Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1896-08-20
Just look atKelley!
The Great Juggler of Facts and
Figures in a Hole!
His Free Trade Deceptions Again
Exposed by Mr.. Taylor.

In reply to my article in the Re-
portef and Farmer of Aug. 6, Mr..
Kelley in the last issue of his paper,
the demopopucratulist headlight of
Day County commonly called the
Herald, prints an admission of my
former article, under the headline
of "Taylor Knocked Out Again"
In this headline, Mr.. Kelley re-
minds me of the fellow who having
engaged in an encounter in which
his p~hyslogomy was so demoralized
that his friends scarcely knew him,
remarked to g symrathizing friend,
go, but you ought to see the other
fellow /! His wrists are both sprain-
ed, and his fists look as bad as my
face"
In my first article, | showed that
whenever we have had a free trade
tariff We have had hard times, re-
gardless of whether we had free
coinage of silver or restricted coin
age of silver. | gave the dates of
these periods, four in number, and
Mr.. Kelley has admitted that the
periods mentioned were hard times
periods and that We had q demo.
cratic free trade tariff law during
those periods. ] also showed that
whenever we have ha0 a protective
tariff we have had good times, re-
CARELESS of whether we had free
coinage Of silver or restricted coin
age of silver. | gave the dates of
these periods, four in number, and
Mr.. Kelley has admitted that tn e
periods mentioned were "good
times periods aud that during
those periods we had a protective
tariff.
If complete admission of the
truthfulness Of those statements
CONSTITUTES a Knockout, l am will.
ing to admit that / have been
knocked out. But ] cannot help
thinking that when Kelley admits
the truthfuluess of those statements,
as he has, it is he, not J., that is
knocked out.
In order to MAKE it appear that
the tariff had nothing to do with
the good and hard time periods,
which he was forced to admit ex-
listed as | claimed, he tried the
leverage tariff" dodge, which /
exploded by showing that the aver
age rate per cent of a tariff law
does not show whether it is a free
trade tariff law or a protective tariff
law. This, Mr.. Kelley admits in
his last article and claims that this
admission on his part knocks me
cut. Wonderful conclusion Mr..
Kelley, most men think with their
brains, but you seem to think with
some other part of your anatomy.
Compelled to admit the truthful
ness of every statement that have
thus far made, he now tries to show
that the Wilson law contained as
much protection as the Republican
tariff law of 1888. How does he
do this? BY some more sleight-of-
hand performance, some more
characteristic deception. He pub
fishes a table showing the per cent
rate of tariff under the Republican
tariff law of 1888, the Mckinley
law, and the Wilson law. Accord
ing to this table, the tariff on bar
lev under the law of 1883 was 1903
per cent, under the Mckinley law
GA. 6S per cent, and under the Will
son law 30 per cent. The truth is,
that under the law of 1883 the
tariff on barley was 10c. per bushel
regardless of price, under the Nc
Kinley law SOC. per bushel regard
less of price, while under the Wilson
bill it is 80 per cent adj valorum or
with harley at its present price, gle.
per bushel, the tariff under the Will
son bill is .063c. per bushel or a de-
crease of .037c. or a decrease of
nearly ~ BCl SCht NS NOhuRuANo WIN
the law of 1889, and a decrease of
.237c. or over 300 per, cent as com
pared with the Mckinley law. The
law that Mr.. Kelley assures us con-
tains almost as much protection as
the Mckinley law, robs the farmer
Of just the amount Of protection which
the above figures Indicate. ! men
ton barley as it is.the first article on
the list he publishes. What is true
of barley is true OF every item on the
list. Kind reader, what do you
think Of Kelley for making such
statements +? Is he ignorant OF the
truth, or does he wilfully lie ?
Mr., Kelley practices some more of
his characteristic deception BY in
setting a table showing that the inn