The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-09-20
Mr.. BUTLER TO Mr.. ROWLAND.
Hon. John N. Butler Responds to the Reply
of Mr.. Louis Rowland to His Last Letter.


letter by Mr.. Louis Rowland, alleged to be an
answer to my letter to the editor of the Indian
spolis News of Aug. 6. On Sept. IL, I sent to
the editor of the lndisnadolis Sentinel the in-
closed reply to the Rowland letter OF Sept 6.
On Sept. IL. / sent to the editor of the Indian
apolis Sentinel q note, Of which the following Ii
o copy:
Editor of the indianapolis Sentinel:
Dear Sir:-If You decline TO publish nv letter of
Thursday, Sept. Is, replying to MIR. Howlands letter
published in your Issue of Sept. q, please deliver the
manuscript to the bearer hereof, and obige. Yours
truly. Ohm III. BUTLER.
This morning my manuscript was returned
to me by mail, with a lengthy letter from the
editor of the Sentinel, in which he says: "As
you insist upon an immediate publication or re-
turn of your letter. l am obliged TO return it to
you" You Will observe that Il did not insist
upon an immediate publication of my letter, but
simply asked the return Of the manuscript IL its
publication was declined. / therefore interpret
the return Of the manuscript as q dsclinstion to
publish L. / herewith incloss the letter OF the
editor OF the Sentinel to me accompanying the
return OF my manuscript have no objections
to Its publication in connection with my letter II
the editor of the Sentinsl so desires and you can
find space therefor.
Hoping that you may find space for the publi-
cation OF my letter, so that my friend Rowland
may be relieved from suspense aud anxiety. l
am yours truly, yoHN NJ BUTLER.
INDIANAPOLIS. Sept. Is.
Mr. BUFFERS REPLY To MIR. ROWLAND
To the Editor Of the indianapolis Sentinel:
In your issue of the Sentinel of Thursday, Sept. 6,
1883, You give four and one-half columns of space to
young Dir. Howlands alleged answer to my letter
pnblished in the Indianapolis News of Aug. q, 1883.
l ask the use of your columns for reply. am en-
boldened to make this request by the fact that you
Qdftnrially ~ O,nvna,d II HOulan1fa lot
ter as . correct and forcible exposition of the princi-
pies and purposes of the Democratic party. You
say; 1T is avery able and vigorous piece of writing.
and an exceedingly valuable contribution 70 the cur
! rent tariff discussion. w commend it TO the atten-
ton of our readers" l am glad to know that you
adopt this letter of Mr.. Rowland 40 true Democratic
doctrine. Having so adopted it. / trust you will give
the venerable and decrepit friend" of young Mr..
Rowland an opportunity to reach Your readers with
his reply.
Mr.. Rowland says, II regard the socalled British
argument as so extremely foolish that / cannot bring
myself to discuss il at much length. IL amounts
simply TO saying that the British believe in free
trade, therefore il must be wrong. They want rs 20
adopt FREQ trade, therefore we will not do il; we prefer
to stick to the American system" II will be observed
that this statement contains two admissions and one
charge. frst-lt admits that England wants
the United States TO adopt free trade.
tr.d.s" Is IL ia.lv that she is '0 entirely
disinterestedi in this desire, and is simply engaged in
missionary work. with a purely missionary spirit. in
her lsbors in aid of the Democratic party of the Uni
ted Statesi Second-lt virtually admits that the
Democratic party is opposed 10 the protective sys-
TEN" which Mr.. Rowland calls the american sys
tenn to distinguish it from the free-trade system.
THRIFT charges that the Republican party is de-
termined to stick to the American system. F" and that
It IS extremely foolish" in so doing.
As a Repu Slican l admit that the Republican party
IS determined Ito stick 10 the American system
That It is foolish TO do so IdsEy. On the contrary, IL
seems to me that wisdom and patriotism alike demand
| that we stick to the American system" which has
/ proved so b~ens6eent in its results, rather than that
we adopt the British freetrsde system. which Dir.
Il HnUta ~ admit i D.. -. - t
PROOF OF the correctness OF my interpretation OF Mr.
