The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-06-13


which substantial reduction should be the dis
tinguishing feature" And the reduction adj
! vOcated was, "Not less on the average than 20
! per cent, and il is the opinion of the commits
sion that the reduction viii reach % per cent"
| And 1t adds THAT this reduction proposed by
| the commission would benefit consumers 10 the
| extent OF hundreds of millions OF dollars"
Listen for a minute to some specific reduc-
tions advocated by this commission. Ii says:
| 1T has given special consideration to the tariff
on steel rails. The present duty has served its
purpose in a protective sense. 1t is now ex-
| cessive and should be reduced The reduc-
/ tlon advocated was from SIS 10 about Sl7. On
copper, old zinc and other metal il advocated
a reduction of the tariff from ID to - per cent.
| ana preiacing its SUCCESSION IN regard to wool
and woOlenS with the remark that NO part OF
the existing tariff law has been arranged with
so much deliberation and care as that relating
10 the manufactures of wool, 1t says; The
commission proposes reduction, for the great
bulk OF wooden fabrics from is to 80 per cent.
| making 1T to apply most effect
ually 10 the cheaper goods of necessary
consumption, with a view of bene-
| fitting producers as well rs consumers for
reasonable prices to the consumer mean in
creased consumption, and OF course cores
p0ndlng increased stability and lucrative en-
| pioyment to the producers" Certainly the
! recommendations of that tariff commission
appointed by the republican party in the in
/ terest OF protected industries are vastly more
| radical than the reduction advocated to-day by
the democratic party and denounced as free
trade by partisan and INSCRIPTIONS opponents.
And what became OF this commissions re-
port, do you think? 1t went into congress and
there IN the secret deliberations of committee
rooms, selfish interests got control of legislat-
| I've action, and instead of reduction of 20
| % per cent, as advocated, they passed a meas
IRE actually increasing the then existing tariff
| duties.
With these facts in mind, let us now take up
the issue Of the campaign. Remember, if
there was need of tariff reduction in 1884.
| there IS much greater need of tariff reduction
| in 1855. An overlooking and dangerous sur
/ plus demand that some remedy should be found
to stop 1t. The position of the parties has been
clearly defined, not by promises platitudes,
! but by the legislative action of the two parties
and by the explicit declarations of their party
| platforms, and the two parties stand radically
and absol utely opposed to each other The
| democratic party, following the lead OF
It's brave president [Applausel, who HIM
sell follows in the footsteps OF President
| Arthur and republican officials and leaders
! and commissioners has brought forward bill
for tariff reduction which advocates not - or
| p per cent, but an average reduction of per
| cent in the tariff duties. II that Is free trade,
| for heavens sake what is protection? If that
! is free trade for heavens sake what was the
| position of the republican party in 1852 and
! 1881! 1t is simple nonsense to speak of 1t as
| free trade. In their sober moments the repub-
| lican leaders have laughed at the idea OF de-
! scribing tariff reduction as free trade Senator
| Sherman in congress, when not under party
| pressure, said: 1T Is simply an absurdity to
| talk now about free trade tariff, and to talk
| about a protective tariff Is unnecessary, be-
cause the wit OF man could not possibly frame
tariff that would produce Sl400000l0 in gold
| without amply protecting domestic indus
| tries" To-day that tariff Is producing more
| than S212, 10000 in gold. How closely his Ian
| guaee comes 70 the language OF our president
| when, IN his message, he said: The question
of free trade is absolutely irrelevant, and the
| persistent claim made in certain quarters that
all efforts To relieve the people from unjust and
| unnecessary taxation are schemes or sO-called
| free traders is mischievouS and far removed
| from any consideration for the public good.
! The simple and plain duty which we owe the
! people is 10 reduce taxation to the necessary
| expenses of an economical operation of the
| government
These things can and should be done with
saiety to all our industries, without danger To
! the opportunity for renumerative labor which
| our workingmen need and with benefit to them
and all our people nv cheapening their means
| o. subsistence and Increasing the measure of
| their comforts" TApplause.l
But the republicans say that the average
! reduction shows nothing, and that we should
/ consider the specific features OF the Mills bill
/ and those features are reduction OF taxation
/ on the necesSarieS Of life and upon raw mate
rails. 1t advocates free lumber. upon which
| there is now tax of = thousand. And who
| is benefited by that reduction? Whv. every
| man who builds hOuse. every man who leases
! n house: aud that includes every person in the
whole Union Every industry in the land that
| uses lumber in its finished product, that has to
! build It's factory, benefits by this reduction Of
| the tariff And who. pray, is injured bv il?
| Nhv, the Algers and those men who have
| made their millions gathered by tariff taxation
! from You and me and every living soul that has
| IN any form TO use a stick of wood. Where lie
the interests Of the people on that question?
There Is and can be but one answer. And when
| the democratic party demanded that that tax
| be removed. il is true to the peoples interests
| and 1t Is urging a measure for the benefit of
| every industry in the whole land.
| The Mills bill provides for free salt. Who is
/ benefited bv that provision? IN Every con
sumer in the country; % every industry
| III the country that uses Salt-the great meat
| packing establishments. the fish packing estab-
lishments and many others that could be
toned.
The Mills bill advocates free wool. Is that
for the interest of the peOple2 tt means
| cheaper clothing to every man, woman and
child in the country. IL means more than that
| the strengthening, developing and enlarging
| of the wooden industries OF the country. That
| provision too is a benefit not only to consum-
| ers. but vast benefit to the industrial interests
| of the country. What better evidence al this
! could be found than that honest straiChtfOr-
ward letter OF Mr.. Lyman tapplauSel, who rep
resents one of the largest industries in the
| nation. n republican who frankly admits that
| because of that he denounceS and repudiateS
the republican party and its platform. [Ap-
| plause.l Take as an illustration OF the benefit
that will come To the industries OF the country
| from free wool the result that followed from
| free hides. / quote, as evidence on this point
| from most unfriendly source. You all know
that the Boston Daily Adre79iscr and the
| Eveaing Record have for weeks and months
been securing around amongst the manutac-
| turers exciting alarm and endeavoring to scare
| the people into a belief that industries were to
be injured by the policy OF the democratic
party. And day by day those papers print
| interviews with this and that man who is
willing TO lend his aid 20 this scheme. On
June 81 the AdUertiser published an interview
| with a well-known leather dealer who tries to
! believe that free hides have not been a benefit
to his industries, but in that interview says
| three things: That wages have increased that
| prices have diminished, and at least p per
| cent. of the leather made in this country is now
| exported, and adds, i'll answer to the question
! if there have been many failures in his bust
ness, "No; | have heard of but few failures"
| That is to say, the results that have followed
by the admission of this unfriendly critic, from
! free hides, have been higher wages lower
prices and a large foreign trade. Applause.]
| And this is exactly what will follow to the
wooden industries and 10 other industries if
| their raw material is given them free, as advo-
Gated by the democratic party. 1t is not i'm
| possible that it should not be so. With cheaper
| raw material the finished product is cheaper;
| its cheaper price makes greater demand; the
greater demand makes more work and higher
wages, and allows that product to 90 into
| all the markets of the world Instead OF curb
| ing and restricting our industries to home