man who is working for wages ever conceived such a notion ? I have, duriii.4' my life-time, labored many years for hire, beginning work on a farm for SlO a month. The fact that my work was very con- tinuous, 'twelve hours and over each day, and that my wages were small has never been considered :iy me as the cause of any great ccsttisy at that time. Since tlieu 1 have received a good deal more than that amount for each day's work in a year. Tlie moi'j I could earn the better I liked it. That is not all. I have never si^n the time when r w.)uld not have accepted twice as much wages as I received, and willingly have run the risk of any unhappincts likely to follow. Let me state some propositions that seem to me to be much nearer the truth; low wages are better than none at all, better than idleness, better than vagrancj', betteT than want; but they are not so good as high wages. The more a man can earn, the more comforts he can procure, the more happiness be shcnild enjoy. Constant work at low wages is far better than no work at all; it is better than high wages for a short time and idleness for a very long time, but it is not nearly as good as constant work at good wages. Do not forget that good wages for our entire l)eoi)le is what increases the power of consuTnption and prevents gluts in our markets for products, and is what makes the markets iov the 64,000,000 people living in the United States better than the markets of any other 100,000,000 of people on the face of the earth. E. G. HORE. AEE THE AMERICAN SCREW COMPANY GOING TO ENGLA^STD? When ■will our opponents take to telling the truth about the industries of the United States ? A good friend of The Tribune, M. L. Imhoff, of Houstonia, Mo., writes that the Democratic newspapers of St. Louis are stating that the Amer- ican Screw Company, of Providence, E. I., one of the largest companies in the United States, are about to move their factory to England, and that they are forced to do so " on account of the Me- Kinley bill." He asks The Tribune to publish the exact facts as to this matter. Very well I Here they are : The American Screw Company are not thinlting of moving the principal part of their factory to England at aU. They never even dreamed of doing so. They simply contemplate moving a small portion of it which has stood idle for some time. Tliey had hoped to operate that portion on foreign material for their foreign trade. The INlcKinley bill was so drawn as to enable them to do so, not so as to prevent them from doing it. That clause in the bill wliich enables them to use foreign material and then allows them a re- bate of the duty on all such material as is sent back into the foreign marlcet in the form of manu- factured goods was intended to aid all American maiiufacturers, this Eh'ode Island concern among them, to supply all the foreign trade possible. It was intended to enable them to obtain free raw material for all goods made in this country and shipped abroad. The Democratic journals above referred to laiew that fact, or should have kno^wn it. • If the facts are as stated, then why do the Screw Company move even a small part of their factory to England ? The Tribune wiU state the reason. It is because the managers of the Amer- ican Screw Companj' know full weU that they can obtain their labor in England for just about 40 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAE. one-Falf the money they are compelled to pay for the same work in this country. An examination of the pay-roll of the company in Ehode Island and then of the pay rolls of similar concerns in England -will fully prove the truth of this state- ment. Hence, if the McKinley bill drives these men into England with any portion of their works, it is because that biU is so drawn as to keep up the price of labor in the United States. If that is what these free-trade journals mean by the Screw Company moving the idle part of its machinery to England " on account of the McKin- ley bill," then I will agree with them. I am ready to admit that the result of all protective legisla- tion is to keep good wages in this country. That is true, not merely of the MoKinley bill, but of all bills that have been framed on the protective plan. The main object of all such legislation is to enable the American Screw Company and all other manufacturers in the United 'States to pay good wages to the men who do their work. It is owing to those laws that tlie laboring men in this country, of all kinds and classes, are better paid for their labor than are the workingmen of any other na,tion on the face of the globe. The American Screw Company have a branch factory in Canada, and have had for some time. They contemplate putting up another branch across the Atlantic. That, however, is a very different thing from moving their great Ehode Island factory over there. The Khode Island concern will stiU continue to run in the future as it has in the past. Why cannot our free-trade friends and these Democratic journals publish the exact facts about such matters as this ? It is easy to get at the truth in such cases. They have only to write the American Screw Company itself for correct Information, and the secretary of that company would no doubt answer them as promptly and courteously as he has answered The Tribune. The truth, however, is not what these journals seem to care about publishing. Keep a good watch, now, and see if they do not continue to circulate the old original lie. They will do that, too, after Tlie Tribune has pointed out that their statement is untrue and has informed them that this denial is made upon the authority of the American Screw Company itself. We took it for granted if that great concern was about to move to England that its own officers would be likely to know about it. It is always better in seeking for the truth about such a matter to make inquiries of the very persons who know about it, rather than to rely on those who do not know. At least, such is the best course to pursue where one is really seeking the truth. Where one prefers not to know the facts, then a draft on the imagi- nation may supply a newspaper item ; but the danger is that in doing so you will only add an- other to the batch of falsehoods which go so far to make up the entire assault on the MoKinley bill. Who next? E. G. HOEE. WHAT WOEKEES EEAIjEY NEED. A resident of Lynn, Mass., writes to The Tribune in comment upon the McKinley bill of which he does not wholly approve) and makes a re- mark which deserves attention. The tone of his letter is courteous, and perhaps it will be as well to omit his name fi'om this reply to what he says ; but his remark should not be allowed to pass un- noticed. He makes the following suggestion aa the solution of our present business troubles : " What the business men, farmers and laboring- men need is steady emplojonent. Now, steady work at low wages is much better than high. wages with unsteady employment." This is a remark often made nowadays by a> class of men whom I meet in various parts of the- countrj'. I liave no- acquaintance with our corres- pondent, and not the least idea as to his occupation or position in the business world. His words, are, however, identical with those of men I fre- quently meet, who think that constant toil at low- prioes is the desired end to be aimed at in the in- dustrial world. My observation is, that such re- marks are made only by men who are willing to get gain from the work of other people without, regard to the comfort of those who do the work. I never heard a practical farmer make such a remark for two reasons. Farmers have work- enough all the time : they can always find enough to do. .Secondly, because they know that lo-W" wages mean low prices for what thej' grow. Any- sensible farmer will tell you that he prefers to pay good wages for his help and get good prices for his produce. I never heard a workingman make such a. statement, because I never met one who did not think that good, fair wages lor his work was an; element which entered largely into his own happi- ness. I never yet found a workingman who. seemed to comprehend the idea that he could profit by low wages if they would ooly let him, work longer each day and more days in each yeart There may be a sort of deep significance in such a statement as " steady work at low wages" but it- is so deep that it invariably escapes the observa^ tion of the average laborer. Somehow such a. statement carries no real conviction to his mind. Again, I never heard such a remark fro'nt any manufacturer who takes a broad view of this question and who has the well-being and happiness of his work-people at heart. No man should employ other men who will not guard their weU-be'lng as sacredly as he will his own. What would our correspondent think of a work- ingman who would assert that what the world, needs is a set of manufacturers who will run their mills constantly and pay high wages whether there are any profits or not, and that it is better for manufacturers to run constantly, even at a loss, than to run on high prices only a few weeks, at a time. That position is as tenable as the one he takes. Let me state what, it seems to me, business- men, farmers and laboring men need. All of them, need full employment at fail- wages. Good, fair,, prices for the products of the farm make farmers prosperous 'and enable them to pay their help good, fair wages. Good, fair prices for the products of shop and factory enable business men to pay good, fair wages to their workmen and should leave them a fair return for their own time and capital invested, and they should always Bia ISSUKS OF AN OFF YEAE. 41 be satisfied with a fair profit. Steady employ- meat at good wages gives tlie laboring men means with fwhioli to purchase the products of the farm, the shop, and tlic factory, and so malce steady omployment possible. In short, good wages for people who work and constant cmploj'ment at good wages is the key to the whole situation. It malvcs little dilference how constantl.y a man labors if you l^oep his wages each week at the starvation point, just barely enougli to keep body and .soul togetlier for himself and his family. He ceases to be a general consumer, indeed he gets 110 surplus of wages with whicli to buy ordinar.v comforts. Lack of consumption is as important an element in producing a, glut in the markets, which leads to low prices, as is over- production. Any economic system based on the statement of our correspondent will end. of necessity, in the degradation of labor and the ruin of the work- lifg classes. Any system tluit produces cheap men and cheap women must lead to misery and want. If we can so manage that the 30,000,000 of working people in the United States shall be constantly employed at good wages, then all the other couditioiiB necessary for a prosperous peo- ple will follow as a matter of course. Constant work for little pay may be the best we can do for culprits in our penitentiaries, but it should hardly be hinted at as the thing our entire peo- ple need. R. G. HORR. TARIFF STUDIES. EiCE AND SUGAR. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FREE TRADE TARIFF AND A PROTECTIVE TARIFF CLEARLY DEFINED. To the Editor of The Tribune. Su-: I am a reader of The Weekly Tribune, and am pleased with all your ideas of the Tariff, but as I am almost a ricebird, I am fretiuently asked by Fi'ee Traders hereabouts, "Why was not rice put on the free list as well as sugar?" How much rice Is raised In the United States and how much consumed here ? I hope to see a reply in The Weekly Tribune. Yours, etc., L. HAELEY. WlUiston, S. C, June 6, 1891. No more pertinent question could be asked than the one suggested bj^ this correspondent. The fact that such questions, are constantly being re- ceived by The Tribune gives me great satisfaction in the work I am trying to do. Some Free Ti-aders in South Carolina, it seems, are anxious to know why rice should not have been put in the free list, the same as sugar. Tliere could hardly be two agricultural articles named that better illustrate the two kinds of tariff than do rice and sugar. The dutj' on sugar has always been simply a revenue duty, that is, a free-trade duty, and hence was repealed by a Congress the majority of whom believed in protective duties. On the other hand, the duty on rice is most clearly a protective duty, and so was retained by the same Congress. The duty on sugar being in the nature of a duty for revenue only, was added to the cost of sugar, and had to be paid by the ultimate consumers in the United States, for th« simple reason that the 'producers of sugar in thia country have failed heretoloie to produce enough so as to sensibly alfect tlie price. It has been found by actual e.\[jcriment that unless we pro- duce iu the United States at least one-third of any given article the foreign producers control the price, and duties levied on such articles are simply free-trade duties, and are invariably added to the cost of such articles to the ultimate con- sumers. The growers of sugar in this country have Ijeen promising every year that if the duty on sugar should Ije left in force they would in- crease the production, and So in time would control the price ; while from year to year this promise has been made, it has never been kept. The best that they ha\-e ever Ijeen able to do has been to raise about one pound in ten of the amount actu- ally consumed in the United States, and for the last two years they have not raised even that amount. Sugar Is one of the necessities of life. It is consumed b.v the laboring people in enormous quan- tities. If our sugar producers could increase the product in this country, so as to turnish one-half or even one-third of the sugar consumed here then a Protectionist would at once restore the duty on. sugar, but so long as our sugar producers can fur- nish only one pound in ten or twelve pounds of the amount consumed, that is too small a quantity perceptibly to affect the market price. It would aflord little or no competition, and hence a tartflt put upon sugar becomes a simple tax on that arti- cle, increases Its price and must be paid l)j' the people of this country who finally consume the sugar. It was on account of this admitted fact that sugar was placed on the free list. Indeed^ It is much cheaper for this country to pa.v a bounty to the producers in such a case and so buUd up the industry by that direct aid. It will be cheaper to foster this industry by the aid of a bounty un- til the prod.uction of sugar shall be increased to a. point where we will irow and market at least one- third of the sugar we consume in the United States- That point once rcacheil, then the bounty should be repealed and the duti' restored. Let me repeat again, the reason that the duty on sugar was re- pealed -was because, after long years of trial under heavy duties, sugar-growers failed to in- crease their crop so as to control our markets, and- hence that duty became simply a duty for revenue only. It was in no sense a protective duty. It increased the cost of sugar to our own people and was collected largely from the poorer classes of our citizens. In short, it was a simple free-trade duty and should have been repealed long ago. Then "why wonder liiat a Congress made up of a majority of Protectionists should have repealed this duty on sugar? The wisdom of such an act is already evident. Sugar has been cheapened for every family in the United States, precisely as. Protectionists predicted tliat it would be. Strange as it may seem, our Free-Trade friends voted against this clause in the McKinley bill and agiinst cheap sugar for the masses. Now, after voting against this law, they " right about face '' au^' say : " Yes, yes. Free sugar is a good tiling. It is aU right, but wh.v not free rice also ?" 43 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. Eioe and sugar are both agnoultural products, and are Eiiiite'I bj- tlie acreage and to tlie production oi one crop in each year. Such, productions are not controlled by the same law as are manufact- ured goods, -where plants can be readily multi- plied a.nd where continuous running of large fac- tories increases the supply and also cheapens the cost of production. Hence, it does not so surely loUow that prices wiU be reduced by stimulating the production as it does in the case of manu- factured products ; but sugar and rice producers are compelled to compete with low wages, with cheap labor abroad, fully as much as are any in- dustries in the land. The testimoiiy of all the sugar-growers from the South before the Ways and Means Committee of the last Congress agreed that theii labor in this country cost them fully $1 per day for each man employed. The rice- growers all said that the same price is being paid for their help. The cost of labor in Cuba and other sugarcane producing countries as sworn to by those same gentlemen is only 20 cents per day for each laborer, and the wages paid for work in the rice fields of Asia is only from 6 to 14 cents per day. So it Ijecomes evident that if either of these industries survives in the United States, it can only do so by some method which will com- pensate our producers for these larger wages which they are compelled to pay to the people who do their work. In the case of sugar, it is oljeaper for our people to foster that industrj' by the payment of a bounty, and will be cheaper just as long as our productioiu is so much less than our consumption of sugar. Why not then put rice on the free list ; aind give our rice producers a ibounty the same as in the case of sugar ? That is the question the Free Traders seem to be constantly asking our correspondent. The answer is not difficult. It is «imply because the rice industrj- is a protective industry in tills country. The amount of rice produced in tne L'nited States as compared with the amount imported shows conclusively that the rice industry is on an entirely different basis from that of sugar. The statements of a few facts ae to rice production will show what I mean. In 1865 all the rice produced in the United States was 11,.t92,000 pounds; in 1870 the pro- duction had grown to 47,348,000 pounds; in 1875 the production had reached 72,360,000 pounds; in 1880 it had advanced to 111,766,000 pounds; in 1885 to 151,102,000 potmds ; in 1890 our rice- growers furuished for the co,nsumption of our own people 164,200,000 pounds. On the other hand, in 1865 we consumed foreign rice to the amount of 52,408,760 pounds, against 11,592,000 pounds produced at home. In 1870 we imported 27,000,- flOO pounds as against 47,348,000 raised m the United States. In 1875 we imported 47,062,414 pounds, but our own producers raised that year 72,360,800 pounds. In 1880 we imported 57,- 919,542 pounds of foreign rice, but we raised from our own plantations that year 117,766,000 pounds. In 1885 we imported 72,446,550 pounds, and our home production for that year was 151,102,920 pounds. In 1890 we imported 151,000,000 pounds, tolit we raised in this country that year 164,000,- •000 pounds. I find upon careful computation that during the last ten years we have consumed in the United States, in round numbers, 1,050,000,000 pounds of foreign rice, and we have grown in this coun- try 1,280,000,000 pounds. Thus you see, while the increase in consumption is something enormous, still, much more than one-half of the entire amount consumed is gi'own upon our own planta- tions. When the sugar-growers of this country will make such a comparative showing as that, Protectionists will proceed to drop the bounty and restore the duty on sugar. It must not be forgotten that the duty on rice, which has enabled our rice-growers to cultivate their fields, has so increased the supply of the world that rice is very much cheaper all over the world than it would lie but for this enormous production in the United States. Hence it is that the consumers of rice in this country do not by any means pay the entire amount of the duty levied ; indeed, a larg-e paTt of that duty comes from foreign pro- ducers, who are compelled to pay it in order to reach our markets. The rice of the United States is grown mostly in two States— Louisiana and South Carolina. It is very expensive to prepare a rice field, costing from §150 to 5200 per acre. Mr. Screven, of Savannah, Ga.,«a very intelligent witness, said that slave labor formerly cost the Southern planter about twenty cents per day for each workman, and that with that cheap labor they could defy the world in the production of cheap rice. The same witnesses said that, being now compelled to pay ?1 per day for labor, without protection no planter could raise rice a single year. Will our Fiee-Trade friends who are constantly de- claring that labor is in no way protected b.v our duties on foreign products please put this statement of a Southern Democrat into their pijjes and smoke it? This same witness stated that the duty on rice had not increased its cost to the consumers. If the dilty was removed and no bounty were given it would at once destroy the rice industry in this country. Very likely lor a little while rice would be cheaper than it now is, but our rice fields once abandoned, w'e would then be at the mercy of foreign producers. With an immense decrease in supply and an increase in de- mand, this would, of course, result in the price going up to such a point as foreign producers might demand. Besides,, without either a protec- tive duty or a bounty, our own rice planters would never open a single acre to rice culture. Should the price go up until one of our planters might conclude to try it agT > . the foreign prod;icer, ever on the watch, would put down the price and ruin the business of the South Carolina or Louisiana rice-growers, and then, when he had forced them to abandon their fields, up would go the price for our consumers. Just that state of affairs has existed many times in the United States as to very many industries. In view of all these facts, would it not be simply idiotic to nut rice on the free list? What true American would think of doin;; it ? But some one says Why not put rice now on the free list and give our producers a bounty ? Because, in the case of rice, the bounty inO ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. 43 would cost our people several times as mucli as we would save. In the case of sugar the bounty will cost about $7,000,000 per year, but we will save ei!;tht times that ainou7it. 01 course tliis sum is not saved to the General Government, but to the laboring classes, who consume the sugar and are compelled to pay the bulk of such a free-trade tarill. If a bounty were placed on rice, it would compel the Government to pay an immense sum in bounty and then would saw very little, if anything, to the ultimate consumers, the working people who eat rice. Riec-growers under protection ha,ve constantly increased their pro- duction, and so have held control of our market. The duty is a protective one. in the case of rice, and should be preserved, while in the case of sugar there is not enough produced in tjiis country to make it a protective industry; yet. in order to preserve the industry, sugar was placed upon the free list and a bounty is oft'ered to sugar pro- ducers. Wheu sugar-growers shall do what the rice-growers have already done, when they shall have increased their product from one-tenth of our consumption to over one-half of it, then the duty on sugar should be restored and the bounty should be repealed. In both these cases our legis- lation is intended to foster and build up both these industries. Neither of them could live two years without laws favoring them. Tlie free-trade doc- trine is that all these laws shoul i lie repealed. Our free-trade IrJends say in so many words : 11 you cannot raise rice in South Caiolina and Louisiana; if you cannot raise sugar in the South and pay gl per day for labor, and compete with tlie slave labor of Cuba in tlie production of sugar, and the 14-cent per day labor of Asia in the production ol rice, then stop growing rice and sugar in the United States. They tell us to go to doing somc- tliing else until our working people can learu to live on 14 cents per day. It is. useless to tell them that rice lands will produce nothing else; *hat the sugar industry is an important one for the planters of the South. It seems also useless to tell them that labor should be protected in this couDtry ; tliat to reduce our worlcing people to Chinese wages is to degrade them ; that such a policy will end in ruin to this country. They have a theory that each nation should attempt only what it can do clieapest, and they leave out of the problem entirely the great lesson taught by long experience, that diversified industry is what makes a nation strong and rich. They forget that constant employment at good wages. Is what makes a people happy and prosperous. They over- look the fact that men who work can afford to pay a fair price for what they consume, if. at the same time their own product brings a fair price, so that they get for each day's work good wages. I mow leave it to any candid Free-Trader whether my explanation is not complete. I hope and be- lieve that the bount.v on sugar will in a few years change that into a protective industry. Rice is most clearly such an industry now. My hope is that rice will stay where it is and that sugar will get there at an early date. The general activity al- ready seen In various parts of the United States to establish the growth of sugar beets gives me «reat c.onfidp'ic*' iu the belief that sugar in the United States In a very few years will be largely grown by our own people. Even the Mills bill did not attack rice and sugar. If that measure, wliich aimed such a deadly blow at so many of the indusliics of the United States, omitted an assault upon rice and sugar, why should our free-trade friends worry themselves over these Va'o industries ? 