BALANCE OF TRADE-Continued.

REPUBLICANS.

The Republicans came into power in 1861 by the inauguration of President Lincoln. The balance of trade in 1862 gave us an excess of a little more than $1,000,000, but the results of the civil war drove trade against us by reason of the Southern blockade of more than one-half of the Atlantic coast; while we were compelled to buy from foreign governments more than one-half of all the munitions of war, together with clothing, blankets, and other equipments necessary to maintain the Government in the support of the great army it constantly kept in the field. From 1866 to 1873 was the period of enlarged credit, and not only improved in the United States, but by which the Government attempted to rehabilitate and restore that which was lost by reason of the great rebellion. With the extension of railroads, the improvement of rivers and harbors, together with the thousands of private enterprises that were carried on, we sent to foreign governments the credit of State, nation, and individual, instead of the absolute products of the field and shop, and by 1876 we had reached the period of enlarged improvement, sufficient to become again a competitor in the world's trade. So that from the close of the year 1875 to the close of the year 1885, we held the balance of trade in more than $1,500,000,000, by which we recovered in ten years, under Republican control, more than we lost in fifty-six years under Democratic control. The following table will show what was accomplished by the Republicans during the time they administered the Government:

Table showing balance of trade under Republicans, 1862 to 1885, and 1890 to 1893.

BALANCE OF TRADE-Continued.

Table showing balance of trade under Republicans, etc.—Continued

It is a notable fact that for ten years, from 1875 to 1885, the Republicans never had less than $72,000,000 of a surplus in any one year, except in 1882, when it fell to $25,000,000, reaching the enormous sum of $259,000,000 in 1881, while Grover Cleveland at the close of his second year, in 1887, found the balance of trade to be against us to the amount of $28,000,000. President Harrison as soon as inaugurated, with the balance of trade against us, brought this trade back to us, so that the third year of his administration gave us $202,000,000 of an excess of exports over that of imports. A study of these tables will show what the Republicans and the Whigs have been able to accomplish, as against the Democrats, in the holding of the balance of trade. The following resume is given for convenience:

The Federalists lost annually for twelve years $10.826.563, or in all $129,918,756.

The Whigs controlled the Government for eight years, with inports amounting to $158,878,331 and a total of exports of $47,336,375, which gives an annual loss in the excess of imports over exports of $13,942,744.

The Democrats had control for fifty-six years prior to Cleveland's present term, in which they show a gain of exports of $171,949,891

BALANCE OF TRADE-Continued.

against a loss in the imports of $1,005,994,182, making the annual loss by the Democrats for the whole fifty-six years $14,893,648.

The Republicans had control for twenty-eight years, in which they show a gain in the excess of exports of $1,875,856,715 against a loss in the imports of $1,124,741,034, or an annual gain in the excess of exports of $26,825,560.

Making a final showing in favor of the Republicans with $26,000,000 of a gain against $14,000,000 of a loss with the Democrats, or $12,000,000 of a loss with the Whigs annually.

BARLEY AND BARLEY MALT-Imports.

The production of barley in Wisconsin in 1890 was 12,524,757 bushels. As Canada sent us that year 11,000,000 bushels of barley, under the duty of 10 cents existing prior to October 1, the average price for the year on the Milwaukee Board of Trade was 481⁄2 cents, making the value at Milwaukee of the crop of 1890 $6,074,507. The next year the price of barley in the same market had advanced to an average of 62 cents per bushel, owing to the tariff of 30 cents per bushel fixed by the McKinley bill. The crop of barley of the year 1891, if the acreage and yield had been the same, would have had a value of $7,765,473, and the farmers of Wisconsin would have received for their crop of barley, by reason of the practical development, by the McKinley bill, of the Republican theory of “American markets for American farmers," more money by $1,690,966

BARLEY-Continued.

than they actually did receive under the tariff of 10 cents a bushel, which is 30 per cent. higher than the tariff on the Wilson bill. Here is an example of protection to the American farmer by a tariff law which benefits the farmers of Wisconsin by increasing the proceeds of sale of the crop of one cereal only, and for one year only, by nearly $1,700,000.

Will some advocate of free trade please explain how this benefit to the producer was paid by the ultimate consumer, as the beer glass in 1891 was just as large as in 1890, and the beverage was sold at the same old price of 5 cents per glass?

The tariff act of 1890 advanced the duty on barley from 10 to 30 cents per bushel and the imports of barley fell off from 10,000,000 bushels to less than 2,000,000 in 1893. During the time this law was in operation the farmers of the United States increased their barley product 15,000,000 bushels over the average for eight years. The increase in one year was worth to the farmers over $6,000,000. which is one of the items that has gone to swell the balance of trade against the United States in the past year and a half of Democratic tariff. In the past twenty years, from 1873 to 1893, the production of barley has increased nearly 118 per cent., from 32,000,000 in 1873 to 69,869,000 in 1893.

The Wilson law reduced the duty to 30 per cent. ad valorem, or less than 14 cents per bushel. The effect will be noticed in the increased importations.

Heretofore Canada has been our greatest competitor in the barley market, but since the Democratic tariff went into operation the Russians have begun exporting barley to this country, and unless the duty is restored she will prove a formidable competitor. For a period of seven years, from 1881 to 1887, the average export value of Russian barley was 35 cents per bushel at the port of shipment. At the above price the Democratic tariff would add 10%1⁄2 cents, and about 4 cents a bushel for freight would make the price at New York 492 or 50 cents per bushel. It is known that Russia is ready to produce barley much cheaper than this, and unless the duty is restored the Western farmer will find his former well-established and compensatory prices reduced to a figure that will make the raising of barley far from profitable.

But the farmers of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and the Dakotas have still a greater rival to fear than Old Canada and Russia, if the present duty on barley is to remain. In the far northwest, on the

BARLEY-Continued.

other side of the British boundary line, lies a stretch of country 1,500 miles wide, where the Dominion Government is offering every inducement to settlers. The season is so short that only crops grown in least possible time will ripen before the fall frosts. Barley is one of these crops. The possibilities of production are unlimited. Since the Democratic tariff law was passed thousands of acres of this country have been devoted to barley, and millions of acres will follow if it is to remain.

No. 26.

BASE BULLION,

Gold or silver bullion not fit for coinage by reason of the presence of base metals until refined.

No 27.

BELGIUM,

In Belgium the standard is gold and silver; the monetary unit is the franc; the value in United States coin is $0.19.3; the coins are gold: 10 and 20 francs; silver: 5 francs. The ratio between gold and full legal tender is 1 of gold to 15% of silver; limited tender 1 of gold to 14.38 of silver.

No 28.

BIMETALLISM DEFINED.

The use of the two metals as standard money at relative values set by legislative enactment; the union of two metals in circulation as money at a fixed ratio. Specifically, that system of coinage which recognizes both coins of silver and coins of gold as legal tender to any amount, or the concurrent use of coins of two metals as a circulating medium at a fixed relative value.

BIMETALLISM-The Use of Both Gold and Silver as Money, the Issue for which the Repub- · lican Party are to Contend in 1896.

No. 29.

Of the three possible measures, namely, gold monometallism, silver monometallism or bimetallism, a large majority of the people of the United States unquestionably favor the bimetallic measure. It is the middle ground between the ultra-factional elements as well as the historical and constitutional ground. The language of the Republican platforms from 1884 are here quoted in proof of the declared purpose of the party to maintain gold and silver coin at a parity: