When a farmer buys a dollar's worth of n...

When a farmer buys a dollar's worth of neat's-foot oil, he pays twenty-five. cents tarifF tax. If the Mills bilí should pass Congress, he would get that oil, which he now pays a dollar for, for seventy-five cents. Farmers will think of that. The board of supervisor? bestowed a well earnd compliment upon Mr. Gregory, Monday, when it reelected him chairman of the board. The people of this district will bestow another well-earned compliment upon Mr. üregory, when they send him to the legislature. Judge Dickson ot Cleveland, O., who dcclined a position in Lincoln's cabinet and who has been a life long repifblican has come out for Cleveland. In a letter to the Lincoln club he says that the republican party was not formed on the issue of protection and he approves the democratie position on the tariff. The republicans have nominated the author of the notorious unconstitutional, badly written, and loosely constructed local option lavv passed by the last legislature, for the senate in the Jackson and Hillsdalc district, throwing over Senator Sharp, au excellent man, who has served but one term. Chapman should be a badly defeated man, it he is running ín a republican district. Mr. Louden will make a firstclass legielator. He has the requisie common sense, edticational ana business qualitics. He stands for the interest of the people. There is no question of his election and the people of his district who desire their representative to stand well in the legislatura should ,see that he gcts a tremendous majority. It will aid him in getting a good place on committeer, by showing what the people who have had a chance to know him, think of him. For judge of probate in this county, the people will this year elect a man in every way quahfied for the duties of the office. Mr. J. W. Babbitt will make an excellent judge. He possesses all the requisite legal knowledge. It requires considerable legal knowledge to settle complicated estates according to law. 1 his fact should secure for Mr. Babbitt the vote of every independent voter in the county. He has well earned the reputation of being sale counsel and a safe counsellor is jusl the man for probate judge. The. (Jourier reports Rcpvesentative Allen as saying in his recent speech at the rink that an Argus correspondent had called him "a log hom. Not so; the Argus corresponik-nt only spoke oí him as "he of the log horn" - a merely humorous reference to the fact that Mr. Allen tor two sessions of the legislature occupied a seat in the famous "fog horn eorner" of the house; ihe name having been given said corner because ot the good lungs and powerful vocal organs of the occupants, Messrs. Allen and Savvyer being two of them. The Adrián Times asks the people of Adrían to hokl in grateful ïemembrance the fact that the VVabash rail rond gave millionaire Alger and trust defender Blaine free rides on their road from Detroit to Adrián. Alger and Blaine can afford to pay for their rides. Aside from this, io strikes us that they are the ones to be grateful and not the citizens of Adrián, whom the road charges three cents a mile for travelling. The Courier has a bad case ot hysterics because the Chelsea postmaster instead of dropp:ng the Couriers sent to that office which were declined by the persons to whom they were addressed, into the waste basket, notified the proprietor as by law he is directed to do, that the papers remained not taken from the office. We don't wonder the Courier feels bad because people don't want their paper, but the fault lies vvith the people and not the postmaster. If" the Courier were a little more carcful in writing its editorial squibs, to keep on the side of w'h'at it believea to be trúe, the people might feel about it. To show how the present tariff laws discrimínate in favor of the rich, we need only take the tariíFon woolen goods. The tariff tax on woolen goods worth less than 80 cents a pound, is $S9.84 on $100 worth of goods. The tax on woolen goods worth over So cents a pound is only $68.91 on $100. In other words, the lowcr priced woolen goods are taxed a higher percentage than the higher priced goods. The higher priced goods are worn by the rich, who can afiord to pay more, but the republicans seem to legislate in favor of the rich. The Mills bill seeks to reduce the tax to $-o on $100 worth of goods, whether high or low priced. The democrats do not want to tavor the rich as against the ooor. Iï is the stock in trade of certain republican speakers and writers to champion the cause of "old soldiers," and denounce the president for vetoing the dependent pension blil and numerous private pension bilis. Of the veto of the dependent pension bil!, Senator Quay, chairman of the republican national committee, saic in the Philadelphia Bulletin Fehuary I9th, 1887: "The men who die the actual fighting and have some pride in their record resent the idea of being pauperized. That veto message is the best thing that Presi dent Cleveland has set his hand to and if I was in the senate now ] would vote to sustain it." Quay hac been elected senator, and spoke as one in authority. His words ough to silence the whole brood of stree corner orators. The republicans have commencec a campaign of mud-slinging in this congressional district and probablv with Capt. Allen's ' express connivance. It indicates that they