SUPPLEMENT TO THE O’NEILL FRONTIER TutnsJay, October 29,1890. TO WAVE OLD GLORY. Chairman Hanna Names October 31 Flag Day for Loyal Republicans. DUTY OF PATRIOTIC CITIZENS. . Recognition of the Fact that the Party is Fighting for Na tional Honor. One doos not have to go very far to .“('ok the reason for the profuse display of the national emblem in this campaign. It can be found in the Chicago platform. The spontaneity of its selection as the appropriate badge of sound-money cham pions is wonderfully significant. There scorns to have been little inclination on the part of Mr. ltryan’s followers to ipiosiion the right of the advocates of sound money and protection to display the national colors its the proper insignia of their cause. The only lamentation heard was the Altgeldian wail, which is always expected when the stars and stripes are flung to the breeze. The rivalry as to who could make the most lavish display of the national em blem has been confined to the ranks of tile supporters of McKinley. There has been no perceptible effort on the part of the I’onocrats to wrest it from those who are fighting to maintain the na tional credit. There seems to ho a gen eral assent to the proposition that the ilag does not go with the Chicago plat form This tacit recognition of the fact that the flag is the one suitable emblem of the issues for. which our party is contending is something new in our American poli tics. Heretofore there lias been a pa triotic rivarly between the Republicans and the Democrats in our national cam paigns as to which side could make most profuse display of the stars and stripes. It is a circumstance that will mean much to loyal friends of {food govornment and will be a potential factor at the polls in November. , Recognizing this fact, Chairman Han na of the national committee suggests that October 31. the Saturday before election, he observed as “flag day" jf 4 every city and town, on which day eyrfy person who intends to vote for f jitl'i money and national prosperity shah'dls-y play the national colors from MfefWnn and his place of business. TheffcOggis tion is a most commendable et theories absolutely deinoi ished by collision with hard facts that they are now resorting to deliberate mis representation in hope of breaking the force of the various exposures they are meeting. They have attempted to make much capital out of the decline iu the price of wheat during the last few years and when attention has been called to the cheapening in the cost of production by the use of new and improved machin ery and the rapid enlargement of the commercial surplus of wheat in other wheat-growing countries than the United States they have undertaken to deny both propositions. In a speech at the Central Music hall on September 19. Gov. Altgeld in at tempting to answer the arguments pre sented by Carl Sehurz iu an address in the same hall earlier in the campaign speaking of the decline in wheat said' “The truth is that there has been scarce ly any improvement in machinery for raising and harvesting,wheat in .ho last twenty years.” Such a statement is a severe reflection either upon the inventive genius of American manufacturers and the pro gressive spirit of American farme-s or upon the sincerity of Gov. Altgehl bun self. The truth is that the greatest improve ments in farm implements and machinery that have marked the latter half of the Nineteenth century have been made 1873. Not only has the retail price of nil classes of implements used «.q i farm been very much reduced during that time, but the efficiency of the inn chinery itself lias been even more enor mously increased. Taking the harvester alone it has been so improved during the last twenty years that one man can now accomplish what required the labor of live in 1873, so that instead of there being • scarcely any improvement in ma chinery for harvesting wheat, the im provements in the harvester alone are shown fully. In other words, it todnv only requires one-fifth of the labor cost to harvest grain that it did twenty years To entirely overthrow this last perver sion of truth, with which silver men art trying to bolster up a losing cause re tail prices of some of the principal farm machinery have been secured from lead mg manufacturers showing the cost ft Hie farmer in 1873 and the cost in 189(1 As the wheat crop begins with the plow! take the following statement from tin Oliver Chilled Plow works of Smith Bend. Ind., and see Ik w the cost ot plows lias boon deduced. “Wo manufacture plows alone and in the year 187'* chilled plows of the mini hers 30 and 4O' were the leading mt terns. The same numbers are very largely used at this time and our com parisons are accordingly based on them' ^ In 1873 the retail price ot the No. 30 was lu 1873 the retail price of the No. 40 was The same plows now retail at SS.oO each ( just shares for these* plows in is7:i tailed at 80 cents each; now retail at cents each. Jointers for these plows hi 1878 retailed nr 