The Canadian Crescent. (Canadian, Tex.), Vol. 1, No. 42, Ed. 1 Thursday, August 16, 1888 Page: 3 of 8
eight pages : ill. ; page 19 x 13 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
i a
■■ '
üfiü
Af/ERICAN TARIFF LAWS.
•I
ft
-
¿i*
*
t
■>
n
.íí
[i
I I
v
*.?
;
if i
it
%
. i
A Completo Historical Review of Ail Acts
Relating to the Subject.
In answer to numerous inquiries I
propose to compile the shortest pos-
sible complete history of the American
turiir system. The first tariff was
passed the 4th of July, 1789, the last
one the 3d of March, 1883. Including1
these two there have been fifty-five
tariff acts passed in ninety-nine years.
Most of them did not make radical
changes in the tariff. The tariffs
usually considered the most important
by historians were passed as follows,
and they have all been named, also, as
follows:
Hamilton tariff 1789
Calhoun tariff v 1816
Í-1 ay tariff ..18^4
Abomination tariff 1828
Compromise tariff 1333
^ big: tariff.... ...•............ .... .... •• ••«. 1842
"Walklr tariff 1846
Morrill tariff 1861
The general effects of these various
tariffs, and of the modifications made
in them between times, may be traced
in the following- table, which shows the
average rate of tax paid on all taxed
imports for each year since 1791.
There was always a free list—always
absolute free trade in many things—
but here are the average rates for the
year on the things actually taxed:
Year.
Per cent.¡Year.
Per
1791
34 16
1792
.. .... .. * 11.54j1842 ........
2 ">.81
1793
14.68 1843
29.19
1794
17.10 1844
36.88
179
11
• • *i f ••••It • *
184ó
34 45
. . . . . . . .
1796
i •> no
• • .... . • • . i v
184 5
.... ....33.3o
1797
1847
. 28.03
17i>8
19.99
1848
26a>8
1799
19.70
1849
26.11
1800
17 4->
• • •••• •••• N
18"0
07 14
1801
• « •••• ....1 ^ 1
1Sol ........
26.64
1802
• • •••• • • •. ^'
18o2
07 OJ
. • • . . • . Arf é . OO
1803
Q, i V'
•• « • • , . . A#
18 >3
.... ....*>5.93
181*4
7f>
1 S.>. .... ....
.... .... <cO.61
18
19.19
1853
.... .... «Ü.
1806
•>1 22
• • «••• .... *
1856
26.05
1807
20.09
1s37
22.40
1*08
37.2*
18.18
22.43
1809
1859 ...
..19 56
1810
11.07
is60
.... «...1.1.61
1811
• • ... • *•*. ^o.b2
1861
........18.84
IwlO
¿OlV a • • a .4
• • • • • • .... 1
1 m)2 .... ....
........ 36.-.0
1813 ...
69.03 1863
32.62
1814
46.7".) ¡1864
30.69
1S15 .... .
..•• .... 1 . . . « ••••
........ 41. •
1806
48.35
2817
O'l
. • . . . . •«•« V X V1'
5867
4>.67
181s
«••• .... 1b. i H
1868
48.63
1819
1869
.47.22
18~'0
.. • . . • . . . • ^ V/. \j *j
1810 ........
47.08
1821
30 00
• • .... ....
1871
.... ....43.9*"j
1
. . a • .
97 1H
• * «••• ••• a i • i y
j 8 -3
39.21 ¡1873
1824
... 50.21 |l874
.... ....38 *>3
IS Jo .....
... .... ..• .5().w4|]87o .... ....
40.68
1826 ....
49.26jl876
44.74
1827
.. .. 42 89
1828
...........47..;9
1878
42.75
18.9
... .... ..«.o1.18
18i.... ....
44.87
1830
...........01.6*^
1831 ....
47
1812 ....
42.96
1882
42.66
1833
• • • • • • •••• /
1883
42.45
1834
• • • • • . • • 40,1Í)
18 35
1S8>
45.86
1836
....... ....31.94
1886
.... .... 4.). oO
1837
29.18
1887
47.10
1838
... ........41.3* 1
Estimated average
1839
rate under Mills'
18*0
bill
40.r0
for (n. o. p.). Into these n. o. p. clauses
are dumped the articles of each great
class which the tax-payers couldn't
think of or were afraid they couldn't
with sufficient accuracy describe in
their proper places. The taxes they
laid on these were of necessity simple
and usually ad valorem, and furnish a
key to the mind of the legislator. If
he laid a tax of 20 per cent, on cottons
44n. o. p.*' you may well guess that he
thought he was putting about an aver-
age of 20 per cent, on the cottons he
did provide for. In the following table
I occasionallv make this use of the n.
o. p. classes, but always with the let-
ters attached:
5£ tS r x oo X'.' xx cc - •
CO 5Í Ci w* 4 r, OC < y fw — ^ s tí 0 -J d oc
• • • • • • .ill ••••« .
