The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-10-31
BUTLER ON THE ISSUES
A Characteristic Talk Concerning the
Political Questions of the Times.
The Mills Tariff Bill FavOrs English Interests
and Cheap Wbiky-Minisier Vests Sup
port of the Free-Trade Democracy.

~6sN - - oAL&
not exactly accurate-worse than that how
many OF you know, how many Of you have been
told by the blatant temperance men VINO nave
been around, who do not know anything OF
what they are talking about. except that the
Lord will do something for them, for they won't
work. Laughter How many of them have
told you this great fact, that ! am telling you
tonight, that the Mills bill repeats every license
of every retail liquor-ssller in the United
Statesi How many OF you knew that beforei
You have heard people talking here oy the
week. / have come here to tell you facta Pus
that down, so that there may DO no mistake. 1
and give yOu tn page. In the Mile bill, on the
sixteenth page, they ask of the Secretary OF the
Treasury to give them a repor. Of how much
it would take off the revenue il they repealed
the retail license for liquor and beer
ed it: Special taxes. retail liquor
dealers. fiscal year 1887, s4,5s7. 26S; special taxes,
retailers in malt liquors. si77,l4&" Now, then,
that 10 what they reported. / Will hand you
this book, and there Is not q man or you who
can find where that amount was taken of in
the Mills bill. but yet it is taken of.
Being an old lawyer and accustomed . hoie
to read laws. I have read the Mills bill. lap
plause.l You will find IN section 40 of the Mills
bill that all clauses Of section 3244 of the Re-
vissd Statutes, and all laws amepdAtory thereof,
and all other laws which impose any special
taxes upon manufactured stills, retail dealers In
liquors and retail dealers in malt liquors are
hereby repealed. How many of you know what
the statute section 3244 Of the Revised Statutes
isl And, my temperance friends, did you ever
look To SEQ what that meantf That statute Is
the statute that provides for taxes on retail
malt liquors, aud the amount last year that was
paid for that which Is repealed, 10 $4,5s7 ,26S, as
1 read you, and you will fnd that repealed IN
the fo:tieth section 10 this book on the NILS
bill ns, on page sa S. wl Let Us rs. Sc. ,o What o the as.
that they are . to DO bounded for by
a third party called Prohibitionists. Prohlbi-
ton 10 an excellent thing il We could only do 1t.
| an for prohibition. but | am not TOR non-pro'
hibition, as a political MEASURE. The Republic
ans took off about 50. 600, 600 from liquor. What
did they take 1t off of They said that whsnsv-
er any liquor is to be used in the arts and man
ufsctures the duty shall be given or. lAp-
pause Here, my temperance friend, who has
been abusing the Republican party-I don't like
them very well mysslf-but on that question
you are al wrong. Why don't you like i'll You
say, free whisky the Republicans want. Not
at all. They say when y,u don't drink whisky.
but put it into arts and Into manufactures. such
as paint, dye stuff. to preserve all sorts OF
things that require alcohol to preserve them
when you DO that with the whisky it shall 60
60 free.
The Democrats say every man who now pays
$50 for the privilege OF selling liquor poison to
his neighbors shall have that $25 taken of.
(Applsuse There It Ia in plain language.
Well, now, what 10 II done for} They say they
W6uteO TO OlmlnfBu M revenue. d IL 3D. IL
it was merely done to diminish the revenue,
let Us pay 1t over-this tax Of the retail
dealer-let US pay 1t over to the widows at Sl2 a
month, and 1t VIII pay S3.OS6 widows q years
pension at sl2 o month and save President
Cleveland q great deal of trouble in writing
vetoes. Tremendous cheers Suppose some
poor widow gets 1t who ought not to have III Is
it not a great deal better that she should get
that money and keep away from the corner
grocery near her house by making the man that
carries on the grocery nav n licensed lis not that
the beetl One way Is the Republican way, ono
way the Democratic way. Applause Judge
ye, my friends, upon this matter. Well, let US
90 a little further. ! will tell you where the
the revenue, take OF the taxes. That We are
agreed upon. There is more Rspublicauism IN
in that reduction than there is Of Democracy.
