S. M. COCHRAN * CO. ,
ABE AGENTS FOR THE CELEBRATED
Union Press Drills and
One Horse Hoe Drills ,
WAGONS AND BUGGIES.
ALSO KEEP REPAIRS FOR ALL KINDS OF MACHINERY.
Absolutely Rust Proof Tinware
Their prices on all goods are as low as the
lowest possible.
8. M. COCHRAN & CO. ,
West DoiiiiiMon Street , HIcCOOK , NEBKASKA.
W. 0. BULLAED & CO.
-toj-
LIME , HAKD
CEMENT , AND
DOORS , ER.
. SOFT
WINDOWS ,
SOFTCOAL.
BLINDS. COAL.
HBD CEDAR AND OAK POSTS.
xT. WARRRN , Manager.
Meat Market
FRESH AND SALT
MEATS ,
BACON , BOLOGNA ,
CHICKENS ,
, . , .
TURKEYS &C. 4C.
F. S. WILQOX& CO. , Props.
Notary Public. Justice of the Peace ,
EL IBL
REAI > : ESTAT
LOANS AND INSURANCE.
Nebraska Farm Lands to Exchange for Eastern Property.
Collections a Specialty.
.
- - ! bTgn = VTa gr-BF ft.-
Liniment
*
A Cure for the Ailments of Man and Beast
A long-tested pain reliever.
Its use is almost universal by the Housewife , the Farmer , thu
Stock Raiser , and by e'very one requiring an effective
liniment.
No other application compares with it in efficacy.
This well-known remedy has stood the test of years , almost
generations.
Mo medicine chest is complete without a bottle of MUSTAWG
LINIMENT.
Occasions arise for its use almost every day.
411 druggists and dealers have it
40 TO 2000 ACRE TRACTS.
S5 TO S15 PER RCRE.
J Send stamp for Price List and Descriptive
Circular of Southwestern Nebraska to
AND STOCK RANCHES. S. H. COLVIN , McCook , / ? / waiom Co. , Neb.
K
District Court Proceedings.
CABER CONTINUED ,
Nebraska < k Kansas Farm Loan Co. vi. Wra.
Nuttclul , equity. I '
Ilunihum Tulleys & Co. vs. George E. Mayo
ctal , equity.
Western Loun & Investment Co. vs. John
Green et a ) , equity.
First National Bunk. Alnsworth , Neb. , vs.
Edward J'rlce. appeal.
The Anglo-Am. Loan & Trust Co. vs. Win.
Y.Johusou etal. equity. .
Nina A. Smead vs. Gedrjfe C. Uoberts et al.
report of referee.
Gilmore & Uhul vs. Henry Crublreo et al.
replevin.
Nat Hrucn vs. Harrison National Danket al ,
replevin.
The AiiRlo-Am. Mortgage & Trust Co. vs.
John P. Heiter et al , equity.
Susan U. Van Vllet vs. Allen It. Mitchell et
al , equity.
Phelps & mgclow Windmill Co. vs. Mary F.
Gray etal , equity.
T. H. KIder vs. Sam'l Young et al , equity.
Etnmti J. Lane vs. Mury Leonard et al.
equity.
J. H. Ludwlck vs. J. H. Uenuett et al , re
plevin.
William . Metcalf vs. Home Fire Ins. Co.
of Omaha , appeal.
The Citizens Hank of McCook vs. U. C. Orr ,
appeal.
Samuel It. Smith et al vs. Laura V. Marker
et al , equity.
Lewis U. Kerns ct al vs. Ked Willow Co.
Live Stock Association.
Citizens llauk of McCook vs. E. U. Uauks et
al , appeal.
Great Western Watch Co. vs. John W. Welt ,
appeal.
Mass. Mutual Life Insurance Co. vs. Alfred
Carter et al , equity.
E. C. Popejoy vs. Thomas Heal , appeal.
Minnie C. Ballard vs. John Green et al ,
equity.
Nebraska Mortgaje Co. vs. August Kreidt
et al. equity.
A. M. Beveridge ; vs. Ellen Burdick et al ,
equity.
