Newspaper Page Text
E. I. SMITH & CO.
THE ONE PRIDE
SHOE STORE
EVERY PAIR GUARANTEED*
Cor. Clayton St. & College, Ave
Carlton Talks.
An Interesting Interview
On the Leading Ques
tions of the
ATHENS, GEORGIA. TUESDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 23, 1888.
E. I. SMITH & CO 1
Styles of Shoes
OF THE
Best Maker.
PREVENTED FROM GOING AMONG
HIS CONSTITUENTS HE MAKES
A STRONG TALK TO THE
VOTERS OF THE 8TH
CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT.
Meeting Congressman Carlton a few
days since, we requested that ite favor
us with an interview on the leading
questions of the day and somewhat of
the doings of Congress. This
ho said he would gladly do, as he
would not be able to go
among bis constituents and would be
glad to talk to them through, the col
umns of our pape \ Propounding some
questions to the Captain, upon which
we desired to have his views, he has
favored us with the following strong and
interesting response:
Your presence at home, Captain, I
suppose indicates an early adjourn
ment of Congress?
“Oh yes, Congress has practically
been adjourned for two weeks or
more, and will no doubt formally ad
journ now in a very few days. There
has not been a quorum present in
either the House or Senate for some
days past. Every^nember who de
sired to go home or was called hence
by business, has been granted a leave
of absence, only enough members re
maining to keep Congress in session
and to prevent any improper legisla
tion. By the way the press has
harshly" and unjustly criticised Con
gress for remaining so long in session.
Especially has this criticism ill-bc-
comc the southern Democratic press.
It must be remembered that the work
before the present Congress was ne
cessarily no less tedious than it was
important. To have originated a
tariff bill in the House, upon which
the whole Democracy' might stand
united, and upon which the Demo
cratic party was to go before the
country, with the hope and prospect
of success in the Presidential contest,
was by no means an easy or speedy
undertaking. When you contemplate
how varied and diversified are the in
terests of the different states and sec
tions of this vast country of ours;
when you remember that there was
devolved upon the Democracy the du
ty of reducing taxation and reforming
the high protective tariff of the re
publican party", and under which the
business of the country has been con
ducted for the past twenty-five years,
then you can begin to form some ap
preciation of the tedium and magni
tude of the work which was before
the Democratic House of Representa
tives. Furthermore, much of the de
lay was caused by the obstructions
which the republicans in the House
were enabled to throw in the way,
not only of the Mills tariff bill, but in
the way of any attempt, whatever, at
tariff reform, as is fully proven by
their utter failure or refusal (to offer
a substitute for the Mills bill. While,
on this point'I would like to say fur
ther, that 1 regard the refusal of the
majority in the House to bring for
ward a resolution for an adjournment,
thereby keeping the republican Senate
in session and forcing the republicans
to present a tariff bill, the finest piece
of political strategy that lias marked
the course of the Democracy for
years. You perceive, that, by this
course on the part of the Democrats,
the republicans, as a just reward for
their long standing and continued hy
pocrisy, have been forced into an in
consistency, which they cannot ex
plain away, an insincerity which they
canuot, and dare not, attempt to jus
tify before the couutry. During the
discussion of the tariff in the House
the republican members, backed by
the united republican press, took
most positive and uncompromising
position against any reform of, or, as
they express it “tinkering with” the
tariff whatsoever. Upon this position
the republican party was fully and
squarely planted, as was plainly and
unmistakably promulgated in its Chic
ago platform. Subsequently the pop
ular sentiment throughout the coun
try began to grow so strong in favor
of such revolntiou and change
would cease burdensome taxation npon
the many for the benefit of the pro
tected few, and which was gathering
into the national treasury an unjusti
fiable and nnneeded surplus of over"
$130,000,000, that the republican
Senators alarmed at the outrages that
their own party had so long and so
successfully practiced upon the coun
try, promised, that if given time they
too would present to the country a
tariff bill. This was,as usual a prom
ise, whi.ch to avoid the inconsistency
of tite position that party is now _ in,
they never intended to fulfill, think
ing- and believing that the Demo
crats in the House, eager to get,home
iu order to enter the fall campaign,
\y6uld force an early adjournment,and
thereby reliere them of their unfortu
nate dilemma. Bnt, alas, they mis
judged the temper of the House. The
much hoped for adjournment did not
come. Time was given and the re
publican Senate forced to fulfill its
promise, and unless we greatly mis
take the signB of the times, that party
with its Chicago platform on the one
side and its tariff bill on the other,
will, in its attempt to steer the old
ship of Sta+e through the republican
straight,lie wrecked upon both Scylla
and Chary jis.”