83.30 each; now retail at $3 each Wheels for these plows in IS73 rctuPod at $1..iO each: now retail at .ft each Clevises for these plows in 1873 retailed at $1 each: now retail at 38 cents each. And other items in about the same ratio. The construction and quality of the goods tire far better than in 1873.” P. M. Osborne and Company of Au burn, N. Y.. the great niiinufa. Hirers of harvesting machinery, quoting from their IT WILL BE A “STRIKE.” wou\/ion«* —Cincinnati Times and Star. own retail prices show the enormous re duction of the price to the farmer. Their statement in full is as follows: “Farm machinery is not only very much cheaper hut far more efficient at the present time than it was in 1873. There is hardly any comparison between the two. Tile harvesters and hinders which now harvest the great wheat crops of this country and Europe, were not known until 1878, but the best of farm implements and machinery made in 1873, when compared with those made in 1896 by the leading manufacturers of the country, would look coarse and cumber some and would not be purchased and used by any farmers at the present time at any price. The difference in retail prices Is also very markco: Mowers.$100 Reapers . 125 Combined inower and reap % «r.. _. ITS Harvester and bttuJeVi, ...,*500 Tedders.. .i 75' Rakes. 60 •1878. $35 to $40 50 to GO 75 to 85 100 to 125 ■ 32 to 38 20 to' 25 The Deering Harvester company of Chicago, quoting from their retail prices of_their various classes of machinery in 1S73 and 1S96, make the following state ment, showing the decreased cost and in creased efficiency of farm machinery: twirm liiiulnr ivna iinbnnivn 5 The twine binder was unknown in 1873, but the Marsh harvester, n much more primitive machine, in which the binding was done by men riding on the machine, retailed at $200 to ¥225. The twine binder retails today at from $100 for cheaper machines to $145 for the Deering roller and ball-bearing ma i chines. ■> [ “The self-rake reaper, which is now .sold at from $60 to $70, sold for $180 to *210 in 1873. ] Mowers sold in 1873 for from $90 to All5, according to the mnke and width [cf the cut. Machines of vastly greater i,efficiency sell today at from $35 for •taper machines to $45 for the Deering “er and ball bearings. hen the wire binding attachment was ed to the old Marsh harvester from to 1879 the combined machine sold 1800, of which $120 was for the nt inent and $1S0 for the harvester, ^binders are not sold now. havin been sdiiffsedttUJjythe twine binder. In 878 we int ro.hiceiT't'be'Vwiine binder the machine that now cuts the grafti'-isf the world. Its retail price was then $310 to $325. A better and more capable machine is sold today, as above inti mated, at but little over one-third that price. Binder twine, for use on these machines, sold in 1883 at from 15 to 25 cents per pound. It was, of course, un known in 1873. Today a much better twine retails at from (1% to 12 cents per pound, according to quality. This steady decrease in price does not mean a decrease in quality and efficiency. On the contrary an Howard tendency in tlie mechanical construction and quality of material has been as marked as the downward movement in prices. This fact—the advance in value coincident with the decline in price—has been made possible by the use of economical meth ods in construction, and by labor-saving machinery, rather than by any decrease in wages paid. The cost of'producing each machine has also been reduced by the tremendous number of machine's turned out by a single firm. The old mower, for which the farmer paid in the neighborhood of $100, had but meager means for adjustment, ami were neither as efficient nor aS durable as machines that retail today at $40. Tlie old self-rake reapers \\ liich retailed at $200 were primitive and clumsy as compared with the $05 machines of to day. 1 he Peering twine hinder today, run ning on roller and hull he;i■•inn's, cost $100 less tliiin the old .Marsh harvester and requires two Jess men and (wo less horses than did that niaohine. In other words, one man and two horses can handle more main with the Peering roll er-hearing twine binder than three men 1 and three horses could handle in 1S75 I with a Marsh harvester that cost the farmer $100 more money.” These statements of leading maiiu faetiirers of high-grade farm machinery, nvi-ely emphasizes what any man of or dinary intelligence already knew in a general way and what every wheat-grow er in the emmtry knew by practical ex perience. that the last twenty years have iieen marked by wonderful improvements ill the eilieieney of fanning tools accom panied hy no less marked reduction in the retail price. When other industries. Wool is a striking ex ample ot this. The McKinley law gave it proper protection, and while that law was in eflvet ottiv a very short time. It . was in effect long enough to show tlml iinilor its operation onr proiluction of wool would rapidly incrense to the ulti mate benefit of the entire community, i lie lit pioornts hastened to put wool on the free list, while retaining a substantial duty on the product of the mill and the mine. In 188!) there were in the United States 42,5!K),07S) sheep, valued at $!K). (>40,.'