Helen T. Campbell vs. Sarah 11. Suavely et
al , appeal.
Augusta Schultz vs. Henry Schneider et al.
equity.
John A. Thomas vs. Chas D. Cramer et al ,
equity.
Newman Butcher vs. Albert Stegman et al
equity.
Great Western Watch Co. vs. Charles H.
Listen , equity.
McKinney , Hundley & Walker vs. O. M.
Knipple , reviver of judgment.
Franklin W. Eskey vs. Chas F. Woehner , ap
peal.
The American Investment Co. vs. llicliard
G. Mitclifill et al. equity.
David Fisher vs. Chas. W. Beck , appeal.
Chas. C. Elv vs. Francis M. Burt et al , equi
ty.
ty.Mary N. Clark vs. Isaac S. Shirey et al ,
equtty-
The" State of Nebraska vs. C. B. Thompson ,
appeal.
People's Building Loan and Savings Asso
ciation vs. Samuel R. Smith et al , equity.
Wrn. A. Ilinesley vs. Peitsch & Kimberly ,
appeal.
Michael Walch vs. George Nicholson , ap
peal.
The Great Western Watch Co. vs. A. P. Bod-
well , appeal ,
The Great Western Watch Co. vs. J. F. Black ,
appeal.
Edward H. Ogden vs. Stephen S. Brown et
ux. equity.
B. M. Vincent vs. George S. Cuudiffetal ,
equity.
Howard H. Shields , administrator , vs. J. M.
Inman's estate et al. equity.
Esther G. Shaw vs. C. J. Higgins et al , equity.
s. L. Sticther vs. W. H. Williams et al ,
equity.
W. u. Bullard & Co. vs. Nettle B. Moore etal.
equity.
The State of Nebraska vs. John L. Kouch ,
grand larceny.
Charles Nash vs. Allen Bartley et al , equity.
American Savings Bank vs. Ella M. Piper ,
equity.
G. H. Warring , Jr. , Trustee , vs. A. H. Or-
mau et al , equity.
Susan Cutting vs. Santord McGriff et al ,
equity.
Garwood H. Atwood vs. Louis Mather etal.
equity.
St. Joseph Loan & Trust Co. vs. Annie Hill et
al. equity.
Warren O. McClure vs. H. M. Asbmore et
al , equity.
Kuth W. Latbrop . Wm. Anderson et al ,
equity.
Charles C. White , Receiver , vs. Ida M. Fisk ,
confirmation of sale.
CASES DISMISSED ,
Edward Pierce , executor , vs. Chas. D. Cram
er et ux. equity.
Agnes E. Smillie vs. A. H. Bowdish et al ,
equity.
B. B. Davis & C. H. Jones vs.The Co. lied
Willow , appeal.
Kate W. Doty vs. Thos. M.X'QMlMiiial ) [ ,
equity.
F. S. Smith vs. H. Schlcesser et i
John W. Vandike vs. C. B. &
damages.
Angelo P. Welles vs. Geo. Huggins
peal and attachment.
Emily M. Heed , executor , vs. J.
mend et al , equity.
John W. Hart vs. Elizabeth A. Hart j
equity.
People's Building Loan & Savings Ass'n
Geo. W. Short et al , equity.
Arthur W. Evans vs. Edward B. Brown , at
tachment.
Jennie Pierce vs. J. B. Teeters et al , equity.
Joseph A. Webster vs. Mrs. T. Boyd et al ,
equity.
DECREES OF FOHECLOSUIIE.
Herbert E. Vail vs. O. S. Vandoren et al ,
equity , due $528.
V. D. Heed vs. J. A. Cordeal et al , equity ,
due $077.75.
The Phoenix Ins. Co. vs. Wm. Knapo et al ,
equity , due $1,103.33.
Ezra Crowell vs. W. O. Russell et al , equity ,
duo $670. 66.
Ediuburg Lombard Investment Co. vs. Mary
Lang ot al , equity , due $368.18.
Ellen Law vs. J. Morgan et al , equity , due
5830.93.
Smith Bros. vs. Elizabeth Lyon et al , equity ,
S74.10.
