The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-11-28
THAT UPRISING AGAINST PROTECTION"

~ 49, @O4O SNtsa5 ~ "oo ePOA
that issue that the Democratic party
swept the country in 1890 and put the
present majority in the House. Thatthe
majority of the members elected in
Northern districts in 1890 are anti-Re-
publicans no one doubts. But it was not
an uprising" of the people that secured
that result, as the free-trade papers are
constantly asserting and as many we'll
meaning people may be led to suppose
because of the reiteration of these organs.
1t was q devastating of oters rather
than an uprising which produced the
result of 1890, and it was the result of
more Republican down-sitting than
Democratic. Those papers which con-
suit election returns know that there
was no uprising against protection"
yet some that should study political al
MANAGES. Xix the indianapolis News, for
instance, are constantly harping about
the uprising of the country against pro-
lection. They are either grossly ig-
n~orant, ~inexcusably careless or inten-
tionally mendacious.
unS4AsbiCy Jill q law q
month before the election of 1890. That
was ample time in which to lie about
the measure, but months were required
to prove its usefulness to the American
people. That month the Democratic
papers and orators, because they are
Democratic, and the free-trade papers
which are not Democratic because they
are Anglomaniac, devoted to lying about
the Mckinley law. During that period
the "father of lies" must have been
jealous of the ingenuity and zeal of his
progeny. 1t was a period of the most
marvellous misrepresentation within
recollection. 1t can never be du-
plicated. Pages of figures were print
ed to show the increase in the
price of the necessaries of life that
would follow the passage of the Repub-
lican tariff act. In their zeal increased
prices were given for articles upon which
the duty had been reduced. For in
stance, the duty on shoes was reduced 5
per cent. yet the News published a re-
port that Marshall Field, of Chicago, had
advanced the price of mems brogars
from 81 to $3.50 per pair because of the
tariff. Many jobbers who should have
known from experience that an advance
of duty On goods manufactured in this
sumption cannot increase the price, ad-
vised their customers to buy literally
because "next month goods would be
higher" Free trade and Democratic
managers induced many retailers in
country villages to put up the prices of
their goods. Democratic managers sent
peddlers out into rural districts who
asked from % to 100 per cent. moro for
goods than the prices before the passage
of the law. Well meaning large retail
dealers advised customers to buy, forthe
Mckinley law would make prices high
CT, while INSCRIPTIONS little hucksters
demanded more for their wares, even to
eggs and onions. because of the "McKin-
ley bill" The free-trade press showed
it's hostility to American manufacturers
by representing by publications, which
were. in fact, forgeries, that they sold
their goods cheaper to foreigners than
to residents of this country, and those
editors would not explain the m%isrepre-
sentation when it was shown.
By such disreputable means the mass
of people were made to believe that the
prices of the necessaries Of life were to
be increased by the Mckinley law from
% to so per cent. Thousands who were
not SO made to believe were involved in
doubt. Republican voters by hundreds
of thousands were paralyzed with doubt,
but they were not carried away with
the impulse to vote the Democratic
ticket. They might be between the
devil and the deep sea-" but they would
not betake themselves to the devil of
Democracy. They simply resolved to
wait and see the result. Therefore, by
tens of thousands they did not vote.
AS before remarked, they sat down; they
did not do any uprising" for the
down in large numbers, but the Repub-
lican sitters outnumbered them by about
two TO one.
A few facts and figures will prove tho
absurdity of this assumption OF an up
rising against protection" The Demo-
Gratis carried Indiana last fall, but they
polled an aggregate of $4,000 votes less
than they did for Mr.. Cleveland in 1888,
when he vas beaten by General Harri-
son by 2,34S votes. In 1888, by the aid
of the gerrymander. the Democrats
elected ten of the thirteen Representa-
tives to Congress, but if, in 1888. the
Democratic candidates had received no
more votes than they did in 1890, only
two would have been elected. As it was,
they elected eleven members. In sew
eral Eastern States-New Hampshire,
Massachusetts,, Connecticut. New York
and New %Jersey-the Democrats re-
versed the political complexion of the
members of the House by polling votes
in every district hundreds, and oftener
thousands. less than those by which they
were defeated in 1888. In Illinois the
Democrats have fourteen members in
the next House to sever in the last; if
they had polled the same vote in each
district in 1888 as they did in
1890. they would have had one
less member i'm the last House