,--r-i if mm (? is .jj, .
12
The Commoner.
.VOLUME 11, NUMBER S
ft-
i
'V
h,
?'
tetj
u .
&.
I'' V?
to-.
W
k
,y?
ifcnw
nTTi,!t
M f-V '-
VWC
. You Hear!
whan you u
Wilson's csT Ear Drums
'The only scientific sound con
ductors. Invisible, comfortable,
7 efficient. They fit in the ear.
Doctors recommend them.
Thousands testify to their per
fection and to benefits derived.
Information and book of lottora
from many users, free.
(- ,. , WILSON EAR DRUM CO.
MiTwJd BuIWin (13) Loulsvllte, Kentucky
Rheumatism
Remarkable Michigan External Rem
edy which is curing thousands
sent TO TRY FI11DI3
Just Mail My Coupon
Don't take medicine to draw out
impurities but help Nature expel
them through the porqs in her own
slmplo way.
IfJlKDElUOK DYER. Corresponding Soc'y.
,mon,d tmy C0UPn today. Return mall
will brine you a regular $1.00 pair of
MHglo Foot DrnftN, tho groat Michigan
wfth Yu' Vlon If.you aro satisfied
nhQT,beno.ftt rcolved sond us One
Dollar. If not, Bond nothing. You de-
vSnt "nd, nWA otak0 your word. Magio
aro curing )
itHcumatlNm In
OVftrv f n r in
MmmpuIfit l
lc, LlUiibilKO,
GoHt, etc., no
.nnttm Inwlmf
stago of progross or how many modi
pinna linvn Cnlln,1 mw t .. . .
w...w . 'uui . j.u Dtiupio princi
ples underlying this wonderful treat
ment aro fully oxplainod In our illus
trated free book. Don't delay, but send
tho coupon now today while you
can. Send no money Just tho coupon.
This SI Coupon FREE.
Good for n regular $1.00 pair of Magic Foot
l)rnOs to bo sont Freo to try (as oxnlalnVd
.uuuvus 10
Namo
Address
imny, u 3 Oliver Uldg, Jackson, Mich.
some supposed inequalities in tho
act of 1894, but suggests no rem
edy and declares no policy. Tho
gravamen of tho complaint could not
have been that our agricultural and
pastoral classes were not protected
from tho competition of the world,
bocauso tho democratic party be
lieves in competition and denounces
protection as robbery. If tho com
plaint was, as it seems to have been
and as a construction of the lan
guage from a democratic standpoint
would require, that tho duties "of
that act wero so high on manufac
tured products as to shield tho rich
manufacturers from competition
from abroad, so as to enable them,
"by moans of combinations and
trusts, to extort from tho people,"
thon tho complaint was in accord
with democratic principle, for the
democrats do not favor protection
for the manufacturer any more than
they do for tho producer of raw ma
terial. But what is the remedy in a
case of this kind? As I have already
said, the platform does not point
out. According to the opponents of
freo raw material the remedy is to
levy a tariff upon the manufactur
er's raw material. Right here they
and I part company. I would re
duce tho duty on the manufacturer's
product to a' revenue basis, and I
would require him to sell in competi
tion with tho world, as the pro
ducer of raw material must do. It
may bo asked, why put a revenue
duty on both the raw material as
well as the manufactured product?
Tho answer is easy. Tho manufac
turers of every other enlightened
country on the globe are given free
raw material. So, if we reduce tho
duty on the manufactured goodB to
a revenue basis, if wo thus expose
our own manufacturers to the com
petition of the world and at the same
time hang mfllstones around their
necks by placing tariff taxes on their
raw material, inevitable disaster
would result to our entire industrial
system. The manufacturer, the pro
ducer of raw material, and labor en
gaged in the service of both would
becomo involved in a common ruin.
And if tho democratic party should
ever be so foolish as to adopt such a
policy, which God forbid, it may pre
pare for a death and burial from
which there will never be the least
hope of resurrection.
Mr. Chairman, this misconstruc
tion of the Texas platform of 1896
has laid the democrats of that state
open to the charge that they have
embraced the doctrine of protection.
I take advantage of this occasion to
refute this charge with all the em
phasis I can command. The people
of that great commonwealth ore not
protectionists. They have never yet
bowed the knee to the god of greed.
They still hold fast to the faith of
tho fathers, and in the great strug
gle for tariff reform which is about
to begin our brethren in the other
states may be assured none will be
more steadfast and loyal than they.
In dealing with the tariff question
one of three things must occur. We
must have protection all around, or
we must have a tariff for revenue
only through free raw matorial or
we must have industrial disaster.' A
duty on raw material must inevitably
result in one of two things protec
tion or industrial ruin. So it is al
ways safe to bet that the man who
advocates a tax on raw material is
in his sympathies at heart a protec
tionist (applause on the democratic
side), and whenever protectionists
need his help they usually get it
Mr. Chairman, a tax upon raw ma
terial is distinctly and emphatically
a republican doctrine. Republicans
know that free raw material for man
ufacture would mark the beginning
of the end of protection in this coun
try, and for this reason, as I have
already shown, every effort of tariff
reformers to place raw material on
tho froo list has been resisted with
all tho might of protectionists. une
largo majority of tho beneficiaries of
protection prefer the benefits of a
protective tariff to the advantages
they may derive from free raw ma
terial. They know if .their raw ma
terial wero free from tariff taxation
they would have no good reason to
urgo why duties should not be re
duced on their own products ana
why they should not be required to
reduce their prices to consumers.