A. M. Beveridge vs. Wm. W. Gerver et al ,
equity , due S642.41.
Arthur A- Hyde vs.'Hobert S. Cooley et al ,
equity , due $1,631.43.
E. M. Leach vs. George Leland et al , equity ,
due $338.40.
Mary J. Cole vs. Stephen Tuttle et al. equi
ty , due $710.84.
Nebraska Loan & Trust Co. vs. Kato Thomas
et nl , equity , due $293.83.
Win. J. Parkinson vs. Wm. H. Gerver etal ,
equity , duo $860.
Mary Spier , vs. John Janeck et al. equity ,
due $631.33.
H. Frunson & Co. TS. W. M. Nutt ct al , equi
ty , due $1,207.70.
Montgomery Bennett vs. J. C. Morgan et al ,
equity , due $860.33.
Matlfe G. Wood vs. Nlcliolw Maruy et al. equi
ty , duof.vn.
John J. .Shepherd vs. Ellslm Itoyce ot al-
equity , due $837. \
Nancy S.'ocutn vs. 'UJIzalifth Joy et ul.
equity , due $410. < v
Charles Slocitin vs. Kliretuu rcurson et a ) ,
equity. (1 no1.03' ' ) .
II. ( i. Itritlnttnl vs. Hiuilc Itnius utal , equity ,
duo $ -7 iCO.
Lillian M. Wlilsli vs. John N. Lucas et ul.
equity , due $719.
S. G. Kdmundrt vs. Chits. A. Dilitilu ut al.
equity , due § 383.
Charles N. Grillin vs. W. K. Wlnolmv et al.
equity , duo $ G74 > 0.
Mary E. Bliss vs. James A. Hoiieliin et nl.
equity , due $37.75. ! )
M. E. A. Van Vllet vs. Dcatrick Blake et al ,
equity , duo $752.15.
Gcorgw Hoeknell vs. James W. Speer et al.
equity , duo $103.17.
Martha A. FarriiiKton vs. Samuel Ellis et al ,
equit3' . due $059.
.1. Jj. Moore. Trustee , vs. Wm. Helph elal.
equity , due $415 05.
J. A. Harris vs. John N. Ytirnul ct al , equity ,
due $105.
MlSCK.l.r.ANKOIJS CASES.
Western Loan < te Inv. Co. vs. Sivau I't.-harson
et al , equity , consolidated with West vf ,
Peharson.
Charles F. Elliott vs. J. II. Bennett , judg
ment for dercmlent to amount of $132.90.
Ell C. MuMillen vs. Gamer , ISrown & Friend
paint company , attachment , attachment sus
tained , duo ? 5.415.98.
Eujreno A. Rose vs. A. D. Ashley et al. equi
ty , motion for new trial withdrawn , decree
last term.
Ednn C. Brig lo vs. Albert Brlguie , divorce ,
divorce granted.
'Laura Cole vs. Rufus A. Cole , divorce ,
divorce granted without further alimony.
Joseph S. Holmes vo. Jannette Holi-ies.
divorce , set for trial at chambers.
Robert H.Thomas , contestant , vs. Vocances
Franklin et al , eontestce , at request of con
tcstces case continued and restraining order
issued against county ollicers.
State ot Nebraska vs. Earl Kelley , iucorrifr-
ibility. found guilty and committed to reform
school at Kearney.
Frees & Hocknoll LumberCo.vs.Robt.il.
Thomas , confirmation of sale , taken under
advisement.
Ann Huff vs. Samuel A. Shaffer , continua
tion of sale , settled.
McCook Co-operative Building & Saving
Association vs. Sweeney Munson , confirma
tion sale , taken under advisement.
Petition to sell real estate in the matter of
the estate of Geo. II. Starbuck , deceased ,
bearingset forDecember3d. 1892 , at chambers
at Cambridge Neb.
In the matter of the estate of Frank II.
Fowler , deceased , petition to sell real estate ,
set for henrinjr at chambers at Cambridge ,
Neb. . December , 2.1892.
CASES CONFIRMED.
Nebraska Loan & Trust Co. vs. F. J. Bush-
eng , confirmation of sale , deficiency judg
ment $21.55.
Nebraska & Kansas Farm Loan Co. vs. Julia
A. Newkirk , deceased , confirmation of sale.
Nebraska Loan & Trust Co. vs. J. A. Barton
et al , confirmation of sale.
Clark & Leonard Investment Co. vs. Jennie
Walters , confirmation of sale.
Edward Pierce vs. Palmer Way , confirma
tion of sale.
Huddleston Lumber Co. vs. J. Byron Jen
nings , confirmation of sale. -
Joseph Menard vs. Susan Farley , confirma
tion os sale.
Thomas Lonergan vs. Stanton Roily , confir
mation of sale.
A.M. Doty vs. Geo. W. Keens , confirmation
of sale , deficiency § 3.86.
Jennie Bush vs. Adolph Suhamoni , confir
mation of sale , deficiency $1,017.98.
Harriet Coomer et ul vs. A. J. Pate etal ,
confirmation of sale.
Margaret Mullen vs. John F. liuskirl : , con
firmation of sale.
George Hoeknell vs. J. A. Brewer , confir
mation of sale , deficiency $938.
Geo. A. Kelsey vs. Jesse D. Welborn , con
firmation of sale.
J. W. Dolan vs. Mary E. Goodrich , confirma
tion of sale , continued.
Nebraska Loan & Trust Co. vs. James R.
Gilstrap , confirmation of sale.
PnoanixInsurance Co. vs. Henry C. Schroed-
er , confirmation of sale , deficiency $262.03.
Cyrus Eastman , trustee , vs. Austin II. Wit-
son , confirmation of sale , deficiency $5Q8,63.
Martha A. Wilson vs. William Fruin , confir
mation of sale.
Jas. II. Clark & Jos. C. Glenn vs. Daniel
Dollar , confirmation of sale.
Elizabeth S. Brayton vs. John Peake , con
firmation of sale , deficiency $257.43.
George A. Kelsey vs. Almond Gustin , con
firmation of sale.
David A. Boyeret al vs. Katharine K. Boyer -
er , confirmation of sale.
Phoauix Insurance Co. vs. Jacob Scbaffert.
Sen. , confirmation of sale.
Now Home Machine Co. vs. John G. Wiusor ,
confirmation of sale.
Lillian M. Whish vs. Harvey Z. Jessup. con
firmation of sale.
Lillian M. Whish vs. Joseph A. Hays , confir
mation of sale.
Lillian M. Whish vs. Chas. A. Dibble , coiiflr-
[ ination of sale , deficiency$325.08.
W. V. Jones vs. George Ray , confirmation
sale.
li. Brown et al vs. Jas. C. Lafferty , conflr-
on of sale , settled.
ie T. Van Zandt vs Dennis St. Germain ,
Of Sale.
Hankin vs. Corintha Conklin , con-
trustee , vs. Francis A.
_ , confirmation of sate.
tJfbKinIey-Liiuning- & Trust Co. vs.
Zeri H. Sherman , confirmation of sale.
Eleanor G. Little vs. Thos. F. Coward , con
firmation of sale.
Elsie C. Prichard vs. Mary J. Gore , confir
mation sale , deficiency $328.48.
John E. Arthur vs. Western Farm Mortgage
Co. , confirmation of sale.
Powell Bros. vs. S. A. Brown , confirmation
of sale.
C. II. Fargo & Co. vs. Hiram W. Johnson.
K. W. Griswold vs. Jas. A. Everist.
CANDIDATE ANDREWS iu this big
Fifth congressional district will
not cast a single vote to Hie dis
credit of the district , of the stuie
or nation ; but his opponent , Mr.
McKeighan , will , just as he did at
the last session. Mr. Andrews is
for America and American institu
tions. Mr. McKeighan is for " \V. \
A. . McKeighau first , last , and all
the time. District , state or nation
are not in it , so far as any effort he
may make for their advancement.
Harvard Courier.
I
SHE BUYS CURTAD : :
DOROTHY SELECTS WINDOW DRAr
ERIES FOR HER BACK PARLOR.
