IN FREE TRADE JAPAN f;. WHERE ABLE BODIED MEN EARN 06 CENTS A WEEK. Ami Whfrw Women Hlnre for Twenty Four Cents • Week — Labor la One of the Minor Considerations In All Free Trade Centers—In Amerlea the Chief. The British minister tit Toklo, In an interesting report reviewing the prog ress of Japan in establishing home in dustries, suggests that, at the present rat* of progress, ‘‘the Japanese t will after a time hold their own with their instructors, anil without any assist ance of a protective tariff shut im porters out of their markets.” Wo oro told that "since 1880 the amount of yarn annually produced in Japan has in creased nearly sevenfold. During this period—from 1880 to 1800—the impor tation of yarn increased steadily for a time. Home consumption and demand for export to Chinn encouraged the supply up to 1888, when the imports were nearly double those of two years before. In IS'.K) the importations had fatten off by one-third, while the home production had steadily increased. It is natural to suppose that this decline in imports is immediately connected with the growth of native manufact Fnrthor on, however. Minister Fraser lets in a flood of light on the secret of Japuncse ability to eopc with the for eign manufacturer. It is simply the low rate of wages that prevails in Japan. Minister Fraser describes as the advantages enjoyed by the Japan ese mill owner the fact .hat “he can keep his machinery going through the whole twenty-four hours, while he pays In wages the low rates of eight pence a day to men anil from two pence to five pence to women. ’ ’ The equivalcn t fn American money is sixteen cents a day for men and from four to ten cents a day for women. If the mill opera tives in Japan work six days in the week the women receive from twenty four cents to sixty cents a week, and the men receive ninety-six cents a •week. * It should be remembered that these 'figures are given in an official report from the official British representative in Japan to his'home government, anil are no doubt the result of careful in . ■qulry and accurate information. if American manufacturers should pay their employes the Japanese froo trade wages of from twenty-four vents to ninety-six cents a week there is no doubt that they could get along with out fear of British competition. But American manufacturers have no desire -to pay and American employes have no •desire to receive the free trade wages Sill,700, or about four to every hun dred of name nge. Eight in each hundred of those be tween 00 and 05 years, or 05,880 in all. are paupers. Over 05 years, twenty-six out of every hundred, or more than one in four, depend on public charity, of whom the total amounts to 313,002. These are the estimates made by lien, Booth of the Salvation army in his recently issued book, “Pauperism, A Picture.” While strength and health last, the sturdy Briton, as a rule, beurs up somehow, no matter how low his wages, against the burdens of his miserable free trade existence. Hut when old ago drawB near he is forced to the poorhouse to end his days. Hero are (len. Booth’s own pathetic comments on the sad facts ho sets, forth: “Old age fares hardly in our times,” “Life runs more intensely than it did, and the old tend to lie thrown out.” “The community gains by this, but the old suffer.” “They suffer beyond any measure of actual incapacity, for the fact that a man is old is often in itself enough to debar him from obtaining work, and it is in vain he makes pretense by dyeing liis hair or wearing falso teeth.” It will be a sad day for America when we experience such conditions here, as we surely would under free trade.—American Economist. Tlie Force BUI. There are Republicans who are in some doubt as to the kind of legislation needed to secure an honest ballot in the South and stop the prostitution of elec tion laws and machinery in that sec tion. They are ready to listen to any honest argument or suggesstion in re.-» gard to this matter, but it may ns well be understood at once that they will yield nothing to the bullying spirit and insolent falsehoods of the Democratic platform in its denunciations of the “Force bill.” “Plantation manners" have been squelched in Congress and it is about time the bullying insolence of slavery should bo omitted from the Democratic platforms. The ex-rebols have suffered enough by this time to know that the North is not to be bullied and that no cause is to be helped in this country by Democratic curses and falsehoods.—National Bulle tin. Democrats Never Resign Anything. Chairman Harrity will not resign his office ns Secretary of the State of Pennsylvania while running Mr. Cleve land’s campaign. Chairman Harrity holds the best paying office in the State of Pennsylvania with one excep tion, and is besides president of the THE GREATEST ISSUE. QUESTIONS FOR THE ENEMIES OF AMERICAN PROTECTION. It la on That Question That We Host Stand or Full—Can any of Tour Demo cratic Friends Give a Satisfactory Answer to These Questions? The American Economist occasion ally asks a few questions. The lust installment is as follows: If free trade and slavory did not go hand-in-hand, why was John C. Cal houn a protectionest until he became the representative of the Blave power? If trusts are due to the tariff, what was the cause of the anthracite coal trust? If the American laborers are so effi cient that they do not need protection, why do free traders doubt their ability to make tin plate? If Cleveland is not a demagogue, why does he misrepresent the condition of our country in order to gain a partisan advantage? If the Mills bill was not a sectional measure, why did it leave the duties on southern products unchanged while abolishing or greatly reducing the duties on the products of the north? If the result of free trade is to'in crease importation of competing articles, why will it not correspond ingly discourage