Therefore protectionists oppose JFree
raw material. John Sherman, one
of the greatest advocates of protec
tion, in his Recollections of Forty
Years in the House, Senate and the
Cabinet, says:
"Tho dogma of some manufactur
ers that raw materials should be ad
mitted free of duty is far more
dangerous to the protective policy
than the opposition of free traders."
Again he says:
"A denial of protection on coal,
iron, wool and other so-called raw
materials will lead to the denial of
protection to machinery, to textiles,
to pottery, and other Industries."
When the Payne-Aldrich tariff bill
was before the senate' Mr. Dick, a
dyed-in-the-wool protection republi
can senator, said that his stated
Ohio was against free raw ma
terial; that she realized that in the
doctrine of free raw materials lay
the greatest menace to the protec
tive policy; that the manufacturers
of Ohio realized that free raw ma
terials can bring but one ultimate
result, and that is free manufactures.
On the same occasion in the sen
ate. Mr. Aldrich declared that he
knew of no republicans and no pro
tectionists who were in favor of the
doctrine of free, raw materials as
understood by Mr. Mills and Mr.
Cleveland and the gentlemen who
were associated with them in the
promulgation of that doctrine.
Mr. Chairman, viewed from either
a republican or a democratic stand
point, it is only through free raw
materials that the abominable sys-;
tem of protection can bo overthrown
and the people relieved of the tre
mendous burdens such system im
poses upon them. The man who de
fends a tax upon raw material de
fends, protection. He seeks to bar
tho only approach through which
tariff reformers may enter the citadel
of protection and destroy it. The
advocates of free raw material have
no hostile feeling toward the pro
ducers thereof. They do not dis
criminate unjustly against the raw
material industries. They do not
ask for free raw material as an end
within itself, but only as a means,
and the only means, by which the
iniquitous system of protection can
be safely abolished. They believe
that free raw material, accompanied
by a reduction of duties on the fin
ished product to a strict revenue
basis, is fair and just to the manu
facturer, that it is fair and just to
the producers of raw material be
cause it would greatly enlarge' and
steady the markets of both. They
believe that it would be best for the
labor employed in both the raw
material and manufacturing indus
tries, because it would give them
more constant employment without
any reduction of wages. They be
lieve it would result in no diminu-
S?i?!2nye8- .They know tnat
it would lift from the backs of the
people of this country the tremen-
S Urden whIca a' Protective
tariff Imposes upon them. They
know that under such a just svatorri
the $4,000,000,000 unjusUy SJ
fn?mihe pe?pl annua"y and put
into the pockets of the special in-
neStSrmT0Ul,d remain with the peo
ple. They know tho cost of living
would be greatly reduced. They
know that those who make it the?
business to peddle out the taxing
power of the government to special
interests would havo scant opportu
nity to carry on their nefarious busi
ness compared to tho opportunities
they now have. .
Mr. Chairman, no one can help
despising thoso who, either from a
want of a proper understanding of
the question or from unworthy. mo
tives, would inject into a discussion
of this question a feeling of section
alism. The man who tries to create
the impression that all raw material
is produced in the south and all man
ufactures are in the north, and says
that free raw material is a discrim
ination in favor of the north against
the south, either is ignorant or wants
to deceive. When he says the ad
vocate of free raw material would
expose the south to free trade and
give protection to the north, ho ' is
either wanting in information or else
he wants to accomplish by prejudice
what he cannot do by argument. All
the factories are not in the north by
any means. And the south does not
produce all the raw material. Many
millions are invested in manufactur
ing enterprises in the south, and the
output of raw materials of the north
which a tariff protection would ben
efit excels that of the south. But
if, as such men contend, free raw
material and a revenue tariff would
be of so much benefit to the manu
facturer in tho north, why would it
not build up factories in the south?
Must the south forever remain be
hind In the business of - manufactur
ing? The democratic tariff system is a
system that is best for every section
of our country. It is best for all
of our people. It denies that the
tariff is a local issue. It would
break the alliance between the gov
ernment and the special interests. It
would restore the taxing power to
its proper function. It would treat
the tariff as a tax whose burderis
should be justly and equitably dis-
- -,
Overloading
the Stomach
Causes Incomplete Digestion, Weak
ens tho System and Breeds
Dyspepsia
Trial Package of Stuart's Dyspepsia
Tablets Freo
Gluttony is as vile a sin as drunk
enness and its evil results are more
terrible and far more rapid. The
human system turns' into the stom
ach and alimentary canal from 7 to
.35' pounds of digestive fluid every
twenty-four hours. Cram your stom
ach with food and you exhaust these
juices. If your stomach cannot di
gest the food because it lacks juices,
to do with, you should either eat 'less
or make more gastric fluids.
Stuart's Dyspepsia Tablets con
tain ingredients one grain of which,
"pst 3,000 grains of food.
With Stuart's Dyspepsia. Tablets in
your stomach the evil effects of over
eating are removed, for these little
tablets when dissolved stick to the
food and digest all the good from It.
They -won't abandon the stomach
and leave admass of decaying undi
gested food to putrify and irritate
the mucous membrane lining. They
give greater quantities of gastric
fluid, help the intestines enrich the
b ood, prevent constipation, and
gluttony, while sinful, may yet be
Sne! le? ?armful y the use of
these tablets. .
Every druggist carries them in
SS FLpIlce 50 ceuts per box or
w my0Urname and caress and
we will send you . a trial package
Co bLi?aqV A?dl2!B' P' A Stuart
Co, 255 Stuart Bldg.; Marshall,
H
'fff'
ZiLtZjrtk-