Does the Mills bill meet your cor
dial endorsement, and do you think
the business of the country will be
benefitted thereby if it should become
a law?
“Most unquestionably it does. I
voted for it and worked hard to se
cure it3 passage in the House. Of
course, for reasons already given, it
may not give all that the representa
tives of the different States may have
desired, and perhaps might have been
made more favorable to our section,
but it was the best we could do, and
is a long stride in the right direction.”
Do you think the mass of the peo
ple sufficiently understand the tariff
question, to make it the great and
controlling issue of the Presidential
campaign?
“Oli yes. Never in the history of
our government were the people so
thoroughly educated upon this ques
tion as now. Not only has President
Cleveland’s first message to the 60tli
Congress (and of which the Mills bill
may be said to be a counter part)
started the people to thinking upon
this question, but with the accumu
lation of a large unprecedented, un
justifiable and needless surplus in
the government treasury, with the
business depression, hard times and
great financial stringency in certain
sections of the country, and in certain
channels of trade and industry, while
in other sections and in other more
favored and protected industries and
enterprises their is such prosperity
and “accumulation of wealth, as was
never before known in the history of
this or any other country, and which
can only be accounted for by the too
close relation between the govern
ment and these favored sections and
individual enterprises, I say, with
these facts and experiences, so con
stantly and oppressively before the
people, they have gone into the full
study of the cause of this most unjust
and unnatural condition of things,
and yon may rest assured, with the
full determination of effecting a rem
edy, through their sovereign power,
as expressed tlirougli the ballot box.
Yes, the people are fast disabusing
their minds, of that heretofore, too
popular idea, that the tariff was a
deep, intricate and incomprehensible
question of political economy, the
study of which only tended to mysti
fy, and regarding it in its true light,
have at last realized that tariff means
nothing more nor less than taxation,
and that a high protective tariff
simply means the levying, on the part
of the government, of a heavy and
burdensome indirect taxation upon
the many, for the benefit and support
of the few. Did ever a more unnatu
ral and unjust condition of affairs ex
ist in the history of any government^
and it must be apparent to all that if
left alone and not remedied, through
the sovereign power of the people,
they must inevitably break down the
government and bankrupt the coun
try. Is it not a startling fact that
this greii/government of ours, with
its great power and wealth is in the
field of private enterprise, crushing
out the weak and building up the
powerful into a class of monopolists
and capitalists that belittle the strong
est and wealthiest aristocracy of Eu
rope? I wish you could be in Wash
ington with me awhile to see the
powerful and unscrupulous lobby,
which daily and hourly crowd the
corridors of the Capital. Their sole
purpose and aim in being there is to
originate and push through measures,
which will benefit certain particular
and favored interests at the expense
of +be great masses of the people,
especially the agriculturists as under
the present high protective tariff sys
tem, they are paying the greatest
amount of tribute to such unconsti
tutional plunder and robbery.. It is
sad indeed to realize that this great
government of ours, erected by our
father* as the grandest political fab
ric the world ever saw, has been so
dragged down as to become a mere
commercial machine, for the creation
and upholding of monopolies—-trusts
and combines, continually enriching
the already overflowing coffers of
these.favored and protected few, to
the utter bankruptcy and ruin of the
many. Yes, sir,, the President’s mes
as sage and the Mills bill have made the
issue square between the two parties,
and when considering that for nearly
a quarter of a century the contests in
our national elections have been, con
trolled almost entirely by the issues
which grew out of the late civil war
together with the personal praise and
abuse of candidates, and that during
this long period no questions or prin
ciples of administrative government
have been suggested or discussed, «
may he said that they have thrown
American politics into a condition as
novel as it is important • The great
masses of the people are being fully
aroused and fast enlightened upon
this issue, and it must be squally
and fairly 'met in November. The
toiling and poorly-paid wage-earr.ers
of the country are anxiously "inquir
ing into the cause of their unrequited
labor. The numerous labor strikes
throughout the land are hut expres
sions of dissatisfaction at the unnatu
ral, unjust and unremunerative con
dition of affairs. The farmers, con
fronted today with the outrageous
and unrighteous bagging trust, as
well as other grinding monopolies,
