Wheeling register. [volume], October 27, 1894, Page 2, Image 2

About Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935

Image provided by: West Virginia University

                
JOHN K. COWEN
fOLL TEXT OF THAT GBNfLSHAN’3 SPLEDDID
ADDRESS,
klivwsd at the Grand Opera House oa Wednes
day Night—So®* Wool Object Lsssous That
Cannot Pail to Convince the Host Skeptical
That Wo51 Goes Dp As Wool Maaafac.ures
Go Down.
The following is the full text or the
very excellent speech delivered by Bod.
John K. Cowan, of Maryland, at the
Brand opera bouse last Wednesday
night.
Mr. Chairman* and Fellow Citizens:—
1 have been along with Mr. \\ ilson since
half-past 6 this uiorniug. doing what he has
beeu doing—talking from the rear of a rail
road car—and iuy throat is not quite in the
condition that 1 would like it to be to ad
dress an audience of the kind I have before
me. On the farm, however, where I was
born, I used to notico that horses would oe
sore-shouldered, but when they got a little
warm it came along all right and they
didn’t flinch and if you will bear with the
harshness of inv voice for a short time, 1
think I have Scotch-I rish pluck enough to
pull up in the collar before 1 get through.
I Applause.]
1 have rather mingled emotions coming
to address this audience here on the bank
of the Ohio. I never crossed that river
but what it carried me back to boyhood
days—because that was my native state,
and when I get near It the reminiscences
of the olden times come over me and I am
•ortof half fcloomy looking back on the
past and thinking of the boyhood long gone
by, and its memories. But to-nigut I am
not here to give you reininlsences of boy
to00*1- . „ ...
My first duty to night is to toll you whht
I have seen to-day, and 1 think l can say
with Mr Wilson, judging from the country
that we wont tbrougn, that their fuces are
not toward the sunset. As I sawttioso au
diences it didn’t strike me there was on
them the glow of the sunset. 1 think their
faces are radiant with the sunrise they are
watching since the new tariff went into ef
fect. [Applause.]
From the mountains aad the va.leys
through wriicn we passed in Mr. Wilson’s
district and from the assemblages which
gathered to hear him and see him—their
standard bearer—1 should say that they
have not forgotten him and that when No
vember comes around and the polls have
closed the name of W ilson—the apostle of
Tariff Reform—will still stand among those
who represent you in the House. | Ap
plause]
Now, what are the issues in this cam
paign* 1’ardou me if I talk plainly and
without rhetoric. 1 telieve that truth, es
pecially Democratic truth, needs no orna
ment. ’ What are, in plain language, the
issues of the campaign! Let us set them
forth on two sides and see which we ought
to chose.
The Democratic party told you that they
would repeal the Sherman law. They
have done it. Do»-s the Republican party
propose to restore it ! l guess not. It was
a Republican measure. It has met with
Democratic repeal, it wus passed as part
of the scheme of high tariff to bull silver
and protect s lver—because they are al
ways protecting somebody at somebody
elst’s eipeuse—and in they thought
they would protect silver aad by protecting
ailver catch three or four western States,
aad carrying out logically their system of
protection, tney started government ware
houses they bo'ugat pig silver and issued
United States notes payable in gold for it.
We repealed it Do auy Republicans pro
pose to put back on the statute book their
measure which we have repealed!
[Voice from house: You mean you help
ed repeal.]
Yes, I grant you—I am honest enough to
say that the Republican party aided us in
repealing the measure which they had un
wisely put upon the statute nook. [Ap
plause].^! am manly enough to acknowl
“gBfthey saw the error of tneir way.
' And, convicted of their s>ns,
^icy come to the mourner’s b- uch. [Ap
plause].
Now, speaking for myself, I am notone
of those who believe that a poor man wants
poor money. I am not afraid to say is a
ousiness town like this to a body of busi
ness men that I think every dollar that you
h ive should be either a gold dollar or a rep
resentative payable in gold on demand, and
that gold had been selected by the wisdom
and experience of the world as the best
stand ard and measure of value. [Ap
plause].
I am cot for monkeying with silver any
more. (Laughter and Applause.)
The man who thinks that by legislation
he can make sixteen ounces of silver equal
to one ounce of gold, I want him to do my
farming for me and make one ton of my
hay always buy fifty bushels of potatoes.
(Laughter.) We have repealed, therefore
— as my friend has said on the left, “with
the aid of the Republicans.” on that sub
ject—the Sherman Silver Law. And no
body proposes, as I understand, to restore
It.
What else have we done? We told you
that we would strike the Force Bill or the
Election Law from the statute boo*. We
have done it. Does any Republican pro
pose to restore It! Has auv Republican
convention said they would put tt back!
Has Major McKinley, General Harrison or
our friend Reed from Maine, or Mr. Lodge
—who not only a few rears ago wanted
that bill but a much worse bill to be put on
the statute book—do they now sav the
Democratic action in tbe repeal of the
Force Bill or the Election Law was un
wise, and that if they again get into power,
will restore it I Have you heard it whis
pered? Has the little bird whispered any
where that it is to come back! Not once.
They have seen that the unwisdom was
such themselves without references to the
constitutional power aad the unwisdom of
taking the acts and endeavoring to control
the South through marshalls and supervi
sors was such, that they do not wish to put
It back.
Speaking on another subject before a
committee of the Senate of the United
States. 1 said that the laws amount to
nothing except that they are the emoodi
nient of the habit and customs of the times.
