Weekly expositor. (Brockway Centre, Mich.) 1882-1894, 1890-10-24

TALK.
The inclement weather. which has
almost become necessary accompany
ment to political meetings was super
ceded on Friday by a bright and clear
day. The evening was pleasant and a
good number, the largest which has as
sembled this year. collected in Mich
aels' hall to listen to Mr.. BOies, of Hud-
son, whose previous engagement was
postponed. Mr.. Boies was introduced
by Attorney Tappan after few timely
remarks in which he commended the
subject at issue to the careful consider
alton of the audience. Its vital import.
he continued, made its consideration
the imperative duty Of every citizen.
Mr.. Boies' remarks were the plain
statements of honest facts; not smear
ed over with any emblaZonry of rheto-
rc. After stating the issue between
the two parties: tariff for protection
or tariff for revenue, he went on to
give history of the country, showing
the relative prosperity under the two
systems. This is something that can
not be disputed. The second law ever
passed by an American Congress was a
protective measure for American in
dustries. He quoted records showing
the great prosperity of the nation un-
der the law, as well as the general de-
preston that prevailed under the free
trade policy pursued in lSl2-l6. In
! 1920 the protective policy was again in
force; and Andrew Jackson himself
supported it. But in 1926 the southern
Democrats established a free trade.
! However. from 1924 the nation
showed wonderful growth under pro-
| lection. But in 1916 free trade prevail
! ed again. The usual ruin at this time
was deferred owing to the discovery of
gold in California and other booms;
| but it was inevitable. In 1854 and
after. it came in full force. This
mournful period prevailed until the adj
vent of a protective policy again in
| 1861. Since then the nation has eXper-
ierced prosperity never dreamed of
! before
Mr.. Boice then referred to the Dem
ocratic policy of free-wool as thorough
! ly confirmed by the Mills bill. He
showed records proving that, since the
Australian and Argentine Republic
woods have come into the market,
American growers can not compete in
a free market and live. 1t is one of
the most paying products raised by the
! farmer. Therefore, the farmer should
| be put in way to raise it profitably. If
! he is to be assisted.
The next course of argument went to
| prove the falsity of the statment that
"a tariff is a tax" He mentioned in
stances of every day consumption, as,
that calico sold for 5 cents when the
duty was Al cents, which would make.
! providing the assertion were true that
a duty is tax OH the consumer.
the price of the article one-half cent
a yard under free trade. In cotton
warp. again; the article sold for
Is cents. That would seem to argue
| that the wool would sell for nothing
without a tariff. Thus it is with all
goods manufactured. A tariff may
raise the price of the article at first;
but it must ultimately sell far below
the price of foreign article plus the
duty, otherwise there would be no in
ducement to buy the homemade article.
TO show the falsity of the statement
that the laborEng man is gradually be-
! ing tieeced by the manufactures In
whose interests the protective tariff
was said to be made entirely he show
ed the comparative scarcity of emf
nently rich manufacturers. The truth
is that they do not constitute the mo-
nopolists of the country. The men,
about whom the Democrats do so much
talking got their money in another way,
| In gold speculation. some; in railroads.
others; but none comparatively out of
manufacturing. That the labOring
man is decidedly better off in this coun-
try as a whole than elsewhere is conclu-
sively proven by the fact that the saw
ings of these people III 1860 during the
tarlh-for-revenue period amounted to
but Sl0O millions, while they amount
! today TO ] 100 millions: an increase al
! together out of proportion to the growth
of population. He might have added
that by statistics the amount of savings
from the same source in Massachusetts
alone In 1889 was greater than in all of
! England.
Mentioning the tree-trade claim that
the Mckinley bill would destroy our
market for produce i'm foreign countries
he mentioned the fact that % per cent
of our farm products are consumed at
home at present. If then we have so
small proportion as per cent to dis
pose of in foreign markets, why destroy
the industries of a great part of our
population, for the the sake of that;
when we might start new industries
which would employ hundreds of con-
sumers right at home for the other 8
per cent?
Too much praise can not be given
Mr. Boies for his candid, straightfor-
ward explanations. They could cause
no offense. and are sure to convince.