1 hope at least that my answer to this correspondent will prove satisfactory to the " Riccbirds'' of South Carolina, even though some of the suirar-producers may not enjoy my state- ment that a bounty is Ijetter for the people of this country on sugar than a protective duty. R. G. HORR. "IS THE TAEUFF A TAX?" A QUESTIO>f WHICH WILL BE ANSWERED IF THE QUESTIONER WILL DEFINE HIS TERMS. A list of questions propounded to The Tribune by George Huston, ol Limeton, Va., are referred to me for answers. The first question reads as follows: "Is the tarill' a tax? II so, who pays it ? If it is not, than what is it ? " Before answering the Ust of questions of this correspondent, I am compelled to ask him for an explanation so as to enable me to get started on the very first question. What kind of a tariff do you mean? Some tariff duties may be called a "tax"; some may not be; some are paid by the consumers and some are not. Again, what is yoin definition of a " tax"' ? The word is used in many different senses by different persons. I have three times listened to very long and exhaustive debates iu Congress on the tariff', and much time was de- voted to this very question as to " whether a tariff' is a tax. " At the close of each debate I was impressed with what secured to me to be the fact that a large amount of time and talk had been expended simply because the disputants did not agree in their definition of terms. Let me illustrate. I have here on my table a letter from a correspondent which reads as fol- lows : " Are not silver certificates money ? In one of !Mr. Horr's articles it seems to me he intimates that they are not mone.v, though he does not say exactly that. If they are not money, what are they ? " Is it not evident that the answer to that question depends entirely upon the definition of the word " money " ? If you will examine the different authors you will find that the word monej' has been defined in more than a dozen dif- ferent ways ; and my correspondent may nave still another definition as to just what money is. How is it possible to answer his question unless I know what he means by the term he uses ? Ac- cording to one definition, silver certificates could by no manner of means be called money ; accord- ing to another they would be money, and so would bank checks and Clearing House certificates, and even promissory notes. If they are not money what, are they ? Why, of course, they are silver certificates. " If a tariff is not a tax, what is it ? " says Mr. Huston. It is a tariff, a duty levied on imports, aU the same whether it is a tax or not. Some duties are a "tax," according to one delinition of 44 BIG- ISStJES OF AN OFF YEAE. tie word ; some are not. Some taxes are burdens ; some are blessings. A free-trade tariff is one thing ; a protective tariff is quite another. A free- trade tariff may be always paid by the consumer ; a protective tariff may seldom be, and when a portion of it is may still be better for the con- sumer, on account of other advantages. Hence my question : What kind of a tariff do you mean ? What is your definition of a tax ? Let us try and get started risrht and uuderstand each, other. E. G. HOEE. IS AMEEICAN TIN PLATE COATED WITH AJMEEICAN TIN? To the Editor of The Tribune. Sir : Will you please answer through the columns ■of The Tribune whether there is now any tin plate being made in the Uiiited States which is washed with tin mined in this country. The Freei Traders say there are no tin mines in the United States : tlierefore no use of the tariff on that metal. Also state wliere the tin mines in the United States are located, and what estimate is placed on t'lelr value by those who are competent to judge. W. S. VAN EEMER. Eondout, N. Y., May 8, 1891. There is to-day no tin plate coated with tin which is mined in tliis country. Tin plate is now being manufactured, however, in several establish- ments in the United States ; and many more fac- tories are being now erected. The steel and iron plates (which compose 96 per cent of all ordinary tin plate) are being already made in this country : but the tin for coating them is imported from the old world. You state that the Free Traders say there is no tin mined in the United States ; therefore, there is no use of the tariff on that metal. If they stated that, we will give them credit for telling the truth once. The fact is, there is no tariff duty on tin metal at present. Tin is on the free list. The duty about which Free Traders complain is on the tin plate. Our manufaetures can buy the raw metal to-day just as cheaply as can tlie tin-plate makers of So'Uth Wales. And even the increased duty on tin plate will not take effect until July 1 next. Time has been given by the McKinley BUI for erecting the new machinery for producing till plate before the tariff will take effect. While American tin is not yet being used to coat tin plates, there are, nevertheless, at the present time, two large mines producing Ameri- can tin in the United States. One is in South Dakota, a few miles from Eapid City, in the Black Hills ; the other is in California : both - of these mines are now being- worjvcd by between two and three hundred men. I have before me on my table a little anvil, just sent me from the Dakota mine, manufactured from pure American tin. It is marked, " American Tin, from Cow Boy Mine, Hill City, South Dakota ; compUments Harney Peak C/onsolidated Tin Company." My informa- tion recently received from both tliis mine and the one in California is that the veins of tin ore are well defined, that the ore is rich, that milling plants are being erected, and that in Ijoth these mines the operators expect to be producing, in a few months, large quantities of pure metallic tin. It is a little singular huvv persistently the Free- Traders continue to sneer at the tin industry of the United States. It might be discouraging, were it not for the fact that the sneer is a very old one. I heard precisely the same jeering remarks» in the same sarcastic tone when we first attempted to make steel rails in the United States ; also when the plate-glass industry was established^ and when our crocker.v factories were opened. Indeed, I do not now recollect a single instance- of a successful industry in the United States that has not been built up in the face of free-trade- sneers. If we can judge the future by the past, the bulk of our tin plate "will yet be made here in the United States, and a full supply of tin willi be taken from our own mines, in spite of all these persistent scoffers. It would please me very much to have such an industry built up in the- United States. I hope it will be surels' done, even though it should result in breaking the hearts of our free-trade friends. Is it not a little strange that they should take such constant delight in their persistent effort to belittle every attempt to produce any new thing in this country ? I would not train with a crowd which seems to- consider it a duty to discourage every attempt to do anything in the United States. These men. who are always sneering at what is American, and who do nothing but -"our cold water on every American enterprise, ought to be ashamed of them- selves. I prefer to encourage every attempt to build up a new industry in my own country, and shall always rejoice over the success of men who have the pluck and energy to start new enter- prises. E. G. H. A^IIY SUGAE DOES NOT GO DOWN THEEE AND A HALF CENTS. A NEW IliLUST-RATIOSr OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FREE TRADE AND A PROTECTIVE TARIFF To the Editor of The Tribune. Sir: The tariff on. sugar before the cliaiige of tlie- law was 3 1-2 cents a pound, and it is now 1-2 a cent per pound. Can you tell me why the retail price has- not Oianged more ! It was not above 6 3-4 cents a pound at any time in March. Instead of going down: three cents, it has not changed two^ cents. Are not the Sugar Trusts getting in their fine work ? Please answer and obUge. J. OSCAR TBRREL. Honesdale, Penn., April 30, 1891. As a rule, duties levied on articles which we- do not produce are added to the cost of the arti- cle to the American consumer. We do 7iot pro- duce sugar in this country in quantities sufficient to enable our production to enter as much of a. factor into the competition of the world : and, of course, any duty levied on such an article would increase its price. But there are so many oir^- cumstances which enter into fl.\ing the price of any commodity that the mere amount of duty paid is not of itself a statement of enough facts- to determine the reason for any given price. One might suppose that a duty of 3 l-'2 cents, a pound on granulated sugar w-ould add just that amount to the cost of the article, and, that when the duty was decreast'd, to 1-2 cent a. BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. 45 pound such sugar wduIiI at once fall in price 3 Ix; the practical result, then sugar will soon be as <»nts a pound. But the duty on the lower grades cheap in the United States as it can possibly be of sugar out of which granulated sugar is made and pay fair wages to American workmen. That only averaged about 2 cents a pound, and the is as cheap as any good citizen of this country balance of the 3 1-2 cents, that is, 1 1-2 cents a ought to desire it to be. That will be about 2 pound, was the duty on the manufactured article, cents a pound. If it shall be much less than that That duty of 1 1-2 cents a pound has not been then it will be owing to some outside influence added U> the cost of the article. Owing to the which I do not now understand. If it shall be lirisk competition among our own refiners, they much more than that then I shall be surprised, have kept the price down for the manufactured If the theories of Free-Trade writers are true article, and have not added the duty on refined then the decline should be 3 cents a pound. I do ervgar to the price. They have added onlj' the not believe their theories, and so do not look for 2 cents a pound that was i)aid on the lower grades any such reduction in the price of sugar. Time of sugar. Hence there was no rea.son to suppose will demonstrate which of us ijj right. K. G. H. that refined sugars would fall in price more than •_ . about 2 cents a pound. That 2 cents duty on XHE TiVEIFF OF GREAT BRITAIN, the low grades of sugar was, in its essential Ti.pr^ =^„,„o +„!,„• ^ ^ , ■, ^ 1 ■ I 4.1 ^ "^'^^ seems to be an impression amons manv character, a free trade duty and increased the _.„„,„ j,, ti,„ i-„;t„,i v;^ » \.i . ," ""'""o mduy ^ ^ , 1 i »i * , * Ti,- people m the United States that Great Brita m is cost to the consumer about that amount. The n,,r„|,. f,.„„ t,..,,, ^- .■ , "* , "• "'^*'^'" "» , ^ ^ a purely iree-tiade nation. Such is bv no mean"; e.\tra 1 1-2 cents a pound was a protective dut.v to ^Vip mc^ Ti,„ .v^n.. ; ».i ,, , ""'"'-'' "^ ,■ J It .„ii„-i +„ the case, f he lollowing table wiU show the exact aid our refiners of sugar and was not added to amminf nf n,ni,«.,w.,,ii„„.„ i ■ ^i t- ^ "^^="=^0,00 ^, . ^, amount 01 money collected in the Lnitea Kinadom the price to the consumer. hv t-nHiv rintio.: r„,. n „ „ j- ,, „ __^ ,.,..,,,- . n „ o •^ duties for the years ending March 31. That sugar did not fall in price even the 2 jgjjy ^^^^ isyu- cents a pound which was formerly paid on the Year ending Year endhig low grades is readily accounted lor. nie families /,„i:„,^, March 01, Mar^h 31, ^^ .A.1 ULies. fdOO IHfiQ and hotels who buy in large quantities, the grocery Tea 9i2y,i4o",o0.> $22 Ss'^'sSO men, both retail and wholesale, had lieen pre- S***^"?? ■■■,■-•; 92]'4HiJ "'6(>4!l60 paring for the change. All these persons tnanaged Wine ■... .'^.f!.-.::;:::;::::;;; 'eiot-lols ^6:5?oiOT to have as little on hand as possible .4.prU 1, when Tobacco and snuff 4-l,'293,'905 45,'309'920 ..11 ... ^- , ...1 Currants, raisins and dried the law went into operation. As soon as the fi-uits ..!... .. 2 897 145 o(— 4,-- change took place all these persons began to Othu-r ai tides '899^000 "'gisVss call for their new supply, and that enormous de- Miscellaneou.s re.eipts 159,085 144:340 mand which could not be met in a day held up Total 899,855,955 35102,277,815 the price of refined and high-grade sugars. A glance at this table wiU show that England In such a large country as ours the means of collected in 1SS9 over §102.000,000, and in 1890 toansportation may be wonderful, yet it takes time nearly §100,000,000 by duties levied on foreign to reach all our people with any article. It is imports. The table furthei shows that nearly clear that time enough has not yet elapsed to 570,000,000 was collected from the two items of see what sugar will finally bring in this country, tea and tobacco. It will be further seen that If our Free-Trade friends are correct in their these duties were aU of them levied upon arti- theories, then refined sugar should soon Ije sold cles the Hke of which were not produced in Great for 3 cents a pound less than it has been selling Britain. That is the Free-Trade plan of levying for under the 3 1-2 cents duty. I do not look duties. England goes stLU further, and makes it for any such reduction. Sugar, it seems to me, a misdemeanor under her laws for lier citizens to should be about 2 cents a pound cheaper. If raise tobacco at all. My objections to that kind the 1-2 cent per pound shall prove to lie sufiicient of a duty are twofold : to enable our manufacturers to keep their re- First, a duty levied on articles that cannot be fineries in operatio.n, then sugar Avill decline about produced in the coujitry which levies it is always the amount of the former duty on Tow-grade sugars added to the price of the article, and must of and only about that amount. If the manufactur- course, be paid by the consumers of such articles, ers of our country should be driven out of the The le^'J•ing of such a duty cannot stimulate the business, then in a little while we will pay more production of similar articles in the country levy- for our sugar than if we had kept them running, ing the duty, because no such articles are pro- I hope they wiU be able to prosper on the 1-2 duced in that country. It builds up no industry cent a pound now levied on the imported article. produces no competition, and can in no possible I do not know whether there is any Sugar Trust manner lead to the cheapening of the articles which can affect prices now or not. I do know Such a duty may alwaj's be called a tax on the that if our manufacturers of refined sugar were consumers. driven out of existence we would be in much Secondly, the customs received from such im- greater danger from foreign combinations than ports must be paid almost entirely by the poor we are now. The larger the number of operators and laboring classes of the eountiy. For example the more difficult it is to form combinations. It take the t\vo items of tea and tobacco The peo- was intended to place the duty on refined sugars pie • of the United Kingdom paid on those two at a point where it would give our refiners of articles each year over $67,000,000. 'Who paid sugar full protection against the cheaper labor of that large sum ? Most clearly the people who the Old World-and so also as to give them con- drank the tea and who consumed the tobacco trol of our home markets. It this shaU prove to Both of those articles are in common use amonc^ 46 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAE. the laboring people of Great Britain. No doubt a workingman consumes nearly the same amount of each, of those articles each clay that a rich man does. Now, as there are 600 working-people in Great Britain to every one who can be called rich, about six hundred times as much of that money was collected from the working-people as came from the rich people of that country. Under the protective system we levy duties on articles that can be produced in the United States. In doing so, we foster and build up our own industries ; the duties levied in such a case are largely paid by foreign people seeking to get pos- session of our markets. However, I publish thia table simply for the purpose of showing the readers of The Weekly Tribune that Great Britain is in no sense free from custom houses and custom collections. Whenever, after tliis, any Free Trader states that what he wants is free trade in the United States such as England has, point out this table to him, and then ask him if what he means is not really, that he would have tliis country levy its duties on the English free-trade plan. That plan necessarily collects its revenues mostly from the poorer classes, and we do not propose to have it adopted in the United States. We very much prefer that the tariff should be so levied that it vrtU give good wages to our working people and com- pel the rich people of this country and the im- porters of foreign goods, to supplj'' the funds for running the Nation. E. G. H. WHO IS ENTITLED TO THE SCJGAE BOUNTY? A PRESSING NEED NOW FOR THE INVENTION OF LOW PRICED AND SATISPACTOBT PLANTS FOR MAKING SUGAR. To the Editor of The Tribune. Sir : I am a poor farmer who raised alsout one ton of sugar. I want to Imow if I can gcT a tiounty for tliat small amount. I had it lioiled up in a vacuum pan. It is of a sort of yellowisli color. I believe that It is of 16 Dutch staudiird. AETHUK POCHE. Ponchatoula, La. By a glance at the sugar schedule our corre- spondent will see that no bounty is paid on any sugar produced before July 1, 1891. After that date and until July 1, 1905, any person producing 500 pounds or more can get a bounty of two cents a pound on aU such sugar, if it shall test not less than ninety degrees by the polariscope. If it shall test less than ninety degrees and not less than eighty degrees by the polariscope, the bounty is fixed at one and three-fourths cents per pound. In order to obtain the bounty the producer must file with the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue a notice " of the place of production, with a general description of the machinery and methods to be employed by him ; an estimate of the amount of sugar proposed to be produced in the current or next ensuing year, including the number of maple trees to be tapped, and a,n application for a license so to produce. He must also file a bond, with sureties, to be approved by the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue, conditioned that he will faith- fully observe all rules and repulations that shaft be prescribed for such manufacture and production of sugar. No bounty is to be paid on any sugar,, except such as shall be produced from sorghum, beets or sugar cane grown .witliin the United States, or from maple sap produced within the United States, at the place and with tlie machinery and by the methods described in the application ; but said license shall not extend beyond one year from the date thereof." All these precautions were deemed necessar.v to guard against the fraudulent claiming of bounties on sugars imported into this country. It is clear that the framers of this law believed that the great bulk of sugar produced from lieets or sugar cane would be manufactured from the beets and cane by men who would put up machinery for that purpose, and in that way that the farmers who raise only 100, 200, 30(> or 400 pounds of sugar could get this bounty by selling their beets or cane to these manufacturers. As a rule the men who raise sugar-cane produce enough to pay them for taking out a license when they make up their own cane into sugar. The Internal Eevenue Department will no doubt furnish blanks for all persons desiring them, with full instructions just how to proceed so as to secure this bounty. Address " Commissioner of Internal Eevenue, Washington, D. C." The object of this bounty is to stimulate the production of sugar in this country. We have of late not been able to produce over one pound in te.n of the sugar which our people con,3ume. That ought not to be the case. It is believed that the raising of sugar beets will lead up to the solution of this problem in the Unif-'d States. Two or three very large enterprises of this kind have alread.y be«n established, notably one in Nebraska and one in CaUforuia These are mammoth concerns, aud are makiiig an immense outlay of capital. The more such institutions the better ; and yet I am incliued to think that the real solution of this problem must come from the establishment of an immense number of smaller concerns. If some one can in- vent a process, so that for a few thousand dollars a plant can be erected which will utilize the sugar beets grown in each township or nei.ghborhood (as eider mills now utilize and make up the " cider apples" of each neighborhood), the production of our own sugar would at once be assured. People are fast learning how to grow the sugar beet and improve its sugar-bearing qualities. In 1829 the sugar beet yielded only 2 1-2 per cent of sugar to the weight of the beet. Ten .years ago a rate of 9 per cent had been reached. In 1889 the German crop is reported to have yielded 14 per cent. Every addition of one per cent means an increase of 20 pounds of .sugar per ton. and about 300 pounds increase to the acre. In Nebraska an analysis of 315 samples gave a trifle over 16 per cent as the average. Different fields vary in the amount of sugar to the ton of beets; sections of the same ueld a'.so vary. It is safe to say .that a fair average in this country will be fourteen pounds of sugar from each 100 pounds of beets. The quality of the sugar teet has been constantly improved ''y careful propaga- BItt ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAE. 47 tion, and selcotiug the very Ijest for seeil-raisinc purposes. It requires al)out tweilty pounds of seed to plant an acre of suf;ar beets. Tliey sliould be planted about eiKhteen inches apart, and l:ept clean from weeds. If well tilled an acre will produce from fourteen to thirty tons of Sugar bect.s, depending on tlio kind of soil and its richness. The plant lor manufac'iurinp; sugar at Grand Island, Neb., cost $500,000. When malting sugar it runs night and day, and employs 100 men on each sluft, or 200 each day. It uses up 250 tons of beets a day. When the industry is fully estab- lished the factory can Ije run aljout five months in a year. In California they report a .yield of about fifteen tons per acre, and a net profit varying from $35 to $45 per acre, over and above all labor. Where the land will yield trw<'nty-five tons to the acre of course the extra expense is small and the net profits are enormously increased. Tlio very large beets are not the best sugar producers. It is found that when the weight rises above about three pounds to the l>eet the tiualit.y becomes rapidly poorer. But tlie s-ize can be leadUy graiiuated when thinning by leaving the plants nearer togeHuT. I am largely iiulcljted for the foregoing facts to Mr. David U'llrine, chemist of Colorado. I have given them here because, go where I will, the people are constantl.y asldug me about the details of this new industrj'. The inquiry is also becoming very general as to how small and how cheap a plant can be run with profit. I am utterly unable to answer this last Question. It is a very important one, and The Tribune now invites any person knowing the facts to send a .statement to tliis paper. We will gladl.v give publicity to any information wltich will bear upon this ([uestion, not as an advertise- ment, but as a matter of news which will l)e of great interest to many readers. Let me repeat the question : How small and how cheap a plant can be obtained, which will manutaclure sugar from beets so as to insure innfit fur the manufacturer and a fair price per ton for the beets ? I will add that at large establishments the quality of each farmer's crop is ascertained by what seems to be a fair process, and then he is paid per ton according to the amount of sugar in his special crop. If there is as yet in existence no plant that v.ill meet this coming demand for neighborhood use, will some Ingenious Yankee proceed to suppl.y the needs of the country in that regard ? The man who shall succeed in making such a plant need be troubled no longer after his invention with "mortgages on his farm.'' E. G-. H. CAN EICH MILL OWNERS COMBINE AJSTD EOB THE PEOPLE ? A PERTINENT QUESTIOX SQUARELy ANSWERED To the Eaitor of The Trlbnno. Sir : If, imder free trade. EngUslx manufacturers could obtain a monopoly of our niarliets and then raise prices to suit themselves, why under protection cannot the manufacturers of the United States combine and ad- vance their prices to the consumer by the amomit of duty collected on their products! Tice, II EDG.A.R SAJVIPSON. Let me say, first, that no duty