stand disheartened, dismayed, and
disappointed in the midst of their op
pression and demand a change in that
system, which forces them to buy
their farm implements and all of the
necessaries of life in a^higlily protect
ed market, and to sell the products of
their labor in the free trade markets
of the world. The great masses of
the people of whatever business in
terest or pursuit are crying out
against the creation of millionaires
through government. sanctioned and
protected monopolies while they are
struggling for comfortable existence
beneath burdensome taxation. They
are startled at the plethoric condition
of the government treasury, which
threatens bankruptcy to the business
interest of the country, which de
presses labor, which continues their
poverty, and which condition of affairs
will doubtless he met by their over
whelming condemnation at the No
vember election.”
In what way does the high protec
tive tariff benefit the few to the in
jury of the many, and what is the
difference between the Mills bill and
the Senate tariff bill?
‘•Well, the protectionists have ever
claimed that the tariff was levied for
the protection of American inanuftffN
tories and American wage-earners.
That import duties laid upon all for
eign manufactured articles, built up
the home market, cheapened the price
of goods and enabled the American
manufacturers to pay better and high
er wages. The very argument itself
is fallacious, to say nothing of what
the experience under this high pro
tective system has proven. I have
yet to be apprised of the fact that
American manufacturers arc more
magnanimous, generous and benevo
lent than other business men of the
world. Then, in the name of com
mon sense and reasoning what do
they want to be protected from for
eign competition for, if it is to cheap
en the price of their manufactured
goods and at the same time force
them to pay higher wages to their
employees? I don’t suppose the
American people will continue • any
longer to be deceived by any such fal
lacious argument. Now for the sake
of the argument let us admit that
wliat the protectionists claim is true;
then how does the matter stand?
From the census of 1880 we find that
the actual number of people in this
country employed in manufacturing
was 2,738,805. Now these 2,738,805
a >le are the whole number said to
enefitted by protection, and to
whom the whole remaining 57,261,-
105 of our population has to pay
tribute in the shape cf tariff tax.
Now, if protection helps those en
gaged in manufacturing, and which I
deny—where I would ask, is the
right or justice in forcing sc large a
majority of the people to pay tribute
to so small a minority? Does protec
tion cheapen the price of goods? Don’t
everybody know that if foreign goods
are kept out of our markets by an
import duty, our manufacturers are
enabled to raise the price of their
goods, the full amount of the import
duty and often even with a profit on
that amount? Who. then, but the
purchasers or consumers pay this in
crease of price? Does it need an ar-
* gument to show or prove that if it
was not for this high protective duty,
levie 1 upon foreign goods, the consu
mer could purohase them at a lower
] irice? When you go to Atlanta or
; Stew York and price a suit of clothes
at $35.00 or $40-00 and then go over
tg Toronto in Canada and find that
yon can bny the identical, if not bet
ter, suit of clothes from $8.00 to $10.,
also a late style derby hat for $1.00
that you would have to pay $<fcOO for
in New York or Atlanta ‘ then you
will begin to realize how a protective
tariff don’t cheapen goods to the
consumer. Does it increase wages to
the employee? No it does not. The
recent investigation ordered bjr Con
gress, and which was made in the
city of New York as to the immigra
tion of foreigners to this country de
veloped the fact that at least 70 if
not 80 per cent, of the operatives em
ployed in New England manufacto
ries, which are the protected indus
tries of the country, were cheap, pau
per laborers from Europe, and which
state of affairs had driven the Amer
ican laborers proper to seek a living
in the far West. The same protec
tive duty which increases the price of
goods to the ordinary consumer in
creases it to the employees engaged in
the very manufactory, where they are
made. Then again admit for the sake
of the argument that protection does
increase the wages of the emp’oyees,
and to remove it would reduce them,
say, 25 per c:nt or from $2.00 to
$1.50 per day. Would not the em
ployees be the gainers? Would not
the purchasing power of his wages be
increased more than the amount of
deduction they had sustained? Could
he pot buy much more with his
$1.50 with • the tariff tax off
q than he could with his $2.00
m • ■
u* ■
when tb ? tariff tax was added to the
price of the goods be purchased? Pro-
toctionistsOppose the introduction into
our markets of cheap foreign products,
I would ask ifthe introduction into our
country of cheap foreign and pauper
labor by American manufacturers, for
the purpose of making high priced
goods for American consumers and la
borers, is not far worse for our people
and onr country.