{tit); in 181)15 there were 47,273,553 sheep, valued at $125,001),204; in 1800 'sre 158,208,780 sheep, valued at $(>o,lfii,7155. Under the McKinley law the value of our sheep increased $35,2l>8, 805; the Wilson law has taken from the value of our sheep $00,741,520. or very nearly one-hnlf. Under the Wilson law the importation of wool has doubled and the price of the domestic product has been halved. The McKinley law gnvo to wool and other farm products the just and equal protection demanded by farm ers; the Wilson law removed this pro tection, and, discriminating against the farmer, singled out wool growing as the one considerable industry to feel the full force of a disastrous free trade policy. Reciprocity. -vAtits annual meeting in 1800 the congress passed a resolution In fivot of that it yet vors ree1„ by the following resolu meeting: Resolved, that the Farmerl gress has listened with prof liprocity; and city is shown its last •eci oc n, Hatlonnl con indl Interest to ,„ of Senor ene/.uubj on “ leiican Re y grocnl trade fie Spanish the able and Instructive ad Francisco Javier Yanes of I “The Commercial Relations of I publics.” Resolved, that to secure rec between the United States and American republics, this cougffrs* ‘favors leg] slat ion for reciprocity, commoicial treat les, and aid for steamship lines sufficient to answer all the purposes of such t.-gde. The benefits to our agriculture from fair reciprocal arrangements were so ap parent that the resolutions were adopted by a practically unanimous vote; though in the congress were delegates If all shades of political belief. The btt'ulinr relation of reciprocity to agricuHtSc ap pears from a reading of the recipiocity section of the McKinley law: 'ill That with a view to secure i&giiroenl trade with countries producing the ftdMwIiig articles, and for this purpose, on and after the first day of January, 1802. whenever and so often ns the President shall he Satis fied that the government of any country pro ducing and exporting sugar, molasses; cof fee, ten, and hides, raw and uneured, or any of sueli articles. Imposes duties or other ex actions upon the agricultural or other pro ductions of the United Slates, whlchJn view free Introduction of such sugar, mo lasses, coffee, and hides Into ttJmulted States may deem T6 7>e')*i>«UwoiJtllf#i*teiitinl or tin reasonable, lie shall haverTlt- power and It shall be Ills duty to suspend by proclamation to that effect, the provisions of this act relating to the free introduction of such sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and hides, the production ijf such country, for such time as lie shall deem Just, etc. Although in effect only a short time (he reciprocity arrangement made under (lie McKinley law demonstrated the great benefit that reciprocity would be to our agricultural interests. Space will permit of the citation of only one case in point: Our production of wheat so far exceeds our needs, while the exportation of Russia and Argentine has so rapidlv increased that it is of the highest im portance to our farmers that our wheat markets he enlarged. The ability of re ciprocity to do this is shown by our flour trade with Cuba. In less than four years under a reciprocity arrangement this trade increased 480 per cent., while in the first year after the arrangement was terminated it decreased 42 per cent All the reciprocity arrangements would have been of much benefit to onr agri cultural interests; and the Democrats hastened to terminate them. Home or Foreign Sueur, Which? Kneli year wc send abroad more then $100,000,000 for sugar. All doubt of our possessing the soil and climate over a sufficient area to produce from beet the sugar we now import, has been removed Our natural advantages for the produc tion of beet sugar are such that not withstanding the higher wages paid’here aid given our beet sugar industry r.iuiv alent to that which has been given to their beet sugar industries by l’ram-e ami Oermany by means of bounties, exemp tion of land from taxation, etc., would undoubtedly rapidly build up our sugar production. The McKinley law, "by means of a bounty, gave to our’beet sugar industry the encouragement that the history of the industry in Oertmnv and Frame lias shown til be wise anil highly advantageous to the nation 1'nder the operation of the McKinley law our production of licet sugar "vapidly increased. Here are the figures: ' 1’omuls. . 12.oot.vts ^ . 27.oo:t.:(22 Hail the McKinley law bounties been continued, we would in a comparatively few years have produced at home, not only the four thousand million pounds of sugar we now consume, hut the increased consumption due to our increased popu lation. It is probal le that no other piece of legislation in our h'story has shown a greater lack of business sense than the repeal of the sugar bounties and certainly few other legislative en actments in our I !st >ry have done our agricultural it.