Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1890-05-17
BOLDBUTTERWORTH
Crushing Arguments Against the Mckinley Bill
By a Republican Leader Re
markabls address

The most significant utteraucc ia the
halls of Congress for many a day was
the protest of Congressman BITTER
WORTH. of Ohio. against the McKINIEY
taridbu Mr.. BUrrEEwoETH has stood
high in the councils OF the Republican
PARTY. Tie has maintained the doctrine
of protection with the honesty Of sim
cere CONNECTION, yet the time has come
when 60 is necessary for him To violate
party ties and nft his voice against the
cruel and crushing system Of taxation
that has built up gigantic monop-
olies no the expense OF the peo-
pie. The Mckinney bin outlines
policy for the Republican party
of legislation for class interests, Of pros
ututiou of national power TO the enrich
ment of privileged few. and the
destruction OF national prosperity.
Against this extreme peryersion of the
doctrine of protection Mr.. Butterworth.
as am honest and conservative protec-
zionist, has protested.
Whatever may Dee the effect Of Mr..
Butterworth's address, its significance
cannot De questioned The influences
which have driven a high priest Of the
protection policy into open revolt will
not Doe wasted upon the people. The
votes which were given in the election
Of lSSS m favor of protection were not
given TO-. favor of such hideouS out
growth of that principle as the Mckin-
ley BILL And while the Mckinley bill
will doubtless become a law, the men
who framed and passed it will have to
reckon with the people at the polls.
IL is not dinicult To predict what will
will Dee the result Of that reckoning. \
far smaller degree of courage. far less
intense conviction will be- sufficient TO
draw from Che taV-riddeu farmer pro
test at the polls as vigorous aud aS
straightforward as Mr. BUTrERwORrit
has uttered iu the House. The follow
lowing excellent condensation of Mr..
RrrrERwoRru'> address, with COM
ments is made by the PittSburg Post,
from a report furnished the New York
Times. The Post says:
MIR Mckinley took the position that
the low price ~ manufactured products
compared with former years. was pri-
marilv the result of competition among
homo manufacturers. and that this
competition was the natural result oil
protective duties pitched To the pro
hibitory scale. Mr.. Butterworth main
tanned that low prices were the result
of improved methods and not cOmpe-
tion. This was the issue fair and
square. aud here We take up the discus.
sion.
Nix. BUrrEKwoRrH- Competition alone
never r,siuced the cost Of anything, because
In must be clear % this house that shoe
maker cannot make a pair Of boots Tor
any less because there are nine others sit
ting bv his side each at work on PAIR OF
boots. The increase Of production results
nndoubtedlv from improved methods. Com
petitiou reduces the selling prices OF com
modities TO the lowest point consistent with
profit. II could not 20 below that, OF
course. for II 10 does the industry IS
necessarily destroyed That, then, Is
The limit. and we have 10 get 20 50
nrotect our manufactures that in the
fair open field of competition they can hold
their own. and even have the coign OF van
tage. Competition alone never created
new industry. Competition OF itsett never
ORIGINATED a new industry New indus