A Political Party Must Indeed Be In A

bad Wy, when such a man as David B. Hill is one of its prominent candidates for the presidency. To Ohio Democrats : Read ex-Gov. Foraker's recent arraignment of your party's course in Obio, and then vote the straight ticket without a blush, if y ou can. And now unprejudiced citizens of Chicago do not hesitate to say that Mayor Creeier's administration is even worse than that of the malodorous Carter Harrison. Roche may not have entirely satisfied the reforniers, but Roche was an angel with alíalo, compared with the present incumbent Saloon-keepers, gamblers aud thugs 6eem to have their own way now, as they never did before.and this "Democracy I" There must, indeed, be a talismanic attraction in that word. Otherwise, how could Chicago continue to trust her affaire to a party which has so foully disgraced itself in all previous municipal history? Those Demócrata who are continually aaserting that the present administration is a partÍ8an one appear not to have inepectedthe congressional records very carefully. In previous years, nearly all election contests, when the Democrats have been in the majority, have been decided by a strictly partisan vote. This session, out of sixteen contested electionf, the Republicans have settled six in favor of the Democratie claimantsand the ten incumbents, who were ousted, so evidently owed their places to fraud that the majority party could not but unseat them. In view of these facts, the talk about the " high-handed majority " seems like the rant of a demagogue. Vkry eloquent is the following utter. anee of the colored men's Southern Republican Association : " The best form of government is a republie, but the worst form of citizenship is disfranchised citizens in a republican form of government. That such a deplorable condition (disfranehised citizenship) is the fate of the colored citizens in the eouth, is now admitted by both political parties. We do not seek domination over the white people of the south; we seek participation as citizens in the government of the south, and the full enjoyment of every political right recorded by the constitution and laws of the United States." What have the Hemocrats to say to this? Im his recent speech against the original paekage bill, Congressman Chipman made an eloquent plea in behalf of the liquor interest, or, as he stated it, in behalf of "personal liberty." And now thousands of citizens would like to know just what the brilliant judge means by "personal liberty." The majority of people, now-a-days, do not attach any meaning at all to the term. It is a word whicli has a different signification, accordin to the inclination of him who uses it. The interests of society as a whole, and not of the mere selfish individual, are, or ought to be, the controlling forces in matters of government, and the sooner our legislators learn this truth, the better it will be for the nation. Evidkniia' the negro in the South is still a slave in fact, if not in theory. A number of blacks, who were cmployed by a white planter in Louisiana, took a notion, recently, of going to Arkansas, ■without asking permission of their " master." They went, but were soon intercepted by a number of the planter's friends, who tried to restmin them. Naturally enough, the negroesresisted - and soon tive black corpses lay on the ground. A few of the remainder escaped, but the majority were carried back to the plantation. The white uien who perpetrated this atrocious deed were of good families and ostensibly civiüzed. In the west the red man accasionally massacreshis white brethern, and we send United States troops to hunt him down and bring him to justice, but when white maseacres black evidently the only result is increased social distinction for the perpetrator of the crime. The free-trade organs of the country learn nothing from experience. Kven the election of 1888 did not convince them. as it should have done, that it is impossible to mislead the farmers. They are continually stating principies, appealing to prejudice and even prepiring columns of figures, in an attempt to convince the agricultural class that things "are not what they seem." One of the statements most frequently made by Democratie newspapeis is that the "bloated" manufacturera of this country are selling goods more cheaply to foreigners than to native citizens. A recent number of the New York World attempts to prove tbis in a long article, which refera to an industry carried on in this city. The writer claims tha the Ann Arbor Agricultural Company quotes prices as folllows : Uil II iUt !t Advance plow $ 00 J18 00 Advanceplow 4 00 8 00 Hay-tedder _ S0 00 45 00 Mower 40 00 65 00 Horee rake 17 00 25 00 Cumming feed-cutter, No.3. 60 00 90 00 Ann Arbor cutter, No. 2 28 00 40 00 Ann Arbor cutter, No. 1 16 00 28 00 Clipper cutter 9 50 18 00 Lever cutter 4 25 8 00 Cultivator 22 00 30 00 Sweep 60 00 90 00 A representative of The Register recently called on Mr. Moore, at the Agricultural Works, for the purpose of finding out just how much truth the foregoing table contained. He soon became convinced that the New York World had been guilty of intentional misrepresentation. The prices in the first column, as Mr. Moore explained, are wholesale prices and are always uniform, whether given to American or to foreign dealers. Those in the second column, (which, by the way, are several years o!d and therefore higher than they are at the present time) are retail primes to American consumera. The difference between these various amounts goes to the jobber and retailer, in the form of jiroflts. The manufacturer's price being uniform, the cost to the consumer is determinad by competition among the various dealers in these goods, and, therefore, is not at all dependent upon any coinbination of manufacturers. It is, furthermore, a fact well established, that the retail price of all agricultural itnplements sold in South America and in other countries is considerably higher than it is in the United States. Mr. Moore showed The Register two bilis which illustrate this general statement. The company recently sold one No. 2 cutter to a Toledo firm for $15.75, while the same article was sold to aCanadian dealer for $16.00. The tariff imposed at the frontier was $3.20, so the cutter must have cost $19.20. Just what the farmer consumer finally paid for it cannot, of course, be ascertained here, but it mustbe evident to all that the American has a great advantage over the Canadian. Says the Farm Implement News: " We have ceived over thirty letters from prominent manufacturera, Republicans and Demócrata, and they unanimously sustain our position that these goods cost the foreign farmer more tban they do the American farmer." That this must necessarily be true is seen from the fact that no other country in the world can produce agricultural implements so cheaply as can the United States. An ordinary mower, the manufacture of which costs. in this country, from $40 to $50, costs, in England, no less than $80. American farmers pay from $18 to $25 for a hay-rake, France and England are compelled to pay from S40 to $50 for the sameimplement. A No.40Oliver plow, in the United States, sells for $14; in England a machine of the same quality costs from $16 to $18. All these facts go to show that, with regard to agricultural implements, at least, the tariff is not a tax. If it were, it is very evident that a plow which sells for $16 in England would sell for about$21 in the United States. Atany rate it would command more than $16. The truth is that the manufacturera of agricultural implements in thia country are in no wise affected by the tariff. They do not care particularly whether duties are levied on their producís, at all, but they do protest against theunfounded aasertion, now so frequently made, that the tariff has enabled theni to fleece the farmer.