And with Her Uttlo IVmlnlno "Fiat" SUr
Drive * a Largo Sired Splko Through u
McKlulcy High Trice Any Other V.'o-
tnan Jlay Ro us Kntcrprislng.
Dorothy had determined to have only
"real" things in her home , 3011 know ;
but when it came to lace- curtains for
her prospective back parlor , she had to
draw the line. They cost several hun
dred dollars a pair , and Dorothy's ship
has not como in. While we were con-
eidering the matter I saw a private let
ter from Marshall Field , the great Chicago
cage dry goods merchant , in which a
cleric said that such curtains as Dorotr
wanted cost "thirty-five cents more
yard than they did before the McKiulcy
bill. "
"And I don't believe it , " said L
"Neither do I , " said Dorothy.
"Let's look it up , " wo both said. Upon
which wo made up our minds that wo
wouldn't buy a stitch from anybody
who lied to us about "McKinley high
prices. "
My official tariff book ( you can get one
yourself by writing to Washington for
it ) tells me that the duty on lace curtains
has been raised from 40 to CO per cent
by the McKinley law.
"Why was it raised ? What was the
result of it ? " Dorothy and I wanted to
know. If we liked the answers we would
buy the curtains. If it was to make "the
rich richer" and "the poor poorer , " as the
Democrat papers claimed ( I have been
reading tariff literature lately ) , we should
certainly not be a party to that sort of
thing. If , as the Republican papers
said , this advance in duty was really a
benefit to the men and women who work
at curtain making and to the people who
buy them I should do everything in my
power to let the women of the country
know what unprincipled , selfish people
Democratic McKinley tale fabricators
are.
are.Wo -went to O'Neills on Sixth avenue
first. They had such curtains as wo
wanted , but the price was eighteen cents
a yard higher than before the McKinley
bill. Wo didn't deal with them.
Next we went to Simpson & Craw
ford's. A polite man said that "the price
of curtains had not been raised in that
store anyway by the McKinley bill. "
He laughed in a funny little way when
we asked the question , and seemed to
have something in mind which was a
good joke on somebody. Then ho said ,
"No , indeed , wo can't raise the prices on
Sixth avenue ; the people would get after
us if we did. "
"Then it isn't necessary to charge
more ? " persisted Dorothy.
"I wouldn't like to answer that , inits.
The wholesale people can tell you all
about prices. " Then he gave us the ad
dress of Mills & Qibbs , of Broadway and
Grand street.
"Yes , the duty has been raised , and
there was good reason for it , " said the
salesman at that store. "There are a
large number of factories trying to es
tablish themselves here , and they could
not compete successfully with imported
curtains made by laborers who work for
one-third offhat our curtain people are
paid. By raising the tariff the curtain
manufacturer can and does pay his
workmen enough to live comfortably ,
even luxuriously , as American citizens
should live. At the same time he can
compete with the imported curtains ,
even though the labor on them costs the
foreign maker but one-third as much. "
"Wh * th-it is clear ' '
} , as as daylight ,
said Dorothy. "But when I como to
think of it wo who buy lace curtai7is
have to pay that extra duty , don't we ? "
"No ; the foreign maker lowers his
workman's or workwoman's wages
enough to pay that duty. "
"Well , what keeps the American man
ufacturer from charging too much ? "
"Competition , miss ; sharp competi
tion , such as is stimulated by a fairly
high protection. "
"Well , then , " 1 put in , "why are not
the American workers' wages lowered
by this competition ? "
"Because there is a constant demand
for their services , and if one employer
doesn't do the right thing by a man he
can go to another. "
"Well , I think that tariff is the best
thing I know of for working people , and
I don't care if it does make the rich em
ployers keep their eyes wide open. It
seems to me that Mr. McKinley has
made the poor richer and the rich a
trifle more energetic , " I added.
