The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1892-06-15
the product Of the country for the last

the product of the country for the last
twenty years. and a general deterioration
in quality with compromising decrease in
price. But in the same time the
number of wooden mills has dropped
from 1881 ID 1870 to 1880 in
1880, and to 1872 in 1890 What does it
mean? Merely that the larger establish
ments are crowding out the smaller ones,
and small owners are being reduced to
employees or driven into other avocations.
And where does this decrease occur?
Ohio's WOODEN mills decreased from 146 in
1880 to 1876 in 1890, Indiana's from Sc to
IS, Iowa's from 81 to "a, and Tennessee
from l06 to 80; but in the same period
Pennsylvania wooden mills increased
from 654 to III and Massachusetts, from
271 to 366. The same disproportion of
increase is to be noted in any locality.
Thus there was an increase of manufact-
uring in Indiana from 1870 to 1880 in
material consumed, in product and in
number OF hands employed, but at
the same time the number of manu-
factories in Indiana decreased from II, 487
possibilities of American citizenship" are
improved by reducing small manu-
facturers 10 employees and concentrating
control OF the industries Of the country in
few men?
The inequality of increase of wealth be-
tween the agricultural and the manu-
featuring is equally marked. and it is
wildly portrayed by Mr. KING, who
divides the country into districts, the
produce district composed of Indiana, Hi
nois, Iowa, Nebraska, Louisiana, Missis-
sippi, Alabama, Georgia and North Caro-
lima, and the wealth district, com posed of
the New England states, with New York,
New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the section
OF banking money-lending, manufacturing
and railway owning interests. He shows
by the census reports that the wealth dis
trict" has increased it's wealth in the ten
years ending with 1890 over So. 900, 100000,
while the produce district" has increased
in wealth only $500, 100000. He shows that
the produce district has lost in per capita
wealth, while the wealth district has made
Mr.. KING next compares the growth in
wealth of the produce district" with the
single state of Massachusetts, from 1880
1889. The nine states OF the produce dis
trict" have ffty-eigh. times he territory
of Massachusetts, and in 1880 had over
seven times the population of MRssachu-
setts, with an assessed valuation one and
three-fourths greater. And yet this little
state. with one-ifty-eighth the territory
one-seventh the laboring population, and
scarcely more than one-half the assessed
wealth, gained between 1880 and 1870
S569. 377 ,S24, while the produce district"
gained just 100000 less.
Pennsylvania alone gained more than
the produce district, with Florida. Ken
lucky and Kansas added; and New York
gained more than all these. with Tennes-
see, Virginia and West Virginia thrown
in. That this is due to the tariff system
can be easily seen from comparison with
the low tariff period from 1850 to 1860,
when Indiana alone increased more rap
idly in per capita wealth than either Mas
sachusetts or Pennsylvania, and in that
decade both Ohio and Illinois gained in
per capita wealth still faster than Indiana.
Unqueslonably the tariff is a fine thing
for some people, but there are very few of
them west of the Alleghanies. and indeed
paratively few of them anywhere.
And as for improving the possibilities
of American citizenship"-tell that to the
marines