Howlsnds statement, | here quote two further pas.
sagss from his letter. He says: Il am free TO admit,
or rather avow, that the message ard Mills bill are
anti-protective ia spirit and principle If this were
not 50. i should have very little interest in either doc
nmsnt - There never was a greater humbug
IN the world than proteetion.7 This IL Democracy in
1883 as exrounded by Mr.. Rowland and cordially ap-
proved and commended by the Sentinel. Dee. the Senti-
mel, Is the organ of the Democratic p.rty OF Indiana,
desire to stand by it's approval and adoption of these
statements as good Democratic ooctrinei If SO, why
does 1t not urge Democratic speakers, and the Demo.
cratic press, 10 stop asserting that the Mills bill is
a ACCOMPLISHMENTS bill. and that the Democratic
party Is not in favor Of free trsiei We all know
that the burden of Democratic oratory in the present
campaign consists in an attempt 20 convince voters
that the Democratic party is not anti protective in
spirit and principle. but is in favor Of q protective
tsrlif, only desiring 10 make q very triijng reduction
| Mr.. hewlAnd says . per cent--in tariff duties. BY
ITS strong approval and comuendation of Mr.. How.
land statements the Sentinel admits and declares
| that the Democratic party believes protection" 10
De the greatest humbug IN the world. and avows that
the PRESIDENTS message and the Mills bill are anti.
protective IN spirit and principle. This is exactly
what claim the Democratic party does believe and
does avow when II speaks its real sentiments. II Mr..
Howlsnd and the Sentinel are correct in. claiming
That the President ; message of Dec 2, 1897. and the
hilis bill are anti-p reflective in spirit and principle.
and that there never was . greater humbug in the
world than pro,ection'-if this ia true Democracy
land have no doubt that &c Isl. the President in his
letter OF acceptance Just Issued is guilty of a dema-
gogical attempt 10 koodwirk and deceive the people.
In answer 70 Mr.. Howlands statement that the
1htIS Dill : = ny ~ a y mar nanF radEreTan ~ -
isting tariff, | repeat that this statement. AMI many
like statements found in Democratic speeches and
spects misleading and deceptive. Suppose the gov.
eminent should desire TO reduce its income from tariff
duties $50, 600 900. suppose the tariff duties on
the sum Of $50. 600. oo s1'O Now. ua adsr
these conditions, suppose the party in
power should pass a law putin, sugar on the q ee
respect. would il be honest aud true for the party ia
power 70 claim and assert that il had scaled down the
existing tariff . certain percentagel 1t would not
dutiabie article. 1t would only have decreased the
Income by charging the free list by adding sugar to
made upon the entire dutiable list. The alleged re-
duction in income is attempted by taking wool. some
nineteen farm products mainly raised in
a%rticels, off from the dutisbls is. and
putting them on the free list. and by largely reducing
the duties on iron aud steel. and their manufactures.
and a few other articles. Now to say that this bill is
simply a reduction Of > per cent. from the existing
tariff conveys a false and utterly misleading meaning.
But this question of percentage is Of little impor
lance compared with the spirit ard principle of
the bill. and the message which caused the
introduction OF tie bill. My claim was. and is. that
the democratic party is. ia spirit and principle. hos.
tie TO the system OF tariff protection, and is, at heart,
q free-trade party. / am Obliged tc my young and
jealous Democratic friend, Mr.. Rowland. and to the
Sentinel, for furnishing me such direc. proof that my
LAIN Is exactly true and correct.
Mr.. Howlsnd says: When he Genes To deal with
sugar. Mr.. Butler is singularly unfair. He saws:
Many claim that the bill raises the tariff on sugar
considering all grades-lS per cent. above the tariff
OF 1888" BE then quotes from the Mills bill. as
prove that there is no change in grading sugar. and
proceeds TO intimate that ] made the statement found
IN my speech delivered at Kokorno. June 26, 1888.
without having studied the Mills bill enough to know
its contents. In that he is mistaken. II my young
friend bad kept up with the Mills bin and It's history
he would have known that the sugar schedule in the
bill. when II was first submitted to the House for con.
sioerstion oy the ways and means committee was
very different from what it is now in the bill as finally
passed: The bill, as it was originally submitted and
printed Tor use IN the House. began grading sugar for
tarrf duties at No. 16 Dutch standard, entirely ignor
ing the two grades for tariff duties below No. l6
Dutch standard, found in the tariff law of 1888.
by lowering the duty on No. 10 Dutch
standard q mere trife below the duty on
that same graue in the law of 1888, and
rate OF duty fixed for that grade, the trainers of the
Mills bill really intended to raise the tariff on sugar
about IL per cent. During the discussion Of the bill
In committee OF the whole the Republican members
OF Congress exposed this little game and made the ex
posture so hot and pointed that the Democrats with
drew. and, as far as possible, suppressed that edition
of the Mills bill and issued a new edition with a new
sugar schedule. which is the schedule quoted by Mr.
Rowland. When | prepared the speech which SCENT
to have given, my young friend Rowland so mucl