is collected on the products of American factories, shops and mills. Many people think that American products pay a duty. It may be that Mr. Sampson thinks so. But that is not the case. The only goods that pay a duty are those Imported from foreign lands. Mr. Sampson's question amounts to this : Can American manufacturers combine and advance prices, and themselves virtually collect from the people and put into their own pockets a. sum of money equal to what the Government collects, in the form of duty on foreign goods ? If we should not produce a particular article in the L'uited States, then the foreigi; producers of it would' have no competition from manufac- turers in the United States. They could then manipvilatc prices to suit themselves. The,\- would not do this by getting a "monopoly" of our mar- kets. There are no "monopolies" in this country, except those granted to people who secure a patent for an invention or new disco^•ery. Our Oovem- ment never grants to any one the exclusive right to manufacture or sell any article, except in cases of patent rights. The Constitution of the United States prohibits the granting of all mo- nopolies in this country. Every one is free to manufacture and sell (limited only by patent rights), if he has the capital. Combinations are, however, found wliioh sometimes contioi prices almost as effectually as if monopolies \i'ere granted. These combinations are more readily formed where the number of producers are small, and where the producers all live in foreign lands aud are beyond the reach of our laws and public opinion. In no country in the world have moi-e ut these combinations been found, fi-om time to time, tha.a in England. American consumers have sufl'ered from them repeatedly. They are not under con- trol of our laws, and are beyond the rea;h of our public opinion. But can manufacturers in thi» country combine and.p'U up prices to the amount of the duty? A conihination in America to raise prices here is difficult. Comhiiiations are fre- quently foi-med or attemited, but few of them ever succeed, and the combinations which are lasting are, as a rule, those which do not attempt to raise prices. An illustration of this is the Standard Oil Company. V.'e often speak of that company as an immense " monopoly, ~ and yet it is nothing of the kind. It is however, a mam- moth combination which wields wonderful power. It almost absolutely controls the oil markets of the world, yet it does not put up the price of oil in this country. It may fix the price of oil in the Old World with great ease, but it has, not ventured to make oUs high in the United States. It has, by great skill in its management, cheapened the cost of oil to the American public greatly. It can pioduoe oil more cheaply than an.y other concern in the world. Its membei-s have amassed im- mense fortunes, yet those fortunes are small compared with the money saved to the consumers of oil in the United States by cheapening that ar- ticle for home consumption. That corporation has been governed by men who had the sense to see that the company would be tolerated in this country only so long as it benefited our people by producing oil cheaper than that produced by any concern which made it in small quantities and which did not have the piping and other facUities for saving freights and refining at the lowest pos- sible cost. It is clear that our people have been large gainers by the fact that that company is lo- cated here, under our own laws, where our pabUc opinion can reach its stockholders. No doubt they 48 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAE. have furnished oil to our people mucli olisaper than to any other Xolks in the world. That shows the advantage of having an article produced by parties living in the United States. The moment you open up the manufacture of any article in the United States the total supply of lihat article is increased, and the price tends to de- •crease both liere and in the Old World, where they are at once cut off from a portion of their markets. But, you ask, why cannot our own manufacturers combine and put up the price to the consumer and pocket the amount of the duty imposed on the for- eign articles ? The answer is (1) because the duty is nearly all offset by the higher wages paid in this country : and (2) the moment the manufactur- ers advance the price foreign goods will come in and break down the market again. You must not forget that, when we rely on foreign manufactur- ers, we nearly always pay more for goods than they are really worth. We aie paying to-day more lor tin plate than we should pay. The for- eign manufacturer, together with his agent, the importer, controls the price. We are at their mer- cy. Our people can make tin plate cheaper than it is selling for in this country to-day, and pay our higher price for labor; and the reason they ask protection on that article is that when they drive the prices down the cheap labor of England can- not step in and put the price stUl lower, so low that our manufacturers could not live and pay our better wages. It they should put the prices up as you suggest the foreignei-s would at once oojne in and under- sell them and their market would be gone. Do you not see that a combination to put up prices could not be formed so as to be effective, except by including producers in both the Old World and the New, which is not an easy thing to do ? It was tried with reference to salt last year, but failed ; it could not be managed. Will our correspondent learn the present price of tin the article to our consumers. This is always don* by improvements in methods of production, by thb greater intelUgence and skill of our workmen and by the increased competition caused by the new industry, none of which can exist until the in- dustry has been establislied and built up by a protective tariff. When thus built up, I know of no instance where cheapening of the price of the goo,ds has not taken place. It has been the case with cotton goods, woollen goods, silk goods, hardware, crockery, glass, the products of steel and iron, paper of all kinds, salt, chemicals of every description, etc., etc. If there is danger of such combinations, why have they not been formed in these cases ? E. G. H. ARE TAXES EVER A BLESSING POINTED QUESTIONS BY A CLEAE-HEADED MINNESOTA MAN. MR. HO-KR TRIES TO GIVE THEM A FAIR AND SQUARE ANSWER. To the Editor of The Tribune. Sir : I am a worklngman and belong to a labor organization, and am reading Mr. Horr's ardcles mth great interest. I think he is right on the tariff. A large number of tlie laboring men about here beUeve in the doctriue of protecdon. We think it secures us good wages. Just at tills time the members of our society are dis- cussing other questions. In one of Mr. Horr's articles lie states tliat taxes may be blessings and not burdens. We plain people consider taxes burdensome and often irksome There is a strong leeUng among us also that the Grovernment should o\vu the telegraph lines, the railroads, and should furnish all the money needed by the people, without any banks having anything to do with the issue of the currency. Mr. Horr has several times iu his articles spoken of certain tilings as being plate and mark it down, and then keep a careful outside the legitimate work ol the Government. I am watch of that article, and see if we do not cheapen requested to ask liim a lew questions and hope he will it by making it in this country ? The Free Trader is constantly asserting that all the manufacturer in this country desires from a tariff is the power to put up the price of his goods. That is false. No tariff was ever yet le^ried when the object was not a double one— first, to protect the labor of this country and enable us to pay good wages ; and secondly, to cheapen the price of the article for the consumers. Both objects have so far always been reached. I would like to agree upon a test case where we can soon arrive at the facts. Mr. Norton, of Chicago, states squarely that he be- lieves in thirty-six months tin plates, which now cost $5 75 a box, wiU be made and sold lor $4 a box here in the United States. If that shall take place, what would be the use of theorizing any longer ? Do not woiTy about the price of articles being put up on accoiunt of making them in this country aided by protection laws, after the protection is fairly in operation. There is no such case on record to-day. Not one.. So far the price has been reduced. Do not forget my statement. One object always sought by a protective tariff on manufactured articles is to cheapen the cost of see fit to answer them as early as possible, because, I assure you, they are aU questions which are behig asked by the entu'e working people ol the West. First. What does he mean when he says a " tax may be a blessing" ? Second. Are not all taxes, ol necessity, burdens ! Third. Why should not the Government own and. operate the railroads and telegraph lines ! Fourth. Why should not the Government issue all the paper money needed by the people and so save the interest now paid to the National banks on the Govern- ment bonds ? I shall' watch the Weekly Tribune lor a reply. OSCAE WILDEE. Minneapolis, Minn., AprU 25, 1891. These questions of our correspondent are a good Illustration of the fact that it is very much easier to ask questions than it is to answer them. A full answer to his lour brief questions would re- quire a book. I will, however, give my answers to them in as brief a manner as is possible in a newspaper article, and shall hope that brevity will not cause my reply to be obscure. In reply to the first two questions, I will say that taxation is an outgrowth of civilization. Among savages there are no assessors, no tax col- BIG ISSQES OF AN OFF YE.VR. 4& lectors. IIow does it come iu a republican form of guvcnimeiit. that sucli a thing as a tax i.s known ? We must not forget that in this country the entire people are the government. When our forefathers landed on the American continent the.v fo;ind tlic country occupied by wild savages. They brought with tliem tlic customs of civiliza- tion. The very lirst thing the.\' did was necessarily to buiUl houses for shelter. Each family naturally built its own domicile, one aiding the other as ne- cessities required, on some agreed basis of labor. \VORKS OF A PUBLIC NATURE. Probaltly the first work of a public nature was the building af some kind of a fortification to pro- tect the community from the encroachments of the savages. No doubt almost every able-bo These fortunes may be made lioncstly, hut are, no doubt, too often se- cured Vjy dishonest methods. When honestly made, in fair, legitimate business, the owners have a right to them, and are only accountnlfle for a wise and humane use of them. When made dLshon- estly, the owners of them arc both to be pitied and despised. I wish property was more evenly distril)uted in this world. It would be a great improvement if poverty could be eintirely abolished. I wish times could always Ije good. It would please me greatly to have good wages for labor and good prices for the products of farm and sbop at all times. If we could all manage to be happy and prosperous without giving any mortgages at all, that would lie better than to borrow money at ever so low a rate of interest. But such is not the condi- tion of affairs in tliis world at the present time. We are all compelled to meet life as we find it. I have but little of tliis world's goods. Had I Ijeen moi-e saving of my earnings, such might not have been the case. Tlie Government is in no way responsible for my misfortunes. The members of the Farmers' AiUance, as a' rule, have seen hard times for a few j-ears past. -My sympathies are all with them in their strug- gle to better their condition. What pains me is to see them rush into such wild schemes and fol- low off after ,a set of leaders who have as yet never organized any genuine reform. Jlen who are always grasping at every new-fangled notion, and who are ever on the alert to abandon any princi- ple and form any combiuation, for the simple purpose of self-aggrandizement seldom help any one except themselves. Of all the methods men- tioned to enable the people of this country to bring about better times and greater prosperity, the most dangerous is tlie attempt to draw the Government from its legitimate public work a.nd to put under its control the private business of the people. Such business should always be man- aged by individuals, having individual interests at stake and feeling personal responsibilitj'. Let the Government confine itself to pubUc duties, and let the business of this Nation be managed by private skill and individual enterprise. E. G. H. HOW CAN THE KANSAS FARJIEE PAY HIS DEBTS. Sir: The celebrated Alliance "man," Mrs. M. E. Lease, spoke here last Tuesday night. Below are some ol her statements. Are they truel She said that the National debt is as large now (compared wltli present prices of labor and produce) as it was at the close of the war. Also, that In 1850 the common people owned three- fourths of the property of tlie country and paid one- quarter of the taxes ; but that now the common people own a fraction less than one-quarter of the property and pay three-quarters of the taxes. She also said that there are 60,000 Union soldiers In tlio poorhouses of tlie United States ; that, the amount ol money in circulation amounts to only S*i per capita; and that the recorded Indebtedness in Kansas is sev- eral hundred doUars per capita. She wanted to know how the people of Kansas coulA ever e.\pect to pay their debts under such circum- stances. W. K. DAVIS. NortonviUe, Kan., March 6, 1801. In reply to this correspondent, I will say that the National debt has been reduced since the war from about three thousand millions of dollars to about eight hundred millions at the present time. If calculated on a gold basis, wages are higher now than they were in 1866. We were then using a largely depreciated currency, and wages and prices seemed much higher than they actually were. The statement about taxes is absolutely false. No one can tell what is meant by the term " com- mon people. " ^V^lo does it include ? Who does it exclude ? In this country we have no titled classes. We are all common people in the United States. Wealth is no more concentrated now than it was in 1850. The poor people pay no different rate of taxes now than then. Taxes are paid in this country on precisely the same basis as they have been from the foundation of the Gov- ernment. It is a rate on each $100. It always has been. Some rich people lie about their prop- erty and cheat in the amount of taxes they pay. They did the same thing in 1850. Did the speaker tell in what poorhouses the 60,000 old soldiers are ? It is easy for any one to stand up and utter such a slander upon our peo- ple ; but where is the proof ? The people of this Nation have stood by the old soldiers grandly. Our immense pension rolls prove that. The De- pendent Pension bill was intended to place every soldier out of reach of the poorhouse. It has sub- stantially done so. Such statements as you refer to are simply disgraceful. If there are 60,000 old soldiers in our poorhouses, why not tell us where they are ? Then they can be removed. I have never yet lieeu able to get the names of the poor- houses where it is alleged that these okl soldiers are held. Until they name the locations and substantiate the statement- I shall refui^e to l)c- lieve it. TeU us where tliese old soldiere are ; then we will have them removed to better quar- ters. To do that would be a grand work; and ta be telling such a tale, if it is not true, is infamous. Next time you hear this assertion made, call fol the proof. The statement as to there being only §8 ol money per capita in circulation in this countrj is absolutely untrue. On the 1st day of February last there was more than three times that amount, not less than i524 80 for each man, woman and chUd. My statement is taken from the official reports ol the Government and can be verified by the figures. I do not know how much the indebtedness per capita is for each person in Kansas. It is mora than I wish it was ; but it is only such an amounit as her people have voluntarily assumed. The^ created their debts in their efforts to lietter their condition. How can tliey be expected to pay them ? is one 54 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. of your orator's questions. Sure euougli ! I an- swer : By honest work and careful, good manage- ment. How else can any one get out of debt? Raise crops ; live frugally ; pay as you go : and in a little time the load will Ijo lifted. Kansas hal great resources. Her people are full of pluck, Two good years wiU put her on her feet. Efe- member thisl Any one who goes about your State teaching that there is any way to disohargt your debts, except by paying them, is no frienci of Kansas or her excellent people. Good, honesx work will help your people out. Nothing else ever will. These may not be pleasant words to listen to, but, before condemning them, please examine them and see if they are not true. E. G. H. DO FAEMEES BEAE BUEDENS WHICH MILL- OWNEES DO NOT? NONE WHATEVER— NOR ARE THET MORTGAGED ON ACCOUNT OP THE TARIFI'— THE WAT TO PAT A MORTGAGE. To tlie Editor of The Tribune. Sir: I am a faa-mer, and wotdd iilie to liave tUe following questions answered in The Weeidy Tribune : First— Why should not tlie American farmer have the same riglit to trade liis sui'plus farm products lor Em-opean manufactures that the A.-nerlcan mill- owner has to trade every production of mili-goods for South American and Asiatic products? Second— Can you give some reason why tlie Amer- ican mill-owner should be protected against this ti'ade of the American farmer? Tlinrd- Please explain why the trade of our surplus farm products should not be as free as the trade oi our surplus mill products ? Fourth— Why should fai-mers bear burdens that mlll- OAvners do not? Fifth— AATiy has real estate in Delaware County, N. Y; depreciated nearly one-hall in value within fifteen or twenty years 1 Sixtli- If the Americaoi farmer Iras been protected, why does the record oi the Clerk's oliice of Dela- ware County, N. Y., show that two-thmls of the farms of that county are under mortgage? Kespeetlully, E. C. HODGES. East Sidney, N. Y., May 15, 18yi. In answer to your first question, I know of no reason in the world why the farmers of the United States should not have precisely the same right to sell all their products in Europe or Asia that the mill-owners have. I know of no law that gives the slightest advantage to the one over the other. I am not certain as to what you mean by your second question. I am not aware that tlie Ameri- can mill-owners are in any way protected against the American farmers. The policy of the pro- tective tariff is to take care of and build up every American industry, whether it be in the factory, in the shop, in the mine, or on the farm. I Imow of no discriminations in favor of the one against the other. Your third question imphes that there is some disadvantages placed upon the surplus products of the farm that are not placed upon the surplus products of the mills. I supposed that all products of this country were treated pi-ecisely alike. Your fourth question also intimates that certain burdens are placed upon farm products wliich are not placed upon otlier products of the United States. I know of no such burdens. If there are any, they certainly should be removed. Every kind of industry in the United States should have a fair chance, and be equally protected. The real object of levying duties on the protective plan is to give our own manufacturers and farmers the advantages of our superior markets. The late tariff law was drawn in the spirit of that system. From beginning to end, it favors the farmers more than any tariff bill ever before enacted in the United States. If there is any dis- crimination in that bill, it is most surely in favor of the farmer, and not against him. I am at a loss to imagine just what it is of which you com- plain. In answer to your fifth question : I am not familiar enough with the condition of the various agricultural industries in Delaware County to state why farms have thus depreciated. Indeed, I am not sure that the depreciation is anywhere near as much as you state. It would seem from your question, howevei^ that these lands brought a good price, fifteen or twenty years ago. The same tariff was in existence then as for the past five years. Was it the same tariff that made them high then that makes them low now ? Is it not possible that the depreciation of real estate has taken place on account of conditions entii'ely outside of and foreign from tariff legisjation ? To make your comparison of value, j-ou should go back to 1856 and 1857, and take the price of farms in Delaware County at that time, Avhen we were living under a low, free-trade tariff, and compare prices then with prices now. I will guarantee that you will find no such difference in prices as you now mention. The distress of the farming communities for the past five years has been nothing as compared, with the terrors of 1857. For proof of this statement, ask any of your neighbors whose hau-, like mine, is white with age. In reply to your last question : Let me suggest that you may have taken the number of mortgages from mere heaisay. If you wiU examine the records of your county carefully, I will venture the assertion that not one in live of those farms are under mortgage. I doubt, if over one in ten will be found in that condition. TJie same state- ments have been I'epeatedlj' made for the last three years about the farming lands of my own State of Michigan, and of Iowa ; and yet the census returns just completed show that only about one farm in nine in the State of Iowa, and only about one in eleven in the State of Jlichigan, is under mortgage at all. The reports from botb States show that those mortgages have Iieen largely reduced in the last few years. The same reports further show that the very largest portion of those mortgages were placed on these farms for the purpose of buying inore lands, or Ijuilding new houses on the same. And in each State it was found that less than 2 per cent of such mortgages were given to pay l!!(i I- SITES OF AN' OFF \F.\R. the running' i>.\|)Cmscs of tlic fiuiiiors. It is luiiig hini a. better reWjy-il. In my judgment the such an easy thing to claim that eveiylhiug way to solve tliis mortgage trouble is to plant and is going to ruin, and to assume that everybody ia sow and reap and hoe, harvest,~Tdtg and sell. In mortgaging his home, but it is quite a dill'erent time that will dispose of the problem. Not a thing to count up the instances and get at the single I'arm has been mortgaged on account of the exact facts. I make this prediction that wheji tarilt laws. Not one. More than that, it you the statistics shall be fully reported, the property should adopt free-trade in this country tJ-moiTow, iu the cities of the United Stales, the projMjrly the mortgages would still be there ; and you would owned by manufacturers, the property owned by cripple the manufacturing industries and destroy the great corporations, including the raihoads of your own borne markets. My word for it, the tlie United States, will be found to be moiv dceplj- mortgages would then surelj' remain there un- mortgaged to-day than are the farms. I am not paid. K. U. IIOIiE. sure that 1 cannot almost count on the lingers of • uiy hands every railroad in the United States that ^ FAEMEE'S TAEIFF. is free from a mortgage ;■ and ^et we seldom hear tliose mortgages mentioned. protection to the home product. The mortgage is a device used by people for the The Tribune is ashed to reprint the table below purpose of obtaining money with wliich they hope repeatedly for the benefit of all concerned, to better their condition. The great mass of farm Not one article of farm produce which can be mortgages are no exception to this rule. Farmers, raised in the United States in quantity sufficient like other business men, have borrowed money for to supply tlie home market failed to receive pro- the purpose of tloing more business, and have tcction iu the ilcKimey bm. Upon most of th« given mortgage security for the payment, rather articles which the farmers of the United States than seek ijfersonal indorsement. In some in. produce in large quantity an increased protection stances they would perhaps have done better not has been given by raising the duty on tne foreign to have made the loans. That is uudoubteilly articles imported in competition with our own often the case with large numbers of other people produce. The following list speaks for itself: who borrow money; but having made the loans, ^^^,^^^ lo^i.t'^^'J^u. 3otw.X?L having dune it according to their own best judg- Bui;KMiie;vt lo pei' ceut. 15 cts. bush. ment, why should so much be said about these wueat'"'''.."!'.'!v;.V.::::::::-JO cts! Kush. 25 ct's! bust same mortgages? I know of no way honestly to W"l« ,■■■■- ? "^P*- ]?• \'^ '■'J*' HI" discharge a mortgage except by paying it, and I uay *-2 ton. «4 ton can see no possible advantage that could accrue to K"?r "".■.■.'.".■■.■.'.■.■.■.■.■.■.■.'.■.■.'