• • • • • yi* •
• • • • — —. y? • x • - M.
• • • . • • . • • • • oc ^ * • . • .
* • • . • . .... . . • . . .
• • . . • • ^ .... ••*...«
• • • •••• «.
• • •
• • • .*.•••••• ••••« .
• • • ... ••.. . ••••...
• • . . ..•*««« •**•••.
* • • ........a • a . • . a .
E?s
£ >
> 0
M-í
1 —1
ó m re ft « -scooscoiocase ococotccoí«ra¡
Raw cot-
ton per
lb.
? \ Cotton
Si 0 SSÍ QOOfls
*? £ ¡ per cent.
. . 1 I fSifli? JS?
8 S S &£Stic¿*¡£üZ SSSSSSSI P<T eent-
Woolen
goods pe r
cent.
^ Mixed ZZSSgSm® SSSS-oa.c*
Woolen
blankets.
. *; 1 ® a <7 o core era
Wood, 11 ri-
ma 11 f d,
n. 0. p.
, ; Wood ma-
S t? 8 nufacVd
i n.o.p.
¡£ £
Iron man-
n.facta' s
n. 0. p.
Steel man-
ufaciu's
n. 0. p.
Flax ma n-
ufactu' s
n. 0. p.
& S 8 íf«^ftnda2J n'0'
percent. £ i *•
en
£ 0 en «Ñ
Earthen-
ware.
k;
The reader will be surprised to ob-
serve that the highest average rate
was in 1813 and the lowest in 1815,
although there intervened no import-
ant change in the law, and that the
rate for 1813 was ten times as high as
for 1815. Washington never lived to
see the tariff average as high as 20 per
cent.—half the rate left by the Mills
bill—though the year before he died,
1798, shaved it pretty close. It was
not until 1813, when the Government
was 24 years old, and was in the midst
of war, that the average rate reached
the point proposed in the Mills bill.
It has passed that point in only thirty-
three of the ninety-nine years of our
National life, and twenty-one of these
have been under the present tariff.
The average rate collected in 1887 has
been exceeded but thirteen times in our
history, and eight of these were be-
fore the war. The highest series of
rates collected for any term of seven
years was from 1824 to 1830, inclusive.
It actually averaged for the seven years
more than 52 per cent. Numerous
other interesting comparisons will oc-
cur to the student.
So much for the general average
rate collected on all dutiable goods.
Now let us tabulate as best we can
briefly the history of the rates enacted
on certain selected articles of common
use. This is a herculean task, for the
reason that there are two kinds of
tariff taxes—specific and ad valorem.
A specific tax or duty is so much on
the pound, yard, gallon, barrel, or
bushel, etc. An ad valorem duty is so
much on the dollars' worth. How
-can we compare these? How can
we compare a tax of 10 cents
a yard, under one tariff, with a tax
of 20 per cent, on the cost price, under
another tariff? If we knew the for-
eign cost of the cloth taxed 10 cents
a yard we could do it, but it is only
-within recent years that the Govern-
ment has told us that—or even in-
structed its custom-house officers to
find it out. To confuse matters still
more, the present tariff often levies
both kinds of duties on the same arti-
cle. Thus, on one of the six classes
into which women's and children's
dress goods are divided, the tax is six
cents a square yard (specific) and 35
per cent, (ad valorem). But this is not
the oddest nor the most eonf using feat-
ure about it, for if the goods weigh
over four ounces per square yard the
tax is levied in a still different way,
and instead of six or eight oents' a yard
it is 50 cents a pound, plus the 35 per
cent If past tariffs were as intricate
as the present one our task would in-
deed be hopeless. But in all tariffs
there are clauses stating* what the taxes
«hall be on all articles of the several
.great classes -otherwise provided
PROTECTED INDUSTRIES.
The figures marked with a * are the
average rates collected on the next
year's imports. All others are the
rates embodied in the law.
The history of the wool tariff needs
to be elaborated a little. Down to 1824
wool was free and cotton was taxed.
Then wool was divided into two class-
es, according to value, and if valued at
less than 10 cents a pound the tax was
15 per cent., otherwise 20, and after-
wards 30. In 1828 the tax on high-
grade wool was enormously increased.
F or eight years it remained at four
cents a pound and 40 per cent., and
then the compromise tariff began to re-
duce it a little. The maximum figures
I have given from 1828 to 1842 are the
highest that could possibly be collected
under the complex law, and doubtless
far higher than the average actually
collected, though that was probably 50
per cent. In 1832 low-grade wool was
again made free, and has never since
been heavily taxed. Wool is now
(since 1867) divided into three classes,
44 clothing," 44 combing" and 44 car-
pet," and they paid last year 55 per
cent., 43 per cent, and 25 per cent, re-
spectively.
The first tariff was the lightest. It
was gradually raised until the war of
1812 broke out, and then it was
doubled at a stroke. The genuine high
protective system was adopted in 1816,
under the influence of Calhoun, who
bitterly regretted it. Webster was a
free trader when the tariff was raised
in 1824, but faced about and helped to
raise it again in 1828. This was called
the Tariff of Abominations, because the
free traders tried to kill it by loading it
down with abominations, but to their
great surprise it passed with all its sins
upon it. It almost led to war, and did
lead to the compromise tariff of 1833,
which proposed a gradual horizontal
reduction. In 1842 the Whigs raised
the tariff; in 1846 the Democrats re-
duced it; in 1857 the newr Republican
party had got control of the Lower
House and with Democratic help re-
duced the tariff again to the lowest
point reached since 1816. Four years
later they adopted the Morrill, or war
tariff, and gradually raised it until 1867;
its extremest features being adopted
after the war was over. In 1872 they
passed a horizontal reduction of 10 per
cent, which they repealed two years
later. In 1882 they appointed a tariff
commission, and it recommended a re-
duction which would have left the aver-
age rate about 30 per cent, on dutiable
goods. On the 3d of March, 1883, they
passed a law which reduced some du-
ties and raised others, among them, as
will be seen by the table, those on
glass and earthenware, but leaving the
general average about the same. All
subsequent reduction bills have failed
to pass the lower House until Saturday,
July 21. 1888, when the Mills bill, free-
ing wool, lumber and some other things,
and calculated to reduce the average
rate on dutiable imports to forty per
cent., was passed by a vote of 162 to
149.—Henry J. Philpot.
<m m m
There is some prospect that the
Democrats will carry Ohio. Chair-
man Brice ought to put his shoulder
to the wheel here, if any where. It is
his own State and Thurman's. The
Sherman men are a disappointed set,
and not enthusiastic for the Repub-
lican candidate. The wool issue has
been greatly overrated. It will not
make near as many Republican votes
as have been counted on. Ohio is de-
cidedly a State worth having —K Y.
World.
High Tariff a Great pleasing to Manu-
facturing Kings, but 54 Curae to Those
Who Have to Depend ,ou ^ beir Labor
for Support.
Below we present our wl ^ing-men
readers with a list of all the ih dustries
protected by the present tariff laws,
together with the amounts of eapi*al
employed in each, paid out in "vv ages,
paid out for raw materials, the value
of the manufactured product , the
profit of sales over and above tl¿e cost
of wages and material, and the per
centage of profit on the capital invested
by each firm or corporation.
Iron: and Steel—Capital, $230,971,-
894; wages paid, $55,476,785; cost of
materials, $191,271,150; value of prod-
ucts, $293,557,685. Profit, $49,809,750.
Per cent, profit, 21.7.
Boots and Shoes—Capital, $54,358,-
301; wages paid, $50,995,144; cost of
materials, $114,966,575; value of prod-
ucts, $196,920,481. Profit, $30,958,-
762. Per cent, profit, 30.
Men's Clothing—Capital, $79,861,696;
wages paid, $45,940,953; cost of mate-
rials, $131,303,282; value of products,
$209,548,461. Profit, $32,244,826. Per
cent, profit, 41.
Woman's Clothing—Capital, $8,207,-
273; wages paid, $6,681,005; cost of
material, $19,559,227; value of prod-
ucts, $32,004,794. Profit, $5,764,562.
Per cent, profit, 71.
Cotton Goods—Capital, $219,504,794:
wages paid, $45,614,419; cost of mate-
rials, $113,765,537; valué of product ,
$210,950,383. Profit, $51,570,427. Per
cent profit, 23.