"Now finally , " Dorothy went on , " 1
want to know the truth. Is curtain
muslin more expensive than it was be
fore the McKinley law went into ef
fect ? "
"No , it is as cheap , and in many in
stances cheaper. For , as I told you , the
foreign manufacturer pays that extra
duty. "
"Well , then , " Dorothy replied tri
umphantly , "please show me some white
lace curtains of fine net , with a fern pat
tern. "
We found what we wanted at four
dollars a pair ; they had been a trille
higher two years before. And Dorothy
had another treasure for that "home. "
On our way to the station we stopped
at Mr. Horner's gorgeous furniture store
on Twenty-third street to see about
some furniture , and Mr. Horner himself
told us that ho knew of a very large
concern "on tuo other side" that is com
ing to this country if Mr. Harrison is
elected. That would mean another bi-
factory here with employment for ever
co many people.
Oh , it would bo such a wicked thin/
if Grover Cleveland should bo electee.
The tariff would bo changed , and thru
would make it so hard for people vdi >
work "by the day. " Every woman ought
to realize that and influence her husband
to vote for the party that cares for tht
happiness of laborers.
Of course Dorothy and I don't kno.v
whether Marshall Field and Mr. O'Xfcii"
direct their clerks to belie the effect < ' "
the McKinley bill , but we think it i
"
pretty small "if the heads of dry goo <
concerns do sanction such dealing.
GRACE ESTHER DREW.
SPEAK.
HEY -TELL WHY THEY SUPPOR
HARRIaON FOR PRESIDENT.
Iiiitiortunt KiiggiMtlfiti * YVhlrJi 1C >
Ocriuan Volrr Will Ruml - Vie u- .
*
Prominent Genuuti-Aiiirririi.
The follov/ing letter addres-'cil to " .
voters of Gorman descent' ' has l > 'Hi i
su ud by it largo number of leading "
iiian-Americuii citizens of Now Yorl ; .
the grunt cornmrrrint mill In
dustrial Importatjco of tlitai > ! juarhIiiK pir l
flcntlnl election toourac'.opti-d futhiTliir.il. itinl
lioiuK fully convinced that tin * llopt. < lciui
party not only icpresentH the beat inti rrnts o'
tins nation. but is ever most actively uiiicatfed
to further them , the uiuloi > innel c-Ilfccat of
German descent have constituted tlieniboivt' *
a committee to work for the election of tl.r
Btaniliinl bearers of that party.Ve linvc i
cctivu connection with politico , but OH citi/i-in-
and business men who realize that the pn -
perity of this country is due to the wise emu
mercial policy of the Republican party , we
consider it our duty to filvo energetic exprrx-
siou to our convictions , and to oppose tl > o vague
theories of the free traders , which have no
substantial basis in fact.
The Republican party has , true to Its tradi
tions , declared Itself for the protection of our
industries and for honest money. The Demo
cratic party bos declared itself for unlimited
free trade and for a return to that daugerci
of state banks which in times
system pas > t ut-
fected our commerce so disastrously. It wo *
tin- small business man and the workman who
were chiefly Injured by that system , and it I *
these men who will bo injured if It is reintrn.
duccd.
Both free trade and protection have been
sufficiently tested. The direct consequence of
the free trade legislation of IKS was the mark
ed decline in our national prosperity , which
culminated in the great commercial crisis f
1837. Protection took the place of the tar.ilT
for revenuu only ; the country recovsrcd , com-
raerco and Industry thrived , till In 1840 tin
tan" It wo-s again reduced and the terrible pacir
of 1837 was the result. Again the people of I In-
United States declared for protection. TM
consequence woa a development of all our
national resources beyond the wildest expec
tation and a general prosperity such as ( lie
world had never seen before.
When Grover Cleveland , true to the reac
tionary principles of the Democratic party , de
clared himself for free trade in his message of
Dec. C. 1837 , the people , mindful of the bad ex
periences which it had made In the past with
free trade , rejected the Democratic party and
again intrusted the government of the nation
to the Republican party.
Never was the balance of trade bo favorable
to us as now ; never was the prosperity of the
whole country so general : never were the wage
earners to well off.
The legislative activity of the Fifty-first cur.
gressandtho shameful inactivity and uncer
tainty of the Fifty-second congress suQIcicntly
illustrated the difference between the parties.
Both the presidential candidates have been
tried by the people : both have served a full
presidential term : their administrations belong
to history.
