The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1897-01-21
st. Louis Republic.
every agricul- pie represent" he frankly S

absolutely prohibitory on every agricul-
tural product that can be raised in this
country" Another was not satisfied
with that sort of protection. Prohi5i-
tory duties on hay, oats and haxseed
might help some farmers, but similar
duties on wheat, corn, cotton and some
other products would not be of much
help. because these are not imported to
any extent, if at all. Our products Of
this class have to go abroad and meet
the competition of other countries in
the markets of the world. Protection
in our own market would be practically
useless. What is asked for is an export
bounty ON these staple products, so that
the farmer could get full price at home
for the exported cereals and yet the eX-
porter might undersell cheap labor pro-
duct Of foreign farms.
The sugar bounty of the Mckinley
law of 1890 furnished an excuse for the
demand. If that was good thing for
the beet growing farmer and for the
country, it is argued, why contine the
bounty cure for agricultural ills to beet
growers? Why should not the wheat
grower, the corn raiser and the cotton
planter have like encouragement? Be
sides, if protective tariff duties benefit
the manufacturer and not the farmer.
why should not part of the revenue OBJ
tanned from these protective duties be
turned over to the farmer in the shape
Of bounties on his products, that he
may be on an equal footing before the
treasury with the protected manufac-
turer?
Here we have the logical outcome of
A policy for tariff for protection, with
revenue incidental. 1t is demand for
Drohibitory duties on foreign products
seeking entrance. and for bounties on
domestic products exported. Where
the revenue is to come from with which
10 pay the bounties is Il conundrum
with which the proposers of the plan
do not concern themselves.-Clevela
Plaindeaier.
a Grand Old Fraud.
The defeat of John Wanamaker fol
United States Senator in Pennsyl
vania is one of the righteous results OF
the present Senatorial campaign sea
son. 1t is Il fit rebuke to Il preposterous
hypocrite and humbug. Wanamakel
mixes piety. pelf and politics in eQuaI
average proportions. Sometimes at his
Sunday schools lie is mostly for piety
The main portion of his time he is fol
pelf. His experiences for eight or tel
years have included a large amount OF
politics.
He occasionally combines two ol
more of his main projects. Notwith
standing his piety, at times he JelH'
pelf and politics in the same pursuit
He did so when he raised 100000 fo
the Harrison campaign fund in 1SS'
and was appointed postmaster genera
as a reward for his enterprise and sue
cess in furnishing the Doodle. 1t wa
well understood at the time that Wana
maker engaged in this vast Doodle eff
fort at the suggestion of Quay, wh'
was the Republican National Chair
man in 1888. That the pious old frau'
should have turned against Quay thi
year and made Senatorial campaign
On the platform of honest politics is IL
amazing and grotesque spectacle.
The righteous Indignation OF tn
campaign boodler of 1888 ut his defea
| by Quay for Senator in 1897 is J. mai
| ter for ridicule Lack of success i
| politics. however, will not cause a
| abatement in Wanamaker's zeal TO
| piety and pelf. His bargain counter
in politics is bankrupt. But he wi
follow up his Sunday schools and tn
| notion business. ss.-ChicagO Chronicle
Give the Farmer slice.
Congress should give the cotto
| growers, the corn, wheat. oats and ba
Iey growers, the pumpkin and pelsSn