When they are not the embodiment
of tbe habit and customs of the times
they are worthless words on parchment.
Force Bills, as I said, will not force in
South Carolina; fugitive slave laws will
not catch slaves in Massachusetts, and pro
hibition wi:l not prohibit in New York or
Chicago. (Laughter and applause.)
There arc the issues that we made, got
the verdict, entered judgment and the Re
publicans don’t even make a motion for a
new trial. (Laughter and applause.)
What next did we say we would do? We
said we would come back to old-fashioned
homely economy. It has passed as far as
we could make it. Tue Republican idea
that it was a billion dollar country and that
we ought to scatter our surplus—which of
course they did—Tanuer said when he got
into tho pension office, “God help the sur
plus,” but God wouldn’t help it aad it went,
we would come back to old-fashioned econ
omy. We did. The provisions are twenty
sight to thirty million dollars less than
they were. Twenty-eight to thirty mil
lions dollars is of course not very much to
Republicans. They dish out nearlv half
that much to Louisiana fellows for making
•ugar. But st'll that is a snug little sum
on Uncle Sam’s casbbook and it is on the
right side. 1’ossibly it is not all that might
have been there, it i* the first chauce we
had, and we have to learn. We aro mov
ing along endeavoring to restore old-fash
ioned economy. We have done it without
injuring tno honest soldier in his pension.
It is true the pension roll has to a certain
extent been relieved of some frauds, but
relieving it of frauds does not for one in
•tant throw any discredit upon the wearers
of the blue who saved the Uuioo in the
time of war. [Applausa] We have made
and are making tbe pension roll a roll of
honor, and no soldier who wore the blue
wants it anything but a roll of honor. I
taae it, therefore, that on that subject of
economy our Republioan friends do not
wish to reverse the verdict
What else did we say we would do? And
now we come to the question in this cam
paign on wdicb, as 1 undestand it, issue
is Joined; as to which there is a motion
for a new trial. We said that the McKin
ley act was making dangerous all class
legislation and ought to bo repealed. It is
repealed. It is gone. On that issue we
joined with the Republicans. They
said, during the progress of the act
through Congress, that It ought not to
be repealed. What do they say now?
Leave McKinley out—because McKinley
takes himseif too serious—leave him out,
but what Republican speaker, what Re
publican newspaper, what Republican
platform—State, county or township—pro
poses to restore the old battered McKinley
law! Thev talk against our act—and I
shall come'to that in a moment—Out wboof
them hugs that bantling and carries it
home? Reed said that the bill we passed
was a bantling that nobody will father.
But where is McKinley’s little child ? no
is taking up ibis deserted orphan in the
time of his sorrow, desertion and woe!
Who proposes to bring him back to the
bouse of bis fathers and set him up again at
tho family table? Nobody as tar as I Know;
haven’t heard a single Republican speaker,
I haven't beard a single Republican plat
form mention the subject of bringing bacK
the McKinley art. What, then, is the ex
act positiou on the subject of the tariff as I
understand it! Now, I am one of those who
do not believe that the Senate bill, as pass
ed. accomplished all that might have been
accomplished. I am not here to denounce
it because I regard it,with all its imperfec
tions and unfulfilled pledges, as a vast step
on the road to commercial freedom. What
do they sav aoout it! What is the issue that
we make about it! I have found that it is
always necessary when you are discussing
w th aa antagonist to get at the precise
issue in dispute. What is the issue about
the act which the Democracy placed upon
the statute oook relating to the tariff! Our
position, as I understand it, is this: That
tariff Dili—naperfeet as it is-is to re
main, not cu»>j»ct to general revision and
overthrow; it is to rema n cn the sta ute
oook until by its own uua.cted action it
itself tells the story, preaches tne sermon
and carries homo conviction to the Ameri
can public of the great benefits of relieving
the industry of this country from unjust
taxation. [Applause.]
We propose, however, to amend it in two
or three certain particulars. Those partic
ulars are, first, free iron ore, free coal and
the reduction of the sugar duties so that
thev shall produce revenue, ail of which
shall go to tue United States, and none of
which shall go to the American Sugar Re
fin;ug Company. [Applause.j
I understand that when you come down
to the specific case that we make, we are
not here asking to throw the industries of
the country, as Major McKinley and Mr.
Reed wouiu say, “into turmoil.” We as*
for repose, for a lair trial of tue Democrat
ic taritT. For myseif, I am willing to make
the test on one item in that tariff, and tout
is the item of free wool and reduced duties
on woolon goods. I believe with the cele
brated New England tariff reformer that
you can fight Protsction vs. Free Trade—
don’t be afraid—Free Trade—around wool,
anu l believe that when Wilson struck
down the duties on wool that wo captured
the citadel of protection. "While stands
the Coloseumof Rome, Rome stands. W hen
falls the Coloseum Rome fails.” When
the wool tariff went, down, you have pro
cured for yourself the finest object lesson
to teach tariff reform that ever was placed
upon the blackboard for the public to look
at. I say. therefore, that the issue—pre
cise and specific issue—is shall the Wilson
tariff as amended, though not amended as
we desired it—shall it remain on the stat
ute book and the country bavo repose sub
ject to the the three chief things that I
nave spoken of which remedy its defects;
or on coal and sugar ? Ur shall we have
•gain a new fight over that tariff oill and
its destruction by the Republican party and
Mr. McKinley? Now, what do they pro
pose in lieu of that tariff bill I Let me ask.
