The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1892-10-04

it by introducing a measure for its re
peal, and the business sentiment o.
the country is almost unanimous il
regarding it as threatening menace
to financial stability.
The treatment of the treasury de
partment; like that of every other sub
jject touched upon, is extremely disin
genuOus. Credit is asked for the large
reduction of the interest bearing pub
lie debt, and it is claimed to he the
greatest record ever made. There
upon the figures are given, and they
show that during the democratic adj
ministration from March 1, 1885, to
March l, 1889, the interest bearing
debt was reduced 1888, O42 $50,
whereas from the latter date to July
l, 1892, the Harrison administration
reduced the debt only $3.50, O76. $50,
or an excess of reduction under Cleve-
land of nearly $4,000, 900.
1t is true that the comparison in
cludes four years of demo ratio and
only three wears and four months of
republican administration; but no one
will question that the present condi-
ton of the treasury renders farther
reduction during the republican adj
ministration absolutely impossible.
This, however, is not a complete show
ing of either of the administrations.
During the Cleveland administra-
ton the cash balance in the treasury
was increased by s27, 131, 714.50, and
that administration is entitled to a
credit of this amount upon its reduc-
ton of the debt. making the total re-
duction 1865, l15, 544.50. From the
reduction made during the present adj
ministration there should be deducted
SAG, 972 ,635. II, which is the defic-
iency in cash in the treasury that
would be shown by the official state
ment of August l, 1892, if made up
according to the old form used under
the Cleveland administration. This
lowers the debt reduction under Har-
risOn to 1912, 104, 155, thus showing
an excess of reduction of the Cleve-
land administration of si53, 071, 400.
1t will strike the mind of any man
who is not accustomed to looking upon
the public debt as public blessing as
an extraordinary piece of impudence
for any party to claim the credit for
such postpOnement of public Obliga-
tons as was involved in the extension
of the 1 per cent bonds which took
place one year ago; and yet the re-
publican tax book makes that claim.
1t is matter of common knowledge
that the bonds were extended because
the treasury was unable to pay them
and to meet its other obligations.
The chapters on the tariff constitute
an astounding collection of palpable
mistatements, fallacious arguments
and contradictory assertions. For in
stance, it is stated that food products
were not lower in price after the pas
sage of the Mckinley bill until the
good crops of 1891 brought them
down. In othr ewor,ls, the good crops,
not the high tariff, reduced prices.
But as a matter of fact the report of
the senate finance committee on wages
and prices showed that the prices of
agricultural or food products had in
creased in price. And Senator His
cock, speaking of the increased cost of
living as shown by this report, said:
''The cost-and l repeat it-of the
living expenses Of the people of all the
country was increased $685., 666, 226
by the increased price of the farm
products of the country. But do
not suppose that any one will claim
that that is due to the Mckinley act.s
The republican text book and SEN
ator Hiscock seem to be sadly at odds.
This quotation is perhaps the gem
Of the bOok-''The farmers have real
lied better prices for grains, vegetables
and animals and yet the consumers
have not paid more for their food. The
farmer gets much more and the con-
sumner pays q shade less than before
for the same food"
This is indeed marvellous result Of
the Mckinley bill.
Scant consideration is given to the