Foundry and Machine Works—Cap-
ital, $154,519,484; wages paid, $65,982,-
133; cost of materials, $103,345,08$;
value of products, $214,378,468. Profit,
$45,051,252. Per cent, profit, 30.
Tanned Leather—Capital, $50,222,-
054; wages paid, $9,204,243; cost of
materials, $85,949,207; value of prod-
ucts, $113,348,336. Profit, $18,194,-
886. Per cent, profit, 36.
Sawed Lumber—Capital, $181,186,-
122; wages paid, $31,845,974; cost of
materials, $146,155,385; value of prod-
ucts, $233,268,729. Profit, $55,267,370.
Per cent profit, 31.
Mixed Textiles—Capital,$37,996,057;
wages paid, $13,316,753; cost of mate-
rials, $37,227,741; value of products,
$66,221,703. Profit, $15,677,209. Per
cent, profit, 30.
Paper—Capital, $46,241,202; wages
paid, $8.525,355; cost of materials,
$33,951,297; valu*of products, $55,109,-
914. Profit, $12,633,262. Per cent.
profit, 45.
Silk and Silk Go*hIs- -Capital, $19,-
125,300; wages paid, $9,146,705; cost
of materials, $22,467,701; value of
products, $41,033,045. Profit, $9,418,-
639. Per cent, profit, 16.
Sugar and Molasses—Capital, $27,-
432,500; wages paid, $2,875,032; cost
of materials, $114,698,499; value of
products. $155,848,915. Profit, $38,-
275,384. Per cent, profit, 52.
Woolen Goods — Capital, $96,095,-
564; wages paid, $25,836,392; cost of
materials, $100,845,611; value of prod-
ucts, $160,606,723. Profit, $33,924,720.
Per cent, profit, 35.
Sash, Doors and Blinds—Capital,
$20,457,670; wages paid, $8,540,930;
cost of materials, $20,790,919. Profit,
$7,289,476; Per cent, profit, 40.
Marble and Stone Work — Capital,
$16,498,221; wages paid, $10,238,085;
cost of materials, $12,743,345; value
of products, $31,415,150. Profits, $8,-
433,720. Per cent, profit, 50.
Curried Leather—Capital, $16,878,-
520; wages paid, $4,845,413; cost of
materials, $59,306,509; value of prod-
ucts, $71,351,297. Profit, $7,199,375.
Per cent, profit, 50.
Planed Lumber—Capital, $17,612,-
923: wages paid, $5,890,724; cost of
materials, $24,477,543; value of prod-
ucts, $36,803,356. Profit, $6,435,089.
Per cent, profit, 35.
Ship Building—Capital, $20,979,874;
wages paid, $12.713,813; cost of ma-
terials, $19,736,358; value of products,
$36,800,327. Profit, $4,350,156. Per
cent, profit, 20.
Linseed Oil — Capital, $5,872,700;
wages paid, $681,697, cost of materials,
$12,874,294; value of products, $15,-
393,812. Profit, $1,837,821; per cent-
profit, 31.
Glass—Capital, $19,844,699; wages
paid, $9,144,100; cost of material, $8,-
028,621; value of products, $21,154,571.
Profit, $3,981,850. Percent, profit, 19.5.
Hosiery and Knit Goods—Capital,
$15,579,591; wages paid, $6,701,475;
cost of materials, $15,210,951; value of
products, $29,167,227. Profit, $7,254,-
801. Per cent, profit, 46.
The per cent, profit on the protected
industries enumerated above is ob-
tained after deducting the amounts paid
for wages and raw material from the
value of the manufactured articles, the
wholesale value alone being given.
It requires no politician, no party
organ, to tell the average working-man
wheie the protection comes in and who
is benefited by it. He can see with
half an eye that he is not the one bene-
fited. Furthermore, the Government
statistics from which we obtained the
above figures show that t&e average
wages of the employes in these pro-
tected industries is 94 cents per day.
The politicians of both parties who
hope to humbug the working-men this
year with the protection hocuspocus,
may as well understand at the begin-
ning of the campaign that this i will be
a bad year in which to mistake Johnny
Toiler for a fool. He has learned how
to read and cipher as well as vote, and
this year he proposes to do ail three
to perfection.—Labor Signal.
WHAT GRANT SAID.
•
Th© Opinion of a Distinguished Repub-
lican Tariff Reformer.