Have you heard a Republican speaker say
that be would restore the duties on wool
and woolen goods? Has a Republican plat
form been adopted anywhere that has sta
ted that the woolen duties must go back
upon the statute book ? Nowhere.
I know how futile it is to make political
predictions, but I predict to night that
eveu if the Republicans should carry in
IMifi—House, Senate and President—uever,
aever will come back upon the statute
book a dutv on wool. [Applause.]
Having tasted—and iu a moment I will
show you ■ amples of it—having tasted du
ties or uutaxed material, Republicans will
do as they did with the Sherman act: they
will come and bear willing testimony
( f the value of the Democratic doctrines of
free wool Have any of them said that
thev propose to restore the duty ou coal, or
the duty on iron, or to put lumber back
from the free to the dutiable list? What
is their positive programme!
1 spent this summer upon tho coast of
Massachusetts for some weeks when Mr.
Reed was running his campaign in Maine.
He is the constructive statesman on the
Republican side. He stands on their side
like William L. Wilson does on ours,
What did he propose in tho campaign cf
Maine? Never a word as to what he would
do with a single duty, never a statement
that back would go the McKinley bill,
wool, iron ore. His constructive states
manship was such that b6 had no plau to
propose. All tho time that he spent was
simply the old woman scolding the Demo
cratic party because they had disagreed
about the tariff.
Now if you will bear with me just a few
moments—I will not keep you a great while
wit'u what I have to say—let me discuss
this question of the tariff ou a little differ
ent line.
W hat do you mean by protection ? What
is it? It is well enough to define terms.
Who Is to be protected? And what is he to
be protected against? And who are the
fellows you are going to protect them
against?' It’s a fair question to ask,
isn't it?
Who are you to protect! In 1880 you
had something like seven million farmers.
Couldn't protect them against any fellows
outside. You had a million men who were
running railroads, They were not to be
protected against any foreign fellows. You
couldn’t run a railroad in America from
England. You had a couple of millions of
; men engaged in professional duties—clerks,
[ lawyers, doctors, etc. There was no for
eign labor competing with them that I
know of. Ain’t going to protect them.
Who did it come down to in the long run?
It came down to about one million people
when you carefully analyze it—you have
about one million people engaged in the
protective industries. To hear the
Republican speakers talk you would
understand tnat they were like the
three tailors: “We are the people.’
Out of some seventeen or eighteen million
workers, one million are really eugaged in
protected pursuits, and that one million, or
rather just a little representative of the
one million are able to make all this outers',
bowl aoout calamity and overthrow of our
industries; because, forsooth, we don’t
let them keep their hands quite as deep
in the United States Treasury
as they did. [Applause.] It is
the old story of the Britain that the cricket
or the gras-ihopper in the British meadow
made all the noise, and you thought he
was running the whole business—that little
grasshopper—while the British ox that did
the work of Great Britain wasn't saying a
word.
So it is with these protected industries.
We find them of this limited number. Now
of that limited number, some arc par
ticularly greedy. You always find tha t
You noticed—I always did, on the farm —
that thero was one hog with Ills feet farth
est in the trough. All in tae trough, you
know, but some yet a lit’le farther in the
trough. So among the protected industries.
You will always find some a little farther'
in the trough. Now one of the worst and
biggest hogs in the business was the
Sbeep—was wool and woolen manufactur
ers. But it was the political shepherd
from Ohio—my native State—who was
singing a.l the time that "Mary bad a little
lamb, and tbat unless the United States
Government would take care of that lamb,
she would lose it when she went to school.
[Applause.]
Now that wool business, as a hoggish,
protected industry, is like the consumption
of a friend of mine. He said it was "here
dit arv.” It has come down. It is come
down from the olden time. McKinley says
protecting wool and other things is an
American system. Why. bless his good,
dear soul, it was born long before McKin
ley’s ancestors ever saw wool. It comes
from England, and it comes not as an emi
grant, but it comes as a striped convict,
kicked out of England under sentence
of transportation for life, and Mc
Kinley takes up the oid clothes, puts them
on and savs "Look at me I” W hy do 1 say
it came from England? Why away back,
as early as 1383 they determined the sort of
array ia which people should be clad.
Then a hundred years later they come with
something else. The first thing they didi
they said that
wool snorLD not be exported
because if you exported it it would be got
ten cheap in France, and it must be kept
for the woolen men who were weaving
goods in England and they made the offense
punishable bv the less of the left arm and
standing in the stocks to take wool out of
England, in order thnt the weavers might
have a good time, and in getting cheap wool
thev made them keep the home market to
themselves. That was tfceir way to get it.
That wasn't enough. Tney decided and
got an act of Parliament that every dead
body must be buried in a woolen shroud in
order to make a woolen market out of the
corpses. [Applause.] Tnen they wouldn’t
die fast enough to suit the weaver and
make their home market. Then they got
an act of Parliament making it a fine
of £5 for a woman to wear calico as a dress,
and they fined the man who made it £20.
just to protect wool and woolen. And they
still were not satisfied. Cctton—beautiful
fiber coming into vogue to be woven, and
they got the duty on raw cotton to keep
cotton out of England in order to protect
wool and woolen. Aint 1 right when I say
m'kixley is mistaken*
in hisjbiography? He hasn't looked up the
familv tree.
When, however, Cobden and Peal came
along they did what Wilson did—they gave
free wool and they drove the hoggish pro
tected industry eut of England forever.
[Applause.]