}* rests a greater injury or subjected the country to greater ultimate financial loss. To pro.luce four thousand m llion pounds of beet sugar would re quire-one million acres of land and the wages paid to f:mii ami factory labor would amount to $75,000,000 per annum. Laud nud labor now devoted to crops of small protit and of which wo produce an excess, like wheat, would be put to a more profitable use. The $7o.000,000 each year would swell our domestic com merce by at least four times that amount. If we had produced our own susar instead of gold having been ex ported during the past three years—an export that has widely hurt our indus tries and business—gold Would have been imported, for the more than one hundred million .dollars of gold or its equivalent sent abroad each year for sugar would have been kept at home. Home or Foreign Wool, Which? All these advantages—the use of land, the employment of labor, the increase of domestic'Commerce and of our circulat ing medium, the retention of gold— would follow also from a production of the 250,000,000 pounds of wool that we annually import under the Wilson law; a production that would follow from the steady and continued aid of sueli protec tion as was given by the McKinley law. Surely so far as tariff legislation is con cerned. the former, whether he regards only his own interests or looks beyond them to the interest of his country,’will have no difficulty iu deciding which par ty should have his vote. Ilis decision "ill he all the easier and surer because el the record of the candidates for Presi dent. Mr. Itrynn declared in Congress, January la, 1SIM, “It is immaterial in m.v judgment whether the sheep-grower receives uny benefit from the tariff or net * * * I am for free wool.” He voted for free wool, for the repeal of the sugar bounties and for thu abrogation of the reciprocity arrangements. Mr. Mc Kinley, it is needless to say, has been am! is, in favor of reciprocity, just pro tection to wool nud other farm products, and such reasonable encouragement of out beet-sugar industry us other coun tries have found jiroiitnhle. In eon trast with what Air. Itrynn said about tariff on wool is what Mr. McKinley said ''.hen introducing his turiff bill into the House: If there Is any one Industry which appeals i I!1 mure force than another for defensive I,. , s this, and to no class of citizens should this House more cheerfully lend legis lative assistance, where It can properly he done, than to the million furmers who own sloop In the United States. We cannot af ford as a nation to permit this Industry to be longer crippled. Ibis shows Mr. McKinley’s regard for the welfare of agricultural industries; and Mr. Bryan, also, may be judged by his utterances on the same subject. iiepubucttni and Trusts. Farmers have been consistently and persistently opposed to trusts. This hos tility has been exaggerated in the voci ferous nnd sweeping denunciations of trusts by the Populists. The farmers of this country are well aware that there are more trusts that, while nearly and quite controlling the production and sale of certain articles to their sure and lib eral profit, have nevertheless, by reason of the economies of the aggregation of •capital, the employment of best talent in directing, and of producing and hand ling large quantities, made the prices of tne articles to the consumers less than they were before and probably less than they would lie if tile trusts were not in existence. Nevertheless, the farmers of nnlrivi^1^ bt;llevc thut the Principles underljing trusts are wrong and that in the aggregate trusts are a serious injury to business and wield a power that will Btr'miH .t0 i{unian nature a temptation too stroug to he resisted, except in a few eases, to use that power with political parties and legislative bodies, for im proper ends; m short, that the trust is an enemy to the people und a menace to the nation, there being some exceptions to InreT ,th<;. ruIr- Representative agricul tural bodies have very frequently eon demned trusts and asked for legislation that would eml them, or at the least would subject their affairs to such public knowledge and control ns would remove their power for evil. A represcnuHw agricultural body has never prouounced in fn\or of trusts. The position of the farmer as regards trusts is that occupied by our econoin ami _ ‘;_uc, by our economists and by nearlyTl" on, paimlatam, hence, it is sanctioned |jy seieiAiiic research’and r^asniXg and hy the common sense. In accord with the wishes of farmers and in compliance with their requests, the Fifty-first gress, which was the first Congress I e‘ publican m both branches since trusts had assumed prominence in this country haste nod at its hrst session to pass "a 1 . *•’ protect trade and commerce Ue^whiih 'docIarc-fTha1^ “Ud mono*’° pi m„tVs.llor0wl,Ch°mfo11Sl hereby declared to be Illegal " « iaW-SS said fPiuIshments In the discretion ot ,hi to monopolize any part of the tr.i,n?