The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-10-31
Jan. %, 1873, reported in the Congressional
Record Of that date:


soldiers % march beyond the boundaries OF her
state, and refused pointedly TO the general govern
ment TO respond TO a cal! Tor her troops. :"
| the war Of 1872 and did all in
/ her power 10 embarass its prosecution.
in congress, voted for the declaration OF against
/ Cir = Britain and seriously threatened with
moo violence in Massachusetts as he passed on his
/ way komeward. A." Massachusetts refused 10
pass and tabled resolution thanking of her
own volunteer officers Tor a victory because il was
won IN unjust She refus ed TO thank the ad-
mrabe and gallant comm tuder OF the Hornet for
having captured the BRUSH man-Of-war, Peacock
I want the record eau give you more and grayer
instances until the sun sets.
have read this Language of Mr.. Blaine's,
not as corroborating any imputation OF mine
upon the honor of Massachusetts,. / have
made none. / have challenged the patriotism
OF the federal list party of Massachusetts, and
OF its legitimate progeny, the monOpolists of to-
day. ! resent James q. Bane's violent attack
upon the honor of the grand old state. assert
now, as have asserted before, that her pa
trOtic people, the democrats of Massachusetts
and by democrats include all her patriots
who, sincere lovers of their country,
and not merely 10 obtain control OF
the government for evil ends, struck
at slavery and secession from the ranks
OF any party-these people, say, always saved
her honor in war and in peace, and believe
the day is not far distant and pray il may
dawn on the 9th day of November next, that
these same patriots OF the old commonwealth
will t''row Oh the thraldom of the descendants
OF the .e leralists of other days and present her
as OF yore-
Holding up a beacon peerless
To the oppressed OF all the world.
Mr.. Blaine says that when stated that New
England absorbed wealth and gave nothing,
AGAIN showed Ignorance for which | was 10 be
condemned. Let me trouble you with few
statistics and | will give you the authority for
them afterward.
The total valuation of ali the property of the
six New England states was, in 1851, as follows:
Massachusetts,. i. 623, 100000. Maine, sill Co.,
90; New Hampshire, $}6},000O00; Vermont
500, 0O0,000; Rhode Island, Si0D,001000; Con-
necticut S799,OC0,0,0; total S597SU0.OO0. The
total wealth owned by the people of New En-
gland, situated either within or without her
borders was as follows: Massachusetts, SL79,
OO0OOO; Maine, 1901 100000 New Hampshire
S52S 0O0,OO0; Vermont, SIS, 600; Rhode Is
land $i20OO0OOO; Connecticut, SS52,0O0OO
/ The population owning this wealth was 40l0
90
1t will be seen that these states owned not
only the wealth within their borders, but
owned OF the wealth OF other states the enOr-
nous sum OF 500, 100000, which figures, as is
estimated, have been doubled since 1880. At
the same time the six Northwestern states OF
Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, lndi-
ana and Iowa, with a population OF nearly
| three times that OF New England, tO-wit 10
| 4l3,aO5 have wealth situated within their Dor
| derS, and their people owned OF II as follows:
] Michigan was worth 81 $50, 100000, and she
| owned OF il but $l,S7O,0OO,OOO, showing that
some one owned of her wealth outside of her
/ borders $2l00O0OO0; Illinois was actually
/ worth $3,2lO,0u0,O00, but her own peo-
! pie owned but 5000 100000, showing
| that some one else outside her borders
/ owned OF her wealth and property SllS,OO0,0O0;
] Wisconsin was worth 81. l39,00J,000, aud actu-
! ally owned OF il but 1909 O0O 600, showing some
| one else not within her borders owned $l7O,-
! OU0,U0; Minnesota was worth Sl92OOOUOO, but
| her people owned of her wealth but S63S, OOO,-
! 600, showing that people outside of her Dor
! ders owned $lj4,O0O,0CO; Indiana was worth
81 ,6Sl 100000, but owned only 81, 499 0000O0 so
| that some one outside her borders owned OF her
| wealth Sl62, 100000; Iowa was worth S1,72l,-
! 100000, and her own people owned Sl,4l5,OOO,-
| 900, showing that there was owned by people
! outside her borders S1S6,0O0,000 of her prop
| erty.