Now, what is the Republican argument
on this subject? I am going to take one
thing, ana the reason I am detaining you a
little longer on one thing is this: My ex
perience is if you just take one thing vou
can get the whole idea. You learn Her
cu es and his size from a foot and the foot
print.. Naturalists restore an animal to
perfect anatomy from a single bone,
and if you will let me play
the part of a political anatomist
I will take one bone of the protective sys
tem in order to restore the whole thing and
show you wbat it is, and I do it, too, be
cause I know I am near the woolen coun
trv, because I know I am near where the
finest wools are raised, and it is with spe
cial reforenceto that and to West Virginia,
and not as a mere abstract preposition that
I am here, because in a few moments you
will hear from the practical side of it.
Let us sec what the Republican argu
meut is. The Republican argument was
stated by the minority of the Ways and
Means Committee. If you want to get at
the precise argument of protection you
ought to take somebody that is authority.
If you pick up the newspapers or pick up
McKinley, why they say
PROTECTION' HAS DONE EVERYTHING
I —the soil, the sunrise, the rain, the coal in
' the mountains, the ore, the great blessings
of Providence, the Anglo-Saxon sturdiness,
robust courage and intelligence—ail these
are nothing. The prosperity of the country
all comes from a single thing, and in my
native State across here I used to observe
the strength of its agriculture; trim In or
chard, sweet in garden, luxurient wheat
fields and tended corn, and 1 am told by
McKinley that it all comes from protec
tion. [Laughter.] That he has got a little
jigger that he calls a tax—protective tax
arid he says “one hundred per cent., unless
otherwise provided by law,” and behold
prosperity. I don’t propose to argue with
such stuff as that. I am not going to de
mean my intellect nor am I going to insuit
vour intelligence by replying to rot of that
sort—claiming that this country and its
blessings arc due to protection by simply a
wave of the hand. I am going to analyze
the specific protection and the specific in
dustry whose specific prosperity is alleged
to be due to specific tax. Isn’t that the
way to get at itf When the doctor comes
to see you does he indulge in the whole
history of medicine and go through
a whole ptaarmaceopea? He gets down
to the specific thing, the specific
disease. Therefore to test whether
protection does produce prosperity
I do not throw a bundle of statistics: "Lo
and behold, five hundred million or a thou
sand million dollars was what Protection
has doue. I think it is rot. I take a spe
cific case. 1 take the specific test case that
is the oldest and which has come with the
highest authority from the Republican
party, and that is the case of wool, and on
that case I ask for the Republican state
ment— I want their statement of the way
they say a protected tax does its work, not
my statement, but their statement, and to
whom shall I shall go to get their state
ment? I go to the minority of the Ways
and Means Committee, headed by Thomas
Reed, with associates, Mr. Burrows,
of Michigan; Mr. Payne, of New York;
Mr. Dalzell, my friend from Pitt
burg, and others equally prom
inent in the Protectiomst Church—hich up
in the synagogue—1 take their definition of
their specific creed and their specific rea
sons for a specific tax. Isn't that a fair
way when you ard discussing a subject
with an antagonist? 1 like to get
close when 1 am wrestling with
an antagonist. My purpose is to get
j ciose with two different things, first, to
take their argument as given by Reed and
examine it, and then let you decide, not
me; and second, to show from samples that
1 bave that their facts are untrue.
First, I proposo to admit all their facts.
Isn’trthat fair! I admit the declaration,
arid proposo now to demur to it and the ev
idence. * First, what is their statement
about wool!
1 have it in a little book here, too long to
read. 1 waatyouto believe I am a fair
man in debate. I have never found it good
moral or Intellectual practice to dodge un
issue and state unfairly the position of an
antagonist. My position is to state vour
antagonist’s position more strongly than he
does, if you can. 1 state it from Mr. Reed’s
position and that of the minority. They
say that wool in this country cun not be
produced for less than 22 cents a pound.
They adopt the letter of an Idaho ranch
man that the wool that competes with our
“j cent wool cau be produced in Australia
and the Argeutine Republic and landed at
New York or Boston for 7 cents a pound.
That is their argument. Their argument,
then, is that free wool will throw open our
woolen, our flock masters, our shepherds
to the competition of the 7 cent wool from
the Argentine Republic and from Austra
lia, and, therefore, they say that it is man
ifest that our wool cannot compete with
that wool and would be driven from the
market. They give as a reason for the
Australian wool being cheap that there the
flocks are large, grasses are nutritious and
are gotten without pay, while here the
land is costly, the climate is severe and
the flocks must be boused for a large part
of the yea -. That is the argument.
The argument is that Australian ranch
men, sunny :r..o and soil are such that
our flock masters, with our clime and our
soil, cannot compete with the provisions of
the Almighty in Australia and Argentine.
Teat is their statement.
I am admitting their facts. Do not make
a mistake. But I am coming to the other
Side. Admitting that as the fact, what is
tbe conclusion which they themselves
give? l'Cey say we use six hundred million
pounds of wool, that is 45 pounds of wool
to each familv of five, isn't it, in this coun
try, and according to their statement each
family of five, to get 45 pounds of wool for
$5.15, because the Almighty has provided
m another hemisphere a good place for pro
duciuc wool, and they say that as agaiast
that provision of the Almighty you must
ma%e the people of the United States in
families of five pay for 45 pounds of wool
Put it into hours instead of dollars.
