• ■ 4 ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦4»4444»♦»»♦♦♦♦♦ 444444444 4444444444444444 4 4 j An American Nabob. I ♦ A Remcvrkokble Story of Love, Gold or of ad dressing Mr. John Overton* late of the Latin Quartier, Paris?” Overton answered stl^lTy: “That happens to be my name, sir.” “Allow me to introduce myself.” Overton looked at the card and de iberately looked at the inscription. “Captain Maurice Stanton Livermore,” The Horseguardl.” It was a name known Hr and wide —a name that had been carried to re mote places in the Dark -Continent—a name mentioned with eepeclal honor in descriptions of English operations on the borders of India, where only valor counts, and men carve oue repu tations with the sword In a desperate duel with savage tribes. Jack knew it well. ‘The name is not unfamiliar to me. In what way can I be of service to you. sir?” be said with an effort at diffidence, not?” “You are an artist, if I mistake “Yes, I aim to be.” “I am greatly interested In art, and desire to have some commissions executed. Having heard you favor ably mentioned I would like you to join me at dinner where we can doubtless find an opportunity tc reach an agreement.” It was on the tip of Jack’s tongue to coldly decline the invitation. Prul dence—policy if you will—checked bis disdainful tongue in time. “I accept your invitation, sir, with out in any way committing myself to any policy you may suggest, or com promising myself in the least,” he said quietly. The other looked grimly pleased. They walked along together as well as the crowded condition of the street would permit, until finally they reach ed a notable restaurant, into which the strangely matched couple plunged. As Overton sat there in the cozy room, vis-a-vis with Captain Liver more, somehow he was reminded of a man whom the irony of fortune had seated above a volcano or a powder magazine liable to explode at any moment. (To be continued.! BUCKEYE ANIMADVERSIONS In nn Indianapolis l*lan to Make* Ufa Sweeter. The young women of the Indianap olis telephone exchange are to be given the benefits of voice culture. A prom inent elocutionist has been engaged, and all the sharp voices will be filed down, and all the rough voices will be planed off, and if there is any dignity and sweetness in a voice It will be drawn to the surface. It is a nice scheme, but It will take some time. The average Hoosler voice is far from being of the liquid velvet order, and the elocutionary Improver will find his hands full for some time to come. Of course the hours for vocal practice will have to be snatched from the regular hours of duty, and the Indianapolis subscriber who calls up ‘‘exchange” may be expected at any time to hear somebody shrieking: ‘‘I am not mad! I am not mad!” A good deal startled, he will probably hastily remark: "Hello, central: you have given me the insane asylum.” And then the girl will explain that she’s only getting let ter perfect lu “The Maniac.” And very likely some other subscriber will be told that the curfew shall not ring to night. and perhaps he'll vigorously ask the curfew to ring off. And may be an incensed patron of the line who earnestly inquires what the girl means by not answering his call will be told to “wake and call me early, call me early, mother, dear.” In short, there'll be a good deal doing In that Indianap olis call shop before all the voices that need it are cultured into proper vocal shape.—Cleveland Plain Dealer. Woman’s function Is a guiding, not a determining one.—John kuskin. In mythology, no god falls In love 1 with Minerva. A mannish woman only attrf'ta a femlrlns man. DEEPLY SOLICITOUS. FREE TRADERS WORRViNQ ABOUT AMERICAN PATRIOTISM. Hernnyp \\ . Ar. I’ros perlng So Well Under l’rotocl Ion Tlioy Argue That | I.ovr of Country la Dying Out Among: the People of the I ulteil Stales. This is the caption of the last article sent out by the Free Trade League over the signature of I’rof.'John Bascom. of Williams College. The two words, pro tection and patriotism, certainly go well together, and are closely related. But. says Prof. Bascom, "protection as developed In the United States, is pro foundly opposed to patriotism.” And yet he does not prove it. or even at tempt. to. He tells us that it begets personal strife, blit does not tell us wherein personal strife and ambition become inimical to patriotism. Con tinuing, the professor says: ‘‘The little kernel of sound theory that may in the beginning have lain at the bottom of protection was short' y lost sight of in a greedy struggle be tween ever-increasing claimants to re tain old and win new advantages." It is encouraging to see an old-time free trader admitting (hat there was ever even a kernel of sound theory in the principle of protection, though it has been lost sight ot in Hie struggle for advantage. Bops the professor mean to say that the strife to excel is unpatriotic? Would he have our In ventors stop thinking, our miners stop digging, our farmers stop planting, our mechanics stop fabricating, and so cense to retain and gain advantages not only among themselves but over the peoples of other countries? Hoes lie want us to go bark to the habl;:s nt the aborigines and live the lives of savages? He complains because "we have set no limits to Individual enter prise.” Why should we set a limit to ambition, to attainment and accom plishment? And then he eompiama again because “the policy of private thrift, which gained such a foothold in protection, has spread everywhere ” H the professor is preaching social ism or anarchy, that is one thing, but if he is preachirfg free trade because it would do away with competition and destroy commercial advantages, that is another. He concludes his little "piece” as follows: “Patriotism cannot thrive in the at rosphere we have provided for it. If we would restore and strengthen love of country, we must get bark to the prosperity of the masses of men—the people and the nation—as the tru: aim of government.” Does the professor question