44 Wiut a tax upon liquors of all
sorts and tobacco in all its forms,"
said an eminent revenue reformer,
44 and by wise adjustment of the tariff
which will put a tax tolly on those articles
which we could dispense with, known as
luxuries, and those which we use more
of than we produce, revenue enough
may be raised, after a few years of
peace and consequent reduction of in-
debtedness, to fulfill all our obligations;
a further reduction of expense in ad-
dition to a reduction of interest and
per cent, may be relied on to make this
practical. Revenue reform, if it means
this, has my hearty support."
The name of the Revenue reformer
who said this wTas Ulysses Simpson
Grant, and he said it in his second
message, December 5, 1870. Why is
he not denounced as 44a British free-
trader" for it?
Again in his third annual message
he recommend that a careful esti-
mate be made of the existing surplus
and that in re-adjusting the tariff the
surplus be reduced 44 so as tg afford
the greatest relief to the greatest num-
ber." In his fourth annual message
he spoke of the war taxes as 44a vex-
atious burden on any people." In his
fifth message, he recommended 44a re-
vision and codification of the tariff
laws." In his sixth message he urged
that the introduction free of duty of
dyes, chemicals and such wools as we
do not produce would stimulate manu-
facture, and therefore be a benefit to
home production.
In his seventh annual message he
recommended for the free-list 44 those
articles which enter into manufactures
of all sorts." 44 All duty paid upon
such articles," he said, 44 goes directly
to the cost of the article when manu-
factured here and must be paid for by
the consumer. These duties not only
come from the consumers at home but act
as a protection to foreign manufactur-
ers of the same completed articles in
our own and distant markets."
Neither Cleveland, Carlisle, Mills,
Morrison nor any revenue reformer on
the Democratic side has said any thing
stronger than this.
Why then do the believers In free
whisky and embargo refrain from de-
nouncing Ulysses Simpson Grant?—
St. Louis Republic.
AN ABSURD ARGUMENT.
The Silliest Move of Harrisou's and Mor-
ton's Fool Friends.
The Republican National Committee
is circulating a card bearing this
legend:
"Who donated $250,000 for provisions and
sent them to starving Ireland?
"Answer—Levi P. Morton.
"Who sent the munificent sum of 120 to the
earthquake sufferers at Charleston?
"Answer—Grover Cleveland.1'
What the facts are the Times is not
informed, but whate%Ter the facts the
motive of this presentation is plain. It
is sought to contrast the generosity
of Morton with an implied niggardli-
ness of Cleveland and create a preju-
dice against tha latter. But practi-
cally it amounts to no more than an
advertisement that Morton is a million-
aire while Cleveland has no other in-
come than the salary paia him by the
Nation. Morton is a candidate for the
Vice-Presidency. If such contrasts are
to be made, why not confine them to
opposing candidates? Cleveland has
not accumulated a fortune. Neither
has Harrison. The absurdity of preju-
dice-making by such means would be
shown by this arrangement:
44 Who sent the mun ticent sum of twenty
do'lars to the earthquake sufferers of Charles-
ton?
'•Answer—Grover Cleveland.
"Who sent nothing at all to these sufferersT
4'Answrer—Benjamin Harrison."'
It is pleasant to know that Mr. Mor-
ton makes free, liberal and generous
use of the great fortune he possesses,
but if it is a merit in him thus to use
his money, it is certainly no demerit
in the rest of uc wTho can not spare a
quarter of a million at a clip that our
names are not found for six figures on
subscription papers. The Republican
National Committee might still fur-
ther emphasize the futility of such
campaign methods by sending out
something like the following:
44 What did the generous Levi P. Morton con
tribute to the campaign fund of the party
r/nich honored him with a place on the Na-
tional ticket?
44Answer— A hundred thousand dollars.
*'And what return did that pauper Thurman
aiake for his selection?
"Men and brethren, he hadn't given a cent."
If the standard of dollars set up by
^he committee which lauds Morton for
¿is riches and his generosity can not
fce reached by Cleveland, neither can
Jt be attained by Harrison. The com-
mittee is probably stupidly unconscious
of its blunder.—Chicago Times (Ind.).
^ • w
—44 I want cheap bread and cloth
jng," says the Western farmer, and th
Republican high-tax platform proceed
to give him a stone.—St Paul Globe*
HOME, FARM AND GARDEN.
—The habit of piecing between
meals is a pernicious one. The di-
gestion and health of many children
are thus ruined.— People's Health Jour-
nal.
— Ducks and geese should never have
access to a lawn. They pull the grass
up by the roots. As they are voracious
feeders, and not fastidious, they can be
made to do good service, however, on
fields that are covered with young
weeds.
