Suppose- mind, now, we are only supposin...

Suppose- mind, now, we are only supposing - suppose - don't forget that this is merely hypothetical - suppose that Bruce Goodfellow had actually slugged Pingree under the belt, what would have been the result of the blow? - on the fall election, of course. The old dame, city of Detroit, should at once invest in a spanking machine. Bad boys Pingree and Goodfellow need to be taken across the parental knee and vigorously 'paddled," They arejlarge enough and should know better to engage in such unseemly scraps as that of last Friday. It is reported that the question was last Thursday put to Henry O. Havemeyer, president of the notorious sugar trust, as towhat schedule the trust really preferred and he unhesitatingly replied "McKinley's." This indicates pretty conclusively which party is regarded as the better friend of the sweet monopoly, the republican organs to the contrary notwithstanding. No one understands better than Mr. Havemayer that the continuance of the government bounty to the trust is dependent soley upon the scantiness of the democratie majority in the senate. The great maiority of the democratie senators are opposed to the infamy but being under duress, are forced to yield. Unable to budge the senate from its firm stand, the house has at last passed the tariff bilí as it carne from the other house. It is better than the McKinley bilí. It is not all that the house wanted. The house is democratie. It represents the people. It promptly passed a sweep ing relief bill. The republlcans in the senate, aided by three or four democrats, have largely thwarted the will of the people. The house has done all that it could. On the republican party and on the heads of those democratie senators who acted with that party, rests the suppression of the people's will. They will renew the struggle and never rest till the glorious hour that shall witness the triumph of tariff reform. It will come. It will be a fight to a finish, and the people will win it. Let no democrat lose heart. After a prolonged but convenient absence from Chicago, the alleged possessor of an Italian marquisate, Hon. Gep. M. Pullman, has rolled back to the city in his private palace car. During his absence he has achieved wide notoriety and being a financial upstart of the kind who consider money an equivalent for anything, and a good republican, his next ambition should be a seat in the United States senate. He is unquestionably of the proper clay to become "one of a feather" with the republican membership of that body and their few democratie assistants. His opportunities for indulging "the people be damned" spirit would be far greater as a member of the senate than as dent of the Pullman Palace Car ompany. Of course this honor would come high, but he has the money wrung from the necessities of his workmen, and besides he could readily recoup himself at the the expense of the people by "standing in" with the sugar trust and the coal and iron monopolies. His candidacy for a senatorial toga would be most fitting. Hon. T. C. Brooks, of Jackson, in formally withdrawing his name as a republican candidate for con gress in this district, gives as the first of his reasons that his friends "seem certain that they can elect any man who may be nominated at the approaching convention." It is most likely, indeed, that either Mr. Brooks or the printer has made an error; for with little doubt, the Honorable Mayor of Jackson, intended to insert the word "not" before "elect." The Argus makes this amendment and wishes to say that the other reasons why he will not run were very unnecessarily stated. An Irishman,who proposed to offer sixteen reasons why his rather was not in court, the first being that his father was dead, and therefore could not well appear, was excused by the judge from ofïering the remaining fifteen reasons on the ground that the first was quite sufficient. Mr. Brook's first reason, as amended, was ampie. This is a time of unprecedentedly low prices for agricultural s'taples ind relatively high prices for manuEactured producís. It is a time, therefore, when farmers especially should take their hearings and examine critically into the causes of existing conditions. In so far as the low prices of agricultural products result from the great law of supply and demand there is no remedy in sight, but to the extent to which the relatively high prices of manufactures result from discriminating legislation, there is a remedy and farmers owe it to themselves to see that it is applied. There is no doubt but that the recent introduction of labor-saving machinery into Argentine, Russia, India, Egypt and other agricultural regions has brought our farmers into a competition which has reduced the prices of certain staples below the profit point. How are they to meet this competition, for meet it they must, so long as they produce a surplus for export. A protective tariff cannot aid them, as it has been tried and prices of farm staples have constantly tended downward while tariff rates have as constantly mounted upward, and besides a tariff cannot protect an export anyway. A protective tariff in general results in enhanced prices only when it can be so applied as to restrict competition. This is done by shutting out foreign competitors wholly or in part and by forming trusts and combines at home for the purpose of crushing [out competition among home producers and restricting production and thereby raising and keeping up prices. None of these means for forcing up prices are available with the farmers, however, on account of the enormous surplus of their products; their great numbers and wide separation and consequent inability to combine; and their comparative poverty rendering it impracticable for them to hold their products with the view of securing enhanced prices. It is impossible also for the farmers to reduce their product to the home requirements alone. A large surplus must constantly be produced and this surplus is exported and its price is in no way governed or even influenced by the United States tariff, but is fixedin the world's free trade market. England is the chief purchaser of our surplus agricultural staples and, of course, the hïghest price she will pay is the price our farmers are obliged to take not only for their surplus, but for what is consumed at home as well. Now the price she will pay is the lowest price at which she can supply her wants in any country of the world. Our surplus farm products are sold, therefore, in competition with the lowest price at which they can be had in the other countries of the world. The pool free trade price, less cost of transportaron, is the price our farmers receive for their surplus stales, and when this is once fixed, it s the price of the quantity that is consumed at horae as well. Thus it is that our farmers are orced to sell in the free trade mareet of the world, in competition with the poorest paid labor of the world, whjle they are forced to buy n a highly protected or restricted market. ín other words, they are orced to sell in the cheapest and )uy in the dearest market. And since they sell at free trade prices and buy at artificially enhanced prices, they pay the cost of protection to home manufacturers. This is a monstrous injustice, and accounts in large degree for the condition of the agricultural classes today. Now since there is no way for our farmers to avoid direct competition with the producís of cheaper lands worked by cheaper labor familiar I with the use of the most improved I labor-saving agricultural machinery, what remedy is there for present conditions? There is no remedy in a protective tariff, since that is the very instrument which compels the farmer to pay enhanced prices for manufactured goods, and henee results in diminishing the purchasing power of farm producís. The only practicable solution of the difficulty for the farmer, since he is obliged to sell his produets in the cheapest markets, is to allow him to buy also in the cheapest markets. This would result from the removal of all protective duties on manufactured goods.