The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1878-09-05


the provision in the bill making green
backs receivable for bonds would enable
Sherman, by selling bonds for green
backs, to hoard up greenbacks in the
Treasury, and thus efiectually contract
the currency, Joined the Republicans in
their opposition to the bill, and defeated
it. Ewing and his followers voted
against this measure reluctantly, and for
the laudable purpose of preventing con-
traction and increasing the bonded debt.
Let Mckinley now explain why the
bulk of the Republicans opposed 1t. Was
it love for the greenback2 But this is
not all. Read again and keep in mind
the above paragraph from McKinley's
speech, ,
Afterwards another bill was asintroduCed
into the Democratic House to make
gIeenbaCks receivable for duties on inn
ports. Mr.. Southard, Democrat from
Ohio, moved to suspend the rules to pass
this bill. Mckinley and the Republicans
mostly voted against it, as follows yeas
ll2 Democrats, and AZ Republicans; nays
20 Democrats and 70 Rep. and upon the
final passage ofthe bill, the Republicans,
including Mckinley, voted solidly against
it. This bill reached the Senate the last
day of the session, but the Senate refus-
ed to act on the bill, though Voorhees,
and other Democrats labOred strenuous
ly for the bill,
Now, these are the facts, and in view
of them what shall we say of Mckinley
The Democrats of the House were anx-
ious to pass, and did twice pass law to
make greenbacks receivable for duties;
the Republicans of the House opposed
such a bill twice. The Democrats in the
Senate labored for the two House bills,
and the Republicans refused to let them
come to vote. And yet Mckinley has
30 little regard for truth, and 30 little a
realization of his duties as a servant Of
the people, as to make the above state
meni! A demagogue of that stripe can
never represent this 10th district in Con-
gress.
Now, we come to another part of Nc
Kiney's first Massillon speech, but be-
fore hazarding remark about it, we re-
produce it in full, and the readers of the
Democrat can Judge for themselves of the
Justice of our criticism thereon:
"With all their cry about the destruc-
ton of greenbacks by the Republican
party, and the contraction of the volume
to three hundred millions under the re-
sumption act, it was left to Mr.. Fort, a
Republican member of Congress from
Illinois, to propose and secure the pas
sage of joint resolution, providing that
after the passage of the act, it shall not
be lawful for the Secretary OF the Treas
ury or other officer under him, to cancel
or retire any more of the United States
legal tender notes, and when any of said
notes may be redeemed or received into
the Treasury under any law from any
source whatever, they shall not be re-
tired, cancelled or destroyed, but they
shall be reissued and paid out again
and kept in circulation" which joint res.
olution passed the House and Senate,
and is now the law of the land. This
law will prevent the reduction of green
backs to three hundred millions, as pro-
vided for by the Resum ption Act, and
maintains the present volume of $346-
6Sl ,000."
And again in his second Massillon
speech, Mckinley again says:
"The Republican party has done more
than it promised. 1t proposed and Sc
cured the passage ofa law at the last ses-
sion, providing that the greenback cir
culation should not be reduced to $500.
100000, but that the present volume of
$346, ,6Sl, ,0l6 should be kept and main
tanned. The Republican party was the
author of this measure in the House, and
it passed Republican Senate, more than
indicating the good faith and consist
enCy of the party"
To one knowing the real facts in the
case these assertions are simply astound"
ing. They show him to be the very
prince of demagogues, and place him in
a plight so humiliating and disgraCeful
as to merit the utter contempt of all hon
est men.
The Republican party, he says, pro-
posed and secured the passage of this
law, and insinuates that with all the
professions Of the Democrats, it was left
to Republican to propose this law. He
would insnuate that the Democrats OPP
posed this law, and assumes that to his
party is due solely the merit Of the pas
sage of the law, and that it was born of
the love of his party for the greenback! !
1t was a sight, like angels visits, seldom
to be seen, when Mckinley, in his Sec
ond Massillon speech, unable to restrain
in his impassioned love for the
turned to that pious old fraud
and pouring out his soul in an
of gush, said, 1--WE cannot be
outdone in our love for the old green
back! 1t is sincere, no new love-"
And that old apostle of corruption
and disciple of mammon, really sue
ceeded in keeping sober face as Nc
Kinley stopped over in his luxuriant
gush. But, to return to serious argu-
ment, what are the facts2
Did Mckinley dare to give the votes
of the two parties on that measure, or to
give it's history We challenge him to
give the votes, he has the reCord-give
the votes, vote8, moi g1lsh, is what will sat
isfy the people.
Now, the truth is, and no one knows
it better than Mckinley, that the Demo-
Gratis passed this measure and the Re-
publicans opposed it. 1t is the same old
story; the Democrats, after laboring long
and earnestly, but in vain, for better
law to accomplish the same end, reluct-
antly adopted this measure, and with
the aid of few Republicans, made it
the law of the land, the bulk Of the Re-
publican party voting against it. Now
what becomes of Republican professional
And what shall we say of Mckinley?
With all his shrewdness, and that is
as great as his disregard of truth; and
only by his audacity. McKin-
ley in the above extract made an admis-
sion that gives the lie to his pretensions,
and moreover passes terrible condem.
nation upon his party. Did it ever occur
to Mckinley, when uttering the above
remarks, that the people still reason and
agitate? And that when they heard him
take so much merit for having passed
this law, they would ask who or what
made this law necessary?
If this law is 30 salutary that you 90
into anatapv over IL the avil II nuraa no,Isf