.' Free! 5"c£!'d.cKea. the farmers who owe these mortgages by decreas- l?™^'"'ij™'-^,--,,-;.V.V.-.Vlo pe'. cint. 40cts"-bush. ing the number of shops and factories, and thus Kuvsery stocii: ifiee. 20 per cent. sending more people who now consume the food 'Vin/iu4; "ii-y"?:;.":.':.:.".".'.".'." iKe. "c'l.'ffr*^ of the farmers out on the farms and set them to ■B|!^:^".','ua"'JJfrk 1 ctf ' nl; lets'*' raising food, which wouUI siuiplv increase the glut Mutton 10 pei- cent. 2 cts. iti! of the farmer's market. f.'^IJjfJ^:; l';;;L.Jd ■.;:.'.:.:.;.lo'p'er cent. I ctli m. I have a little mortgage on my own farm. 1 JJcisos wonn over $150....20 p^>^r «;nt. Jj^'o'^f^^'^'"- am quite sure that the best method for me is to Mule^ ' ...'.''. |J0 ner cent. $30 iiead. try and earn the money to pay it olf, and tliat such cattle; "over 'Si'yearii^iii^.'So per cent! llO head. a procedure will be much more to my benefit than Ji"?* V 20 per cent $1 50 head. , T J *- Sheep, voarlin^s 20 per cent. 7o cts, head. the spending my time in finding fault with my- Sheep, over a j-ear 20 per cent. $1 50 head. ^^^■fi -f , 1 ■ 1 J 4.1 T 4.1 1 J. ^^iUt 10 per cent. 5 cts. gallon. self for having borrowed the money. I thought onion- 10 pr-r cent 40 cts ^ush at the time I gave the mortgage I could better ^}^%i,^i^- J^-^ts^'^. ll^^lvcTt^- my condition by purchasing another small piece Tobacco, not stenmied. 75 cts. per Ih. $2 per w. „*i„„,i ,T ■ - T ^1 • 1 ^1 ■ ^^ ^ Tobacco, stemmed $1 !n. $2 75 per Ih. Of land adjoining my own. I think the investment Fruit brand.7 82 gall. $■' 50 gall. vras a good one, even now, but whether good or ^^''SiSa^ --V/^^Zu'"'- Iwlo foa.'' not, it was mv own doing. ITie mortgaae was Hemp, hackled Mo ton. $.50 ton. „„4. », „ , 1 4., ■ 4, -1 ^ Wool. Class 1. tlnwa.?hed.. 10 & 12 cts. «.. 11 cts. It). put on the place by the exercise of my judgment. Washed.. -.20 & 24 cts. ir,. 22 cts. iti. No outsider induced me to enter upon the enter- class 2. umva'sh^edilfo I 12 cts'. 1.' 1? cts! ».' prise in any way, and it seems to me that the , „ scoured. ... 30 ct 30 cts. iii. 30 cts. m. , ^, . . ^ ' - , , - , , Class 3. Under 13 cts. 2-2 cts Mi 32 per cent, manly thing is to stand bj' my own head and make Over 13 cts. 5 cts. ft 50 per cent, the best of the situation. Bounty on American sit9'ar..None. 1h & 2 cts. m. To listen to the clamor about moi-tgages, one This by no means covers the whole subject, would think that some hobn-obUn had been through Im^^ever. The McKiuley bill in full (printed by the country putting mortgages upon farms with- "^^^^ Tribune in pamphlet form, old and new rates out tie consent of the owners. Such Is not the compared: price, 10 cents a copy) alone gives case. As a rule, these mortgages were all made to ^"^' particulars. - ...-T secure money for what seemed at the time to be foreign farm proditcts a good scheme. Hard times followed and payment More than §213,000,000 worth of foreign farm has been impossible. Times are better now. Farm products in the natural state was imported into products are bringing a good price once more, the United States during the calendar year of And this is the time to stop grumbling and go to 1890, all of which should have been raised by the raising crops. The wheat all over the 'West looks farmers of this country and been a source of in- promising. The hard work of the farmer will come to them. The McKinley biU was framed 16 Bia ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. with a view to enable the fanners of America to get possession of this large business and themselves lupply the bullc of the $213,000,000 of farm prod- ucts imported. The following wiU show how much American agriculture is interested in this feature of the McKinley bill (the figures represent- ing the net imports— that is to say, the total im- ports, less the small quantity of each kind of foods re-exported during the year) : Quantity. Value. 20,284 $187,007 40,703 4.14f Animals, etc. ; Ljjve Ciittio, No Horses, No. Sheep, No. 356,820 1,199,141 a50,507 1,981,149 2,910,437 25,836,098 1,282,271 1,277,250 088,013 76,522 32,913 9,431,826 1,395,602 All otlier, including fowls Feather^, natural Hair Hides and skins Bristles, lb Provisions : Meat products Butter, ITi Cheese, » -, -Tin^^a Eggs, ■■doVensV.V.V.V.V.V.V.V.V. 12,194,506 1,094,812 ^'''cotton, raw. It) 10,928,963 1'5™.?J9 Flax, tons- 7,303 1.956,182 Hemn tons 25.o29 4,591, fie4 Woof' ft .!;:::;:...;.:.. 105,800,747 15,057,748 Cereals, etc. ; Barley, bush Barley malt, bush Corn, bush Oats, bush Rye and wheat Other breadstuffs v -„-.:; Oatmeal, Ills 1,065,6/1 Linseed, IDs 2,570,284 Other seeds Rico fts. Rice flour, meal, etc., fts Yegetables. Beans and peas, bush — Potatoes, .bush Pickles and sauces Other vegetables Vegetables, pieserved. 9,365,614 5,044,573 281.036 194.478 2,135 1,489 13,015 6,197 AU re-exported. ^^ 27,433 2,939,838 1,513,399 76,707.202 1,802,986 64,922,264 1,102,560 1,569,080 1,703,883 3,990,502 1,046,323 .; 514,578 972,015 __ _ 666,772 TobVcco, ~rr>. '...'' "'.'.!.'. 26,792,869 17,595,189 Molasse4, gal 29 546,617 4,584,540 Sugar?* - - 3,068,761,690 89,992,511 Fruits', etc. : ^ Lemons ?'047'l"4 PlSSfs^\nd'prunes,'¥:.';.";.'". 61,368,200 2',803;901 Raisins ft... 43,077,097 2,227,838 Other fruit! I'g33,019 Preserved fruits .;-;,--■■;, I'SZ-S'-Sn Almonds, ft 7,333,086 973, dOO Hay, tons- 99,314 844,.282 Hopk, ft 5,320,579 ^.^i^.oQS. Vofttile oils, ft 1,172,931 225,987 Hemlock bark, cords 46,231 215,330 Total $213,003,321 It ought to be mentioned tliat, in addition to the articles referred to above, there were also imported into the United States during 1800 about §97,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, made out of the raw materials of agriculture, the raw materials tor which were not but might have been supplied by American farmers had the goods been produced in this country, namely : Manufactures of hemp, flax, etc $26,892,310 Manufactuirs of hair 162,773 Leather and manufactures of 12,538,550 Manufactures of tobacco _4, 160, 613 Manufactures of wool 53,603,022 Total $97,417,208 Are not the farmers ititeresred in the success of the McKinley bill? no recollection of ever making such a statement. If I did make it, it was done Inadvertently, and is not true. We have a class of people who are constantly claiming that the price of wheat is absolutely fixed in this country by the price in England. That proposition I have frequently disputed, and have stated that Great Britaiu does not purchase 10 per cent of our wheat, and that such 10 per cent hardly controls the price of the other 9 per cent. I'he agricultural reports show that we have exported an average of 128,000,000 bushels of wheat each year for nine years, but the same reports show that Great Britain bought only about 40,000,000 of bushels each year for five years past. In 1890 we raised of wheat .399,262,000 bushels. That year Great Britain bought of us only 38,240,523 bushels. That, you see, is less than 10 per cent of the entire yield. An average yield of wheat for the past twelve years has been about 445,000,000 bushels per year, and of late England lias not tal;en one-tenth of it ; but (ireat Brit-iin and the rest of the world have together consumed about one-fourth of it. Does Mr. Ward suppose for a moment that I would purposely misstate the facts about such a matter .' I may have said that we consume in this country fully 90 per cent of all the products of our farms— that is, taking them all together, wheat, corn, oats and all the rest. That is a statement I have often seen ; and one verj' able and careful statis- tician asserts, that we do not export over 8 per cent of all four products. Is not that the state- ment of Mr. Ward has so often seen ? M(3re than that— is not that true ? Will our correspondent devote himself to its examination ? From the best data that I can find that state- ment is absolutely correct. If it be true that over 9 per cent of .all farm products, find a home mar- ket in the United States, is not that even more significant than it would be of wheat alone ? It has not been true of wheat for ten years past. I predict that it will be true of wheat in less than five vcars. In 1880 we exported over 186,000,- 000 bushels of wheat: in 1888 only about 88,000,- 000 bushels. It Is easy to see where \\.e will soon bring up. It will be but a few years wlien our own people wiU eat all the wheat we raise. R. G. HOER. FAEM PRODUCTS EXPORTED. Sir : Will you please state in Weekly Tribune upon what authority Mr. Horr, among others, mata's the statement tliat %ve are using m tins country 90 per cent o£ all tlie wheat produced, wliile the AgricultmaJ Department asserts that for nine years preceding 1889 tlie average exports were 128,000,000 bushels. Such assertions as thai of Mr. Horr have been numerous tlie last year. A. WARD. Clyde, N. Y. ; Let me say, m reply to 'Mr. Ward, that I have WHO WAS IT THAT " ROBBED " FARMER BRANCH ?. EVIDENCE OF GUILT ON THE PART OP MER- CHANT KNOX— AN OBJECT LESSON IN THE STUDY OP THE TARIFF. To the Editor of The Tribune. Sir: I inclose herewith a clipping from "The Wis- consin Agriculturist," published without comment, as an object lesson to instruct farmers liow they are- " fleeced" by the "robber tariff." Will Mr. Horr aid: in undeceiving those of us who would be glad to be wise in such matters ? V. N. LESTER. Ottawa, Kan. The following is the entire clipping sent by our correspondent : "Tlie Buffalo Courier" says that some time ago Senator James K. Jones asked C. E. P. Brecldnridge, of the House Ways and Means Commirtee, to prepare for AV. L. Terry, of Little Rock, a statement of tlie amouait of tariff duties on a bUl of goods bought by a rep- resentative fanner. In reply Mr. Brecliinridge fur- nished an exhibit based on actual transactions between E. M. Knox, a merchant of Pine I'Jufl, Ark., and D. W. BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. 57 Branch, a farmer, wlio bought tlio goods. Mr. Breck- never the case. No man slioukl have known this inrldge explains that •• tlus Is calculated upon the better tlian Mr. Breckinridge. I doubt if there bssls of cost from the books of Mr. Kno.x and upon jg a,^ article in the whole list on which one cent the rate of taxes actuaUy paid upon competing articles ^^ ^^^^, j^^^^, g^,^^ ^,gg„ pj^jj,_ -p,jg j,jj[ j^ ^^^^ ^^ •t the ports as provided by law." The blU as it ap- ^j^^^^^ entirely of articles produced in the United pears i.. Mr. Knox's boobs Is subjoined: g^^^^_ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^.^^^ ^^^ ^ ^^^^,^^ .^ ^^ ,r'20-To ,a,.im..n'''ul'?of clothes.... *u 00 "sTod country to-day as cheaply as in the Old World. 2 iiair broKaiis. «l 05 8.30 75 To get at this question intelligently, we need F»b. 6-^ pair ^Uow'iiiVcs".'!!!!!!!!..!.'.".'.' 70 16 not consider just what Mr. Knox charged Mr. 1 pair uovs' ijniKaiis I'^s, 29 Branch for the goods. Tlie actual amount charged V^h i7 1 box axle gri-a^c ro .; ^ ffeb. 21— 1 A\er\ pioui:h 3 50 109 has no bearing whatever on the question. The ^ nails M"ot'55c°'^'..'.-".-!'-°-"'?^ 105 29 real question is. Did Mr. Knox himself have to 1 buBbel saltj 75c. ; 1 pair miss's pay for those goods more money on account ot tlht. «— 1 pair shoes" '$i'75'; i'pair'ot " the duties le%'ied on foreign goods of the same 1 wf'wawn>i'6ot".'. ■■.".'.'. ■■.".■. ■.■.■.■.".■. "?5 30 class imported than he would have been compelled M»i. so— 1 iiair brogans 100 37 to pay had no such duties been levied on the i ^water "^"bucket, °25c".V "i spool " foreign goods, and had no such articles been pro- AP.U o-ii'^ra*-l^^^^J^^2tt9l''li^i'9i5b::":::. 11° Itl honest the statement of Mr. Breckinridge is. that io''yards'woJ8tod''2o6:;;:::::::::: 200 I? Farmer Branch had paid 14 cents tariff on those 13 yards worsted,' 17c.. '.'!.. '!...'.'.'.' 2 20 95 nails. Merchant Knox only paid 19 3-4 cents 1 set goWets.!."!;!.!!.'.'.'.";;'-'"'^'.".' 65 li for t^« eleven pounds, to which should be added t set knives and forks.""!.'.." 2 75 91 freight, which would leave only 5 3-4 cents for t dishes. 40c. and 00c 1 00 3fi ^, ° ', ^ , .,, , i ^ .,.„,.,. . JS'yards bagging, 8c 2 80 99 the real cost of the eleven pounds of nails, that is ibimdletiei - 3 13 95 ^^ ^^,^ j^ ^j^py gp^j^^ ^-,g p,.oji,oed for §1 75 a keg. Total $10150 $3380 less the tariff, §125. In other words, if Mr. I give this clipping in full because it is a fair Breckinridge tells the truth, then nails can be made epccimen of the rubbLsh which the free- trade for §1 a, ton, which is less than the price of pig- press is constantly putting forth on the tariff iron. question. It is amazinir that as able a man as Again, here is another item: One bushel of Mr. Breckinridge is acknowledged to be should salt, 75 cents, on whicli tlie tariff would be a resort to such a trick to deceive the people. Let trifle over C cents. What can Mr. Knox buy that us examine the statements of this oUDPing. bushel of salt for? In Michigan it would coBt I point out fii-st that the bill of goods was sold hm on'y 8 cents : in New- York, 7 cents ; in (our years ago, and a new Tariff bUl has been Kansas, 9 cents. To this must be added freight, passed since then. However, the previous tariff in order to find out how much he robbed Farmer was a protective one, and, in substance, the situa. Branch: still, that is not to be considered in tion was tlie same as now. determining how much of that price should be It seems that Mr. Breckinridge was asked by charged up to tlie tariff. If he had bought foreign Senator Jones, of Arkansas, to prepare a statement salt, he would still have had to pay the freight, of the amount of tariff duties on a bill of goods Ii sliort, salt is selling to-day in Michigan for less bought by a representative farmer. In reply Mr. than the tariff on the foreign salt and is cheaper Breckinridge sends a bUl of goods actually pur- than it is produced abroad. Why, then, does Mr. chased by a Mr. Branch from a merchant by the Breckinridge claim that the tariff roblied Mr. name of Knox, at Pine Bluffs, Ark. ■ Mr. Bi-eckin- Branch on salt ? He knows better. The robbing ridge then makes out and places oi)posite each was done by Merchant Knox, and not Dy the article "the taxes actually paid upon competing tariff. The fact is, salt is one of the cheapest articles at the ports as provided by law." articles produced in this countrjf to-day ; and it has Now, to begin with, to make such a table of been cheapened by our own producers, since the any value one must assume that, if a duty is tariff law of 18 61 protected the industr:\'. levied on a foreign article when imported, the The next article I name is calico. Here the same duty is added to the price of competing charge is, two yards of calico at 10 cents, 20- articles produced in this country. But such is cents ; tariff, 9 cents, or 4 1-2 cents a yard. Again, 58 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. how much cUd Mr. Knox pay for that calico ? Ko one can tell who robbed Farmer Branob until -after that question is answered. Judging from what Merchant Knox charged for nails and salt, he did not pay more than 4 cents a yard for the ■calico. ]3ut calico is quoted afi low as 3 cents a yard at wholesale. We doubt if Merchant Knox paid over 4 1-2 cents for it at the outside ; and that is just what the duty would be. Does Mr. Breckimidge claim that the tariff on foieign oahco laised the price on those two yards 9 cents, when that is all the oahco cost ? Can ther make calico in the Old World and give it away as a paying business ? Again twelve yards of ticking is charged for at 25 cents per yard, total $3 ; tariff §1 25. Tlie same question again : How much did Merchant Knox pay for that tioldng ? How can you teU how much Farmer Branch was cheated, or who did the cheating, until after you get at the whole transaction ? Suppose, Mr. Breckinridge, it should turn out that Merchant Knox paid only $1 2 5 for that identical ten-yard piece of ticliing 1 You would hardly claim, in that case, that the tariff robbed Farmer Branch of §1 25, will you ? It surely cost something to make the goods. I might take up the entii-e list, had I time to look up the actual cost of these articles, so as to be able to state whether any money was paid out by Farmer Bra.nch on account of the tariff. So fat as I am able to recall the facts, there is not a single article named where the American-made product has not been cheapened by manufacture in this country. I now invite Mr. Breckinridge to an honest examination of that bill of goods. Will he please take up each item and state what its cost was when bought from the manufacturers in the United States. Then will he please tell us what the same article cost before we started the indus- try in this country, and how much less it can be bought for abroad to-day than it can in the United States. When aU those facts are given we will have some data from which can be ascertained just how much the price of that biU of goods was honestly affected by the tariff. Let that be fairly done. I will notify Mr. Brecldnridge that the facts will show that Merchant Knox could ha^'e sold that bin of goods at a fair profit, and that they would have cost Farmer Branch much less than he would have }>een compelled to pay for them had we not made them under the protective system in the United States. I am inclined to think that this biU of goods does clearly prove that Merchant Knox is im- posing upon the Arkansas farmers. I do not wonder at his l>eing able to do so, when a man of Mr. Brecldnridge's position and experience lends himself to the claim that it was the tariff which raised the cost of these goods to Farmer Branch. dne woid with Farmer Branch : After this, be- fore you take the word of Mr. Breckinridge, or any one else, as to the tariff making your bill too large, you will do well to find out whether you are charged 75 cents for a bushel of salt which cost Merchant Knox not to exceed 15 cents, and other articles in the same ratio. Then, do you "go" for Merchant Knox, and not the protective tariff. E. G. HOER. FINANCIAL ISSUES. MORE MONEY NOW THAN EVER. THERE IS NO SUCH DECREASE PER CAPITA IN THE CIRCULATING- MEDIUM AS IS FALSELY CLAIMED. To tlie Editor of The Tribune. Sir : Our Alliance wishes Mr. Horr to answer through The Trlbime the following questions ; Fhst^What was the largest amount of greenback money in circulation at any one time, and when? Second— What, approximately, was the population of the United States at that time! Tlurd— How much of that money was withdrawn from circulation and destroyed by the G-overnment? CHARLES STODDARD. Woodland, Iowa, Feb. 24, 1891. Previous to answering these questions I have taken the trouble to procure the exact facts, as nearly as they can be ascertained, from the offi- cials at Washington, as well as the facts upon some other questions which are being put to me daily, both as I meet the people and in letters. Ihe greatest amount of United States notes, com- monly called " greenbacks, " in existence at any one time cannot be exactly stated from any re- port now in print. The amount outstanding July 1, 1864, is probably within a small fraction of the highest amount ever in existence at any one time. The amount outstanding at that date was $447,300,203, but of that amount there was in the United States Treasury $32,184,21^. That left in actual circulation $415,115,990. There were in circulation at the same time other forms of paper money amounting to $239,347,- 864, making an aggregate paper circulation of $654,463,854. July 1, 1864, there were in existence of paper money formerly issued in the United States the following amounts : State bank notes $179,157,717 Compound interest notes 6,000,000 Fractional currency 22,894,877 Grreenbacks 447,300.203 National bank notes 31,235,270 Total : !«68C,64S,067 Of this money there were in the United States Treasury $31,235,270 of greenbaci?s, leaving in circulation, as before stated, $654,463,854. Tlie population at that time is estimated to have been 34.046,000, which made an average of $19 22 of paper money for each man, woman and child at tliat time In the country. It must be borne in mind that at tliat time neither gold nor silver was being used as ourreacy in the United States. Both were then at a high premium and were bought and sold simply as commodities. Gold was used, though, in payment of customs duties, and the Government paid the interest on its bonds with gold. There was estimated at that time to be of gold coin in this country the sum of $203,000,000. There was in the Treas- ury at that date $18,653,580. which left in the hands of the people S184,3'IB.420. There was also estimated to be $10,000,000 of silver m the United States at that time, of which $625,366 was in the Treasury of the Government, leaving Bia ISSLTES OF AX OFF YEAR. 59 of silver owned by tlie people §9,37!. '534. If these amounts of irold and sliver were Bdded to the paper money tlien in circulation, the sum would be increased to 98'18.184,908, which would have lieen S24 nd;irJ silver dollars. Subsidiarv coin Silver I- ■itilKat.-s Greenbacks National bank notes... io,JU9,079 05,778 828 1,402,000 346.681.010 324,514.284 Total $751,705,807 At that date there were in the Treasury of the United States the following amounts of the vari- ous kinds of currency above referred to : IX THE TREASURY. Standard silver dollars $15,059,327 Subsidiary coins 6,860,505 Silver certiflcates .- 1,455,520 Greenbacks .-. 25,775,121 National banknotes 12.7^9,923 Total - - $01,940,896 Deducting that amount from the entire sum issued, and It leaves $692,704,911 , wliich was the amount of money in circulation July 1, 1878. Gold is not included in this estimate, because it was still at a premium and not in general use as money. The estimated population at that time was 47,598,000, which shows that on that date there was in circulation as inonej' only §14 56 for each man, woman and child in the ..$2,142,547. Total IN THE TREASURY. Gold coin $229,912,088 ,Sinri,l;i ,1 -iu.r- dollars— Act of February 28. I--- , ,i , 1 ot July 14. 1890 302,747,050 ^,:l - , .1 19,973.211 i,o; , rt, i, ,i~ ■"■ 19.892.050 Si.io .eKilit.a s' " 3.218,783 Trea-ur.v notes, act of July 14, 1890 3,202.294 Gr. enbacUs 0,99.).598 NaUonal bank notes 0.320,151 Total $610,791,743 Deduct the amount in the Treasury from $2,142,547,994 and it leaves the quantity- of mone.y in actual circulation among our people on the 1st day of February, 1891. at $1,525,756,251. The census .just ta.ken shows that we have a population of 63,000,000, So that to-day there is in actual circulation for every man, woman and child in this country the sum of $24 80, as against $14 56 in 1878 and $19 22 in 1864, pro- vided you include as mone.y at those dates only such currency as was in actual use as money at the time. Are not these figures significant? Let me state frankly that they have been a surprise to me. I have heard the statement made so fre- quently from day to day that we lacked cir- culating medium ; that the volume of currency had been constantly contracted for man.y years past, that I came to take it for granted there must be some foundation for the statement. It now turns out that we really have vastly more money in circulation per capita than in 1864 and half as much again as in the good times from 1878 to 1885. These statements are from docu- ments in my possession under the official sig- nature of the acting Secret.ar.y of the Treasury. The advocates of free coinage may dispute this estimate as to 1864 and claim that there was really then in use S29 42 per capita, which I Aeny for reasons formerl.y given, but how can they successfully refute the figures as to 1878? What do they say as to the amount shown to be in circulation then including every possible kind of money ? Prices were good and times were then prosperous. Does it not force thoughtful men to look somewhere else for the cause of busi- ness depression than to the amount of circulating medium ? Is it not passible that it is a cheap dollar these men are seeking much more than the number of dollars? When a depreciated dollar 60 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YE.