their manufacture in this country? If invention is not stimulated by pro tection, why did it always progress more rapidly in protective than free trade policy? If free trade is productive of hard times, why were there hard times in every free trade era our country has had? If “cheapness” is desirable, why do the people of other lands where “cheapness” rules flock to this coun try? If protection is un-Democratie, why was Jefferson a protectionist? If it prevents us from exporting why are our exports greater than ever be fore? * If free trade would benefit labor, why were free traders from Adam Smith to Bonamy Price and Perry all opposed to shorter hours in a working day? If reciprocity is a “sham,” why is it detested by Great Britain? If “free raw materials" are the ne cessity, why did free traders repeal the duty on cotton ties and retain it on hoop iron? If wages are regulated by demand for and supply of labor, how will the destruction of American industries raise them? If mugwumps are not un-American, pgcRS ( DEM.0 United States will reap the benefit! thereof. Calttle.. In 1887 there were 72,668, head et beef cattle imported into our markets thus adding to our surplus and depre. dating the valuer paying a duty of |y per head. The average importation for the past five years has been 88,000 per year. Now, the act passed by the republican party says to the Canadian (most of these cattle come from Cana, da), you must pay us a tax of (10 per head if you want to sell your steers in the United States.” Is not this all right? Buckwheat. Why not protect the farmers of tbs United States in raising farm products? Why should farmers of other countries find a market in the United States (or 65.000 bushels of buokwheat and pay only ten per cent, ad valorem duty? Why not make them pay us fifteen cents per bushel, as provided in the McKinley bill? It would take over 6.000 acres to produce the buckwheat that was imported in 1889. Flaxseed. Last year 1,583,941 bushels of flax seed were imported .ana none exported. So the republicans said: “We will put a tax of thirty cents per bushel on flaxseed, ” for the benefit of the far. mers. Saur Kraut. Canada sent $54,230 worth of saur kraut, $4,100 worth of peanuts, $2,564 worth of sweet potatoes, 200.000 bar rels of turnips, besides cabbage, caul iflower and other vegetables, which our Eastern farmers can raise just at well as not, instead of raising so ex clusively the less profitable crops of wheat, oats and corn. The duty on all vegetables not classified was in creased from ten to twenty-five per cent, ad valorem. Barley. We have been importing’ from Can ada some eleven million bushels of barley and malt annually. A large number of the farmers of the United States ask to have the tariff raised from ten cents per bushel to thirty cents per bushel (48 lbs.) The re publican party says “all right, we propose to help the farmer,” and so they increase the tariff on barley. JThe average yield per acre in the United States is given at twenty-two bushels per acre, and it will take 477,000 acres to produce what barley is imported from Canada. Potatoes* We Imported in 1888, 8,259,533 bushels of potatoes upon which a duty of fifteen cents per bushel was paid. Eastern farmers asked to have the duty raised to twenty-five cents per bushel, and this was done in order to help the farmers of the United States. ' Beans. The same year there was imported 1,942,864 bushels of beans and peas, paying a duty of ten cents per bushel. Our farmers requested this duty raised to forty cents per bushel. This was done, and at the same time the duty was raised on a long list of other vegetables for the benefit of the Eas tern farmers. This was ail right was it not? For if the Eastern States raise commodities they will not be raising wheat, oats, corn, and stock, and this will help the Western farmer. Hay. There was 100,269 tons of hay im parted in 178, paying a duty of two dollars per ton. McKinley and the Republicans thought they could help the farmers in this and so made the duty four dollars per ton. It will re quire 100,000 acres to produce the im ported hay. Hops. We are importing annually an av erage of about 7,000,000 pounds of hops more than we export, and it would require seven thousand acres to produce these. The tariff, formerly eight cents per pound, is now fifteen cents. A Farmer’s Letter. “Mono Valley, Kans. ••My Dear Sir: What will the Democrats and Mugwumps do with the tariff this session of Congress? As you know, I am a farmer and quite an old man, and I have lived in this country a good many years when we had de mocracy and free trade, and I know what they are. In those days I drew wheat from my farm in Indiana to Vin cennes, a distance of 45 milea and sold it for 33 cents a bushel, and took calico at S5 cents a yard, and very common brown sugar at 14 cents a pound, and as is generally known, there is much sand in Vincennes, and the merchants were troubled with optical delusions, and could not tell the dif ference between common brown sugar and yellow sand, and, as a result, when we would get home we would find our sugar badly mixed with sand. Bemembering all this, I say, as an old farmer, may the good Lord deliver us from democracy and free trade. • •Can’t you send me some docu ments?" [Laughter.] Yours truly, W. H. Harper, ••Hon. R W. Perkins, Washington, D. C." Ttae Truth About Van Wfck. Lincoln, Oct. 9, 1890. To all Members of the Independent People’s Committees, and to the Vo ters of Nebraska: __ It having become evident that Mr. \ an Wyck has turned squarely against the independent movement, and is using his influence to defeat the inde pendent candidates, we recommend that he be not invited to adrress inde pendent meetings nor given an oppor tunity to use his unfriendly influence. Geo. W. Blake, Chairman State Central Cons. C. H. PlBTLK, Secretary State Central Com.