The Weekly banner-watchman. (Athens, Ga.) 1886-1889, October 23, 1888, Image 2
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.