As I have before said, the vast majori
ty of our population, are made to suffer,
(to use a strong term) by the govern
ment levying, “blackmail,” upon them,
in order to aggrandize, and enrich thejfa-
vored and protected few, but of all classes
of our population, the farmers are made
to suffer the most, under this protective
tariff system. There are 7,670,000 of
our population actually employed and at
work in the pursuit of farming. In 1880,
there were 4.008,907 separate farms of all
kinds and sizes in the United States.
The value of these farms, without any
movables on them, was $10,197,097,776,
while the whole capital invested in man
ufacturing in 1880. was $2,700,272,606,
or not quite 28 per cent, as compared
with value of the farms, without esti
mating the stock and cattle thereupon*
Now lets see how they are affected by
the tariff which is levied for the protec
tion of the manufacturing interest.
There is a duty on wheat, but what good
does it do the farmers? Our annual ex
port of wheat is more than one hundred
and fifty fold greater, than the am.uni
import of wheat into this country, while
our annual export of flour L from 8,000,-
000 to 10,000,000 barrels. The price at
whi^h he can sell his wheat in New
York, is the London, or Liverpool prices,
less the freight and charges. Now say
wheat is selling in London for $103 per
bushel of CO pounds. Then it would be
worth 93 cents per bushe’ in New York
deducting 10 cent perpushel lor freight,
charges and profits to London. The
price for granulated sugar in London is
3}o cents per pound, und the price for
the same sugar in New York, is 5?^
cents per pound. Then 10 bushels of
wheat in New York, at 93 cents per
bushel, which is $9.30, would buy about
162 pounds of granulated sugar at 5%
cent per pound, while the same amount
of wheat, in London, at the same price,
would buy about 2625-g pounds of the
same sugar at 3% cents per pound, nr
103j.< pounds more than he could g-t in
the home market at New York. What
is true of the farmer's wheat is likewise
true ot his corn, which is almost exclu
sively, if not entirely, a product of export
in this couutry. The sune trade regu
lations govern the one as the other, and
the difference in the ptftchaing power of
the corn if the New York and London
markets, is in the same ratio, with
that of the farmers wheat.
Now let us inquire about the tariff
tax on salt, which is perhaps, the great
est of the necessities to the farmer. Th«
duty on salt is 85 per cent, or about 83
per cent, on bulk salt, and 39 per cent,
on salt in bags. The fishermen of this
c iuntry engaged in curing fish for the
markets, and who are the especial pets
of the Eastern tariff-makers, get their
salt free of duty, or if paid it is re
mitted to them, besides the profit they
make upon the weight of the salt in the
sale of their fish, while the poor indus
trious and hard working farmer has to
pay the high rate of duty for every
pound of salt he uses. Just to think
that the national treasury groaning un
der a surplus of over $130,001,000 col
lects annually in the neighborhood of
$800,000 on foreigh salt. The home
production of salt is valued at about $5,-
OOO.OCO or $6,000,000 annually, and this
being increased from $2,000,000 to $3,-
000,000, by reason of the tariff duty, it
will therefore be seen that the country
at large pays a tax cf about $3,000,000
for the use of its salt, more than one-
half of which is paid by the farmers.
