The semi-weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1890-1891, 1890-04-23
THE MKINLEY BILL.

When democratic journals attack the
Mckinley bill their hostility is ascribed
to party warfare. What will republicans
say when they find the Pioneer Press,
the ablest and most widely circulated re-
publican journal in the northwest, de-
nounce that measure IN plain, vigorous
language? "We do not" it says, "hesitate
to say that it is a bill which ought not to
pass either house of congress or to re-
ceive the approval of the president"
The Pioneer Press proceeds to give
reasons why the bill should be rejected.
1t says: at is not a duty of any republi-
can to support this measure as a republi-
can, because 1t does not embody or repre-
sent the accepted policy of the republi-
can party. That party believes in and
supports the protective principle. But
it does not believe in the prohibition of
foreign trade, which is the purely per-
sonal policy of Mr.. Mckinley and the
few ultra protectionists who follow him,
and which they are now trying to make
the policy of the party at large"
Even on the grounds of liberal protec-
ton the 81. Paul journal finds fault with
the measure for it adds: 1T is a duty of
republicans to resist this attempt, both
because it is not best fer the industries
of the country and because it will prove
in the end immensely burtful to the party
itself. The tenderest care for the pro-
tective system does not demand any in
crease of existing duties. 1t is, IN the
contrary, entirely compatible with a re-
duction Of the tariff all along the line"
"Hurtful to the party ITSELF. We
should think so. When the Pioneer
Press, which has done so much for the
party, d%enounces its pet measure there is
trouble brewing even in Minnesota
where the last ''boodle" campaigns
shocked leading republicans and divided
the ranks still more.
We read also that the bill will "raise
the entire average of protective duties, if
we except the sugar tax, by about 2 per
cent. This is neither tariff reduction nor
reform" "Every increase of duties' we
are also told" may be said to be unnec-
essary at the present time, whom the
existing tariff is ample for protective pur-
poses."
Democratic journals have said all this,
but the cry was raised that they wanted
stree Trade" The Pioneer Press also
Knocko in the head tho oupposod eou.vs
sion to the farmers. 1t says:
zone of these so called concessions is
absurd on the face of it. There is an in
crease of duties on agricultural products
generally. These duties, as any man of
intelligence can see for himself, are abso-
lutely ineffective. A nation cannot be
served by an import duty on any article
of which 1t produces more than it con-
sumes. The duty on farm products, ex-
cept in a few isolated communities along
the Canadian border, means no more than
a proclamation restraining the flow of the
"The proposition to pay a bounty
to the gro Sers of cant is a new departure.
The farmer will ask, and not without
reason, why a bounty of two cents per
pound should be paid on sugar, and not q
bounty of five cents a bushel on wheat"
The general verdict of the St. Paul
is as follows: "We can find, af-
ter a careful review, no reason why the
Mckinley bill should become a law, and
none why it should receive the support
Of republican members of congress-, I'M
less they belong to the school that be-
in the entire prohibition of imports
the death Of all commerce between
1t is not an answer to the de-
nand for tariff reduction and REFORM"
Comments such as these foreshadow
hat the uprisings in the cities will extend
% the states at large when the people
lave a chan 1e to vote. They know what
hey want and will have it.
1