Twenty-one hours, according to their own
showing produce 45 pounds that you need
for clothing, carpets, rug., etc. Sixty-six
hours are required, according to their own
showing, for what? To produce wool
enough for eaca family of live, and they
say that each persoa representing a five la
a family shall work 45 more hours to get his
wool than if he purchased it from the Ar
gentine Republic and Australia. That is
| tneir proposition.
How many men did it taxe, according to
their statement, to raise wool! Not the
number of men who raise a pound etc., but
<50,000 people are all that were engaged iu
the raising of wool to produce the wool
that was produced in this country, and yet
Reed and' his feilows proposed, and that
is the argument of protection. That it
would take 45 hours from a laboring man
at 15c. an hour, and say that that he must
devote for the purpose of supporting the
ranchmaa of Texas, laaho and Montana.
If that is true, 1 maintain that to make the
workingman of Wheeling give five days of
nine hours each in order to support the
sheep raisers of Montana when he could
get all his wool for twenty-one hours of his
labor, is nothing but unmitigated robbery,
and I don’t hesitate to denoucoe it as rob
bery if tbut is what it means. That is
what it does mean, according to their
statement. [AjfcDlause.]
That is the c^so for the protection of
wool as they make it.
Now, take the other side of the argu
ment. I deny the facts. I say there isn’t
one of them true. 1 don’t care which one
of them they take. Let it be so. If you
had to provide that every workingman had
to give five days to support Montana
ranchmen, I say to make him give it is to
sustain a pauper industry and to compel
him by forye of law to serve without his
consent a man who is to that extent
his master and the master of his
labor. Hence, since the banner
was folded at Appomattox, involuntary
servitude, except as a punishmen for
crime, has beeu overthrown in these United
Stntes.
To compel the workmen of Wheeling, if
their case was true, to work to support an
industry that took five days of him. is to
restore involuntary servitude by the aid
of the Uoited States statute, and is to rob
him of his hard earnings to that extent.
Now as to the issue on the fact. I got
judgment, I think, uy demurrer to tne
declaration. I take issue on the facts.
There isn’t a word of truth in their
statement as to the effect of the wool
lariff. ,
I do not say that it is a falsehood. Tnose
terms I do not use. But. it is one of those
huge campaign lies. [Laughter.] I proved
it by the history of other countries. I will
give you a specimen in a moment of the
facts in this country. Prance put a tariff
on wool to raise it. It depressed it. Eng
land has given you her story. She tried to
raise the price of wool by all sorts of de
vices. She struck off the tax on wool, she
struck down her protoctive tariff on wool,
ami wool raised in value. [Applause.]
There isn’t to-day, except probably some
half-civilized or some rather imperfect civ
i ization that taxes wool, ar.d even they
gained from experience that an attempt to
raise tne price of wool by taxation was a
fauure. Why is it a failure? It is a fail
ure b.cause it does this: It kills the goose
that lays the golden egg. That is the
reason it is a failure. What does that mean
—that proverb? Who uses wool? The
woolen manufacturer What does he use
it for? To look at? No, to weave it Into
garments aud carpets and rugs aud all
forms of things to adorn house and body.
W hat must he do to weave American wool ?
Go to vour custom house in Baltimore, you
will find 130 odd samples of wool of varied
grades under the old tariff and a man would
have to be born on a sheep ranch and lie
down with the ewes to tell the different
samples of wool that are required.
[Laughter and Applause.] But each of
them Derforms its function in the economy
of weaving; each of them takes its place,
each niece is necessary for the woolen man
ufacturer in order to make the product
that pleasestho eye, that warms the body,
that gives luster to tho house. And, there
fore, if you deprive the manufacturer of
the privilege of getting that which is mixed
with American wool, you drive him to
other ar icies a:.d you taka away the goose
thut w»i laying tne golden egg and buying
the wool that you are seckiug to raise iu
price t>v taxation. That is the philosophy.
Now for the facts, and I am iroing to ask
a geutlemnn to step forward with a sample
or two. [Here gentlemen on the stage
stepped forward with samples of goods.]
T am afraid I am talking a
groat deal too long. [Cries of go on.J
Now, you were told that Mr. vVilson
has destroyed the woolen industry, the
woolen manufacturer and the wool raiser.
Let me give you au artic.e. Tout is shoddy
(showing piece of shoddy). You have
heard of shoddy. When the wool tariff
was first proposed, the kind hearted phi
lanthropists said they would put a heavy
duty on shoddy because they wanted to
protect the kind good people of America
from wearing shoddy. They are all phi
lanthropists. If there is anyoody I hate it
is a philanthropist by law. The philan
thropist who goes into bis own pocket, I
think is God’s nobleman, but the philan
thropist who stands behind me with both
hands in my pockets, while professing love
—my words are too tame for him. When
ever you find a protectionist, it Is always
under the guise of patriotism. So they
wanted the duty on ehoddy. What has
been the effect of their woolen duty t The i
effect was the protection of shoddy cloth, I
and I hold some is my hand. The prices 1
will give vou in a moment. Then compare
with wool, I hope my illustrations will
not worry you. Object lessons are the best
kind of teaching ior children—don’t feel
slighted, you are grown up boys and girls.
Here is a piece of shoddy, it retails now
at 25o a yard. It retailed under the Mc
Kinley law ut 40c. Gone down, you see.
It costs 20c now; it cost before 35c to the
jobber. Two and one-half yards of it make
a pair of pantaloous—$5c for the cloth. It
is made in this country. [Laughter.] It
is made in West Virginia. [Applause].