^. is used for the measure of value, prices may seem to be lush, but there must always come a day of settlement ; when that day arrives the people are compelled to settle in good money. To do that always hurts, and sometimes hurts terribly. Men who sell their crops, men who sell theii' day's worlfs, are always injured by the use of poor monfey. Good, honest dollars are always best in the long run for the entire people of any nation. So lojig as our currency is all convertible without expense to tlie holder into the best it will all be good. The moment you enact a law that will compel us to take a cheaper dollar and pay for it with one more valuable, that moment the more valuable dollars will begin to disappear from among UB, and the cheaper money will hold possession of the entire field. I see that to-day in the Argentine Eepublio gold is quoted at a premium of 219. Does any one imagine that gold is being circulated in that country as money ? Go there and you will find that the people are using as their medium of exchange only the de- preciated paper money of that nation. It may be the best they can do under the circumstances, but admit that it is, no, one will claim that any nation which can avoid such a condition of affairs should plunge into the same vortex, simply because that Eepublio has been hurled into the whirl- pool. We have to-day as good money as any nation in the world can boast of ; let us all re- solve to keep it good. E. G. HOEE. QUESTIONS AS TO SILVEE. To the Editor of Tlie Tribune. Sir: As a patron of Tlie Tribune, I submit a few questions with the expression of my bes.t wishes for its Buccess : First— If we should adopt tlie British monetary laws, which regulate pricss with gold by excluding all bills less than £5, and silver, too, except tlie necessary smaU change, would not our prices naturally fall about as low as theirs, and so make Protection use- less' Second— Or, if they should adopt our monetary laws, and so ply tlieir trade with all the small bills and cheap silver coins they could press into circulaiiion, would not their prices naturally rise about as liigli as ours, and so make Protection useless ? Third- But 11 we inflate our rrrculation and prices above other nations, will not every unprotected ad- vance in our prices insiu'e to the advantage of foreign trade, and to the disadvantage of the home trade, which would be compelled to procure labor and ma- terials at the higher prices 1 Fourth— Since prices depend upon the circulation, and an advance in prices Inures to the advantage of foreign trade and the disadvantage of the home trade, are we not rationally bound to prevent a rise in price or protect it from foreign spoliation by an adequate tariff ! Fifth- In the past many lines of trade may have sutfered severely by stress of foreign trade, and prices have been too low to comport with prices in other lines ; but does the "McKlnley bill" now afford just and ade been classed among the "fools," this orator then says: "AH this kind of justification of the tariff by leading men is quite inconsistent with the general assertion that the effect of protective tariffs in America has been to lower the prices of commodities. T'hey point to steel, which, in 1874. sold at twelve pounds sterling per ton, and has row been lowered to about five pounds sterling." That is, that this statement of Mr. Gould (waich Mr. Gould never made), and eimilar statement* of other leading men, not one of which was ever BI& ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAH. ■66 made, is inconsistent with what these leading men actually do claim ! If any one can surpass that statement lor indecent impudence, it. will piea=e me to watch the attempt. This aentieman tells us that he was present, and so ol course heard the arguments ou the McICiuley hill. He knows then, very well, that every Protectionist m this country claims that the llnal result of our pro- tective system has been to cheapen all articles manufactured here. He should know that tlie facts bear out this inference. We do not con- fine the statement to steel. We simply name that as one article among all the rest. It is just as true of salt, cutlery, earthenware, glass goods, silks, cotton goods, starch, nails, paper-pulp, etc., etc— every one are cheaper now than when we trusted to the foreign manufacturers for our sup- plies. Why did he not name one single article of which this is not true ? He would not be slow to do it if he could. Instead of doing that, he rushes off into tin plate liefore we have had time to try that. Listen to him : " Neither have I alluded to the monstrous tax on tin plates, which may restrict consumption, as the tax is likely to amount to four millions sterling. It will certainly raise the price on domestic utensils and canned provisions; but South Wales need' not fear that tin plates will be made in the United States in any quan- tity. I could give good reason for this belief, but time fails me." It is very plain what reason was running in the gentleman's mind. Wantof time was not really what caused his failure to name it. He could not have named it witlioiit betraying some of his coadjutors in this country, who had thus earlj^ informed him that capital al- ready had been frightened out of the tin-plate in- dustry here in the United States. I am very glad, however, that we have Anally one straight prediction from a Free-Trader as to what will be the result of this tariff on even on one article, to wit, tin plate. I now propose to match this nrediction of the Right Hon. Sir Lyon Flayfair. K. C. B , M. P., Free-Trader, etc., with one from a Protectionist, who has no very long tail at either end of his name. First, domestic utensils and tin cans will not rise in price for any great lencth of time, it at all, but, on the con- trary, inside of two years, tin plate will be ch"ai:er, and we will get a lietter article for less money than we are now paying for the foreign product. Second, it makes no difference whether South Wales fears or not, tin plate will be made in the United States, not only in considerable quantilies, but in large quantities, and that too within a few months. Dare' this English Free-Ti-ader agree to submit the question of protection and free trade as to prices to this test ? I know my predictions are as unequivocal as liis. Come. now. What can home competition do to cheapen the price of an article ? That question can be settled by this one experiment, at least, as between us two in- dividuals. I am ready to risk the result. Is he ? I cannot close this article without warring the good people of South Wales against being mis'ed \>y the predictions of this distinguished gentle- man. Tin plate is. to-day, being made in no in- considerable quantity in this country. Several large works for its mnn\itacture are already being built. The plates, both of ii'on and steel, are Ibeing manufactured now and laid aside tor use when the tariff on tin plate goes into effect, and the people of this country propose to make large quantities of this article right here in our own mills and by the aid of our own Workmen. We have never yet started a new industiy in this country without having met this same cry of " Wolf ! wolf ! " from these same Free-Traders. Our people have learned not to be frightened at this clatter of tongues. The noise has become familiar to us all. Then permit me to assure .you that our business men certainly intend to ■make our own tin plate In tlie near future, not because they love South Wales less, but the United States of America more. That they may succeed in this laudable undertaking is my hope and earnest prayer. E. G HORR. IN AMERICA THE PEOPLE RULE WHAT GOVERNMENTS ARE FOE AND WHY THEY exist: AN ENTERTAINING- ACCOUNT OP THE "WHOLE MATTER FOR AMERICAN VOTERS TO READ. ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE POREIGN BORN. It is well for people Uving under any form ol government to stop at liimes and examine the (luestion as to how it happens that there are any Governments among men, and also try and learn the fundamental principles upon which Govern- ments are founded, and more especially the prin- ciples which underlie the government of the Nation in which they are living themselves. A study of this sort, while good tor all, is. especially desir- able for that large number of our fellow-citizens of foreign birth who have come among us to live. Nations have come into existence only after a slow growth for ages. An individual, solitary and alone, could simply make a struggle for life, without being helped or hampered by arfy other of his species ; and when he died, that would be the end of him. His end would be mourned by no one. Nature ordained that the human race can be continued in existence only by the com- mingling of the sexes. Hence the first form of government on the face of the earth must have been the family. The father and mother, their children and their children's childi-en, constituted an organization of persons who had interests in common, and their interests being mutual, they soon came to make common cause of the rights or wrongs oi" each person in the family. Tlie oldest man of the family came naturally to assume the highest authority, and just as naturally re- ceived the oompletest homage. The entire house- hold, from youth up, became accustomed to obey him, to look up to him for aid and counsel. His word soon came to be law, and his decisions, of necessity, final. This family relation came in time to be considered sacred, and the authority of each patriarch, that is., of the oldest man in each fam- ily, became supreme at a very early day in the existence of the human race. Thus, in the very dawn of civilization, obedi- ence to the commands of one person came to be considered a duty, and the right of such person to exercise power was fully established, and has never since been questioned by any civilized peo- ple. That same power is. exercised to-day by the head of every family, and the same obedience is required among all the civilized descendants of Adam. As population increased, as families became more numerous, as the flgiit for a living became more severe, families which had intermarried with each other began to form clans, or tribes, for purposes of defence and common protection. Thus small bands of men with, a common interest learned to make a common cause with each other. The patriarchs and their followers united to form a community larger than the family, but Nature BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YKAE. 67 had made no provision for a leader of the tril)e. His selection must ot nccessirj- liave been made •by tliose constituting tlie tribe. Tliey naturally chose some man anions them noted for h's pliysi- ■cal strength, for his cunning and courage, and he 'became the chief of tlie tribe. Having been se- lected, wliat would be more natural than that he sliould he given tlie same power over tribal mat- ters which the patriarch had long possessed over the family ? This was; the second step in the formation of all govormnents. Tills chosen chief at once Iwcame a ruler of men, but his place and (lower vpere given to him by the people compoe- ■L'lg the tribe. In the outset, no man could have been born a chief. He had to prove himself worthy of the place, and the ottice must have Ijeen given him by till' consent ot those who constituted the clan ■or tril>e. REPUBLICS AND MON.VRCHIES. After a lapse ot time clans and tribes became more numerous and they finally banded them- selves together into still larger communities and formed nations, also for purposes of mutual pro- tection and profit. These combinations soon dis- covered the need of some supreme authority, some person vested with the right to command and re- ceive obedience. To meet such a necessity they selected, no doubt at first always from among the chiefs, a ruler; and he was placed at the head ot all the clans or tribes in settUng national ques- tions. In this case, too, he muot have received his place from the choice of the men consti- tuting the tribes or clans. So it is very clear that in those early days there could have been no such thing as a man being born a king or a ruler. In those early times all rulers must have been selected or chosen to their place. As the ownership of property came to be under- stood and agreed to, the right of inheritance also came to be insisted upon and recognized ; and thus, property came to be held in the same family from generation to generation. Out of that idea, no doubt, afterward grew up the notion that families could also inherit the right to rulership. When a man possessed great strength, courage, capacity, and did great things for his people, why should he not impart to his children the same power to dare and to do ? Re- ligious notions may liave aided in the work at an early day, and helped to form the idea of the divine rights of kings and princes. In my judgment, however, the notions that people had about their rulers had far more to do with the shaping of their idols than their ideas about their deities had in determining the character they attributed to their rulers. It was no doubt a long time before any man claimed the divine right to rule or even the right to do so on account of his birth. The idea that kings received their light to govern from on high came from theology ; it was resoi-ted to on account of the constantly re- •ourring claim, which has been stated over and over again from time immemorial, tliat rulers got their power from the people. The world has never been free from people somewhere who were .asserting that the right to govern could not be inherited and did not come from above, but that it was a right which came only from the consent of the governed. Kings and prinoes have of late never ceased claiming that their right to rule comes from on high; and that human agen- cies have no right to interfere \vith them in their exercise of a power bestowed upon them by the Almighty. Those people wlio Ijelieved that the power to govern could come only from the consent of the governed formed republics and chose their own rulers. Other people recognized the alleged "divine right" of certain families to rule; and tliey submitted to be governed by monarchs and kings. The nation in which Americans live has been managed for over a century now upon the old. primitive plan that the people are the source of all civil power. A little examination will show how completely we have preserved all the ancient divisions and landmarks. E.VOrt DISTRICT SUPREME IN ITS OWN WAY. We still have the original form and power of the family. In the great bulk of the duties and transactions of life, the fam- ily is still supreme. In the management of the household, in the gaining of a living, m the training and management of children, in nearly all there is of ordinary daily life, each family manages it« own att'aii-s, submits to dictation from neither priest nor potentate, and is seldom interfered with by the otticers of Church or State. Families are seldom meddled with by ohe rest of the world. It may seem strange, but it is true, that nearly all the ordinary transactions ot life are controlled and managed under the unwritten law of the household. Each famfiy is a law unto itself; and no two are governed precisel.y alike in any nation. This is as it should be. The family, the home, is the natural unit of power with which the world has been civilized. It is the first, the natural organization of human beings. Its pre- cincts should always be held sacred ; its pre- rogatives should be abridged as little as possible. In the place of the ancient clans and tribes we now have school and road districts, towns, cities, counties and States, and all these toget-her make up the Nation. Certain minor matters are left to small districts. These were organized, not as the result of any theory, but as a matter of growth. The school district is as small a portion of the country as can maintain a school. As the popula- tion increases, the district is made smaller, so as to save the children travel. A road district is fixed by the distance within which people can readilj- go to work on the road. These small districts have certain duties to perform, and in matters pertaining to those small districts they are supreme. In hiring a district school-teacher, the town, or the county or State have no voice ; nor would they be permitted to interfere any moi^e than the directors of a school district would be permitted to meddle in the management of any family in that district ex- cept their own. The townsliips and cities are still larger or- ganizations than the school districts. They BIG ISSUES or AN OFF YEAR. take charge of matters of a wider scope than those intrusted to these small distiicts. They, too, are supreme in matters intrusted to them ; and in such matters the counties and States are not permitted to interfere. Again, in matters which pertain to the ooueties the latter are also supreme. They have charge of }arge bridges, building and furnishing courthouses, recording of deeds, probating of wills, etc., etc. The State never tbinlvs of interfering in any way with the duties which belong to the counties. The States are still larger organizations and have charge of broader and weightier affairs. In matters which belong to them, the States also are supreme. They have absolute control; the Na- tion has no right to meddle in any way with purely State matters. Last of all comes the Nation, the Government of the United States, with National powers and National rights. In all matters that are Na- tional the Nation ie supreme, and its laws are final Let us now go back again to the unit of power, the family. WhUe it is supreme in so many of the transactions of life, still the moment a school district is formed and the members of the family have become members of that organization, then the family ceases to have the right, as a family, to interfere with the- management of the school. Even the right to control and correct their own children while in the school-room has been dele- gated to the larger organization, and that body is clothed with full power to do whatever is best and proper to secure a good school. The rights of the family over its children must give way to the rights of the larger organization in its efforts to perform its duties. So it is all the way up the ladder. While the larger organiza- tions have no right to meddle with matters which pertain to the smaller ones, the smaller ones are equally bound to yield to the larger in all mat- ters pertaining to the peculiar duties of the latter. AU the tails about the "supremacy and sov- ereignty of the States" has no special signifloance. It would be just as sensible to talk about the "sovereignty" of the family, the school district, the town, the city or the county, as of tliat of the State. Each of these organizations is supreme in its own special department, one no more than another. At the top round of the ladder is the Nation, supreme in all National matters, and from whose decision there is no app»»al. Its courts are those of last resort, its laws the supreme laws of the land. Its jurisdiction is hemmed in by no State lines. It takes notice neither of districts nor towns, nor counties. Its only question is where is the boundary line of the United States, and every where witliin those lines it is equally at home Failure to recognize this principle led to civil war. The people of the South constantly talked about being "invaded" by the Federal Aimy. The Army qt the United States is never an Invading army so long as It remains within the boundaries of this Nation. A nation cannot " invade " itself. In an attempt to enforce Na- tional laws, the Nation never stops to inquire about State lines or other local Hues. I know the Constitution provides that the Government may send the National troops into a State, after having been requested to do so by the Governor of that Stale, but that is when the Governor desires help to enforce some State law. There is no such provision as to the enforcement of Na- tional laws. Suoh a provision as that in reference to sustaining National authority ^vould be simply ridiculous. From what has gone before, it is evident thas. the people are the soui-ce ot all power in this- country. Our oiliciais, are expected simply to carry out the will of the people. It then follows as a matter of necessity that to have a wise and intelligent Government our people must be wise and intelligent themselves, because tUey are, in fact, the Government. No man is born to any civil or political office in the United States. Rulers are made and un- made at the will of the people. Our theory is that the people will select the best men for place and power. They often fail to do so, but they hit it right more frequently than is done when these oifices are filled by the accidents of birth. A RULER'S FIRST TRAINING. In a Republic lil!:e ours, the Nation rests upon the intelligence, virtue and honesty of the indi- vidual men and women living within our borders. Cultivated, pure, honest people give pure, happy homes, and good homes secure good rulers, good lawmakers and a good Govei'nment. In the very outset, men being physically stronger than women, being free from the duty of nursing the young, it naturally fell to their lot to provide- looct tor the families and to bear the burdens of protection and defence. Women had other duties which fell to them naturall,y. In thisvyvay, from time immemorial, the duty of managing Gov- ernments and defending them from foreign foes- has been considered the proper work for men. When one recollects that the family is the unit of political power in this world, it will be seen that so long as the families are lepresented the entire people are also represented. It is too true that man has often been a tyrant in the exercise of the power given him in the organization of the family. But in very many more cases he has been an affectionate husband, a kind father, a hard-working provider and a genuine protector for his family. A man who does not matiage hia household on the principles of love and kindness is one of the worst of rulers among men. He is causing misery at the very threshold of human societj'. The first duty of every human being is to learn to govern himself. Then he will manage his family well. That will prepare liim to do well in managing a t-ownship. He will soon be valuable in the affairs of the State, and will be fitted for a place among the Nation's rulers. When once understood, I believe our form of government will be admitted to be the best ever .vet devised. The system of local management being left with the people of each locality for them- selves, is as perfect a plan as has ever yet been formed. If our people could only always agree on what is best to be done, there woinfT be little friction in the management of alfairs. Here comes the trouble. Good men often differ as to what policy should be punsned. They cannot agree as to what is best. Sellishness- and ignorance also mix up in the solution of the problem, and sometimes wickedness and bad motives are not wanting. A decision must be made. In an absolute monarchy the question would be settled by the will of the monarch. In a republic, we leave the decision to the vote of the majority of the people. -Our theory is that the ma,iority will be more likely to be right than the minority, and certainly more likely to be right than anj' one man. Thus it becomes evident that the intelligence of the voter, which will enable him to decide wisely, and then an hoinest count of the ballots, so as to learn where the majority stands, these are the two safeguards of this Republic. Intelli- gent, well-informed people and an honest, fair election are the snbstratusn on which rests this- great American Nation. Pure homes, well regu- lated families, good common schools, an untram- \ melled press, and honest ballots honestly counted' will keep this Nation amons- the best and wisest Governments on the face of the earth. E. G. Hv THE RECIPROCITY POLICY, EXCHANGES OF XOX'COMPETIJSG I'RODVCTS PliO' MOTED BY THE TREATIES. ENLARGING EXPORT TRADE RESOUIiCES (iF IlhilPJlOCITY. The Reciprocity treaties which have been negotiated are tlie beginning but not the end of a greequii'ements of equitable Eeciprocitj . . Herein lies the ix)tential efficiency of the Aldrich amendment. The free market for coffee, sugar, molasses and hides is offered on equal teims to all the Southern countries. Those willing to pay for their privileges by making reasonable concessions to the American export trade will retain that free market permanently. Those accepting it only as a gi-atuity vnW be deprived of the benefits of unrestricted trade in these tiopical staples. The Reciprocity amendment will operate after the close of this year as a discrimination in favor of those coun- tries which comply wth the conditions of the offer of the free market, and against those which neglect their opportunities. The lan- guage of the act is ex^plicit respecting the President's ob'igations to enforce a fixed sched- ule of duties whenever the conditions of trade are inequitable and unreasonable. It is as fol- lows : That with a view to secure reciprocal trade with countries producing the following articles, and lor this purpose, on and after the first day of January, 1892, whenever and so often as the President shall be satls- llcd that the Government of any country producing and exporting sugai-s, molasses, coffee, tea and hides, raw and uncured. or any of such articles. Imposes duties or other exactions upon the agricultural or other products of the t'nlted States, wliich In \new of the free intro- duction of such sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and hides Into the fnltcd States he may deem to he reciprocally unequal aud unreasonable, he shall iiave the power, and It shall be his duty to suspend, by proclamation to that effect, the provisions of this act relating to the free introduction of such sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and hides, the production of such country, for such time as he sliall deem just, and in such case and during stich suspension duties shall be levied. collect'Jd and paid upon sugar, molasses, coffee, teaj and hides, the product of or exported from such de^isnatetl country as follows : (The schedule follows.) Nothing can be clearer than the President's duty to impose the schedule of duties and thereby to plac« a premium upon the produce of oountii?s