—Farmers, or at least a majority of
them, have yet to learn the value of
thorough cultivation. Much of the in-
jury to crops by drought can be pre-
vented by continually stirring the soil,
not simply enough to keep down weeds,
but to keep the soil loose so the airean
get down to the roots of plants, and to
keep the soil moist. As soon as the
sun has thoroughly dried out the soil
on the surface, turn it over and you
will save your crop in very dry weather.
—Rural Neto Yorker.
—Corrosive sublimate is a virulent
poison when taken inwardly, but with
care it is one of a housekoeper's great-
est blessings. While it is an absoluto
remedy for bed-bugs, it does no harm
to furniture, nor does it cause beds to
screech, as some bug applications do.
A wash of this mixturo, applied to ex-
posed places, cracks, corners, beds,
etc., at housecleaning time, will act as
a powerful preventive. No house need
harbor bed-bugs long if a vigorous use
of corrosive sublimate is made.—Good
Housekeeping.
—Squash Biscuit.—One cup of sifted
boiled squash, three cups of sifted
flour, one tablespoon of sugar, two
teaspoons of tartar, one teaspoon of
soda, one teaspoon of butter; mix the
flour and squash well together, dis-
solve the soda in a little hot water, and
fill the cup with milk, stirring the soda
well into it; pour the milk over the
flour and stir it well, adding more
milk if needed, to form a stiff batter.
Have the gem pans hot, put in the bat-
ter, nearly filling the pans, and bake in
a quick oven. Eat warm with butter
and maple sirup.
—Bees never injure sound fruit.
Wasps will puncture grapes, etc., but
with bees it is a physical impossibility.
Their mandibles are not so constructed,
nor are they strong enough to be used
in puncturing fruit. Numerous experi-
ments have been tried; among the rest,
one of putting the hives in an apart-
ment and taking the bees' food away
and making them fast for a few days at
a time, and all the time exposing
grapes, etc.; but the bees would not do
any injury, even under these circum-
stances. If fruit burst, or is injured by
the birds or wasps or something else,
the bees will soon suck ail the juice;
but that is an advantage rather than
an injury to the grower, as the sound
fruit is apt to rot by coming in contact
with such, or by the juice flowing over
the sound fruit.
AINU SLEEPING BOXES.
The Filthy Holes in Which the Koorile
Islanders Pass Their Nights.
Passing along the north wail of the
house, we came to the sleeping-box, as
I must call it, for it can not be desig-
nated a room. It was tucked well un-
der the eaves, was about ten feet long
by eight wide, and raised eighteen
inches above the floor of the house.
One end of it formed the side of a curio
corner. On the floor was spread a
piece of matting, and the futonsf or
heavily wTadded cotton quilts, on which
and under which the family sleep at
night, were neatly folded and laid in a
pile on one side; the pillows in this
house were of the Japanese pattern,
little stands that support the neck, and
which look to be wretchedly uncom-
fortable, but which are not so very bad
when one gets accustomed to them. At
night, or whenever any one is sleep-
ing, a mat curtain is hung up in front
of the sleeping-quarters, thus sealing
up the inmates almost hermetically. I
can not imagine any greater misery
than to be compelled to be one of half
a dozen to occupy that miserable little
box at night, deprived of all fresh air
save the little that might strain through
the reeds of the house wall, for ^fresh-
ness" can not be applied to the air
from the interior of the house itself,
that must reek with the stench of
rancid oil, half-cured fish, smoke, etc..
and, as for fleas and insects not usually
mentioned in polite society, let us draw
the curtain!—J. K. Goodrichf in Popu-
lar Science Monthly.
Rare Self-Possession.
"Roskinson, that was an elegant
little impromptu speech. What rare
self-possession you have! Were you
ever embarrassed in your life? "
44 Embarrassed!11 said the Kansas
City real-estate dealer, 44 yes, once or
twice, but I came out all right. Paid
hundred oents on the dol—11
44 No, no; you misunderstand. Were
you never timid, hesitating, back-
ward—11
"O, you mean that kind! Me ever
embarrassed? Jumpin' Jchosnphat''*
—Chicago Tribune.
:tf
Mi
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Miller, Freeman E. The Canadian Crescent. (Canadian, Tex.), Vol. 1, No. 42, Ed. 1 Thursday, August 16, 1888, newspaper, August 16, 1888; Canadian, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth183574/m1/3/: accessed May 3, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Hemphill County Library.