Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1894-03-14
ANOTHER ErFERvEsceNcE.

what he would term a 'sscathing ar
raignment of the tariff policy of our
paper, which, by the way, is a very
humorous term to apply to his ar
ticles. The antiquity of his ideas
makes them valuable as relics; other
wise they are uSeles. he must be
quite ancient, this McKinleyIte" and
| he must live in the East somewhere
! since it took him so long TO get re-
| ply here. lie begins his article by
singing the old, worn out dltty about
the prosperity to manufacturing insti-
tutIons that has resulted from 80 Years
OF republican rule, and how, as soon as
there was a change of administra-
ton business paralysis took
place. tie sings about de- troyed con
hdence causing all the panic. as
| though he could make sensible people
believe such rot. He had better sing
about the destroyed money of this
country, which was purposely taken
out or circulation at the instance of
wall street and under republican adj
ministrations. He says every indus
try was prospecting at the time of the
election in 1892" That is another
false statement that needs no proof to
the people of this country The de-
preston began before that election
and the cry of hard times had already
gone up from the producing classes.
1t may not have afflicted "McKinley-
lite" who was snugly enscOnsed IN his
residence in New York City; but 1t af-
fected the man who works for a living
Ii not why was there such an oyer
whelmlng majority in favor of change
at that election, and why did they put
In the man who had been defeated by
republican four years before? There
was no other reason than the prevail
Ing dissatisfaction resulting from
pressure of hard times. We made the
assertion and have the records to
prove 1t, that wheat fell from $lIO to
40 cents per bushel in our home mar
kets while the Mckinley law has been
IN operation. This our antagonist de-
MES and quotes export figures to show
that we have sent out more wheat
since 1890 than in the same period be-
fore. That proves nothing, for not
withstanding the failure of last year
and the fact that wheat is selling here
at cost of production there is as great
a per cent. acreage sown as there has
been heretofore. 1t is true, as me
klnleylte" says that wheat went up in
1891, but that was far from being al
effect of the Mckinley bill as everyone
knows who is familiar with wheat
movements. That was the year In
which Europe failed in its crop.
Prlces here advanced for some time,
then begun to fall and have been de-
Ginning ever since with the Mckinley
law in full operation. For that mat
ter wheat declined 81 cents from 1868
to 1869 yet there was no boosted Nc
Kinley bill to cause it all. Wheat has
fluctuated under all tariff laws, and it
is unreasCn9 BILE and preposterous to
claim that the high tariff law affects
its price. "McKinleV lite" knows this
and he knows that wheat has reached
the lowest price for years under the
highest tariff. We still have the Me
Kinley law, if he VIII remember. He
bases all his assertions in this line on
the assumption that little state like
Manitoba could pay freight on its
wheat to Chicago and run thirteen
million American farming people out
OF business. Such ar idea is not ONLY
unreasonable but absurd, as Manitoba
is but little larger than New Mexico
and has about $4,000 population. But
it serves to show how fallacious his ar
guments are.
In endeayOrlng to make low prices
tally with the downfall of republican,
ism he quotes export prices of wheat,
showing that it was higher after the
Mckinley law went into effect than it
was before. The figures compiled by
the senate committee on agriculture
show that wheat in 1890 at the farm.
was worth 81 cents and in the wear
following under the law of his tin god
1t was worth 70 cents. The farm is che
place to get figures on wheat and not
at the Chicago board of trade or Iiy-
erpOol docks. We are talking about
effects on the farmer and not the grain
gamblers on Change. According to
this same undisputable authority corn
sold at the farm in 1890 tor 45 cents
and in 1892 for 35, a drop of 10 cents
under this magnificent Mckinley law
that does so much for the farmer.
"McKiDleyite' notes that the wheat
crop of 1892 was less than in 1891, but
what point he intends TO make is lost
In the haze surrounding his entire ar
ticle. The crop was harvested before
election, therefore he must attribute il
to the Mckinley bill. Or, since he
claims the present depression to re-
suit from fear Of democratic legisla-
ton he might with equal sense claim
that in the fall OF 1891 the farmers
failed to plant as much as on the year
previous, on account of being afraid
democratic president would be elected
year later. His article is yerlest
nonsense, unworthy of intellectual
manhood. How lie can sit in his
home in New York City and tell the
farmers how they have prospered un-
der the Mckinley law is a mystery to
US, yet this antiquated specimen of BIZ
ology has the sublimated gall necess-
ary for the job.
From 1850 to 1890 the laborers of
this country produced thirty billion
dollars of wealth and today hundreds
OF thousands of those laborers are be-
ing fed in soup houses. The wealth
they created has passed into the hands