Many more outrages and hardships,
whieh come of our Am erican piratical
tariff system might he cited.
J ust here 1 want to call your attention
to a few other facts, sh >wing how the
taring power was exercised und«r re
publican administrations. During the
war, and after the duties on imports had
been so largely increased, thus giving
great advantage and most generous boun
ties to oar home manufactures increasing
their profits from 18 to 40 per cent, Con
gress in order to meet the heavy de
mands upon the government, by reason
of the war, leavied flight tax, upon these
homo products. It was a mere trifle, as
compared to the heavy duties, paid by
the people upon foreign products, and
if I remember correctly, amounted in the
year 1886, to about $127,000,000, which
was about 5 per cent upon the value of
their products, for the same year. This
was a tax upon the wealthy manufac
turers of the country, but as soon as the
war was over, they complained that it
was a war tax, anil it was repealed.
Congress likewise imposed a tax npon
railroad companies, insurance companies,
express companies, banks, their capital,
checks, deposits etc, also upon all in
comes exceeding the amount exempted
by law. These wealthy corporations
and individuals con plained about this
burden of taxation upon them, did not
think it just to require them to pay any
thing for the support of the government,
so the law imposing these taxes was re
pealed, while the burden of taxation, np
on the laboring, and toiling masses of
the people, was increased, by r rising the
tariff duties upon all the necessaries of
life, far beyond what' they were during
the war. This outrage in lelieving the
wealth of the country, from aiding in the
support of the government, and thereby
increasing the burden of taxation upon
the poverty stricken m.-.sses of the coun
try, is made all the more apparent, when
we reflect that it was done at a time when
our . public debt was more than
$2,000,000,000, requiting some
thing more than $140,100,000
annually to pay the interest thereon.
If this wealthy and government fa
vored class of our citizens, had been
required to bear their just and legit
imate share of the burden of taxation,
for only a few years longer, we would
today have no national debt, aud the
millions upon millions of dollars,
which now go to make up a sinking-
fund, and to pay interest on the pub
lic debt, could be given back to the
f goy-
toiling masses,
eminent oppression, ueuoiu uie
between a bare support and absol
ruin widening and deepening year af
ter year.
Well, you have asked me, “what is
the difference between the Mills bill
and the Senate tariff bill?”
From what I have already said
about the republican party - and its
icnnection with tariff legislation for
tha past twenty-fivo years, I suppose
it would be enough to say, that the
one is a republican bill, and the other
a Democratic bill. The Mills bill re
duces the present average rate of tariff
duty of 47-10 per cent to. 42-49 per
cent, which is $4.61 reduction on the
present average rates on every $100
worth of goods imported. This makes
the total reduction on the revenues
derived from imports $50,591,636 89,
of which amount $30,832,791 38 are
reductions on the dutiable list, and
$19,785,845 51 are reductions from
articles placed on the free list These
reductions are almost entirely upon
the necessaries of life, while the lux
uries are left t,o bear the burden of
tariff taxation. Does the simple re
duction ef the present average rate of
tariff from 47-10 per cent to 42-49 per
cent in order that the cost of the actual
necessaries of life may be cheapened
to 60,000,000 burdened and op
pressed consumers, and that too, when
there are $130,000,000 more in the
treasury than the government has ai.y
need for, look much like “free trade?”
And yet the republicans say the Mills
bill is a free trade bill.
The Senate tariff bill proposes a re
duction in the revenues of the
government of $73,750,009, and places
more articles on the free list than the
Mills bill does, but they arc articles
of luxury, and not articles of necessity.
Don’t this look more like “free trade”
than the Mills bill?