entering inti commercial union, and to discount the industries of those which do not conform to the requirements of reciprocal trade. On the basis of the caffee importations of 1890 a duty of 3 cents a pound -nill make in favor of Brazil the following discriminations against the oountrie* named : Venezuela, lpl,722,614 13 ; Central America, 8923.363 94: Mexico. §620,- 009 2.5 : Hayti, -8201,04:9 50 : British West In- dies, §146,18^1 OS. To these discrin-inations will be added the duties on hides, and in the case of the British West Indies the duties on sugar. There "nill be sufficient force in this discrimination in favor of Brazil to comi)el Venezuela and the other coffee countries to make Reciprocity' treaties. As for the British West Indies, they wU be ruined without Reci- procity. The schedule of duties, if isnposed on the basis of recent importations from Jamaica alone, will amount to §466,000 ; and for the entire group it will be not less than 81,500,000. If the Home (Government allows the interests 70 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAE. of the islands to be sacrificed to those of Bra- zil, the Spanish West Indies and Santo Domingo it wM be wantonly indifferent to their fate. The more closely the Reciprocity question is studied the larger and more practical appear the results of this great policy. Congress has armed the President with tremendous power in opening the Southern markets to American trade. Determined as he is known to be to make Reciprocity and the enlargement of the Nation's exporting interests the crowning issue of his Administration, he can be depended upon to employ the resources of the act to their full extent during the last fifteen months of his tyerm. RECIPROCITY AND FREE TRADE. For a week " The World" has been asking questions like this : " Are foreignei-s better than Americans that they should be untaxed and our own people left burdened ?" " If the tariff be not a tax on consumers, why are these foreign people congratulated on getting American products free of dutj' ?" " If it be a benefit, as all conc-ede that it is, to relieve South American and Spanish American people from tariff taxes on universal necessaries, it ■would be a boon to the people of the United States to relieve them of similar burdens, as these treaties do not." "The placing of coal upon our free list would without doubt have an im- portant effect upon the manufactures in New- England that are being forced to the wall by the tax-enhanced cost of their fuel and raw materials." The common answer to all these questions is that the tai-iffs in Spanish-America are not protective, but revenue tariffs. Take, for ex- ample, coaJ in Cuba. There are no coal mines in the island ; there is no industry, as there is in the United States, that Has been protected by the duty ; it has been a revenue tax imposed in the interest of the Spanish administration. In the same manner the heavy import duties on flour have not been levied in the interest of the agricultural classes of the island. There is no wheat raised in Cuba. It is a country which produces sugar, tobacco, coffee and tropical fruits. When wheat flour has been taxed, it has been for revenue purposes, but not in the interest of protection of home industries. The same remarks apply to all the South American tariff's. Not one of them is protective and based upon the principles of our own economic system. All these tariffs are modelled after the Spanish system of taxation and are designed to produce revenue, and very largely from the taxation of food products. Venezuela, for examp'e, taxes flour over 100 per cent, and does it for revenue only, without protecting in the least its agri- cultural population. When, therefore", our inquisitive Free-Trade neighbor asks such questions as we have quoted it leaves Protection out of the case. Take the Reciprocity oft'er in detail, and what do we- find '? The abolition of revenue taxes on articles of common oansumption which cannot be pro- duced in the United States. If coff'ee and sugar were taxed, no home industries would be bene- fited. 'J'hese sources of revenue are given up for the sake of cheapening the necessities of life. In return, Brazi', Cuba and Santo Domingo place on the free list food products -i-s-hich are necessary there but cannot be raised by homo industry. Reciprocity in the main involves an exchange of non-competing products at a loss of revenue on each side, but without sacrifice of the principle of Protection as it is iinderstooci in the United States. Such manufactures as are included in the free lists and reduced schedules obtained in payment for free sugar and free coffee are those which are not carried on in Southern countries. The revenue tariffs are Towered, but home industries and productive interasts are not sacrificed either North or South. We are gJad that " The World" is tak- ing the line that it does respecting Reciprocity. It is bringing out in the strongest way the Free-Trade tindencies of the Democratic party. The Republican party m its taiiff legislation and Reciprocity jwlicy does not stand for revenue taxation, but for the development of National industries and the employment of home labor. It is not asldng Southern countries to do more than the United States is doina. and that is to give up for the benefit of consumers purely revenue taxation on non-competing products. When Democrats find fault with Reciprocity be- cause it is not English free-traae, they show what it is they really want, and why they are hostile to the system of Protection, under which American prosperity has become the marvel of the modern world. Our neighbor is forcing the Free-Trade issue. Republicans are ready for it. By all means let it be made tfhe decisive issue of the next Presidential canvass. DEVEhOPMEM OF RECIPIiOCITT. Reciprocity is no longer to be regarded as a theory or as an experiment. It is a policy which is producing large practical results. Three commercial agreements have been negotiated with coff'ee and sugar countries and three for- eign markets have been opened to the products of American farms, mines and factories. These advantages for the export trade have been se- cured without the sacrifice of the principles of Protection. A free market is off'ered to South- ern countries producing staples belonging to a diff'erent zone. The value of that free market, which is the best in the world, entitles us on strict business principles to have certain priv- ileges in exchange in disposing of our surplus products. The United States, as the heaviest BIG ISSUES or puri-haser of liiazilian coffee and Cuban sugar, is allowed by the Reciprocity agreements dis- criminating advantages over England in selling its exports. It is a good business trade with countries having a largo surplus of staples which cannot be produced in the United States. Competing American industries, like tobacco, are protected, but tropic-al produce which we want but cannot rairie is admitted witho.ut re- strictions ; and since the consninption of that pi'oduce is so laige as to create an overwhelm- ing balance of trade in favor of Southern coun- tries, the conditions are equitably readjusted by concessions to the surplus of American bread- stuffs, meats and manufactures. A good many of our Democratic friends the enemy are seeking to prove that Itecipi-ocity is essentially a Free-Tiade policy. If they really think so, why are they sneering at it as a de- lusion and a trick? Until they can succeed in demonstrating that any competing industrial interest in the United States has been sacri- Hced they will fail in convicting a Republican Congress and the Harrison Adminic-tration of inconsistency in connecting Reciprocity with the tariff policy. All that has been done has been to facilitate the exchanges of different zones and to get something like its full value for the privilege of free entry into a market of 63,000,000 of consumei-s. Before the Reci- procity policy was put into effect, the United States gave aw^ay its free market without se- curing any compensating advantages. It put cott'ee on the free list, and left Brazil free to impose an exixnt duty npon it. Xo\v there is a reversion to common-sense business principles. Consumers have the full benefit of a free mar- ket for coffee and sugar, and exporters of farm and factory produce receive special advantages in trading ^^■ith Southern countries. The re- sidts will be apparent when the following table is examined : TRADE WITH SOUTHERN CODXTRIES IN 1890. Exx'ortr, from Imports to Uniteil States. United States. Spanish West Indies *15,381.953 $57,855,217 EiazU 11,07L',:;H 59,338,756 Santo Domingo 920,051 1,951,013 Total $28,280,818 $119,124,980 Venezuela 4,028, 58'i 10,900,705 Mexico 13,285,287 22,690,915 Central America 5,650,946 8,:;39,375 Hayti 5,101,464 2,421221 Britlsli West Indies 8,288,780 14,865,018 Guiana 2,540,797 4,918,7.30 Other West Indies 3,498,368 911,672 Plate Countries 12,239.351 7,156,600 West Coast States 7,905,703 7,645,287 Total $90,888,103 $198,940,575 This table shows at once the results of Reci- procity, the necessity for it and the promise of its future potency. Out of a total importation of 9198,940.575 from Southern countries, tieat- ^es have been made with three which supply considerably more than one-half. While sell- ing .§119,124,986 of their produce to the United States, they have purchased only §28,280,818 in return. Under Reciprocity these countries aN off year. 71 will become larger buyers, as in justice and comnujn-sense they ought to be. Venezuela, Me.xico, Central America, the Brit- ish West Indies and Guiana also find the best market for their staples in the United States. Reciprocity is nee&e in the taxation 01 Imports necessary fur tliw support of tlie Goveriimeat. Mow, what are tlie honest facts as to this business? The liebelJion lelt the United States with a burden of debt amounting in 1807 to $2,67s,1:;G,1U3 s7. Fioiii that time until to- day it hits been the policy of the Government to collect more revenues than were inquired for the actual expenses of administration, applying the sujplus reventies to the reduction of this debt. On March 4, 1SS5, wnen Grover Cleve- land eiiteied the White House, he found an available surplus of exactly §21,031,381 67. He foiuid that during the eighteen years of liepublican Adniinistiatiou from 1807 to 1885 the outst:indiug principal of the public debt had been reduced from i^2, 078, 120, 103 87 to $l,803,iiC4,S73 14. The annual interest charge had fallen from §138,892,45139 in 1807 to §47,014,133 in 1885, and tbe per capita debt from §09 20 to §24 50. In the four years pre- ceding Uruver Clevelaiid's term of office, that is, from March 4, 1881, to March 4, 1885, the face of the bonded debt had been reduced in the sum ol !;;479,983,28U, an aveiage annual re- duction of §12U,000,00U ! This was dune, as any Democrat may see, by collecting just that much more money than was needed for the cur- rent operations of the Government, on the the- ory that an honest people wished to pay their honest debts as rapidly as they could. iJut -Mr. Cleveland and his party had a tariff .plan that was not in hai-mony with this theory. They were deadset for Free Tiade, and, as a means of working up public sentiment in support of their Scheme, they stopped paying the public debt except as they wei-e absolutely conipelleu to. They hoarded these surplus revenues, and summoned the country .to witness how grievous- ly It wa^s being taxed by the Republican tariff, lU'ging as the remedy for that iniquitous state of tilings their phut of Free Trade. But even in tneir statement of the size of the so-called -suipltts they were dishonest. By juggling with the debt statement they were able to make the -surplus at one time fifty millions, at another a huncb-ed. They even got it up as far as a rhundred and twenty. But, a though the re- ceipts of the Govertimeut diuing Cleveland's term .grew larger .each .year, and although he reduced the bonded debt only §341,396,980, or exactly §138,586,300 less than it had been reduced by Arthur ^vith smaller revenues at his •command, yet so extravagant were the appro- priations of Cle.veland's two Demociatic Con- vgresses that his surplus on March 4, 1889, when he gave way to Harrison, was only §48,096,- 158 50, or only §26,404,876 83 more than the sum left Mm by President Arthur ! In other words, if he had _paid as much of the debt .as Arthur did he would not ha^•e had a surplus .at all, but a dehcit of §90,000,000. This, then— §48,096,158 50— is the boasted Cleveland surplus, left in the Treasury, accord- ing to the Maryland Cimvention, " by an eco- nomical Democratic Administration," teUing a plain tale of over-taxation, etc. Now, say the Maryland Democrats, the people supposed thlt this shi>cking condition would be remedied by Mr. Harrison and his Republican Congress ; but the people vrere disappointed ; the siu'plus was not spent in reducing the public debt as it should have been, but was wasted in the ex- ti-avagant expenditures of a Congress which ap- propriated more than a billion of dollars ; the revenues were not reduced, but unjust over- taxation was continued. These charges are the current Democratic allegation, and they con- stitute the capital on which the Democracy pro- poses to contest the next National election. And every one of them is a falsehood ! The surplus and six times the surplus has been paid under Harrison in the liquidation of the pubUc debt. The surplus, as Cleveland left it, was §48,- 096,158 50. The amount of the bonded debt discharged under Harrison up to Jtme 30, 1891, was §234.009,040. In two years and four months he has reduced the per capita debt from .§24 50, where Cleveland left it. to §12 87, where it is to-day. This is the financial management which the Democrats claim has caused commercial panics and disasters. As ever.y sthaulboy knows, the distress of last year «as mainly caused by failure of crops and the Baring failure in London, and was relieved and dissipated here by just the policy that the Mary- laud platform attacks. The List Congress did not ai^iopriate •• over a billion of dollars," but just exactly exactly §988,410,129, or §170,- 440,209 more than the Lth Congress. Of this excess §25,321,907 was for a pension deficiency which the Democrats of that Congress dishon- estly left unpaid; §22,667,343 58 was for post- office bills, three-fourths of ■nhich mil be re- tiu-ned to the Treasury ; §7,307,146 70 was for the purchase of Indian lands that will sell for three tuna5 their cost; §14,042,344 09 was to meet contracts for naval vessels theretofore authorized, and §62.668,530 99 to pay new .pensions under the new act authorized by the people in 1888. The balance went in census expenses, harbor defences and impix)vements and World's Fair appropriations. As to the i-evenues, they were reduced, and unjust taxa- tion was not continued. As we have already demonstrated in these columns, the people are enjoying under the McKinley bill a gieater vol- ume of trade than ever before while they are paying less taxes. It is thus that the honest truth disposes of Democratic outcry. The figtu-es we have given are eveiy one official, and they prove that the Democratic hes about the wasted surplife, the billion-dollar appropriations and the continued over-taxation are utterly reckless. BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF 'iT'^AE. NEW TREATIES. RECIPROCITY WITH SPAIN. TEXT OF THE TREATY. THE PORTS OF CUBA AND POBTO RICO OPENED TO AMERICAN PRODUCTS— SPAIN MEETS THE UNITED STATES HALF WAT— TOBACCO TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. Washington, July 31.— The Spanish Eeoiprocity Treaty and the diplomatic correspondence in re- gard to it were made public to-day. The follow- ing is the President's proclamation : RECIPROCITY WITH SPAIN. BT THE PRESIDENT OP THE UNITED STATES— A PROCLAMATION. Whereas, pursuant to Section 3 ol the Act of Con- gress approved October 1, 1890, entitled "An act to reduce tlie revenues and equalize duties on im- ports, and for otlier purposes," the Secretary of State of tlie United States of America communicated to tile Government of Spain tlie action of tlie Congress of the Unfted States of America, with a view to secure re- ciprocal trade in declaring the articles enumerated in said Section 3, to wit, sugars, molasses, coffee and liides, to be exempt from duty upon tlieir importation into tlie United States of America ; And whereas, the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Spain at Wasliington has commu- nicated to the Secretary of State the fact tliat, in reci- procity and compensation for the admission into tlie United States of America, free of all duties, of the articles enumerated in Section 3 of said act, the Gov- ernment of Spain will, by due legal enactment, and as a provisional measure, admit, from and alter September 1, 1891, Into all the established ports of entry of the Spanish Islands of Cuba and Porto Rico, the articles or merchandise named in the following transitory schedule, on the terms stated therein, provided that the same be the product or manufacture of the United States and proceed directly from the ports of said States : TRANSITORY SCHEDULE. Prbducts or manufactures of the United States to be admitted into Cuba and Porto Rico free of duties : 1. Meats, in brine, salted or smoked, bjcon, hams, and meats pres(«rved in cans, in lard, or by extraction of air : jerhed beef excepted. 2. Laixl. 3. Tallow and other animal greases, melted or crude, unmanufactured. 4. Fish and shellfish, live, fresli, dried, in brine, smohed, plcUled; oysters and salmon in cans. 5. Oats, barley, rye and buclnvheat, and flour of tlieso cereals. 6. Starch, maizena and other alimentary products of corn, except corn meal. 7. Cottonseed, oil, and meal cahe of said seed for cattle. 8. Hay, straw for forage and bran. 9. Pruits, fresh, dried and preserved, except raisins. 10. Vegetables and garden products, fresIi and dried. 11. Resin of pine, tar, pitch and turpentine. 12. Woods of all kinds, in tninlts or logs, joists., rafters, planlis, beams, boards, round or cjhndric- masts, although cut, planed and tongued and grooved, including flooring. 13. Woods for cooperage, including staves, head- ings and wooden hoops. 14. Wooden bo.tes, mounted or unmounted, except of cedar. 15. Woods, ordinary, manufactured into .doors, frames, windows and sllutters, without paint or var- nish, and wooden houses, unmounted, without paint or varnish. 16. Wagons and carts for ordinary roads and agri- culture. 17. Sewing machines. 18. Petroleum, raw or unrefined, according to the classification fixed in the existing orders for the im- portation of tills article In said islands. 19. Coal, mineral. 20. Ice. Products or manufactures of the United States to be- admitted into Cuba and Porto Rico on payment of the duties stated : 21. Corn or maize, 25 cents per 100 liilogi'ammes. 22. Corn meal, 23 cents per 100 kilogrammes. 23. Wheat, from January 1, 1892. 30 cents per lOO- Idlogrammes. 24. Wheat flour, from January 1, 1893, $1 per 100- liilogi'ammes. Products or manufactures of the United States to be admitted into Cuba and Porto Rico at a reduction of 25 per centum ; 25. Butter and cheese. 26. Petroleum, refined. 27. Boots or shoes in whole or In pari; of leather shins. And whereas, the Envoy Extraordinary and; Minister Plenipotentiary of Spain In Washing- ton has further communicated to the Sec- retary of State that tlia Government of Spain. will, in hlie manner and as a definitive ar- rangement, admit, from and after July 1, 1892, into. aU the established ports of entry of tlie Spanish Islands of Cuba and Porto Rico,, the articles of mer- chandise named in the following schedules- -A., B, C and. D, on the terms stated therein, provided that the same be the product or manufiicture of 'ne United States and proceed direaster, natural or ar- tificial, in rough or in pieces, dressed, squared and. prepared for talving shape. 2. Other stones and earthy matters, including ce- ment, employed in building, the arts and industries. 3. Waters, meneral or medicin.a). 4. Ice. 5. Coal, mineral. 6. Rosin, tar, pitch, turpentine, asphalt, schist, and bitumen. 7. Petroleum, raw or crude, in accordance with the^ elassiflcaUon fixed in the tarlfl' of said, islands. 8. Clay, ordinary, in paving tiles large and small, briclis and roof llles unglazed, for the constniction of buildings, ovens and other siimilaij pui"poscs. 9. Gold and silver coin. 10. Iron, cast in pigs, and old iron and steel. 11. Iron, cast in pipes, beams, raters and similar- articles, for the construction of buildings, and in ordinary manufactures. (See repertory.) 12. Iron, -wrought and' steel, in bars, 'rails an* bars of all kinds, plates, beams, rafters and other- similar articles for construction of buildings. BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. 7i 13. iron, wiouglit, ami steel, In wire, nails, screws, Duts and pipes. 1-t. Iron, wrought, and steel. In ordinary man- ufiiotiires and wire clotli unmanufactured. (See repertory.) 15. Cotton, raw, witli or without) seed. 16. Cottonseed, oil and meal caltc of same for cattle. 17. Tallow and all utlier animal greases, melted or crude, unmanufactured. 18. Itoohs and pamphlets, printed, bound and un- bound. 10. Woods of all Ulnds, in tmnbs or logs, Joists, raft/crs, planlts, beams, boards and round or cyllndrlc masts, altliouph cut, planed, tongued and grooved. Including flooring. 20. Wooden cooperage. Including staves, headings and wooden lioops. 21. Wooden boxes, mounted or unmounted, except of cedar. 22. Woods, ordinary, manufactured Into doors, frames, windows and sliultars, without paint or var- nisli, and wooden houses, unmounted, without paint or varnlsli. 23. Woods, ordinary, manufactured into all hinds of articles, turned or unturned, painted or varnished, except furniture. (See repeit tides enumerated in Section 3 of said act, the Govern- ment of the Dominican Republic will, by due legal enactment, admit, from and alter September 1, 1891. into all the established ports of entry of the Dominican Republic, the articles or merclindise named in the fol- lowing schediiles, on the terms stated therein, provided that the same be the product or manufacture of the United States and proceed directly fi'om tlie ports of said States: SCHEDULE A. Articles to be admitted free of duty into the Domin- ican Republic : 1. Animals, live. 2. Meats of all kinds, salted or In brine, but not smoked. 3. Corn or maize, cornmeal and starch. 4. Oats, barley, rye and buckwheat, and flour of these cereals. 5. Hay, bran and straw for forage. 6. Trees, plants, vines and seeds and grains of all kinds for propagation. 7. Cottonseed oil and meal-cake of same. 8. Tallow in cake or melted, and oil for machinery, subject to examination and proof respecting the use of said oil. 9. Resin, tar, pitch and turpentine. 10. Manures, natural and artificial 11. Coal, mineral. 12. Mineral waters, natural and artificial. 13. Ice. J 14. Machines, Including steam engines and those of all other kinds, and parts of the same, implements and tools for agricultural, mining, manufaoturlng, indus- trial and scientific purposes. Including carts, wagons, hand-carts and wheelbarrows, and parts of the same. 15. Material for the equipment and construction of railroads. 16. Iron, cast and wrought, and steel In pigs, bars, rods, plates, beams, rafters and other simUar articles for the construction of buildings, and In wire nails, screws and pipes. 17. Zinc, galvanized and corrugated Iron, tin and lead in sheets, asbestos, tar paper, tiles, slate and other materials for roofing. 18. Copper In bars, plates, nails and screws. 19. Copper and lead pipe. 20. Bricks, firebricks, cement, lime, artificial stone, paving tiles, marble and other stones in rough, dressed or polished, and other earthy materials used In build- ing. 21. Windmills. 22. Wire, plin or barbed, for fences, with hoolts, staples, nails and similar articles used In the construc- tion of fences. 23. Telegraph wire and telegraphic, telephonic and electric apparatus of all kinds for communication and Illumination. 24. Wood and lumber of all Idnds for building. In logs or pieces, beams, rafters, planks, boards, shingles, floorinB, joists, wooden-houses, mounted or unmounted, and accessory parts of buildings. 26. Cooperage of all Mnds, Including staves, head- BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEXR. Ings and hoops, barrels and boxes, moniited or un- mounted. 26. Materials for ship building. 27. Boats and Ughlers. 28. .School furniture, blaclibonrds and other articles exclusively for the use of schools. •29. lioolis, bound or unbound, pamphlets, newspa- pers and printed matter, and paper for printing news- papers. 30. Printers' Init of all rolors, type, leads and all accessories for printing. .31. Sacks, empty, for paclslng sugar. 32. Gold and silver coin and bullion, SCHEDULE B. Articles to be admitted into the Dominican Republic at a reduction of duty of 25 per centum : 33. Meats not Included In schv^dule A and meat products of all kinds, except lard. 34. liutter, cheese and condensed ji canned milk. 35. Fish and shellfish, salted, dried, smoSed, pickled or preserved in cans. 36. Fruits and vegetables, fresh, canned, dried, plclsled or presej-ved. 37. Manufactures of Iron and steel, single or mixed, not included In schedule A. 38. Cotton, manufactured, spun or twisted, and In fabrics of all kinds, woven or knit, and the same fabrics mixed with other vegetable or animal fibres In which cotton is the equal or greater component part. 39. Boots and shoes In whole or in part of leather or sliins. 