St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-10-08
The Duke of Northiield Speed
lily Called by Congress-
man Hall.
SOME SILLY QUESTIONS
Are Well Answered by a Man
VIII Knows What He Is
Talking About.
S0PRISTRIES STILETTOED.
The NcrinGeid Gentleman
Should NV Do a Little
Answering.
SOPRISTRIES STILETTOED.

Hon. O. NJ. Hall has written a letter
answering mang of the questions OF joel
p leatwole III such manner as not 10
leave the latter Il leg TO stand Oh. The
letter in tuli is given below:
RED WING. Mint. Oct. My Dear
Mr.. Hcatwuie: | have just read yonr
letter published ia this mornings Pho
neer Press. While | concede that a
candidate Snuuid not allow himself to
be made Il target for all lne Irrelevant
aud imrertinent questions watch may
be fired at him by Irresponsible parties.
nevertheless cannot see any impro-
prety III his answering questions direct
~ pertinent to the great issue involved
i'll his campaign, especially when they
are asked by his principal opponent. l
trust that you regard this matter in the
same light.
| will now answer as many of your
thirty questions as my present time and
space Will permit. Before l am through
with you Will answer them all.
FlrSt-Iou state that YOU have re-
liable authority for the assertion that
two Years ago QS92) promised that
wheat would be WORTH Sl.25 per bushel
il the Democrats succeeded IN that CAM
paign, etc, and ask me il believed it
to be true.
The Price Of wheat.
Answer never believed il to be
true, and l never made any such state
mrnt. L did contend that the election
q. A Democratic congress and admins
tratiOn would, ny Il reform Of the tariff,
be of great benefit 10 the farmers OF this
country. The position / took was that
while tariff reform could not add one
cent to the price of farmers wheat, it
would increase the purchasing power
OF the money he received for his wheat
by /, ducing the cost of the things he
b'nsht with II. | nave repeatedly dis
euSsed this III many of my speeches
Which nave been published. l have
before me the printed copy of my
speech OF acceptance, made when was
first nominated at Shakopee in 1890, two
Years before the dates TO which you re-
fer. l then said, "A tax OF 20 cents
bushe on wheat has neyer added a
fraction of a cent to the selling
price of our wheat" After dis
cussing at some length the
reasons for this statement | added:
consequently it makes no difference
what the tariff may be. or whether
there is any tariff at all on wheat. 1t
does not enable lis 10 sell it at an in
creased price" "Whateyer
increases the cost of that which we buy,
i'll effect decreases the value of that
which we sell.
Protection Bebases the Crops
of the American farmer just as
the Bourbons Of France debased the
coins of the re;iin by lessening their
purchasing power" JT tariff does
net affect the selling price of the COM
M0dity,it is self-evident that the absence
OF Il tariff cannot affect il. My position
has always been that the price of
wheat was determined in those foreign
markets where We SGld our surplus in
competition with the worlds wheat;
and. therefore, as no legislation of ours
could affect the foreign market, it could
not affect the home market. But | con-
tended just as strenuously that. while
We could not by tariff Legislation in
crease the normal price of cur wheat.
We could. by reducing the tariff
upon the things We bought, so re-
duce their prices as in effect to
give to our wheat a greater purchasing
power. If wheat is low today. it is SO
because it is low in Liverpool. Our
tariff legislation cannot have affected
the price of our wheat, because it could
not affect the markets of Liverpool. Our
surplus wheat crosses the ocean, but our
tariff laws do not. 1t is fortunate, in
deed, for the American farmer that the
taxes upon farm machinery, wooden
goods, etc, have been removed or re-
duced. For with wheat at IT'S present
worlds price, and the necessarie5 of
life at Mckinley's prices, ne would be
ground between the milsto mes of low
prices for what lie sells and high prices
for what ne buys.
ESetier Examine the land, Joel
Passing, but rot ignoring. questions
2, ,, !, ) and e, permit me to answer the
questions scissoTed by you from recent
editorial in the Pioneer Press, viz Z.
You say: You voted 10 put tax OF
S3.S9 per cent OF rice "a Southern stapie)
and Oil barley "a Northern staple) you
reduced the tax from 6i.65 to % per
cent. On oats you reduced the tariff
from $3.50 To 20 per cent: Oh potatoes
you voted 20 scale the tariff from 81 96
10 20.1S per cent"
Qnestlon-W by did you vote for the
Southern rice planter and against the
producers CT barley. oats and potatoes
OF your own district?
AnsWer-l didn't, Joel.
Had you looked at the law instead of
the editorial column of the Pioneer
Press Won unuli nmittad tbi,
question from your catechism. You
have again been reliably misinformed.
Let us look at the details of this oues-
ton. Rice-1he law OF 1858 taxed i'm
ported rice 21i cents per pound, or
1888 per cent. This was Republican
law. Mckinley in 1890 reduced the tax
10 2 cents per pound. or 1l1.S5 per cent
a $50 a Republican law. We reduced it
To II cents per pound. or $3.50 per