I now givo you a samplb of all woolen
cloth, (showing sample;, guaranteed to be
all wool. It retailed before, under Me
Kinlovism—who was protecting you and
me—for 55c a vard. It cost tho wholesale
dealer 45a It costs now 30c. It did cost
55c. And the two and one-half yards that
ure required to make a pair of pantaloons
all wool cost 85c under Wilsouisui. and
thev cost 41.25 under McKinleyism. What
is “the result? That the manufacture
of shoddy is declining and the demaud
for wool and goods of that sort is
so far ahead that the looms in a wesi
Virginia town that makes itare engaged for
six months. Isn't that creating a demand
for wool! [Applause.] Isn’t that nursing
the old ben that, was laying the golden egg,
instead of killing her by the McKinley law*
Isn’t that illustrating by object lesson the
philosophy I was giving you that you aro
now giving to the mrnufacturer the free
raw material of wool and by giving it to
him vou are increasing the demand for
woof and you aro decreasing the demand
for shoddy! [Applause.J
Let me refer onco more to the English
precedent. 1 think I have the exact lan
guage here, perhaps. I took it down from
an old statute. ri ho English tried protec
tion all around, you know, and at first
they took leather. For example, saddlers
were protected; they were the only fel
lows that could make leather. Tnen the
cobblers complained, and then the cobblers
got a whack it, and then the law was
changed and they abolished the monopoly
on leather. Why, they say, as they abol
ished this thing of trying to make leather
by law “for such, also, as since the making
of said statute ail kinds of leather is more
slender as before. Nevertheless as dear or
dearer.”
Five hundred yesrs ago the old statute,
as here in the tradition of shoddy, for since
the making of said statute of McKinley
the purported goods are more slenderly
made of wool and aro as dear, nevertheless,
or dearer thaQ before. [Laughter and ap
plause.]
Now, I have another sample of panta
loon stuff, which if you could see, it is Sun- '
day-go-to-meeting clothes. Why, under
MeKinlevism that sold at 80c a yard to the
wholesale dealer; it retailed at a dollar.
Under Wilsonism, how is it! It sells now
at 60c instead of $0o to the wholesale deal
er, and he sells it for 75c instead of a dol
lar. It is the product of a West Virginia
1 onm, whose busy hum of industry can be
WK3SCK
of the physical consti
tution often comes
from unnatural, per
nicious habits, con
tracted through
ignorance or
from excesses.
Such habita
result in los
of manly
power, nerv
ous exhaust
ion, nervous debility, impaired memory,
low spirits, irritable temper, and a thou
sand and one derangements of mind and
tody. Epilepsy, paralysis, softening of
the brain and even dread insanity soma
times result from such reckless self-abuse.
To reach, reclaim and restore such unfort
unates to health and baopineo, is the aim of
the publisher* of a book written in plain but
chaste language, on the nature, symptoms
and curability, by home treatment, of such
diseases. This book will be sent sealed, in
plain envelope, on receipt of ten cents in
nps to pay postage.
iddress. World’s Dispensary Medical ASr
.y.in) (jSd M<un St,, Buffalo, It. Y.
heard with its cheerful, contented laoor,
and with the orders ahead until the first
of the coming April, f Applause.]
And Wilsonism destroyed West Virgin
ia’s weaving Indurtries!
Now you heard much of the Australian
wool. This political shepherd Lawrence;
this unmitigated, confounded, blatherskite,
humbug political shepherd of Ohio. You
say those are strong terms, but it is time
for somebody to say something about hum
bugs of protection—he has talked about
Australian wool.
I now show you a pair of socks. (Show
ing socks) seamless—here they are. They
were sold at 2d to 25 cents a pair before—
under McKinleyism. They sell at 10 cents
a pair under Wilsonism.
(Voice from bouse: I’ll beta hundred
dollars the statement is not correct.)
Hold on.
(Another voice from the house: I am a
tin plate worker. I am a roller. I can
dispute your words, and far more words.
I can prove that we are deducted 31 cents
on the dollar in our business. I am a
Democrat; I voted the Democrat ticket
and always did vote the Democratic ticket,
but since my reduction I will never vote
the Democratic ticket.)
(Mr. Cowen. continuing.)
My young friend’s enthusiasm has got
ten the better of his judgment. I am dis
cussing the question of wool. He gets
up to discuss the question of tin. Bless
bis soul, if I had time I would like to take
up tin, but we will not get along unless we
confine ourselves to wool.
I say to the gentleman that first inter
rupted me: Give me bis order for a thous
and or ten thousand pairs, with a responsi
ble name behind it—no betting, no horse
l race track business here, but give me your
solid cash and solid credit with a mercan
tile order aod it will be filltd. [Appiausa.1
I am glad of this interruption. [Applause.]
I am never afraid of an antagonist. I am
willing to be interrupted. But the basis
on which this can be made in a West Vir
ginia loom, my dear good friend, out of
Australian wool, the use by West Virginia
labor of the sunlight under the southern
cross that God has given to that gentle clime
where the sheep graze and roam at will—it
is the utilization of the sunlight, the soil
and the dew and the rain that your kind
father above and mine gave, to whom we
pray each day, “Give us our daily bread'’
—which means our daily clothes.and when
He seoks to give us our daily clothes
through the sunlight of Australia, do you
refuse to take it in that way and dictate to
your Almightyl [Applause.J
Here is something the women like. It is
not woolen. It is made from the outside of
another animal, and not a sheep. It is a
kid glove. 75 cents they sell for uow under
W ilsonism. 11.00 under McKinleyism.
