Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1903-10-29

the meeting.
The big armory would not accommo.
date half of those desiring admission,
Secretary Shaw was roundly cheered
throughout his address. Hon. Milton
Remley presided. John Hughes, re.
publican candidate for state senator,
made short address. In an interview
Secretary Shaw declined to discuss
Iowa vice presidential possibilities. He
declared he would not have the nom.
nation. He said he didn't think the
democrats We're making as hard a
fight this year as usual and looked for
increased republican majorities.
Extracts From Speech. ia
Secretary Shaw said in part:
Among the mail which reached me
IN Chicago was a copy of Governor
Boies' letter to the democratic state
central COMMITTEES, which read with
some interest. The governor, to the
establishment of everyone, claims that
a tariff for revenue only may be q
tariff for protection sometimes. He eN-
planned that he was reared a protecA
ZIONIST and seeks to Justify the teach
ings of Henry Clay and his adherents:
but insists that times have changed
to such an extent that they are no
longer applicable. The last democrat
is platform which the distinguished
gentleman is on record as having sup
ported that of 1892. declared that the
constitution of the United States
stands squarely in the face of a pro-
tective tariff. il this is correct. then
neither Henry Clay in his lifetime mop
Governor Boies in his young manhood
We're very good constitutional lawyers
1t is idle to apologize for the posia
I.lr
squarely and unequivocally or admit
it's error A tariff for revenue only
is not tariff for incidental protecy
ton. 1t is for revenue only. 1t does
not require II wise man to know that
u tariff for sole purpose is not
tariff for two purposes. A tyro oughs
TO know that if the constitution of the
United States be bar TO Il tariff, ex-
cept for the sole purpose of fevenues
1T does not permit Il tariff for the purA
pose OF protection also.
Roies and His Talk.
THE ex-governor spends nnucH
| time to prove that farmers are not dil
rectly benefited by the protective pol
! lev 1t all depends upon what one cal1s
/ direct benefits. II he means that the
tariff ON wheat does not directly in-
crease the price of wheat. if he means
that the tariff on turnips and onions
does not increase the price of yegeta-
bles, he may be correct. But if he
means that protection to American
| industries does not affect the price Of
| wheat and of vegetables, and of cattle,
and of every other farm product then
he is wrong.
| Prices On Stock.
"rhe union stock yards in Chicago
We're established in 1856 and the valud
of farm animals sold there increased
In that year farm animals sold at
these yards brought s201000.00O. Tho
next Year, 1884 Mr.. Cleveland waS
elected upon a platform promising
tariff REFORM Tariff reform had
been advocated for several years by
republican orators and republican eds
tors until the people believed that great
good would be accomplished by a red
vision of the tariff. The American peo<
4 pie always heed republican teachings,
What was the result? Manufacturers
and other producers began to seek tho
shore and the aggregate value of farrn
4 animals sold in Chicago fell oq $14,-
100000 in that same year. There was
loss of $14,000,000 more the next yea1
of Mr. Cleveland's first administration,
In the meantime the Mills bill. planned
upon the democratic theory of a tariff
for revenue only, with no protection
whatever, passed the lower house of
sOiiS ESQ. "a republican Sellale ueIedI.
ed it, and in 1887, when the business
community realized that there was no
danger the value of farm animals sold
IN Chicago advanced S10,QO0.000. In
1888 republican editors and orators
ceased talking tariff reform and de-
& Tended protection, and the values Of
farm animals advanced $6,000,000. Mr..
Harrison was elected and the next year
inaugurated, and there was S10,000,000
added to the value of farm animala
sold in Chicago that year, and the
: next year s30,0O0,0O0 more, and SO on
until 1892, when farm animals sold in
: Chicago brought $25S,000 O00-$S7 900. :
: 900 more than in 1886. pending the fea1
, of democratic legislation.
) The Cleveland Period.
But in 1892 the people voted that
protection was unconstitutional, and
r Mr.. Cleveland was elected and immed-
1 lately values of farm animals declined
and kept on declining until 1896. when
they brought only S18S,000,000, a loss
from 1892 of $65,000,000. That was the
price the farmers paid for following
the advice of Governor Boies in 1892
1t may be that the tariff on cattle kept
: no cattle out of the market. But /.
/ 100000 men out of employment hit
: the farmers in yet more effectual
$ way.
s Effect of Protection.
NOW note the effect of protection
. In 1897, Mr.. Mckinley was inaugural
e ed and there was a gain of $23.c00,00(
5 in a single year $13,0O0,000 the next
, year. s4,0O0,00O the next, s30,000,0OO the
= next, $20,0OO,000 the next and $4,000
5 900 last year. In 1902 live animals solo
5 in Chicago for $31300O,000, and tht
E number sold was less than in 1895
e when they brought only $1S8.000,000
> The aggregate loss to western farmer;
on the one item of cattle sold il
; only one city was more than $400, o0O,-
n 900.
The Wheat Market.
The same philosophy is recorded II
the wheat market. The consumption o
T. wheat in 1902 was SIS bushels for ever,
: man, woman and child in the United
States. In 1894 the consumption wa.
Ia less than 3.5 bushels. Think of it. SI
- bushels OF wheat consumed per capt.:
:. in 1882; less than So bushels per cap
~ ita IN 1894; then 6,5 bushels per capi
~ "a in lS02t. And in the face Of all thi
b Governor Boies viii plead his specia
q right TO speak for the farmer an,
"a blandly tell them they are not direct
4. Z. = -.