Of the $73,750,000 reduction pro
posed by the Senate hill, $52,250,000
are taken from the propuctp of agri
culture,$7,000,000 from whiskj", while
the tariff tax is reduced only $14,500,
000 and scarcely any of that reduc
tion is made upon the necessaries of
life. One very noticeable lick tliat
the Senate bill makes at the farming
interest of the country, and that too
in the interest of one of the govern
ment pets, is this: The Mills bill puts
bagging ties on the free list. The
Senate bill increases the tax from 35
per cent ad valorem, to a specific tax,
equivalent to about 118 per cent ad
valorem.
The effect of the Mills bill, should
it tecorne law, will be to lighten the
burden of taxation and increase the
happiness and prosperity of the masses
of the people, who earn their living by
daily toil.
The effect of the Senate bill, should
it become law, will be to continue the
government bounties to the wealthy
and favored monopolists, capitalists
and corparations, who have already
been made millionaires at the expense
of the laboring masses, who create the
wealth of the country.
For a better statement of the differ
ence between these two bills, I here
with-hand you an extract which I
hav* clipped from the minority re
port, made by the Democratic mem
bers of the Senate finance committee.
“The essentianal difference between
the House bill and the Senate substi
tute is apparent and radical at the
outset, in the matter of revenue. One
is framed in the interest of the public
treasury; the other in the interest of
private pockets. One is framed in the
interest of the whol people; the other
iu the interest of three hundred man
ufacturers. One is designed to reduce
both government revenue and taxation
—taxation, especially, which bears
heaviest on the necessaries of life; the
other is intended to raise a public rev
enue, indeed, but to maintain private
revenues by increasing 4d retaining
taxation on all the necesSfcies of life.
The advocates of the substitute freely
propose to reduce the duties or abol
ish them on things which yield only
government revenue, hut refuse to
reduce or abolish the duties on those
things which produce private rev
enue.
This purpose is avowed, and is de
fended on the ground that it is all for
labor. When it is remembered that
the average tariff duty on all manufac
tured goods is 47 per cent, and the
average share of labor therein is 21
per cent, it will be seen that their love
for the workingman is based on the
other 26 per cent, which they pocket.
Having robbed him of more than half
of the the bonus which the law gives
the workingman, they can well afford
to love him; and that love will con
tinue unabated until he insists on
having all the law gives him.”
What is the true origin of the pro
tective tariff system?
“It would be rather difficult to *say
exactly where the protective tariff
first originated. It is not of Ameri
can origin. It is one of those incon
gruous sort of things that does not
exactly comport with onr American
institutions and principles, and which
we in obedience to a spirit of rather
too servile imitation borrowed from
Europe. China has however, a still
more ancientprotective system. Her
policy has been to entirely shut out
the trade of all other countries, and
absolutely forbidding the introduction
and use of all labor-saving machinery,
consequently, China with her strict,
and effective protective system, and
with her truly home market, is
today 500 years behind the leading
nations of the world. Again w
gulf, that the
solute some sort of tor
brought into Italy, and to govern
ments as distinctly removed from the
people, as are Monarchies, such a mode
of taxation has always commended it
self. Indirect taxes are generally
more easily collected, and the peoplo
grumble less when they are imposed
iu this way, because they pay them in
the prices of the commodities they
buy, without knowing or realizing
that the tax is added to tho profits
and the original cost of production.
People pay these taxes to the gove-n-
ment without stopping to inquire
about them, while as Mr. Cleveland
says in his message, a direct tax paid
to the government falls directly upon
the man w’ho pays it, and always puts
people upon inquiry. No one is like
ly to pay a direct tax for public ex
penses, without first inquiring closely
and particularly as to what those ex
penses are for. Indirect taxation in
the nature of a high protective tariff
favors and makes possible monopolies,
combines and trusts.