I know we are passing through hard
times, which are gradually recovering. I
am too manly to claim that the government
makes all kinds of times. 1 don't believe
in this beatification of the State. My
business is such that I have seen much of
the State. I am running now lor a public
office—for Congress—tbo first time 1 ever
ran in my life, and I feel a little queer
about it, but I can say that I don’t idolize
the State as a manager of my business. I
have seen the State at Charleston, at
Columbus, at Springfield, Illinois,Trenton,
New Jersey, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
Aunapolis, Maryland, and Washington
City. 1 have seeu the State or Nation, as
you choose to call it, the thing tbat is to
regulate your business by taxation. 1 have
kuown the State intimately. I have known
people—of course, I wpn’t name them, who
would get drunk with the State, play
cards with the State. The State is ofteu
found to be a jolly good fellow, but for the
State to manage my business, I say no.
What I want the State to do is to collect
taxes for the United States treasury and
not let you or me collect taxes of each
other on'tbe tneory that we aro protecting
somebody.
Let me read a single sentence to show
you w'uat tbo tariff bi 1 is. I don’t believe
you know what a tariff bill is. It seems a
whole book running from ascetic down to
acorus and ail tbe rest; each is to be regu*
lated, each taxed this way in order to turn
the industry that way and another another
way; and the geatlemeu who go down to
Washington. 1 among them if el get there,
are supposed to know enough to do that
all for you and not bungle about it
Here is a sample. I have been talking
about the outside of a sheep. McKinley
said you must have the outride of a sheep
taxed, but the outside of other animals
could come in free. Take for example his
iaw, "Hides, raw or nncured, whether dry
salted or pickled; angola goat skin, raw,
without tbe wool manufactured; asses
skins, raw and unmanufactured.” Well,
the ass skin business is an old one, not a
new one.
I have shown you how the protection of
industrv was. I have shown you when he
let it alone to boss the duty on wool, it
set the looms of West Virginia at work; it
is setting the looms everywhere at work
and if tuey will take the duty off such
things as machinery in the looms and
other thiugs that come in, then the bnsy
loom of American industry would be used
to clothe the world.
My kind friends, I have no more to say.
I have a word to ask you. Support your
entire Democratic ticket. Go to the polls,
vote as early as you can—of course, you
can’t vote often because the laws of West
Virginia wont permit it. 1 ask you to do
your best to hold the Democratic party in
power, and let us see what the Democratic
party will do for the untaxed industry of
tha country. [Applause.]
TUB CIVIL SERVICE COMMIS&IO.V
Report a ou the Collection of Political Xs
■enteiania i»t the Philadelphia Mint.
Washihgtox, D. C., October 20.—
The civil service commission had made
a report on the charges made of politi
cal assessments of federal employes in
Philadelphia. The commission finds,
after Investigation, “That there nas
been very little attempt at assessment
in either the postoflice or-eustom bouse
so far as the classified service is con
cerned, the very great majority of
cierks, cashiers, &c., being left free to
eontnbute to either party as they wish
ed. In the mint tbo condition
of affairs was much the same
as the Pittsburg internal
revenue office. The vast majority of
employes were men appointed for po
litical reasons from the ranks of the
dominant party. These people have
received circulars asking them to con
tribute, and again reminding tu**m of
their failure to contribute if they d‘d
not do so on the first request. Ap
parently there was no violation of the
law committed in the way these circu
lars were sent, and there was certainly
no duress exercised by the bead of the
mint or his subordinates to make them
contribute. Until offices liks ‘.be mint
are classified, they cannot be taken out
of politics, and until they are taken
out of politics they will always be good
fields for tbe operation of the collector
of political assessments.”
A SBXSATIOJ* IX sl'CAR.
A Philadelphia Whole»iile Grocery Caa
earn Slake* a l»*g Col.
Philadelphia, Pa , October 26.—
Something of a sensation was created
among the wholesale grocers of this
city to-day by tbe action of the large
wholesale firm of Trimbles, bikes &
Company in cutting sugar prices % of
a cent by selling 1,000 barrels of granu
lated at 4% cent* per pound, less the
refiners rebate, which la 3-16 on 100
pound lots, with an additional trade
discount of 1 per cent, for cash.
Poatofflce Rebbed.
Hollidavsbcbo, Pa., October 26 —
Tbe postoffice at Roaring Springs, this
county, was looted by thieves last night.
Tbe office safe was blown open by dyn
amite and 13,000 stamps and cash and
money orders amounting to J453 were
stolen. T. Z. Replogie’s jewelry store,
which adjoins the office, was broken
Into and a large amount of jewelry
»tolec. The buildings are located in
tbe heart at the town, aod tbe burgla
ries were of tbe most daring nature.
There is to clue to tbe robbers.
PROFESSIONAL SUCCESS.
Theatre-goers will recognize the above
portraits oa those of a young actress, of
whom the world already kuows much,
and is destined to know more, 'lhe I tiiy,
Miss Eilen Vockey, was born In Balti
more, graduated in music from toe 1 ea
body Institute of tuat city, and Conned j
her musical education at Lelpslc i j Ger- •
many. Even in ahildnood she gave evi
dence of possessing the dramacc In
stinct. Her earliest professional ap
pearances wero on the Gorman stage. as
“Mary Stuart” and “Jane Eyre,” in
this countrv as “Juliat," “Parthenia
and “Lady Teazle”—with inaraed suc
cess. As a dramatic reader, she has won
high praise, having given selections
from Schiller aud Goethe before the
German Court. During the World’s
Fair lu Chicago, she created a sensa
tion in performances in the Woman's
Building, and also at the Calumet Thea
tre. Since then she has repeated her •
success In New York and elsewhere. Iu
Washington, where she resides, Miss
Vockey Is a great favorite, holng as
charitable as she Is talented. We glad
ly make room for the following letter,
showing her good fortune In a hygienic,
as well as a dramatic direction:
269 W. 22d St., New York.
The Pke-Dioksted Food Co., 30 Keade
St., New York.
