THE REMEDY. 737 



reduced say 20 per cent, by the bill, a saving on the item 

 of 53 cents a month. The reduction of tax on tobacco 

 would not help him, as it will be seen from his expense 

 account, nothing is counted for tobacco or strong drink. 

 No other reduction would reach him. 



Saved on sugar per month .... 15 cents. 

 Saved on clothing per month ... 53 cents. 



Total 68 cents. 



"Now, just how this is going to bring prosperity to 

 him is more than we can understand. What he wants is 

 fifty or sixty dollars a month, instead of $28.60, and under 

 the law of supply and demand, the only way to give it to 

 him is to increase the supply of money.'* 



This table would apply equally well to the farmer. 

 L,et every farmer take the tariff schedule or the rate of 

 reduction proposed by the Mills bill, and apply it to such 

 things as he buys, which are effected by the tariff, and see 

 what it costs him. Then let him count the difference in 

 the price of what he has to sell, when money was plenty 

 and now, and determine by that test which is the greatest 

 issue. Twenty years ago money was plenty and prices 

 good. The people, individually, were practically out of 

 debt. The mortgage was a rare thing. We had as high 

 a protective tariff then as now. Why was it not felt then? 

 We paid much higher prices for goods then than we do 

 now. If a tariff keeps the price of goods up, why is it 

 that they are much cheaper now than then? Although 

 the price of everything that the farmer had to buy was 

 much higher then than now, we did not feel it to be a bur- 

 den. Why? Because with a sufficient volume of money 

 in circulation we got a just reward for the products of our 

 labor. 



Why was it not said then that the tariff question was 



