The Forrest City times., 1896-04-24

s-rect tle Isst decade before the civil war from 1850 to 1860, when economlc conditions in the Unired States were normal and our aov- ernment had not yet entered into corrupt alli- | ances with the law-created wealth of the
 world. and the last decade since the war, from lSeO to 1890 as being freshest from the com plioations of war and reconstruction. In 1850 the New England and middle states | combined (and these are the only states whose interests you seem to think entitled to your | consideration had more than twice as many
 miles of railroad as the south" Ten years afterwards, in 1860 the south had 3e7 miles
 more than they.
 In 1850 the New England and Middle States combined had S260 0,0000O0 more wealth than
 the south" Ten years afterward in 1860, the
 south had s7bO, 600 900 more than they. During this decade the New England and middle states combined increased their wealth
 s24eO,UO0O0o, while the south increased theirs
 ss 4so 1000, or upward of sl 000 600 900 more | than all New England and the middle states combined.
 In 1860, although the south had less than one- fourth of the population of the Union and less than one-third, including slaves, and though | the white men of the south did little or no work, while the negro did only so much as he was compelled to do, and although the south | had but little over half as much invested in farms as the balance of the Union, yet she produced eS000o,00o more of agricultural products than all the rest of the United States combined.
 Is 1t possible, Mir. Cleveland, to suppose from these facts that left to inherent wealth-cre- ating capacity, any part of the New England I or the middle states could ever successfully compete with the southland particularly since her labor became free:
 Yet mark the overwhelming reversal after | our laws began to create wealth for 6 favored | few.
 In the last decade, from 1880 to 1890 Massa- chusetts, one of these same New England states, grew in wealth in these ten years &l1,- 00oO 900 more than Nebraska, Iowa. Illinois h. diana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Geor- gia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, all combined
 These are ten among the most fertile states of our Union and are el times as large, and have nine times as many, and just as indus- | trious, people as Massachusetts. Ask and answer to yourself. MT Cleveland. why this wonderful contrast of the two periodsY Pennsylvania, one of the most barren of these same middle states, which the south was so surpassing during the first decade, in the last 1 decade, from 1880 to 1890, grew in wealth Sl3.- 0O0,OO0 more than Kansas Nebraska Iowa Ili- nois, Indiana. Kentucky, North Carolina, south Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama Mississippi and Louisiana all combined These | IS states are nearly 15 times as large and have Penn sylvanla. Why this remarkable changer New York, another one of these same middle states grew in wealth during the last decade s7 0OO 900 | more than Kansas Nebraska, Iows Illinois | Indiana, Kentucky Tennessee, West Virginia Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana all combined. These l6 states are nearly 26 times as large and have more than four times as many people as New York. Why | this reversalY
 | Rhode Island, another of these same New | England states, is perhaps the most barren patch of the continent. It is not as large as 1 the two smallest counties of Arkansas It has | less than one-third as many people as Arkan-
 sas, yet this little patch of sand and stone and | salt water grew In wealth during the last | decade S41,0 000o more than the four great
 states of Illinois Indiana. South Carolina and 1 Mississippi all combined These four states are lS6 times as large and have 2 times as l many people as Rhode Islsnd-1ust as earnest. | just as honest, just as industrious people, all | toillng just as eagerly to make wealth l MT Cleveland, will you pause long enough I from pushing your schemes to inquire why this | astounding change in the two decadesY had indulged with many others the belief l that the New England tarin was the chief fac | tor in this congestion of our national wealth, | but recently published statistics, gathered
 since the passage of the Wilson tarir bill. for | bid this conclusion. For they show a still more
 
 In one single year, from 1898 to 1894, the state | of Massachusetts grew in wealth upward of 04,0OOOO; Pennsylvania grew upward of &46,- | OO0,oO0; New York grew upward of 6235 0Oo, ,0OO- three times as much all the distinctively manufacturing states combined; while the en- | tire south and west suffered an aggregate loss
 of more than e,00 000.000 in this one single year | These are not predictions, Mir. Cleveland nor J yet theories, but stubborn facts 1 Nor is the story all told yet Mir. Cleveland; l these same tell-tale census reports disclose | upon whom these enormous losses are falling | as well as into whose hands this enormous in- | crease of wealth is failing.
 | MT Carroll D. Wright's census bulletin No
 96, shows that notwithstanding the immense | increase In the wealth of Massachusetts 62 per | cent, upward of four-ffths of all the families l residing in Boston have no homes. but live in | rented houses, while large percentage of l those who nominaily own their homes are l fighting under constantly appreciating mort gages.
 1 Notwithstanding the enormous increase in
 the wealth of Pennsylvania v per cent or | mere than three-fourths of the families resid- | ing in Philadelphia have no homes while | large portion of those who have homes are l struggling against constantly appreciating | mortgages Notwithstanding the increase in | the wealth Of Rhode Island, 7e per cent nearly | four fifths Of the families of Providence have | no homes
 | Notwithstanding the enormous increase of | the wealth of New York. 94 per cent, more | than nine-tenths of the families who reside in | New York city have no homes while a large | part of the per cent who nomnally own their 1 homes dac h, hat liy,s, of,,e.