40. Paper for writing, in envelopes, ruled or blattk books, wall paper, paper for wrapping and packlnc, tor cigarettes. In cardboard, boxes and bags, sand paper and iiaste-board. 41. Tin plate and tin ware for arts, industries, and domestic uses. 42. Coidage. rope and twine of all kinds. 43. Manufactures of wood of all kinds not embraced In sciiedule A, Including wooden ware- implements for household use and furniture In wiiole or In part of wood. And that the Government of the Dominican Republic has further provided that the laws and regulations adopted to protect its revenue, and prevent fraud In the declarations and proof that the articles named In the foregoing schedules are the product or manufacture of the United States of America, shall place no undue restrictious iipon the importer, nor Impose any addi- tional charges or fees therefor on the articles imported. And whereas, the Special Plenipotentiary of the tJnited States has. by my direction, given assurance to the Envoy Extragrdinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Dominican Republic at Washington that this action of the Government of the Dominican Republic In granting exemption of duties to the products and man- nfactures of the TJnited States of America on their im- portation into the Dominican Republic is accepted as a due reciprocity for the auction of Congress as set forth in Section 3 of said act: Now, therefore, be It known that I, Benjamin Har- rison, President of the United States of America, have caused the above stated modifications of the tariff laws of the Dominican Republic to be made public for the information of the citizens of the United States of America. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this 1st day of Au- gust, 1891, and of the Independence of the United States of America the 116th. BENJAMIN HARRISON. By the President : WILLIAM F. WHARTON, . . Acting Secretary of State, A CANADIAN FLIRTATION. WOOING THAT WILL NOT LEAD TO JA- MAICA'S UNDOING. A POOR. RELATION THAT WAS ONCE FL'JUTED. ARDENTLY OODRTDD — THE UNITED STATES THE RICH COUSIN IN THE RECrBOCITT PLAT. Kingston, April 17.— Mr. Froude describes the British West Indies as the children of an un- natural mother, who has cast them off and allowed them to shift for themselves as poor relations. Emancipation instead of being graduallj intro- duced was brought on with such precipitate haste as to be ruinous to the colonial planters. When protection was demanded against rival cane pro- ducers in countries where slaver.v existed, it was- refused on the ground that the British workman must have a cheap breakfast. When the beet- root industry was established in Europe under ai liberal system of Government bounties, another appeal was made to the mother State for aid In rescuing the cane planters from destructive com- petition. Tlie islands had ceased to have a marketable valUe as possessions of the Crown and the Home Government wns indifferent to their necessities and interests. Despairing of receiving encouragement from the United Kingdom the Islands turned for assistance to the United .States. Meeting with cold shoulders everj'where else, they found there, as Mr. Froude says, a hand held out to them. The Americans were wUlintr, though at a serious loss of revenue, to admit the poor West Indians to their markets. A commercial treaty alone was necessary ; but it could not be made without the sanction of the British Govern- ment, and this was coldly and wantonly refused,, to use Mr. TFroude's phrase, " on some fine-drawn crotchet, to colonies which were weak and help- less." As a last resort, when the American treaty was disallowed, a delegation was sent from Jamaica to Ottawa and an urgent appeal was made for more intimate trade relations with the West In- dies. The Dominion Government sent a com- mission to Kingston to find out if anything could be done and Mr Froude met him there whoUy out of humor vsdth Canada's poor relations. ' The Ja- maicans did not know what they wanted," re- marked the commissioner. "They were without spirit to help themselves ; they cried out to others to help them, and if all they asked could' not be granted, they clamored as if the whole world was combining to hurt them. They had a fine countr.v ; soil and climate all that could be desired ; they had aU that was required for a quiet and easy life. Why could they not be content and make the best of things ? " " Un- fortunate Jamaicans !" exclaims sympathetic Mr. Froude. " The old mother at home acts liks an unnatural parent and will neither help them nor let their cousin Jonathan help them. They turn for comfort to their big brother in the North, and J3XVX ioSUES OF AN OFF V'EAE. the bie brother beins; himself robust and healthy gives them wholesome advice." That was l>efore Canada Itself was hurt and crippled by commercial competition and the pressure of econoimio law. Now the attitude of the Dominion has changed. It is wooing and ca- ressing the West Indians and fairly embarrassing them with the warmth and intensity of its aflfeotion for them. The flirtation began about the time of the passagp of the McKinley TarifE bill, which, while a generous re- lief measure for the Southern countries, involved Canada in material loss and serious hardship. When the West Indian delegation was sent to Ottawa, a few years ago, to solicit reciprocal trade relations, Canada was enjoying large com- mercial privileges in the American market. Then her Ministers considered West Indian trade to be one of very little account. Jamaica then seemed to them to be a long way off, and to have an im- poverished, non-consuming population of ig- norant blacks. They treated the delegation with scant couitesy and did nothing for the island. It was not until the McICinley tariff bill was passed and Canada was deprived of many of its privi- leges in the American market that the Ministers began to take any interest in the West Indies. When they perceived that the Dominion was badly hurt by tariff' legislation in the United States, they ■cast about to find some other market for their surplus produce. Then the once-despised Jamaica loomed up in their imagination as a thrifty and prosperous island tenanted by loyal Britons, and the West Indian archipelago, from Trinidad to Barbados, frojn Grenada to Dominica, and from Antigua to the Bahamas, assumed the importance of a commercial empire held by the Queen's wor- shipful subjects of the same breed as themselves. Then it seemed the most natural thing in the world that brethren should dwell together in unity and be whojly independent of the United States, which, after all, was not a larger market, at least in extent of territory, than British North America 1 The Jamaica Exhibition opened at an oppor- tune time for this Canadian demonstration. It was oiganized primarily for the purpose of dis- playing the industrial resources of the British West Indies land attracting European capital and immigration to a neglected CLuarter of the Empire. The invitation to the United States was mysteriously delayed and finally extended with so little tact and with such bungling ir- regularity that it could not be accepted with dig- nity. Canada voted a large appropriation and ;made extensive preparations for loudly advertising itself as the chief industrial State in North America. Its exhibit was the largest and most pretentious in the main building, and not only occupied the lion's share of the space on the floor and in the galleries, but also called into recLuisition several structures and side-shows outside. It was a complete and very creditable display of ' the Dominion fisheries, manufactures, and produce of field, mine and forest. It was under the charge of an active and intelligent staff, which ceased not, day nor night, to glorify the Dominion and to depreciate the value of the American market as a base of exchange for West Indian products. For six montlis there has been a most determined eft'ort made to draw Jamaica and the Windward and Leeward groups into a specious scheme of commercial union by which Canada will have everything to gain and the West Indies everything to lose. In this remark- able propaganda "The London Times" has lent aid, for it has recommended that Her Majesty's possessions in North America and the West Indies should follow the example of the South African and Australian colonies, and form a customs union for mutual advantage. The Canadian Minister of Finance, Mr. Foster, has taken an active part in this commercial raid upon the United States. Several months ago he visited Trinidad, and boldly advocated a British Colonial trade bund. Canada, he announced, would be willing to discriminate in favor of West Indian products, if preferential advantages were offered in return. It could sup- ply everything that was imported from the United States, and if allowed preferential advantages in the West Indies it would put differential duties on the coffee, sugar, logwood and fruit produced in the islands. The same programme was un. folded at Barbados, where he proposed a differ- ential of about 25 per cent "as a first go off" on duties enforced in Canada upon West Indian sugar, and a corresponding discrimination in favor of oranges, bananas and other fruits. In return he modestly pleaded for an equivalent differential — " only this and nothing more "—by which the products of Canadian seas, mines, farms and herds could be placed on a preferential footing in Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and the remaining islands. When he arrived at Kingston he was less explicit in his proposals for commercial reci- procity, but even more grandiose and impassioned in his tributes to the industrial resources and commercial potentiality of Canada. He enlarged upon the imperial domain of the Dominion, its magnificent continental line of railway and its subsidized steamers which were speedily to whiten every sea. He contended that Canada was enter- ing upon an era of emigration and wonderful growth, and that its consumption of suger, coffee, oranges and bananas was capable of enormous ex- pansion. There might be a good deal of ice weU toward the North, but it was a country of bound- less extent and enormous resources, and could . produce cheapl.v and abundantly nineteen-twen. tieths of the merchandise that comes from the United States to these islands. So this states- man's elastic argument ran along until he reached the conclusion that the Jamaicans as loyal Britons and practical men of business ought to make heavy differential reductions on the duties levied on Canadian merchandise, and to be content to receive in return a corresponding "go off" on sugar and fruit. In order to appreciate the humor of this ex- travagant and importunate agitation on behalf of Canauian trade, it is necessary to examine the commercial statistics of the island and to ascer- tain the comparative standing of the United States and the Dominion as iiuyers and sellers lor lUU ISSUliS OF AN OFF YEAR. 79 tliis market. For this purijosc 1 have coudonscU with the I'ollowiiig result the latest figures printed by the (.iovernmeiit and supplied by the cuuiteuus aud etiicient American Consul, Mr. Kstes: lOllElUN TUADE WITH JAMAICA. Buys. Greit Brluln $2,025,590 Unitci states S.9U0,.;50 Canada 183,775 riance 19.1,795 Oecnia IT 197,505 Otaier Slates 303.016 Sells. 81,J22,21'0 2,722.6.W 7-'l,70'> 2,150 4,090 114,513 Total $7,533,230 t7,987,990 Hence it appears tliat Jlr. Foster's ambitious Dominion lias been selling to Jamaica four times as much as it lias been buying, yet lias the assur- ance to demand diflerential advantages by which its sales may be increased to the detriment of the L'uitcil Stales. He lias had the coolness, moreover, to bid for an exclusive arriingeuieiit lor supplying the Jamaica market with lireadstults, fish, lumber, coal aud various classes ot manu- facture, when the United States, buys from Ja- maica twerity-oue times as much as Canada, aud sells less than four times as much. He malces this overt ure on the extraordinary assumption that a population of 5,000,000 can oiler as large a market for coll'ee. sugar and fruit as a population ot (ia. 000, 000. The ab.-iurdity ot this claim is re- vealed by the following exhibit of the exports of Jamaica : EXrOKTS OF JAMAICA— HOW DISTRIBUTED. Unltea .States. Canada. Gi $15,510 138,100 7 015 0.ts80 2,910 13, -'70 •eat Britain. Sucai- I'r It SSl.vo.-) 15 0,0 3 KW.OOO 12,105 903.7.50 Hum , 231,480 Total , $3,906,550 $183,775 $2,(125,590 The United States supplies a market for nearly $4,000,000 of a total export of something over $7,500,000. It takes one-half as much again as Oreat Britain, and would be still further in excess if that Country did not take almost the entire surplus of Jamaica rum. It buys nearly three times as much of the sugar as England and Can- ada together, and 98 1-2 per cent of the fruit, leaving to them the teggarly remnant. Yet Mr. Foster and the Canadian contingent, who have been clamoring for a diflerential reciprocity based upon the Dominion's future consumption of sugar and fruit, invite .Tamaioa to discriminate against the United States, their best market, in the expectation that a population "which now takes $7,045 worth of fruit will suddenly acquire an appetite for §1,580.005 worth of it. They ask the Jamaicans to adopt this policy of incredible foUj' at a time when President Harrison has been empowered by Congress to impose discrim- inating duties on tropical produce from countries which continue to trade with the United States on inequitable terms.. The adoption of the Ca- nadian diflferentials would not affect the export of fruit and logwood to the American market, but it would inevitably shut out the sugar and coffee. If Jamaica does not accept the reciprocity pro- posals of the United States, and President Har- rison imposes duties after January 1, 1892, under the schedule provided in the Aldrich amendment, the amount of differential taxes on the coffee, sugar and hides exported from the island wUl be as shown below, on the basis of the latest com- mercial statistics : OPERATION OF RECIPROClTr AMENDMENT. ExDOrt. Dutv. Amount -i'iz7,'?,i9 2? ^"i'"' ^■'s'^^- P" "> 9:120,749 60 4,s.r2.2o4 m colTee 3c. p.r m 1U907 0" 18 801 Itj lildoa l^c. per lb '1:79 91 $165,997 19 In the face of this menace, which would at once be carried into execution, it would be an act of sheer madness if* Jamaica were to favor an insignificant customer, such as Canada is, at the cx|)onsc of a nation of 63,000,000 consumers that has been buying freely everything produced on the island with the single exception of rum. The Canadian delegation lias mufle a great noise over the thousands ot samples of bread baked from the choicest grades of Ca.uadian flour which, have been peddled about the island during the Exhibition period ; but the Jamaicans know that they cannot live by bread that is cast upon the Wt'St Indian waters to be returned to the Dominion in the form of exclusive trade privileges. Their bread has l)een poor because they have persisted in importing cheaper and inferior grades ot Ameri- can flour; but they arc well aware that they could have better bread if they were willing to pay $8 a barrel for their flour, or if the Government would remove the import duty of §2. If they were to lose the American market for their produce, they would not be able to buy flour from aii5' quarter, duty or no duty. 'the Canadian unreciprooal trade proposals have not been taken very seriously. Sir Henry Blake was grateful to the delegation for furnishing so fine an exhibit at his West Indian Fair, and has entertained the visitors with expansive rhetoric and hospitality ; but when the show comes to an end he will follow his solder judgment, and be very careful to avoid openly challenging Presi- dent Harrison to convert a generous offer of commercial reciprocity into a menace of retalia- tion. That offer comes from a nation which has been the salvation of Jamaica and the West Indies for many jears. Behind that offer is a market that is essentially free. With the exception of oranges and tobacco everything produced in Jamaica enters a free market in the United States. In return the products of American factories, farms and forests are heavily taxed. The follow- ing exhibit, which Mr. Estes has prepared for me, illustrates the inequitable conditions of trade between Jamaica and the great free market where a large share of its exports are sold : IMPORTS FROM THE UNITED STATES. Valuation. Specific duty. Quantity imported. £. s. d. 141,208 bbls flour 56,507 4 Ss. per bbL 1,536,981 lt> bread 4,010 18 10 6d. 100 ». 567,800 m butter 4,732 5 2d. per Iti. 212,435 It) ckeese 1,770 5 10 2d. per ». 86,911 ffi ham 724 5 2 2d. per Iti. 68,104 » refined sugar..- 563 8 2d. per in. 6,501 in bacon 54 3 6 2d. per It) 18,427 bbls salt meat 13,820 5 8s. per bbl. 2,801 M. sliingles.: 856 6 6s. per M. 4,009,419 feet wliite pine 1,804 4 8 9=. per M. 3,475,380 feet pltcb pine 2.259 13s. per M. 523.819 gal. oil 19,643 4 3 8s. per bbl. 19,931 m tallow 62 5 8 34d. per 1H. 108,584 bush, corn 1,809 14 8 4d. per buah, 5.216 bush, oats 86 18 8 4d. per busli. 5,785 bush peas, beans.. 96 8 4 4d. per bu^li, 109,800 10 The United States, while offering a very large BIG ISStlKS OF AN OFF YEAE. measure of free trade to the West Indies and the unrestricted advantage of selling in the largest and best market in the world, has an equitable right to demand substantial concessions in return. Jamaica not only levies an export duty on the sugar, coffee and logwood shipped to the United States, but claps a tax of $2 on every barrel of American flour, and restricts all other importations of farm produce and manufactures by high spe- cific duties. Sir Henr^ Blake during the last si\: months has been listening with a rapt air to the Canadian cuckoo eong, and has scouted the idea of making concessions to the United States. Sometimes he has seemed almost willing to be convinced that there were millions of fur-traders in the barren stretches of Hudson's Bay territory athirst for Jamaica rum with sugar in it, and that in the regions toward the north pole there were other millions of Esquimaux who were hungering alter Jamaica bananas and oranges to eat with their icecream; but he is a practical statesman, and will inevitably be released from his illusions when the necessity for being "polite to his exhi- bition guests and patrons passes. Nothing can be plainer than the superiority of the American mar- ket, with ite 63,000,000 consumers. Prac- ticaUy it is a free market for tropical produce, and if any differentials or discriminations, are of- fered the United States ought to have the ad- vantage rather than Canada, which already sells to Jamaica far more than it buys. Canada's successful wooing would be Jamaica's undoing. The Dominion may come sighing like furnace and -writing sonnets to the Queen and the dusky maidens of the tropics, but the islanders know that it is only a desperate attempt to raise the wind. As "The West Indian" has expressed the case: "What object is there in making common cause with a big brother who flouted us when we were out of favor with a rich cousin, but who comes and knocks at our door and wishes to hang his hat in our hall and put his walking-stick in our umbrella-stand when he knows that the rich cousin now smiles upon us and frowns upon him ?" I. N. F. A RECIPROCITY STUDY. TEADB OF THE BRITISH WEST INDIES. WITH COMMENTS UPON CANADIAN ASSURANCE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ENLIGHT- ENED AMERICAN POXIOT. Kingston, May 1.— Port Eoyal is the key of the West Indian Empire, for which England made great sacrifices and won imperishable prestige on the ocean in her historic battle for supremacy with Spain and France. That Empire seemed to have been lost after Yorktown, when the power- ful French fleet was supreme among the Leeward and Wir^ward isHandsj but Eodney's genius and pluck rescued it from conquest and delivered .lamaica from invasion. As the Empire was left after that great sea fight off the mountain- peaks of Dominica, it has remained to this day, save that its colonial population has been im- poverished, brought to the verge of ruin and driven out in the face of increasing swarms of blacks. With the Bahamas in the north, Belize on the west, and the Lesser Antilles in the east, curving from Puerto Eico for 000 miles toward the mouth of the Orinoco and British Guiana, Port Eoyal is the geographical and strategic centre of- this once prosperous and highly prized Empire. With the exception of the mahogany ana logwoofl clear- ings of Belize, it is essentially a blade Empire.' The whites were ruined by emancipation, for which gra.nts of $100,000,000 from tlie British exchequer were an inadequate compensation. Theii great industry was oheapraed and well nigh de- stroyed by the competition of European beet sugar, and for this there was no compen^sation in bounties, upon which the rival industry was- fattening. Immigration from England ceased, long ago ; the whites are rapidly disappearing ; and the future of the British West Indies is largely dependent upon the negro's laolc of ambi- tion! and the increasing market for tropical produce i.n the United States. Nine British Governors are employed to direct the destinies of this West Indian Empire. They draw their salaries, respect the traditions of the (Colonial Office, entertain the officers of Her Majesty's navy, and strive to conciliate in every possible way the black constituencies, which are ali'eady conscious of their growing political power. In the Bahamas there is a Governor of genuine creative impulses, who is bent upon supplying the impoverished islands with a new industry ; in Jamaica there is another who has organized an exhibition and encouraged rash speculations in hotel building ; but in the main these function- aries are content to wind and unwind the red- tape spools of the Colonial Office. They are drawn helplessly along in the drift of West Indian tendencies. There has been constant ex- perimenting with constitutions and franchises. In Jamaica there is a legislative council of nominated and elected members, in equal voting strength, with a veto power vested in the Governor, and with a low franchise practically permitting every negro to vote. In Grenada, Dominica, and other islands there are large communities of negro free- holders invested with political power. In Barba- dos the whites still control the ownership of the land, but everywhere else the negro is becoming a peasant proprietor and a pohtician. The gen- eral trend of events and tendencies is in the direction of negro rule. The whites, disheart- ened by the economic conditions, are selhng their plantations and emigrating. In Jamaica there are 700,000 blacks and 15,000 whites, and in other islands the preponderance of black blood is evea greater. Coolie labor has proved a failure, and the industries of the islands are dependent apon the indolent blacks, who are already impressed with the conviction that the Islands are theirs, and that they are destined to govern them. The English Church has failed to leaven this mass of ignorance, because it is the white man's church. The Moravians have done the best missionary work, but even they have been powerless to enforce the necessity of marriage and to repress the shocking immorality prevailing in the islands,' BIG KSUKS OF AN OFF YJiXR. 81 The population of the Britisli West Indies Several years ago, wlien the British West Indies nnmhers l,ijOf>,000 in round numbers, and its could not enlist sympathy and support for their forciig-n tnwlc agyrogatcs 575,000,000, divided shattered industries in England, tlie United States almost eijually between exports and imports. oflered to give their sugar an advantage in its Ti'inidad has the largest trade, nearly $20,000,000, markets over competing sugars. The islanders and Jamaica and Barl)ado8 rank among the were overjoyed and pleaded earnestly witli the islands, with §1 r,0oO,O00 and $10,000,000 re- Home Government for the negotiation of a treaty, spcctively. British Guiana has a foreign trade The (.'olonial Office intervened with a veto. Eng- equal to that of Jamaica. St. liitts, the Bahamas, land refused to allow the United States to go to St. Lucia, Antigua, St. Vincent and Dominica the aid o.f the colonies. The new offer of the form the next group in importance, but their United States is for a free market for sugar, but trade Is of small volume. Out of a total export that is an advantage to be shared equally by of $.'! 