Every reason given In the year 1883 for the
election of Harrison is valid today , only in a
higher degree. Through his firm stand on the
silver question ho saved the country from a
great financial crisis.
Disdaining grandiloquent promises and pre
ferring to gain the respect of his fellow citi
zens by a blameless administration. President
Harrison has fearlessly defended the honor
and dignity of the nation , and has once more
forced from foreign nations that respect for
the btars and btripes which had been almost \
entirely lost under Cleveland. Under Presi
dent Harrison civil service reform has been a
reality , while his appointments to the moM
prominent offices are admitted even by hit-
most bitter political enemies to be unassailable.
If we compare with this the administration
of Grover Cleveland , we find that In spite of
bombastic promises of reform in the civil
service , the spoilsmen never since the days of
Jackson raised their heads so boldly as when
Grover Cleveland , through Adlai E. Steven-
Eon. deposed 44,000 postmasters who liau
honestly and faithfully administered their
offices to make room for the Democratic place-
hunters who were to help him to a second
term of the presidency. Xot only has ilr.
Cleveland been untrue to all his pledges of re
form , but as a matter of fact ho has over
yielded to the worst elements of his partj
whenever his personal interests were at stake ,
and in this very campaign we find him allied
in the closest possible way with Tammany
Hall.
Hall.The
The letter is signed by Dr. William
Balser , C. F. Balzer , Julius Bien , Julius
Bien , Jr. , S. Bachman , Emil Berolzhei-
mer , Blumenthal Bros. & Co. , Dr. P. A.
E. Boetzkes , Julius Brunn , Gustav Blum
& Bros. , Henry Brennich , Herman Can
tor , George Dennerlein , Leopold Doutch-
berger , Alfred Dolge , Frederick Flac-
cus , P. Goepel , William F. Grell , F. W.
Hells , Charles Horn , C. A. G. Inte-
mann , Mas Jaegerhuber , Gustave L.
Jager , Gustave H. Jaeger , Sit. Carl
Kapff , Dr. Hermann Kudiich , Adolph
Kuttroff , William H. Klencke , S. .1.
Lesem. Lucius N. Littauer , Joseph
Loth & Co. , Charles Maurer ,
Paul H. Mehlien , Henry Merz , Carl
Merz , Dr. N. W. Muller , C. W. Neuling ,
George Rau , William Reichrnan , Henry
W. F. Schulz , Nicholas Schultz , Charles
Splitdorf , Charles Stahl , Moritz Seckal ,
Ralph Traufmann , Edward Vorster , Wil
liam Vigelius , Dr. H. J. Wackerbarth ,
William Wicke , Wurzburger , Gold-
echmidt & Co. , Henry Zimmerer ; from
Newark , Dr. Edward J. Ill , Fred Kuhn ,
J. L. Kufer , Herman Lehilbach , Carl
Lentz , Paul Roder , Carl F. Seitz , Julius
Stapff , R. G. Salomon , and from Brook
lyn , Louis Bossert , Herman Liebmann ,
Charles Naeher , John Rueger and H. C.
Roehr.
The AustraUan ballot which now pre
vails In nearly every state except those of
the south Is not popular with farmor-
and workinjjuien , and has thus kept tl o ,4
sands of Republicans away from the pol'-
The Republican leaders should at once
establish Australian ballot schools , so tin.
every Republican voter may ho at t'c
i polls and \oto Intelligently.
Business men should remember that a
vote for Cleveland means a vote to chanp-
the general business system of the country ,
and will certainly result in great business
uncertainties and irregularities for the
ncrt four years. Democratic success means
I Democratic control of senate , house and
presidency , and full reign of the free trade
loctiment.
If your business has been built up dur
ing the past thirty years a change In the
tariff system under which it has prospered
would at least result In great uncertain
ties and irregularities In the next four
years. Your vote and that of your nr-
quaintances may decide the condition of f
your husincss In th near future.
Republicans should remember that In
Qve states having soveaty-flve electoral
rotes a change of 1 per cent , of the votes
trill reverse the remit of 1888 In tboso
States-