! So that we find that Of the wealth of these
| six northwestern states the enormous OF
! $l.I40.0OJ.OOO was owned by people other than
/ their citizens. All these figures have enOr-
/ mousy increased since 1880. Who owns this
wealth of these six northwestern states which
/ are not owned by their own citizens! We do
| not have far TO look. 1t is a problem OF easy
! solution. New England owns S3U7 10000 of
| II. The wealth owned by New York and
| Pennsylvania outside OF their own borders was
/ y, 762, OUO-owned undoubtedly in the North
west. and in other states not named therein
! sufficient owned TO make the amount. The
/ tendency Is constant toward making these con-
| ditons worse instead of better and we will
| shortly lock for the cause.
Unlike Mr.. Blaine, cite you the authority
! for these statistics. They will be found in a
| work known as Twenty Years in Congress-"
/ vol. 1, p. 6ls. and following, bearing its
| title page the assurance that its author is
| James g. Blaine of Maine. / commend my
! citations because they are extracted bodily froIn
the census OF the United States, and are un-
| dOubtediy presented by Mr. Blaine TO show the
advantages which have accrued TO New En-
| gland from protection when her manufacturers
/ and governmental authority TO levy and collect
! taxes on the necessities OF outlying provinces,
/ as the northwestern states have been cOnsid-
/ cred. In connection with these figures show
/ ing the enormous wealth OF New England as
/ compared with the wealth OF nearly three
/ times her population IN the Northwest, and
| with the Northwest not owning her own wealth,
/ IL is interesting to note that we are besides
| mOrtgaged 10 the East TO these enormous
| amounts in farm mortgages alone: Michigan,
| Si29, 224, 5J3; Minnesota, Sl22.5J0OO0; Wiscon-
| sin, $l75,0O,000; Illinois, Sl42000O00.
With all this wealth, with all the resources
| within our borders, what explanation is there
| Tor this ownership and Indebtedness 10 the
| East? With our immense output of products
/ to sell in exchange, why is il that the balance
| of our own wealth and the balance of indebted
! ness against us is so great, when on the wealth
produced we should be self-supDOrtlng should
own our own property, and should owe moth
| Ing? Let us see: In $780, according to the
| census. the output OF finished manufactured
products for the three states which | take for
/ illustration follows: Massachusetts,
| Sj3l 5ll 900; Pennsylvania, S7fi,7iS,O0J; New
! York, $l,0S0,001OO0, and the tariff on
these manufactures, which were of such
articles as we need, at A. per cent, was the sum
| of $l.l54,625,0 900. Estimating the Northwest as
containing population of about ten millions
/ one-siXth of the estimated population of the
| United States, il is fair to assume that we took
/ One-sixth OF the manufactured products of nlese
/ three great manufacturing states, which Is
| 500, 600 If only 30 per cent. instead of
| A. per cent, represented the tariff enhance
ment of the price it shows S123, 600 900 more to
these protected states than we should pay if
| prices were regulated by the value of the prop
erty buy. These the figures for one
year. You easily figure how our property
may 90 from us and our Indebtedness increase
with these conditions continuing from year to
year.
But Mr.. Blaine says that New England raises
only about per cent Of the wheat her people
need for breadstuiis and that she takes i'm
mense quantities OF provisions, butter. eggs.
| poultry and other produce Of the West by way
! OF return of trade. II seems to me as | read of
/ the enormous consumption OF western produce
| set forth as consumed by the tour millions of
| people of New England, that il would have
| struck his audience that the Yankee appetite
was phenomenal. and that without refutdtiou,
the statement Of Mr.. Blaine bore upon its face
Blaines own familiar stump.
| Let as to breadstuffs: In 1879, as
shown by the census of 1850, New England's
product OF wheat was l.927 O37 bushels. There
! were 100000 of people. The average con-
| sumption of the year (lSSO) as found, by de-