0,000,000 of produce of all kinds, $1,3,235,- Brazil and Cuba. It is not so generous as the 500 represents sugar shii>ped to the United States, lirst preferential proposal, but it is made by the where it forms about 13 per cent of the entire best customer which the islands have. If it be importation of cane and beet sugar. In 1889 rejected they may lose that trade, and that would the British West Indies furnished to the same be Something serious. The British West Indies market 14,083,710 pounds of coffee, worth may not be willing to enter into reciprocity ar- $1,089,217, but in 1890 a smaller i|uantity, worth rangements with the United States, but they will $803,281. In 1888 the importation of hides be certain to avoid giving offence and thereby from the islands was 5465,777. In round nam- subjecting themselves to the loss of the free mar- bers about $15,000,000 of the export trade of ket by supporting Canatla's demand for preferea- the Lslands and British Guiana will be covered tial trade. Any special concessions which might by the i-eciprocity amendment to the Tariff act. be made to Canada would involve the enforcement Of this aggregate the main entry is sugar. The of the amendment and the imposition of duties British West Indies and British Guiana supply on their coffee, sugar and hides in the Americau about one-third as much cane sugar to the Amcri- market. It may be possible for them to have the can market as Cuba and Puerto Rico. free market permanently without paying for it The light-fingered Canadian gamblers who have in comi>ensating concessions to the United States, been seeking to draw- the British West Indies into They may consitler it safe to trust to the iudul- a quiet little reciprocity game of their own, where- gence of the great Kepublic ; but they will not in they would have all the aces, kings and kn.aves venture.to challenge it to lose its markets against in their sleeves, have been greatly demoralized them. this week by the announcement of the success- The answer to Canada's importunate and un- ful negotiation of a treaty 1)etweeu the United reasonable demands for a one-sided reciprocity States and Spain; Thiis Hreatj- confers Tipon profitable only to its own interests has come al- Oubi and Puerto Rico the advantage of a per- ready from British Guiana. Mr. Foster asked manent free market for their sugar. The ques- for differential treatment of Canadian coal, wheat, tion which British West Indian planters are now lish, meat, lumber and manufactures in return for asking is whetiier they can afford to be deprived preferential reductions of duties on sugar and of the free market for their sugar by the opera- fruit. The Governor has replied that British tlon of the retaliatory clause of the reciprocity Guiana cannot adopt a course which would exclude amendment. They are selling $13,235,500 of the sugars' and fruits of the colony from admission their sugar in the United States, to say nothing to the markets of the United States upon the most of coft'ee and hides. Cuba and Puerto Rico are favored terms. In order to appreciate the good celling in the same market $3 9,099,670, and are sense of the Governor it is only necessary to corn- preparing to increase very largely their pare the trade of the United States and Canada production. If a discrimination be majje with the leading colo,nies. against British West Indian sugar and EXPORTS from west iin'DIES. a duty be imposed upon it, it "will be shut out of Xo Unittd states. To Canada. the American marKet. What then will they do ?rin*dad "■.";:■ ■;"■;; *3'235'p7 *"3?78 with it? Europe has its own supply of bee1> Jam'S?^^.".".::::".".:::".:::::". lEoiisio isi'^75 sugar, which is increasing at an enormous rate ".^ — '■ '■ ! every year. It cannot be forced to take the sur- IMPORTS TO WEsfixDiES. *'■''''"' plus ot cane-sugar produced in the West Indies. From United states. From Canada. ^Yl\at then have the Canadian diplomats to say? Guiana $1560.133 $410,146 „, , , ^ ,, . , ^ \., J * Trinidad 1.693.337 292,fi22 They have been talking about the advantages Barbadoes 1,926,334 383,380 of a preferential arrangement by which sugar Ja™*'"* 2,722.6.50 ^-^-'''^ and fruit will be admitted into Canada with a dis- $7.902,4.56 $1,817,919 crimination of 25 per cent, and the products of These figures disclose the inherent weakness of their fisheries, farms, mines and forests favored in the Canadian case for recipjoeity. The United tlie same way in return. Can they guarantee a States buys twelve times as much as Canada, and market for $13,000,000 of sugar? That is what sells only four times as much to the islands, they cannot do. Indeed, from the first, thej' Trade, so far as the United States is concerned, have not been interested so much in Canada's pur- is unreciprocal, but Canada 'uas no reasca for chasing power as in its increased facilities for complaint so long as it already sells more than selling a surplus of its own which is no longer it buys. When Canada asks for differential ad- marketable in the United States. vantages in West Indian markets at the expense «2 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAK. of the United States, wliioh Is a much larger purcliaser of coffee, sugar and fruit, Its assurance aTid coolness are almost grotesque. The solier judgment of the West Indian planters will in- evitably reject this specious appeal to obtain a larger export trade on the strength of inferior purchasing power. England has neglected ffie colonies, and by allowing them to shift for them- 6ol T.-^i, is gradually converting thein into com- mercial dependencies of the United States. The colonies cannot help feeling that they have been cast off by an unnatural mother ; but tliat fact does not predispose them to accept Canada's services as a wet-nuise. Their real interests lie in the direction of commercial union with the United States, on equal terms with Cuba and Puerto Eico. Loyalty to the Crown and fi'a- ternal feeling among British depeindencies are excellent in sentiment, but the commercial ex- changes of the world are regulated by economic laws of demand and supply, and arc strictly business relations. The British flag may te at Halifax and Montreal, but the best market for West Indian produce is New-York. If reciprocity be brought to bear, the commerce of the islands will inevitably be drawn toward the market as a magnet superior to the flag. The rapid deveiop- ment of trade with the United States during re- cent yeai-s, as illustrated below, demonstrates the efficiency of the attractive force of a great market ; TKADB OF BRITISH WEST INDIES AND GUIANA. Imports into United States. $11,718,270 14,303,652 15 373,202 20,511,743 19,191,993 $44,030,806 $81,104,936 The latest year for which I can obtain statistics of the entire trade of the British West Indies and Guiana is 1888, when the exports from the islands amounted to $39,803,276, and the imports to SJ35, 579,436. Nearly one-half of the exports sent abroad went to the United States, and the proportion has increased during the last two years. The islands have a large trade with Great Britain in r.an, sugar, cocoi, logwood, dyewoods and spices, but it is not a growing trade. Sugar and fruit are the staple exports from the islands, and the markets for those products are in the United States. Mr. Foster, wlien he was in the West Indies, offered o.n the part of Canada to establish two steam lines— one a monthly service between at. John and Demerara, touching at the princi- pal Leeward and Windward Islands, and the other a monthly service between Halifax and Kingston. These lines will undoubtedly euLirge the trade between Canada and the West Indies, but the service will not be better than that already ex- iting between the islands and New-York, al- though that ought to be impio\ed. Even with these new transportation facilities, for which sub- sidies will be paid at both ends, 5,000,000 Canadians cannot hope to compete with 63,000,- OOO Americans. Undoubtedly the British. West Indies are hoi)- ing to toake practical use of the Canadian over- tures for the control of their trade. Now that Exports from Tear. United States. 1886 $8,068,425 lo87 7,888,241 18S8 9,101,729 1889 8,197,093 1890 10,180,778 the United States has concluded reciprocity ar- ra'.gements with Brazil and the Spajiish West Indies, and may be expected to follow up the same policy with Santo Domingo, Hayti, Venezuela, Mexico and other countries, it is a matter of pressing importance to the British West Indies to retain the free market for their sugar. If they have a standing offer from Canada to enter into a preferential arrangement they have at least a resource upon which they can depend in pre- venting the closing of the free market. They will not accept Canada's proposals, but they will hold the ofl'er under consideration and sub- sidize its new steamship lines. This they will be likelj' to do in the hope of being allowed to re- tain the free market on sufferance without pay- ing for it in con(5essions to American exports. They will trade upon their neutrality in this commercial rivalry between Canada and the United States, and ask to have their unwillingness to favor the one at the expense of the other ac- cepted at Washington as an equivalent for the large advantages which thej' enjoy in the Ameri- can market. What course the Administration will take in this matter next January it would be, of course, premature to forecast. The President is empow- ered to close the tree market if, in his judgment, the conditions of trade are inequitable. He will have no alternative if preferential treaties are made with Canada ; but if the islands, as is prob- able, reject these overtures from the Dominion, his course will largely depend upon his judg- ment as to what are to be considered equitable conditions of Southern trade. The following ex- hibit will illustrate the question : TEADE OF SOUTHERN COUNTRIES WITH THE UNITED STATES IN 1890. Exports from Imports iuto West Indies. United States. UniteU States. Spanish $15,381,953 $57,855,217 Blittsll 8,288,780 14,863,018 G^ianas 2,510,797 4^918,730 Santo Dcminpo 826,051 1.951.013 Hayti 5.101,404 2,421,221 Danish -.-. Dutch French $35,744,019 $82,922,977 Brazil 11.972,214 59,318,756 Venezuela 4.028 583 10.906.763 Central America 5,650,946 8.239,273 Plate countries 12,239,331 7.150,600 West Coast States 7.965.703 7.645.2S7 Mexico 13,285,287 22,690,915 794,293 588,739 609,093 194,036 1.094,382 128.997 Total $93,880,1 03 $198,910,575 Judged by the practical standard of the exports and imports, the British West Indies and the Guianas are in less unfavorable relations of in- equality and inequity than Brazil, the Spanish West Indies, Venezuela and Santo Domingo ; but in comparison with Mexico, Hayti, Central America, the Plate countries and the west coast States of South America they are at a disadvan- tage. Eeciprooity under the Aldrich amendment applies mainly to Brazil, the Spanish West Indies, Venezuela, Santo Domingo, the British West In- dies, British Guiana and Central America. With Mexico and the remaining countries the coSai- tions require special treaties outside of the range of the amendment. Eeciprooity is a great policy which will readjust the present inequitable conditions of trade and enlarge the foreign markets for American exports. HIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. 83 The fact that the Unitetl States receives 5^00,- 000,000 of produce from the South and sells less than ?91,000,000 in return is a complete demon- stration of the necessity of more equitable con, aitions of exchange. Under fair relations of reci- procity the United States, instead of having $300,000,000 of the 51,200,000,000 of foreign trade of the countries included in tlio foregoing table, can reasonably expect to have iP0OO,O00,00O. But this tremendous gain will require something in addition to the enlightened diplomacy of the Harrison Administration. There must be a res- toration of the American commercial marine and a development of mercantile energy on land and sea. The flag must be carried into foreign ports and wholesale houses established in the cliief cen- tres of population. Reciprocity will be a great gain, but it is only a condition for the develop- ment of American enterprise. The way to com- pete is to compete. I- N. F. OPENING FOREIGN MARKETS. HOW TO ENLARGE THE EXPOET TKADE. FREE R.\W M.^TEEIiALS AIiRE.\DY AVAILABLE— THE TARIFF NOT AT FAULT— PRAOTI GAL SUGGESTIONS FROM A SUCCESSFUL MERCHANT— WHOLESALE HOUSES REQUIRED. Kingston, April 20.— When the question of en- larging the export trade of the United States was raised by the Harrison Administration our free- trade doctrinaires condemned the movement with fine irony. How could Southern countries, they asked, be expected to buy their imports in a mar- ket from which their own products were shut out by a Chinese tariff wall? Commerce is bar- ter, they were good enough to explain, and a nation which hopes to sell its surplus stock must show its readiness to buy freely from foreign customers. Long before the Pan-American Con- ference was closed the country knew that it was buying more freely than any European nation in Southern markets. So large was the margin be- tween its imports from that quarter and its ex- ports sent in exchange that there was broad ground for the reciprocity policy which is now one of the leading issues presented to the Amer- ican people by the Harrison Administration. The doctrinaires, having been forced to aban- don their first line, fell back upon what they have considered impregnable ground. They ad- mitted reluctantly that the United States has es- tablished what is vitrually a large measure of free trade with Southern countries ; but they con- tended that without free raw materials it would be impracticable for American manufacturers to compete with European rivals. Spanish-America and Brazil, they reasoned, would continue to sell their coffee, sugar, rnbber, hides, dye-woods and fruits wherever there was a market for them ; but when they had anything to buy they would avoid the Nearest and go to the cheapest market. UntU raw materials were cheapened, they added, Amer- icans could not hope to manufacture on even terms with England, France and Germany. The tariff must first go ; and then all things would be fulfilled. _ One position can be turned as easily as the other. Of the imports received in Southern coun- tries, at least 75 per cent are manufactures which have free raw materials in the United States. Those manufactures which are heavily protected there are not those which come to these countries in large quantity' from Europe. Jamaica, for ex- ample, imports $1,.').3R,438 of cotton goods and only $1.37,4.'>G of woollen goods, and the propor- tion is even larger for Brazil and other countries. BlanketiS, carpets, upholstered furniture, felts, heavy cloth and linens are imported sparingly. The bulk of the manufactures required in these marlcets are those which are most lightly pro- tected in the United States, and for which free raw materials are available, even without the re- bate allowed for the export trade. When, there- fore, the doctrinaires lay stress upon the necessity of having free raw materials before active com- petition can be successfully conducted in South- ern markets, they make a concession which virt- ually opens the greater part of the field to Amer. ican manufacturere and exporters. Few of those goods which are heaA-ily protected in the United States are wanted here at any price. What are wanted are cottons, boots and shoes and manu- factures of paper, leather, hides, sldns, glass, rubber, iron and steel, for which free raw mate- rials are furnished already, or which have been so greatly cheapened in price by competition under the protective system as to be on a level with European goods. Americans are not compelled to wait for an era of free trade before making a vigorous effort to supply these markets with what is needed. It is not their tariff that is at fault and stands in their way. It is ignorance of the requirements and conditions of Southern trade that is the chief obstacle to the development of their export trade. Maritime energy, by which a commercial marine can be brought into existence under the national Hag is also lacking : mercantile energy has been confined to the home market and the foreign field surrendered to foreigners ; and Southern countries have been allowed to receive as gratuities commercial privileges of tremendous magnitude which ought to have been made the basis of equitable reciprocity. An ounce of practical experience is worth a pound of theoretical statement. During my stay in .Jamaica, I have oonvereed frequently with Cap- tain D. F. Jlurphy, an enterprising American merchant, who, in a short period, has established a large and profitable tiude not only with the island, but with Hayt.i and Central Americ-a. A New-England manufacturer of boots and shoes, he has succeeded in displacing, to a large ex- tent, English goods of tliis class in Jamaica ; and has demonstrated the practicability of opening a large market in the South for a wide range of American manufactures. Before making Kingston his headquarters for wholesale trade, he trav- elled through Nicaragua and other portions of Central America, and convinced not only himself, but also a syndicate of New-England manufact- 94 BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. urersj that Americans were neglecting a field for enterprise that was wliite already for harvest. I have taken pains to run over with Captain Murphy a schedule of exports from the United States and to note down his comments upon the chances and- opportunities for largely increasing their volume. His judgment, being based upon experience and marlfed success ]« establishing a profitable business, is entitled to great weight. Beginning with his own specialty. Captain Murphy says that while shoes of English and German manufacture below 75 cents are cheaper than American goods ; the condition is reversed for all above that price. At 75 cents and up to $1 25, a pair (if American shoes will average 10 per cent less than foreign goods; from §1 25 to $1 75 the average cost will be 15 per cent less ; and from $1.75 to $3, English, German, French and Austrian shoes will cost 20 per cent more than New-England shoes. When Cap- tain Murphy arrived in Jamaica there was a strong prejudice against American shoes. Now every retail dealer is compelled to sell them because the goods are cheaper, and at the same time superior to those of foreign make. Of harness, trunks, valises and other manufactures of leather there is a large consumption in Southern markets and there is nothing in the way of the intro- duction of Atoerican goods, since European goods can be undersold. American leather is now ex- ported to Germany in large quantities and shipped to Central America to be sold at high prices. American merchants have only to make the effort in order to sell their leather themselves in that market. The sale of American furniture. Captain Mur- phy asserts, can be trebled in Southern countries if large stacks can be displayed in wholesale houses. Rubber goods, for which free raw ma- (terial is supplied from Brazil, Colombia and Central America, can be sold at prices fifteen per cent lower than English importations. There is a very large demand lor rubber blankets, overcoats, waterproofs, hosepipe and many other manufactures in which the United States excels. American tinware is preferred, although the prices may be higher than English prices. American stationery and paper are ten per cent cheaper than English and more desirable in styles. American clocks and watches are with- out competition when once introduced. Small iron castings from the United States are largely in demand and are the cheapest in the market. American nails, from Wheeling, are often im- fporte« from England for Southern tnarkets. Fencing-wire from the United States is 5 per cent cheaper than European wire. There is a tnarked preference for American horseshoes, locks, hinges, builders' hardware, kitchen uten- sils and housekeeping goods, which are often cheaper than competing articles. Iron-pipe for gas and water is found to be greatly superior to European stock when imported from the United States, and is sold at the same price. Notwithstanding the marked superiority of American agricultural implements, their introduc- tion has been attended with great diflSciilty in Southern countries. In Mexico this class of farm machinery is coming into use, but in Central, and South America primitive metliods of agri- culture are still in vogue. Captain Murphy main- tains that the American goods wUl inevitably displace European competition, since they are- already cheaper. The sale of American carriages, street^cars and railway rolling-stock can be greatly enlarged if facilities are afforded for seeing, them in wholesale warehouses. American pianos- have no sale because the European manufacturers put them into the market at a reduction of 25 or 30 per cent in cost. English sewing machines' of inferior quality are also sold in preference to. American on the score of cheapness, but are generally found to be unsatisfactory. American patterns are slowly coming into the market. Belgian boilers are in common use, but (are short- lived, the tubes being badly set. If American boilers were once fairly in the market, a slight difference in price ('would not operate against them. There are large classes of wood manufactures- in which the United States does not need to fear competition. Shocks, hogsheads and barrel^ ;; mouldings, picture frames, sashes, blinds, doors and other house furnishings and many other articles can be sold at lower prices in the South than European goods. Brooms and brushes are already largely imported from New- York. Ameri- can lamps and stoves- are also in demand. Nor- wegian and German matches are without com- petition. American paints are often called for and not supplied with energy and enterprise. American cottons are imported in increasing quantity in the lace of strenuous competition from England. This is a great field for enter j)rise, lor which the system of manufacturing in New-Eng- land is well adapted. The cotton manuT'acturera there are, to a large extent, specialists, like the- shoe manufacturers, and they have a marked ad- vantage over European rivals,, who employ less- labor-saving machinery and iproduce a larger variety of stock. Wholesale houses in which the- great specialties of American manufacture can be colleot-ed and exhibited in stock are indispens- able for the idevelopment of the export trade in cottons and shoes. A single specialist cannot hope to sell his goods in this market, although he may undersell aU competitors. Wholesale merchants- dealing in all the leading specialties and prepared to furnish, goods from stock actually in hand can alone be depended upon to open a market for many classes of manufacture unrivalled in cheapness and excellence. For woollen goods- there is little demand in hot countries. Only in the lighter grades will it be practical for Ameri- cans to introduce goods of tliis class. It is most invigorating to meet an iVjnerican merchant in these countries who can speak con- fidently, and yet from personal experi- ence, of an immediate prospect of an expansion of the export trade and active com- petition with industrial Europe. Captain Mur- phy's wholesale business has been so successful that he and his financial supporters in Boston are contemplating the establishment of similar houses on the Iwest coast and elsewhere. He ri(3i- cules the idea that -the American tariff prevents competition with. Europe, and contends that tha BIG ISSUES OF AN OFF YEAR. 85 long-credit system, oC which so much has been said and written, is of far less importance than has been repre"sentcd. Tlie creditB given by American houses are long (enough lor securing re- munerative trade. He has found the conditions of business integrity good wherever he lias tiaded in the West Indies and Central America, and does not think tliat exporters need to be afraid of running up bad debts in the South. He attaches less importance to the necessity of building up an American commercial marine than otiier mer- chants whom I have met in Spanish-America. This, I thirdc, is because he is more familiar with the West Indies than with South America. Here there is no lack of steam communication with the United States. There are always fifti'en, and sometimes as many as twenty-live, steamers a month between the island and American ports, and not more than six to and from Europe. Freights, consequently, are favorable here for United States exporters. In South America the transportation conditions are very different. In order to be quite just to Captiiin Murphy, I must also add that he is not an enthusiast on the subject of reciprocity. He does not consider it necessary to have special commercial arrange- ments in order to develop the export trade of the United States. I think he is wrong in that matter, but let that pass. The main obstacle, he contends, is ignorance on the part of manu- facturers aiTd merchants. They do not know how to make goods for southern markets ; nor how to ship, pack and sell them. When duties are lexied upon gross weight, to pack goods in heavy boxes is to add 20 per cent to the cost. Southern mer- chants never know what American goods will cost until they have them on their counters, for they cannot forecast the blunders in invoicing and pacl ■^Al 0*^; '^^C^^/^fll^^0f^ y,Anrif»m^/im l^|^^g|:^p;gy;; «^(^ccvee..* "iA/^f*'^/^^'^"' :/^^m v/^A/^.^M/ iii^no^A^^ ^wfl^^ vOAAAA^A/^^-mfl^^^^i '''a/-\AA-aAaaA-A .^O^AAAaaA^