The tariff is too high. fought it when | was IN
Congress, tried to get IL down. but could not do
it. because I was a Greenbacker. Let Us see
what We want to reduce, and how, so as not TO
iniure the laboringman, SO az not to hurt him.
tCries OF Hear, heart" and applause Every
body says that. The Democrats say that They
say their way Is the best. The Republicans say
their way is the besh. Let Us examine the two
ways fairly.
The way to reduce the tariff must be to take
off the tax. II you want 10 favor the laboring
man in taking OF taxes take IL of of that into
which bis labor does not 60. lGreat applause
IL not that right Or into that which the least
amount OF his labor goes. That is what We want
TO do. lis there anybody VINO Will say that that
is not the right way to do iti Nobody. Now
here is the trouble with your Democratic tariff.
Il takes the tax off of those things that the
laborer makes by labor alone. Let me go over
this carefully, let me 60 over this thing. because
/ have stood by the side Of the iaboring man in
my own town for forty odd years. know what
the lab0ring mon want, and they know what
they want, and am going home to tell them the
same thing that l am telling You tonight next
Monday. although there is no need Of nv being
thera NV nroDoaifIOp ia to take off fha tay.
Where We want to reduce the revenue is from
that which the laborer puts as little labor into
as possible. The Democrats on the other hand
in this Mills bill-go over 1t carefully and You
will find that 1 am riehs-take it of OF those
articles where the laporing man makes all the
Remember, I told you I could explain how
they fixed IL so that every man can distil whis.
Ky, IL this bill passes, on bis " cook stove.
This Is 1t. You will observe hero that this bill
repeals all laws about manufactured stills.
There is not . man here who has not beard Of
the moonshiners and their getting up In the
mountains and stilling q little whisky. Why 80
much trouble about III Because they could not
buy a still anywhere. The laws we're that no
stills ehould be made except for licensed distill-
ers, and there was 81, 600 penalty upon anybody
who should make . still and not put his own
name on II, and that only for the licensed dis.
liller. and therefore no one but the licensed dis
tiller could get the still. II you can get the still,
as l said before, there is not q cook1tove that
cannot distili whisky q good deal better than
most OF the whisky l have found Ia the West
Let Us see what they did. This 10 something
you have not heard of before. The special taxes
on tho manufacture Of stills in the fiscal year OF
1887 was only SO, 72l, because SO few stills had
to be made. They could only be made for the
licensed whisky distillera Now then, thoee
are provided for in section 3444. and
that section 10 repealed. Therefore, any
man, II this bill passes, can 60 and get a still
made. large or small, and set up the business or
poisoning himself and his neiehbors on his own
cook stove, and that is q very great convenience
down South. This is a Southern phase In this
bill We do not have any d~istiliing no here, no
moonshinine that / have heard OF. Did You ever
hear OF anyf We used to hunt them Down in
Georgia. Now they have repealed all that.
They have opened the distillation of whisky to
everybody, and il you want that done vote for
the Mills bill Why, It 10 almost laughable.
1 want to call your attention to this per
formance OF the British minister, because IL is
very important. Let IL see . little about 1t. On
the Sd OF September To IRE WAS . fellow by the
name OF Murchison down in Pomona, Cal. A
gentleman there whom l know telegrAphs no
ter, and he is a British subject; yet, although
zen, he wanted 70 know how to vote as an
American citizen, and TO get that informa-
ton he writes to the British m~inister.
They made great efforts, you know,
TO naturalize Enelishmen, and !
hope this specimen does not fairly represent
all. lCries OF mo, no."l He writes to the
British minister, and he says: 81 was rather 10
favor Of Cleveland. Harrison is a high pro-
tectivo mani give the auhstance. NOT the