now realize that Capt. Allen's chances o: a re-election are poor and it makes them desperate. They attack VVillard Stearn's military record anc seek to dishonor a brave soldier They should remember what folio wed a similar attack made by the Detroit Tribune upon Judge Morse, who received 30,000 majority. Mr. Stearns is a member of Woodbury Post, ü. A. R. He was honorably discharged from the service. None but honorably discharged soldiers can become members of the G. A. R. üur grand army friends will 110 doubt see to it that the dirty mudslinging against a member of their order in good standing is fittingly rebuked. We cohfess that we are sadly disappointed in Capt. Allen that he should for a moment countenance such attacks in his newspaper organs. Havirig countenanced it, he should suffer the penalty. Let the slinging of mud be rebuked at the polls. Capt Alken is gunning for prohibition votes, and at the same time he has his weather eye open for antiprohibition votes. He is striving to ride two horses. During his speech last Friday evening in this city, he too'k occasion, we are told, to accuse the Argus of throwing mud at hino because we called atuntion a few weeks ago to the fact that the Adrián Lance, the prohihition organ of this district, was praising Alienas a very good temperance man. Now th ere is no mdsLnging in this statement. It was amply a statement of fact. Allen wants to be known as a temperance man in Lenawee and Hillsdale, and he doesn't accuse the Lance of thiowing mud at him for saying it in those cQunties, but because the Argus, which circulates in Washtenaw, quotes the statement, it is mud slinging. We have hitherto abstained trom comment, but Mr. Allen's false accusation that we edit our papur with the shears, ;ts he edits his speeches, opens the way for comment 'o prove to Mr. Allen's own satisfaction that the Argus is not all 'shearings." The Lance does not distinguihh Mr. Allen from other temperance men merely because he is températe personally. Mr. Stearns, his opponent, is personally as strong a temperance man as Mr. Allen, if by temperance is meant personal abstinence from drinking liquor. But if by temperance is meant the cating of local option nd sumptuary aws, then Mr. Allen's recorrí and Mr. Stearns' difFer. Mr. Allen now jats the saloon-keeoers on the back, ells them how many good friends ie has among them, and in the sume sreath claims that we assume to deny nim the right to be a temperance man. And yet Mr. Allen lias made speeches advocating the denial of the right of choosing to be tetotalers or not to other men. VVhat we say is tfiat Mr. Allen is not consistent. He wants votes. He doesn't care how he gets them. He was elected by drawing prohibition and anti-prohibition votes, and now he is dodging around trying the saine game again. It won't woik this time, Mr. Allen. Stand up on your platform like a man and don't whimper. IIon. Mr. Ali.en, Mr. Blaine, Mr. Applegate, or any other sheepsh talker, just explain this fact. By the special report on wool industries issued by the treasury department in 18S7, page 164, yoti will find a statement showing the number of sheep i 11 Michigan cach year from 1875 to 18S7. It is as folio ws: 1S75 3,410,500 1S76 ■ . . 3,lfü.CUl 8,11)0,000 l,T3U,0U0 1.N20.000 1888 1 ' 1881 .- 1 1882 - a,i)20,UUÜ 1883 ---- 8,438,70 18fi 2.412.420 1886 :■' 1886 8.2 1887 8,166,127 Now, gentlemen, just teil the people what caused a loss ot 1,350,600 sheep from '76 to '77? Was it the Hayes fraud that made even the sheep unwilling to increase, ave, worse - unwilling to live? When you get that explained, Mr. Allen, just teil how in 188 there was another decrease of 350,000 sheep. In two years, with the same tariff, Michigan lost fifty per cent. of her sheep. What caused it? You teil the people in your congressional speech, Mr. Allen, that by reason of the tariff of 1883 (a republican measure, too) there had been a decrease in the number of sheep to the extent of ten per cent., or over four millions, in the country. The foregoing table shows that from '84 to '87 the decrease was 256,293 less than ten per cent. It shows, too, that in 1884 there were nearly a million less sheep than in 1875 in Michigan. The same table shows that Texas had 71958,275 sheep in 1884, and only 4,761.831 in 1887. Here is a decrease of more than 3,200,000, nearly fifty per cent. Yet Texas, with twice the number of Michigan sheep, cast eleven votes for free wool. Does that strike at Michigan or Texas most? Talk right out in meeting, gentlemen. Explain how it is that in 1875 the western states had 15,301,300 sheep, and in 1879 only 11,807,400, with tariff the same. What caused a loss of three and a half millionof sheep in those four years? It was something over 20 per cent., you see. Yet in 1883 the number was 15,638,829, anti in 1887, four years later, under the tariff reduction of 1883, it was 14,332,528, a loss of 1,306,301, or less than ten per cent. Why is it that California had 7,403,864 sheep in 1S81, and only 5,907,680 in 1883, or anet loss of 1,300,000 in two years? It is nearly 20 per cent. Why was it that in i884, the next year after the tariff rrduction, California had 6,203,964 sheep, an increase of some 300,000, and in 1887 had more sheep than in 1883? Perhaps you can juggle these figures to prove that the tariff affects the flocks. If so, give the public the