Show AND SILVER IN OHIO campaign in ohio is now fairly geee so on the alt mr inley made the opening speech at a in it he sounded bounded the keynote the e battle so BO far as his party is con alpi jred d he treated favorably on the E lacy cy lese and left no room for as to his attitude in rel relation aaion to 77 free coir age of silver in hie his speech he said 1 I am in favor of the double standard but I 1 am not in favor of the free and ana unlimited coinage of silver in the united states until the nations of the world shall join us in guaranteeing to silver a status which their laws now accord to gold 0 id the double standard implies equality ft y at a ratio and that equality can only be established by the concurrent laws of nations it was the concurrent law of nations that made the double standard it will require the concurrent law of nations to reinstate and sustain it until then tor for us to decree the free and unlimited coinage of the worlds silver would ordain that our silver dollars would surely depreciate and gold would go goto to a premium 12 the wool question is also figuring largely in the ohio campaign and so complicated a phase has baa it assumed that it is much in the nature of a puzzle for the consideration of non partisans parti we give extracts from the speeches of party men on both sides in the speech already quoted from mr mckinley remarks there was much said by governor campbell in his speech at cleveland bout about a the low price of wool he stated correctly co and I 1 have no doubt by inadvertence ver tence that the farmer of ohio was only getting 20 cents a pound for his wool at the he time he be made this statement the farmer was receiving for his choice clips 28 and 29 cents the inference from his speech would be that the increased duty on wool is the cause of depressed prices if this be so then the tariff Is not a tax lax this was not the democratic doctrine in ohio in 1883 and 1884 they then believed that the tariff did help the rower and that a great outrage had teen been committed upon him when the duty was reduced 11 percent per cent by the tariff law of 1883 they so declared in a document issued by the democratic state committee of that year and demanded of the wool growers or the state that the party parly that c committed that great outrage should be defeated attebe a t the polls and I 1 may say in reir P passing assing 1 that they were defeated their 8 statement t A bement cashat the ohio wool grow erst ers bad been fleeced of by the reduction of 11 per cent of the duty the governor was one of those who believed it then the wrong of 1883 was righted at the first moment that the republican party secured control of congress and was not righted in all the years the democrats were in control the new law gives the wool grower better protection than he ever had before the wool of the world has fallen in price american tariffs do not fix the price of foreign wool but they do stand as a wall of defense to the american wool grower against the wool produced on cheaper lands and by cheaper labor in other countries As to the effects of the tariff on wools the quotations in bradstreet are given by some democratic papers showing that the price of foreign wools used for carpets and cheap woolens has increased under the mckinley bill while the price of american wools has decreased and that the increase in the former corresponds with the decrease in the latter other democratic papers shift the issue to the question of subsidy among these are the cleveland plain dealer which thus replies to mr mckinley we do not see how bow any supporter of the mckinley bill in its entirety can object to this proposition of a bounty on american grown wool eve every argument agu ent used in support of the sugar bounty bounty ap plies it m with equal force to a wool bounty 1 cg sugar was protected by a tariff tax so with wool the tariff protection failed to develop domestic sugar production in pro proportion pa artion to the needs of the country so with wool the policy of protection by tariff tax was abandoned in the case or of sugar and stimulation by bounties substituted if that policy licy is right cy aimed as to sugar as claimed by the McKinley ites why would it not be equally right in the case of wool can any McKinle tell why should the sugar cane planters of louisiana and the sugar beet growers of kansas and california be subsidized by the united states treasury and the sheep raisers of ohio be refused similar encouragement coura gement to continue otherwise an unprofitable industry why should the ohio barmer get two or four cents less for his wool than the treasury may give the louisiana or kansas farmer a gratuity of two cents a pound on his sugar the ohio wool grower might ask major mck inley that question |