The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1888-10-27


question II was nothing but shat same old
rot" Mr.. Cullom put II In this way: "Gov.
Palmer he said, I'm q late speech, referr-
Ing to the fact that Mr. Ridgley, Of
Springfield, q former democrat, now sup
ported Harrison and high tariff protection,
said that was all right. Mr.. Ridgley was
q large owner OF the Springfield rolling
mills, engaged In the manufacture of steel
rails, In which, like Carnegie, he was able
to make big money by reason Of his SIT
per ton protection, which the democrats
proposed to reduce to $14. Mr. Ridgley
looked out for his own interests-looked
out for No. 1, that was all. And n1w,"
said Mr.. Cullom, II want you farmers to
do the same thing" proceeding to show
how the tariff skinned the farmers.
Dir. Cullom after so far belittling him
self as gratuitously to call Gen. Palmer q
demagogue, but failing piteously to make
so good point, undertook to combat his
argument by line Of talk like this: The
effect of tariff protection is to build up
large cities-centers of population
these make profitable home market for
farmers In the vicinity and largely enhance
the value of their farms. Thus, although
the lands of Connecticut we're much in
ferior to those of Illinois In fertility and
productiveness they we're much more val
liable per acre and their culture more prof
liable, because Connecticut was so largely
a manufacturing state and the farmers had
a ready home market for all they raised, at
good prices. On the other hand, the dem.
ocrats were opposed to protection-were
free traders-therefore In favor of DESTROY
ing our manufactures, depopulating our
large manufacturing cities and scattering
their population to the farms. destroying
the home market and breaking down the
farming business by forcing excessive
farm production.
Now, there is no use mincing the mat,
ter. Every intelligent man knows this is
disgusting rot, and disgraceful to the man
who seriously uses It, The democrats
stand on the Mills bill. We defy the clos,
est scrutiny to point out line In that bill
which decreases protection where Il ia
honestly needed to the amount of one pen-
ny. The only changes It makes In the
tariff Is to remove the tax on raw materials.
and this is admittedly to he advantage of
the manufacturers, enabling them matters
ally to cheaper their products, and thus
largely to increase their output, vastly TO
the benefit of the laborer and the consumer.
Instead of crippling or destroying, its ten.
dency necessarily must be, as Seth Low
demonstrates greatly to encourage and en-.
large our manufacturing establishments,
thus aiding immensely to swell, instead of
to scatter, our centers of population. And
1t will help the farmers not only by enlarg-
ing their home market, but also by Cheap
ening nearly every article they must buy.
But by forcing In among our manufacturers
the element of competition, the Mills bin
Is death to trusts; and that is exactly
where the shoe pinches. BUT for that
threatened deadly assault on the trust rob-
bers, we should hear very little of this 3D.
position to the Mills bill. 1t is then who
are frying out their fat to get up this "free
trade" howl against It, and they alone who
will be injured should the Mills bill. or
any kindred measure. ever become a law.