Gentlemen:—I beg leave to inform
you that I have used your Paskola, and
find it au excellent thing as a flesh and
strength producer. 1 beard of it
through a friend, and also from my
brother, who Is a painter. Both recom
mended me to try It, and I did so. As
my work is hard and exhausting, I often 1
felt faint after a performance. Indeed,
half the time I had no appetite, but
since 1 began the use of P&tkola, I
have a lovely appetite, and have gained
flesh. It is an excellent starchy food
aud the stomach absorbs it easily. I
can only st)eak of it in the highest
terms, aud shall continue its use during
the hot weather. I recommend it to
the profession for use both before and
after a performance. I hope what I
here say may Induct other weak ard T
nervous women to cry I’askola.
Yours truly,
Ki.i.kx Vockey.
A reporter receotlv ca^d on Se«goant
[Ellas H. Dunn, New Yorli’i weather
prophet, to talk witu him about
about the matter. He was found In b *
1 office, lookiog exceedingly well. In re
! *poise to an Inquiry do said: “I have
' used the pre-dlgested food, Pasgola, my
isolf. and lu my family, and 1 mult say
that 1 have fouod It just wdat Is claimed
i for It. Why shouldn’t I? It has built
! me up and made a new man of in*. You
see how fresh and rosy 1 am. and I In
1 tend to keep ao. ’
I All hraiu worker*--actors, lawyers,
doctors, inventors, artists, clergymen,
authors, editors, merchants, financier*,
Hie etc., are almost certain to suffer
front indigestion and dyspepsia, with its
niteud&ul nervous prosiratlou. They
become auamilc aud weak. Lacking
nocessarv nourishment, body and mind
run down together. Drugs do no good.
At test drugs In such cases are mere
ookera to stir tue dying embers. Whai
Is wanted Is more fuel; that Is, food
which the system cau leeeivu aud as
similate without taring the digestive
organs,
I such a food (and the only one In ex
' istence) is Paskola. Balog pre ditjcuUd,
It spares the stomach the labor Imposed
by ordinary food, enters the blood, and
is at once taken up by the hungry and
needy body. It virtually rests the
stomach. That is both science and
People who are wat. tired, feeble,
low-spirited, dyspepsia curspd and con
sumpltve write u* daily from Maine to/
Mexico, saying they are getting fat an*
hearty on Paakola. aft*r a weary a^ I
useless dosing with drugs and Cod jV^r
olf. And with reason. I’askola stBnds
for the true ti.eory—the right |;r*clV'
Send tour raui'* to Tile |’r» • I>1 >.’*»>
Food Co., 30 lieade Street, N- w tork,
aud that will send free an interesting
pamphlet on food and digestion.
DRY GOODS—GEO. R TAYLOR
\ f
New Fall anil Winter Stock- ■
Just Received and Peidy for Inspection. _
GEO. R. TAILOR.
SPECIALTIES:
CLOAKS, SUITS, FURS,
DRESS GOODS AND SILKS.
Real Alaska Seal Jackets, Real Alaska Seal Capes,
Electric Seal Jackets and Capes, Moire Astra
chan ditto, Mink Capes in best grade.
All our Fur garment* are vory wide sweep and
from 27 to 30 Inch*;* long, i’rlces In all ca-e* at low a>
lu the Eatiern market*. Wo are prepared to show la
this department a line line of Ladle*’ Tailor-Made Covert
Cloth Mult*, handsome at can be designed. Our Cloak
and Suit business bat been moved to Market street room.
DRESS GOODS AND SILKS.
Special attention bat been given tbe selection of
Imported Drest Fabrics and Small Check Suiting*, and
In extent and variety this department eicels any previ
ous supply. Silks for Waist* and Dresses In great vari
ety and exceptionally cheap.
GLOVES AND UNDERWEAR.
Agent for Centemeri Kid Gloves.
The genuine are known by the brand, **P. Centsmerl
Si Co.,” being always in the left hand glove. Agent
also for the celebrated REYNIER KID GLOVES. At
present we have a good supply of both.
DR. JAEGER'S SANITARY UNDERWEAR
For Men, Worn** and Children. Prices the same a* at
their New York office. Ypsllantl Underwear. Ameri
can Hosiery Go. ditto.
MINNEAPOLIS BLANKETS,
EIDER DOWN QUILTS,
HEMSTITCHED SHEETS,
TABLE LINENS in new designs
T A W P* T ^ so dor v*ry fiD* HocW’ 40i23, Damask
lv II Ju LO llurder all around, at 35c each.
Two in-Hand Umbrellas, Leather Covered.
Ladies’ Czarina Ties. Ladies’ Liberty Scarfs* ^
GEO. R/TAYLOR.
“A HAND SAW IS A GOOD THING, BUT NOT *1^
SHAVE WITH.”
SAPOLIO
IS THE PROPER THING FOR HOUSE-CLEANING.