°US $o000. or by Imprisonment not exceeding one d! srr et°lo t^o f /heon uit. i.liut word person” or fm,yofH territories, the laws of any state- or tl laws of any foreign country. 0r " This act is so comprehensive in its del uition of a trust, which it made illeJn that it was clearly the purpose of thoi escape13*16 * ° la'V’ ,bnt 1,0 tr,,st shoul Democracy and Trusts. Contrast with the action of the Fiftv. first Congress the action of (lie tlnnl Congress—the first one Democratfe ill both branches Since trusts attained to prominence in this comitry-whichnt its regular session, put into the coffer of lie .Sugar trust, by means of the W L, bnv, a bonus of.$18,000.000 on the sS ihen ill its bands; and by the same law made a profit for the Whisky trust of about $10,000,000 on the whisky with druwn from bond after it became eer lain that the tax on whisky would lie increased and before the law went in, effect, and, in addition, the Whson law increased the allowance for wastage voile in bond and lengthened the bonded ■er,or from three to eight years T ,! iftv-third Congress legislated against in,sis, but only those of which import ■rs are members and which deal in m ported articles. Domestic trusts have re iiinuicd undisturbed by Democratic le-is .'ms I’ecu made by'the Democratic administration to enforce the inti-trust legislation of either the I-'iftv lust or the I'itty-third Congress, though lrefluently reminded of its duty bv the igricultural and other capers.inc‘ml ven a leading New York Dcnmcr tic paper. So far as their attitude toward rusts is concerned, the farmer ought not !o have any difficulty in deciding wldeh ‘ , Dvo leading political parses iliould have Ins vote. 1 *L‘ On questions that have not had the long and general attention bestowed on lie tilrift or in the treatment of evil" hat have been so acridly denounced »«■ die trusts, hut that farmers have rig,,* fully considered to haven direct and eon ■adorable effect on agricultural interests he Democralie and the ISepnbliein par' ICS have recently made records equa'lv ;»!nin ami significant. * * Who Favor** Kural Mail Delivery? In the delate on the* postofiice appro Dotation bill in the House March 0 last, Mr. l’icklor said: “It scorns that thrrt is no effort to improve the service for country people,” nnd on the same dajt Mr. I,oud, chairman of the House cam- J mittee on postoffices nnd postroads, nid in the course of the debate: The Increase In the appropriations for the star route service during the last four year* has arisen from the fact that money was taken from that service nnd devoted to rsg> ulatlon. screen, and other wagon service. In other words, while' you gentlemen froa the country have been persistently Increas ing appropriations for the star route service, all of that Increase has been used Id the large cities. In fact, the amount thus diverted dur ing the last fiscal year was $610,0001. whereas the increase in the appropria tion for country mail service was only $500,000; so that notwithstanding the successful efforts of the friends of the farmers to secure an appropriation to better his mail service, there was actual ly less money spent on that service than before, because the Democratic adminia tration of the postoffice department mad elsewhere, as it has in previous years, the money specifically appropriated for, the improvement of country mail service.” This is in striking contrast with the Republican administration of the poat office department. Mr. Wnunmaker ae cured appropriations for experiments in free mail delivery in villages nnd he faithfully expended these appropriations In a communication to the Senate he stated that after making an allowance equal to the previous average annual increase of the bnsiness of the offices, it was found that the increase of the busi ness of the offices due to tile free daily delivery had more than paid for that delivery. In some cases the profit from free delivery wns quite large. Iu New Caiman, Conn., for exnmplc. the village iu which free daily delivery was first ins trodueed, and in which the experiments were conducted for five years, the aver age annua] income of the office wan $523, while tiie free delivery cost only $200. A business that yields an average annual profit of 101 ^ per cent., port ot the period being a time of panic and de pression, is a good business indeed; yet the present administration cf the post oltice department lias discontinued the free delivery in the villages in which it was established by Mr. Wnlmmaker. The results from experiments in vil lages indicated, as Mr. Wauamaker fore saw that they would, the practirability of free daily delivery to farmers; and he secured from the Fifty-second Con gress an appropriation for experiment* in free mail delivery to farmers, and an appropriation for this purpose was made by the