The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1890-10-03

Tuesday evening, according to an.
nouncement and addressed an atten.
tive audience of perhaps 200 people al
the Opera House. The threatening
weather probably kept some away
who would otherwise have been pres
emit. The meeting was gracefully pre-
sided over by Mr.. All. Campbell, and
the Ladies' Band furnished excellent
music.
Mr.. Chapman began the serious part
of his address by stating that he
would not 90 back and dig up dead
issues;--and then he went back
straightway to 1854 and dug up the
''rag-baby" which even the greenback
party, its father, admits has been deed
since 1879. After exhibiting this de
cayed and mouldy cadaver for q con-
siderable time, he went still farther
back into another graveyard and dug
up the Union Pacific railroad and the
"squandering of the public domain"
He told a very narrowing tale about
how Republican Congresses. from 1862
to 1874, had voted 12s, 0Oo, 900 acres OF
land to railroads. Wehoped ne would
go back little farther and tell how
in the years from 1910 to 1850 Demo
cratic Congresses had set the fashion
of giving the public domain to corpora
tons by patenting to railroad and ca
nal companies millions Of acres of the
best land In Illinois and other central
and western States, but he didn't do
10 We hoped he would tell how the
homestead law appesled in vain to a
Democratic Congress and Democrat
ic President, and only passed when the
Republican party came into power;
but he didn't do Ii. We hoped he
would read the Democratic platform
of 1852 in which the Democratic party
declared itself in favor Of liberal
grants of land and money to aid in the
construction of the Union Pacific rail.
road; but he didn't do it. We hoped
he would produce the record of the
votes in Congress on ali these grants
to show that the Democrats favored
them equally with the Republicans,
and that they were not party ques-
tons; but he didn't do it. Perhaps Mr..
Chapman did not know that all these
things might have been shown; but
they might.
Having proven conclusively that
several men got rich building land
grant railroads, the speaker passed te
the tariff and gave most of the re
mainder of the time to discussion Of
it. He took up the McKinly bill and
read a great many things from 1t, but
there are q great many things in il
that he didn't read. He read that the
duty on castor beans was reduced from
so cents a bushel to 80 cents; but he
did not state that the Senate restored
the old rate, and that as the bill final
ly passed the tariff on castor beans
stnnds at so cents a bushel. He read
that the tariff on wheat was raised
from 20 to o cents bushel and thai
only 1,765 bushels were imported last
year; but he did not read that the
duty on flax seed was raised from q
cents "a bushel to 80 cents and thai
there were 1874, ITO bushels imported
last year. He read that cents 9
bushel had been added to the duty Oh
corn, of which only 2,Sss bushels were
impor ted last year; but he did not read
that 20 cents bushel had been added
to the tariff on barley, of which IL
S06, 925 bushels were imported last
year. He read that a duty of 5 cents
per dozen had been levied on eggs;
but he forgot to read that 15;620, $50
dozen of eggs were imported last veal
when they were permitted to come in
free. He read from advertisements
published last summer that If the Nc.
Kinley bill passed chinaware would
advance in price; but he did not read
from the bill itself that the duty on
this ware remains exactly the same az
it now is. He read kilograms from
wholesale firms ordering their agents
to advance the price of cutlery; but he
did not read from the Mckinley bill
this statement: "This industry Imam.
ufacture of cutlery is gradually being
destroyed by differentiation of for.
eign importations and inadequate pro
lection" Mr.. Chapman's discussion
of the tariff question, as his discussion
of the land question, was quite as re.
markable for what it left unssid as TO,
what it said.
In closing his speech Mr.. Chapman
charged Mr.. Funston with having vot.
ed for the Mckinley bill and for the
silver bill. Both of these charges Mr.
Funston will no doubt cheerfully ad.
init. We were surprised that the
speaker should have rehearsed the
stale chestnut about Senator ingalls,
going into the House and compelling
Mr.. Funston to change his vote on the
silver question, for he must know that
both Ingalls, and Funston positively
deny that q single word was exchang.
ed between them ON the subject, and
he would hardly charge both of them
of lying.
Personally Mr.. Chapman is genial,
pleasant gentleman. He is apparent
lxv fortx, x,oors Of ,oo a l;ftJa hove the