Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1891-12-10
Ei-A:NEfS LETTER.
;cre D01s.s-Dsaling oy jim tho Pa11ti-
eaI TrfcsrSter.

.fcre D0gs.s-Esaling By I:IE tho Pa11Si-
cal TricaSter.
Mr.. Blaine has temporarily recov~
cred his health sufficiently 70 write =
letter stabbing in the back the author
OF the protection-rrn mad. Mr. BtaIEe
has not added to his letter the eque@t
.'BurI this" On the contrary, it is
given to the press as freely as II its
author had no fear of an investigating
committee Note the cunning with
which the Maine statesman intficts his
stab. He AYERS that the following
sentence is ..garbled::'' but there is
not a section or line in the Mckinley
bill that Will open a market for an
other bushe1 of wheat or another bar
rel of pork And he says that the fol-
lowing is what he did write: But
there is not a section or line in the
entire bin that will open a market for
another bushel of wheat or another
pound OF pork OF course careful
letter-writer like Mr.. Blaine will dis
cover that in the two above quotations
there is but one discrepancy. and that
it refers to the title of the bill. In the
one case it was unnecessary for the tt
tie of the bill to be named and in the
other it was. On this hangs Mr.
Blaine's plea that his words have been
CARRIED. And he must be granted full
credit for his observance OF the facts.
Mr. Blaine has not hit so near the
truth before IN half q century
But what does this letter really
mean? 1t is perfectly understood that
Mr.. Mckinley was as strongly opposed
to the reciprocity clause as was Mr.
Blaine to the ultra protection idea of
Mckinley and Tom Reed. 1t is too
late to argue away the effect of the
scene when Mr.. Blaine spoiled new
hat in giving vent to his anger at Nc
Kinley and his whole tribe. He now
saws that ne is in favor of the Mckin-
ley bill since it contains the patent rec
iprocity provision. He shows that
the only way in which he can see that
an additional market has been secured
has been by provisions that are direct
" in co'ttravention to the Mckinley
idea and shat were foisted on the bill
against Mchinley's protest.
Mr.. Blaine says: 81 am not, there
fore. an opponent of the Mckinley
bill. as the democratic papers of Ohio
are constantly alleging. On the con-
trary, l have constantly supported it
ever since it was perfected by the in
sertion of the reciprocity clause. Mr.
Mckinley is welcome to the good effect
he may receive from such an indOrse-
ment Mr.. Blaine admits that he OPP
posed MckinleYism as expressed in the
bill he SO vigorously denounced. He
does not even deny the little episode of
the crashed hat. But he says he has
supported the bill ever since it was
perfected by the insertion of the reel
procity clause Nor do democratic
papers in Ohio or elsewhere say that
Mr.. Blaine ''is'' opposed to the present
tariff bill. They simply repeat his
own words to show that he once de-
nounced Mckinley and his bill. If
Ohio republicans cannot see in this a
stab at their candidate they will per-
haps better understand Mr.. Blaine S
letter after election. Its publication
follows closely upon very close con-
ference of certain gentlemen of the g.
o. p. known to be friendly to the am
bition of the Mulligan statesman. Per-
haps Ret" Clarkson and Mr.. Conger
could tell why this letter of Blaine's
was put forth with the ostensible pur-
pose of helping Mckinley by showing
that his bill became worthy of support
only after being impressed with the
statecraft of Blaine.-Chicago Times