The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1889-09-21
BEAT7Y'S BOMB +!
Fired Into Foraker's
Xenia Froth!
EOrskerisms and Little
Breechas Shams,
Stripped Naked and Exposed
to tic Peoples Gaze.
Th0 Debt Reduced More in Two Years
Under HOally Than in Three
Under Foraker.
Foraker Pretend He Refunded
the Debt and Reduc- d the
Interest,
Yet the Democratic Legislature
Provided for This During
Hoadly's Term.
Foraker Claims the Tax Levy
Has Been Reduced, But This
is Simply Failure to
Co lect For the Sink
ing Fund.
JLo Dx;neo - LIZ,
The Prince Of Humbugs Maintains His
Reputation,
vast Sums Received from The
Dow law TTave been Squau-
GGreel and UuaccOunt-
ed For.
ro TnE rEorLE or OHIO.

The Governors Eenia speech fills five
closely printed dcolumns of ftheCommercial
Gazette. 1t could. without the loss of
an idea. have been condensed into two.
1t is as destitute of argument as Capeller
is of political honesty, and comes nearer
the drivel of imbecility than the
strength and dignity of craftsmanship.
Cleveland, of course, gets his usual
thrust If Mrs. Cleveland had had even
remote conception of the direful con-
sequences Of her ''snub" she would, out
Of compassion for an over-bored but
honest public, withheld it, and instead
Won the Governors gratitude by patting
him on the back and telling him he was
. bully" boy. ] am sorry she did not,
for then his speeches would have been
shorter. probably more to the point and
possibly more truthful.
After disposing of Cleveland the Gov
cInor proceeds to tell his audience that
Campbell, his opponent, is Republican.
j. this is true why should Republicans
not support him? 1t may be said that
be was nominated by gang" but he
could not have been nominated by a
worse lot of scabs than the Cox-Capeller
End Kurtz gang If we must take Re-
publican from the hands of gang, why
not take Campbell? In doing so we
should vote for one who made an open,
manly fight for his nominations: for one
who did not deceive his rivals by false
assurances Of friendship and support;
and by his election we would not estab-
lish a third-tern precedent, and thus
pave the way for the Inauguration of a
permanent boss. With Republican
Campbell in the executive office, Re
publican Lieutenant-Governor, Treas
urCr, Attorney-General, etc, in their
respective places and "a Republican Gen
eral Assembly to back them, who dare
say that the State would not be in most
excellent hands? Nobody. Let us,
therefore, give the Governor credit for
one sensible suggestion.
] believe in the doctrine of protection
TO American industries; but | believe
also in the doctrine of common sense,
and don't propose to pay premium on
fools by electing them to the guberna-
tOrial office. Now, what actual or imag-
mary connection could the 'longshore-
mems strike in London have with
the tariff question in the United
States? Why did the Governor re-
fer to it and dwell upon it at
length? Did he mean to have his
audience infer that strikes were un-
known in this country and only known
in Europe? Did he mean to have his
hearers infer that the higher wages paid
to freight handlers in this country were
due TO the protection afforded by our
tariff law? If so he sought to have
them infer a falsehood. Freight handlers
here, or elsewhere, are not protected
Their business is to handle barrels, box
es and crates not to make them and not
TO manufacture the merchandise with
which they are filled There is no duty
or - 'loIgshoremen;" our ports are open
10 them. They may come to this coun-
try by the million, and by doubling the
number reduce to one-half the present
wages of tho laborer. In short the
wages of lon@shoremen are less in Eng
land than here simply because that
country is more populous than this be-
cause workingmen in this line are more
abundant there than here. III is but a
few years since there was strike among
freight handlers in New York, which
paralyZed tho railroads and threatened
tie city with famine. If strike in
London IL an argument in favor Of pro-
tectiye tariff, why should not a strike in
New York be Gn argument against it?
What ronsense, therefore, 10 lug such
irrelevant matter into the discussion Of
tue great question of industrial protec-
tion. Who but thoughtless blunderer
would do IL?
Goyernor Foraker tell us.
SIN ny last annual message pointed |
out what here want to call attention |
to In my message to the General AS |
sc nbly last January / called attention |
to the fact that we had carefully exam
ined the statistics of twenty-five States
of the Union as to the management OF |
their benevolent institutions, and that |
we had compared them with the statis-
tics of the similar institutions Of Ohio;
and then pointed out that as the result |