The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1892-10-25
MKINLEY DIssECTs.
HIS VICTIMS ARE SENATOR Hill
AND Mr.. WILSON.

Inc following Is porIlon OF dOVernOr
McKinley's recent Philadelphia speech,
taken from verbatim report published
in The Times, Of that city:
Senator Hill, of New York, in his re-
cent speech in Brooklyn, rejects the
tariff plank of the national platform and
announces one for himself. His is al
tariff for revenue only with incidental
or accidental protection, but that may
do him no injustice will read you the
exact words Of his speech:
1--WE believe In revenue with Incl
dental protection, and not in protectionI
with incidental revenue. In so far 40
the tariff 10 necessary to meet the neces-
stiles Of the government 1t may be i'm
posed, and any other benefits which may
be legitimately derived from its imposi-
ton may, and do necessarily, accompany
it. If the burden opposed would operate
to prevent foreign competition the bene-
fit Is indirect and able-that
is, IL 1t comes by accident 1t is unobjec-
tionable."
Reading further from Mr.. Hills
speech, he says: President Harrison IN
mis- ingenious letter Of acceptance en-.
deavors to place our party in false at
titude by calling attention to the fact
that while our platform in 1884, re-
adopted In 1888, contains an express
plank upon this question of the equaliza.
ton Of wages, yet it was omitted in
1899, and asserts Chat is, the president
does) that we have changed our posi-
ton"
Mr.. Hill says; II beg to differ with
him. There has been no change. 1t isl
not always practicable to place in plat.
form the details of proposed legisla-
ton" Whenever you require bill Of
his particulars, then you have got a
Democrat
1.-THE platforms of 1884 and 1887
this is still from Mr.. Hill, "were elab-
crate and lengthy, and it was desirable
to simplify them. General principles
were stated in 1892 rather than particu-
liars, as in 1884. We stand not only
upon our platform of 1902, but upon the
Mills BILL"
The Mills bill They stood on that in
1888 until after the election, and this
is the first suggestion of q revival of IL
that have heard since, for You will re-
! member that the house Of representa-
, tives Of the Fifty-second congress, which
was Democratic by 140 majority, re-
i jected the author of the Mills bill and
refused to make him speaker, and when
they came to make tariff legislation re-
iected the whole principle of the Mills
bill. .--
1--WE stand not only upon our own
platform Of 1892, but upon tho Mills
bill, which was the latest general Demo
cratic legislation upon tariff subjects"
am glad that Senator Hill doesn't
count what was done by the Fifty-sec-
ond congress. He doesn't count that as
amounting to anything, for he calls the
legislation of four years ago the last
/ legislation of the Democratic party.
f Then he says: "If / were asked to de-
fine as concisely as possible the whole
Democratic policy should state it in
r substantially these words: we favor a
i. tariff for revenue only, limited to the
necessities of the government, ecomically
: administered and SO adjusted in its APP
!, plication as to encourage productive in
i dustries at home and afford just COM
pensation to labor, but not to create or
:, foster monopolies.' These are the car
], dinal principles upon which the details
of all tariff legislation should be based.
That is the platform of 1884 and of 1888. "
j, Now this explanation Of the position
of the Democratic party might go with
% out question, as it has gone in many
2 campaigns of the past, but for the fact
~ fhot thu fhi1u fhof Mr. Hill
vi in his new platform-that very thing
= - was rejected by the national Democratic
.s convention of 1892. It was stricken Out
h by the vote of 5S4 TO 333-the very thing
p he employs-and this explanation of the
Democratic position might go unchal
=, lenged, even from Senator Hill, but fol
4. the fact that Grover Cleveland, in hi.
=. Madison Square garden speech, ap
proved of the platform at Chicago and
u accepted nomination on it.
De Hill would make platform for this
Democratic party. He isn't in position
to do it. speak of him with great re
spect and without meaning any dis
courtesy, and hoping that it will be JUST
= fed in honorable debate. want Il
suggest to him that not only was hi
platform rejected, but he himself wa
rejected.
The ipse dixit might be accepted bu
for the utterances of the Hon. William
l.. Wilson, of West Virginia, who pre-
sided over the deliberations of the ma
tional convention of 1909, and he, VIII
is one of the best informed and the mos
cultivated Of the tariff reformers of tn
United States, calls the language EN-
N ployed by Mr.. Hill as ''makeshift" AM
:" "straddle" in his article in the Sep
TENDER number of The North American
Review, that of this month. Listen t
what Mr.. Wilson says:
When the recent convention met a
Chicago the representatives of the Dem
ocratic party were united and zealou
in their devotion to tariff reform, an
full of the confidence born of many vic
tories freshly won under it's banner
They expected a clear and courageou
statement of fundamental party priI
ciple, and of the party's attitude TO e1
isting law.
THE resolutions" says Mr.. Wilson
las reported to the committee, lei
nothing to be desired on the latter hea
tthat means its indignation at the ne
tariff law, but instead of the formt
contained preliminary paragraph {
two in which, with much that was az
mirable, appeared some of tho familit
but now unsatisfactory phrases of IL
makesbift of 1884"
But Mr.. Hill says there is no essentii
difference between the platforms of IL,
and 1899.
THE convention" says Mr.. Wilso
with very slight protest from the COZ
mittee on platform, took the risk
striking out these phrases and the
IN. setting and of inserting in place of the
u clear declaration Of Fundamental par
doctrine. The inserted words are the,
We denounce Republican protection