our love of country? Was he awake during the Spanish war, when millions were an gry only because they coil’d not tight for the Stars and Stripes? Did li° not for months see Old Glory waving from every flagstaff, from every building, and from every house? Who is there, outside the little bond of American ( obdenites, that does not think wi could lick any country on earth, or. if needs lie, all of them put together? Does not the professor see any other I paper but the Springfield Republican? As for “getting back to the prosper ity of the masses of men” — bark where? Back to 1837, or to 1857. or to 1895-96? When have "the masses of men—the people ami the nation”—been so prosperous as they are to-day? It seems incredible that a man of average enlightenment could put forth such twaddle as this paper of Prof Baseom’s. It is uot worth noticing ex cept to show to what pitiable ends me Free Trade League is obliged to go to get matter to send out to the few coun try papers that will print its stuff Surely the free trade issue in the Unit ed States is at a low ebb indeed when it must depend on such argument for support. Prof. Bascom knows no more about patriotism than lie does about i protection. He knows no more about the ambitions and national characteris ties of the people of thp United States than he does anout uie uncivilized tribes of darkest Africa; or else, for the sake of his pet theory, he would do away with an exertion and all la! or. of mind or body. He should study the strenuous life of his countrymen, from the president down to the urchin with his bundle of "extras.” He should ‘ake a progressive daily or wpekly paper and read the current, history of his country. Or, he might take the presi dent's message by installments and gather a few ideas concerning the prog ress and achievements of our institu tions. He should get a little American flag and count the stripes and then the stars. He should get a portrait of Wash ington and of McKinley, and little by little study the lives of our other great men. it may be a hopeless case, but it would seem as if even Prof. Bascom might be Injected with a little Ameri can spirit and patriotism. One-Sided lleclprority. To illustrate one-sided reciprocity let us nai ie Canada. Canada wants free access to our markets, and in return will cheerfully give us free access to hers. Canada has 5,000,000 people; the United States has 80,000,000. Her peo ple can buy of us, provided Great Brit ain does not demand her trade, one sixteenth of what we would naturally buy of her. Though her soil is Ameri can and she controls a great deal of the North American continent, the wage« paid by her for labor are 20 to 50 j er cent lower tnan in tlie United States. She would, of course, fill our markets ■with cheap goods to compete with bet ter paid American labor. Such a condi tion would undoubtedly help Canadian immigration, of which there has been practically none for half a century. It la better for the United States to at tract th!3 immigration to her own states and territories, where, despite the fact that we have sixteen times as many people as Canada on a smaller area, there is yet room, with only a small fraction of our magnificent re sources developed.—New llaven Pallu dium. A Ke*Moi!Al»|A R♦mI»u tIon. Unreconciled to the gloomy pros pect for wide open reciprocity, the Chicago Evening Post plaintively asks: "Are there uo industries which are sufficiently established to stand a reasonable reduction of duty?” It may be there are such, hut if so. what of it? A “reasonable” reduction of duty would amount' to nothing in the estimation of foreign competitors. It must be such a reduction as will ren der the duty non-Protective. What they clamor for. and what the Post seems to think they should have, Is an unreasonable reduction of tariff duties; a foolish, destructive reduc tion: one that will enable them to break into this market and undersell domestic producers; such a reduction as would either close our mills and factories, or else lower the American standard of wages and of living ami thus diminish the purchasing capac ity and the consuming power of our wage earners. That is what the for eigners want. Is it what the Chicago Evening Post wants? Argument* llnueil on Misinformation. Some wonderful Information finds its way into “low tariff newspapers. The Boston Transcript, for instance, which apparently wants reciprocity with Canada, after reflecting on the motives of Senator Burrows ami others who do not agree with it. prints this surprising information, which was sent to it all the way from Wash ington: "In the Oingley tariff the duty on logs was made double that carried by the McKinley tariff of only ten years ago." Hogs were on the free list in the McKinley tariff ami are also on the free list in the Oingley tariff. If the advocates of reciprocity with Canada were to base their argu ments on facts instead of such won derful misinformation as that about the duty on logs they would cease to talk on the subject.-Philadelphia Press. I The Cuban t arrying Trade. Lately the Tribune made the admir able suggestion that any reductions in the duties between this country and Cuba should be confined to such com modities as were carried under either the American or the Cuban flag, Cuban vessels to be built in the United States. This proposition im mediately meets with opposition from the Munson line, whose ships are greatly Norwegian, that sail under temporary charters. The prompt op position of this line seems to have killed the Tribune’s proposition, and this foreign line, that neither employs American sailors nor repairs or out fits its ships in American ports, seem to lie dictating the marttinio policy of this country. A Stubborn Fa«*t. That reciprocity convention was a cruel disappointment to the tariff re formers. They are now up against the fact that the end of protection is not yet in sight, and as Sam Jones says, a fact cannot be gotten over nor around. It must be "camped" by and "sot" up with.—Clyde