Fifty-third Congress at both sessions. The language of the appro priations was mandatory, but both Ur. Bissell and Mr. Wilson have refused to expend thc3e appropriations. The ™H hns become a very important factor la the prosperity, welfare and enjoyment of the people. In the attitnde of the Republican and Democratic administra tions toward rural mail service and the efforts made fo improve it, the fanner will find excellent aid in deciding far which party to vote. ”»o forfeits Land Grants? For some years the farmers of the country have boon demanding that the grants of lands to aid in the construction of certain railroads, should he declared forfeited where the conditions of thn grants had not been complied with. Tha Fifty-first Congress—the first Congresa Republican in both branches Bince the demands for the annulment of these grants had been made—at its first se»> sion enacted a law That there Is hereby forfeited to the United States, and the United States hereby resumes the title thereto, all lands hereto fore granted to any state or to any corpora tion to aid in the construction of a railroad, opposite to and coterminous with the por tion of any such railroad not now completed and lit operation, for the construction or benefit or which such lands were granted: and all such lauds are declared to be a pare of the public domain. This law should have much weight with the farmer iu determining what ticket he will vote, for, aside from re storing considerable areas to the public domain to the profit of the national treas ury, it showed that a Republican Con gress did not fear to enact righteous laws for the people and against some of ths most powerful corporations iu the coun try—in marked contrast to the subservi ency to trusts nnd corporations of the Democratic Congress that we have had since. Who Opened Foreign Markets? For some years certain European na tions—one of which, -at least, while preaching free trade, practiced the pro tection of certain farm products 10 the extent of prohibitory decrees—had ex cluded our animal products and live ani mals for their markets or had subjected them to vexatious nnd profit-destroying regulations, because it was alleged, ibey were frequently unwholesome or din eased. Our farmers were well nwars that this allegation was an untruthful subterfuge, nnd they demanded such in spection of our slaughtered animals and live,animals offered for export that for eign governments could not plead Jisease among our animals as a justification for excluding those products of our farms from their murkets. Everyone familiar with our live stock interests, knows that this was n mntter of great moment to them. The Fifty-first Congress, that did so much for the farmer, made meat in spection laws that fully met the wishes of our stock-raisers, and that, being faithfully administered by Secretary Rusk, accomplished all thnt was expect ed of them. It is unfortunate that'by his own utterances and actions the pres ent secretary of agriculture should nuTe shown a different attitude toward those wise laws. In determining which ticket ho shall vote, the farmer will certainly compare the department of agriculture under Secretary Rusk with it under his successor, who began his career as sec retary of agriculture by insulting organ ized farmers, and who has made the truly remarkable record of not missing even one opportunity to show, along with his total lack of sympathy with farmers, not only his complete ignorance of our agricultural interests, but either an utter incapacity or a completely successful in disposition to learu. 10 to 1 Not Wauted, The currency plank of tin Chicago platform certainly does not express the sentiments of the National Grange; and at its last annual meeting, in Atlanta. Ga., October 10-10, 1805, the Farmenr National congress voted down all of the 10 to 1 free silver coinage resolutions presented, and adopted resolutions:1 in which it declared that it was emphatical ly in favor of the use of both gold and silver as the money of ultimate' redemp tion and was in favor of the free coinage of silver by international agreement at a ratio to be agreed upon. It is but justice to the Democratic party to say that, until recently, through its long career, it was friendly to ngri ■ ulture. As long ns it was inspired by Jefferson and Jackson it had a jealooa regard for our agricultural interest, but ■,t has drifted away from its old course; it is inspired by those who hold strange doctrines; and while thousands and hnn dreds of thousands of Democrats are the friends of the farmer, the present Demo vatic party, as an organization to elect men to enact laws and others to ndmin w.ter them, is, as eomnared with the Re publican party, enielcss of the welfare of our agricultural industries; and. of i ven greater weight with the American f»rmer, careless of that financial integ t w. that must underlie the welfare of a.I industries attd which is essential to the honor and glory of all nations. NINE.