When capital invested in manufaejj
tnring has a government protection of
front 50 to 100 per cent, by way of a
tariff duty, it becomes a very inviting
field for the concentration of capital
aud business. Thus being protected
against foreign competition, and
through their great, and protected
money power, being able to freeze-out
or buy up the smaller manufactories,
thus doing away with all home com
petition, they are enable to.form mo-,
nopolies, combines and trusts, fix their
own prices for their products, and
continue their unrighteous oppres
sion upon the people, and all of which
is made possible through the aid and
encouragement given them by the gov
ernment sustaining a high protective
tariff*system. Hence you see, these
protected industries, favor the high
tariff system, and today are found
struggling with all their might and
money against any repeal or reduction
thereof. Perhaps this custom of levy
ing high protective duties may have
found its origin with the Moors in
Spain, who at Tarifa, (and from
whence we get the word tariff) use to
station their officers upon the high
seas, and levy blackmail upon the
passing ships, bearing the commodo-
ties of other countries. But in re
gard to this system of taxation, we
need not travel further hack than the
establishment iu the year 1816, of
what was known as the “American
System,” whieh was laying a tariff in
order to enforce a general reciprocity
with other countries. This was
brought about by the incidents con
nected with the Napoleonic wars, and
was so called until about 1824, when
by a still further perversion that
name was applied to the system of
protective duties. During the years
between this period awd 1860, there
was great vacillation in the tariff poli
cy of the United States. There were
also great fluctuations in the course
of trade and industry. A low tariff
was succeeded by a high tariff, which
was in turn succeeded by another low
tariff. Periods of undue inflation and
of great demoralization, of prosperity
and of depression, followed each oth-
The changes in the rates of duty,
and the fluctuations in industrial his
tory have often been thought to be
closely connected. Protectionists have
ascribed prosperity to high tariffs and
depression to low tariffs, while free
traders have reversed the inference.
And just here, I would venture the
asssertion that until a just and equi
table system of taxation; a tariff for
revenue only, with incidental protec
tion, becomes the fixed policy of our
government, like fluctuations, will
continue to effect, most seriously and
injuriously American industry and
prosperity.
While on this subjeet I want to give
you some facts which were suggested
to my mind, by reason, of the tirade
made on the South by General Har
rison, in his late speech at Indianapo
lis, wherein he abused the South for
slavery and her free-trade ideas. He
charged in that speech,that during the
late war, England was looking hope
fully to the success of the Southern
Confederacy, because it would have
established free-trade between the
South and that country. Now it is
the popular idea, that the North waged
the war upon the seceding Southern
States, for the suppression and aboli
tion of slavery. This is a great mis
take. Don’t you remember that Mr.
Lincoln said in tlie Hampton Rhodes
Conference that he (meaning the
North) was for the preservation of the
Union, slavery or no slavery. This
speech of Mr. Lincoln is historical.
It is true that the agitation of the
slavery question in Congress; the
abuse and utter and open violation of
the fugitive slave laws, as well as the
refusal of other constitutional rights
to the South, laid the foundation for,
and was the immediate cause of the
South’s seecding from the Union of
States. But it was not the act of se
cession, nor the existence of slavery in
the South, that caused the North to in
augurate and prosecute the bloodiest
war anywhere recorded in tho history
of all nations. It was. not this,, that
caused her to exhaust her treasury and
sacrifice thousands npon thousands of
lives in order to force tho South back in
to the Union.
Republican orator*, and Northern
political clergymen may howl and prate
abiut all this sacrifice being made for
3
CUAS. A. ISCCDDER
JEWELER.
J ust Receiving New Goods.
A
JOHN CR&WFQRD & CO.
Wholesale and Retail
Druggists and Seedsmen.
Largest and most Complete Stock in
the city of Drugs, Patent Medi
cines, Seeds,ChemicalAppara*
tus, Toilet Soaps, Per
fumers and. Fancy
goods, etc., etc.
Courteous attention and low prices
given all. Come and see us.
OPPOSITE POST OFFICE,
Athens, - - Georgia.
V
Bucklen’s Arnica Salve.
The best Salve In the world for Cals,
Bruises, Sores,Ulcers, Salt Rheum,Fe
ver Sores, Tetter. Chapped Hands,Chil
blains Corns, and all Skin Eruptions-
and positively cures Piles, or no pay re.
quired. It is guaranteed to giveperfecl
satisfaction, or money refunded. Prict
25 cents per box.
For sale by John Crawford & 0a
CONTINUED ON EIGHTH page. . wholesale and Retail Druggist.
