The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1892-07-13
THE STRIKE AND THE MCKINLEY
BILL"
To the Editor Of the Eagle.


At station on the Frisco dag or so
since l heard conversation between
| two Democrats ON a political matter, but
| more especially on the Homestead, Pa,
strike and its relation to the Mckinley
| bill. 1t was SOFT of a love feast for
those two statesmenC0 and to have heard
them chuckle with ghoulish glee over
the probable capital the Democrats
would make out of that unfortunate al
| fair, one would have inferred, without
having heard to the contrary, that some
great blessing had befallen the wage
earners of the country, and that as a
natural consequence Democratic
victory would follow. They denounced
the Mckinley bill as the direct cause of
| all this trouble, and in less than two
minutes afterwards denounced this same
bill for having robbed monopolist mil
lionaire, and neither of them knew that
they had made egeigious asses of them
selves. For instance, they said that
| Carnegie had made an immense fortune
through the robbery of protection, for
which they denounced the policy
and him in unmeasured terms;
and then the conversation turned on
| Mr.. CampbelIs refusal to act as CHAIR
man of the national committee, and one
| of them related how Mr.. Campbell went
to Chicago to consult Mr.. Armour by
whom he is employed as attorney, and
Mr.. Armour peremptorily refused to
allow Mr.. Campbell to act as chairman
of the Republican committee and his at
tornev at the same time; how that MIR.
Armour said "the Republican party can
90 to HI, am going to vote for Cleve-
land;" how Mr.. Armour gave as his
reason for his abrupt change OF heart
that the Mckinley bill had robbed him
| by 'srobber" tariff on tin plate. and
they then and there commended the
course of Mr.. Armour and denounced
the tariff again because millionaire had
been robbed" by it, and notwlthstand-
ing the fact that Senator Vest, not later
than one week ago denounced Mr.. Ar
mour as one Of the robber monopolists
of the country, these two embryo states
men seemed disposed to rat Mr.. Armour
on the back and tell him he was
first rate fellow if he was q
robber millionaire and, in the classic
language of some tariff reformers "a
plutocratic thief"
Thus these two Democratic patriots
presented in their short con-
versation the anomaly OF de-
nouncing a law for making a millionaire
on the one hand, and unmaking another
on the other hand But who ever heard
of a Democrat being consistent! Mr..
Cleveland, in his Rhode Island speech
just before the election there not long
since, denounced the Mckinley law be-
cause 1t did not give the manufacturers
free raw material, and dilated at length
upon the absolute necessity for this
.much needed relief for the manu-
facturers in order that they might con-
tinue in business without loss. In the
language of Mr. Cleveland these Demo
Gratis should "get together" and agree
upon who is robbed and who the robbers
are. They should explain just what
ley law and an employers refusal to
give more wages than he wants to. BY
the assertion that protection made
Carnegie millionaire they admit that the
Mckinley bill makes it possible to pay
high wages. but they fail to explain how
tie Mckinley law. or any other law, Is
going to compel employers to give the
higher wages if they don't want to. We
are all agreed that he could if he would,
but we must look to other Influences
than arbitrary statutes to compel him to
do it. The general trend of wages has
been upward for several years, the free
traders to the contrary notwithstanding,
but no one believes or claims 1t to be the
direct result of legal enactment. All
that a statute can do is to make the way
possible, and public sentiment, together
with thorough organization of labor
forces, Must do the rest. 1t would puzzle
these free trade cranks to account fOl
the gigantic strikes in London the last
year, especially if they had to depend
upon the silly proposition that strikes
are the legitimate outgrowth of protec-
ton.
But the most convincing proof that
this strike is in no way connected with
the Mckinley law is found in the fact that
this organization that is now on strike
is protectionist body, committed to the
doctrine by unanimous consent of it:
members. Here is a sentence taker
from a memorial addressed to congress:
protesting against the passage Of th'
Mills bill when that bill was under con
sideration: "While every member il
our organization is free to and does ex
ercise his political preference, we are
Protectionists, and have unanimously
declared ourselves such as an organiza
ton at almost every recurring annual
convention"
Now, what remedy is proposed? In
the Democratic platform it is absolute
free trade Certainly no sane man be
ieves that by admitting the products o
the factories of the world our factories
can pay any higher wages than it is pos
sible TO pay now, and no man of average
intelligence believes for moment tina
r the present rate of wages could 10 main
, tanned when the country is flooded will
,, the products of cheap labor. But her
: the free trader enters pie;
r of confession and avoidance b.
r saying that the reduction in wage
f would be compensated for by cheaper
, ing of the necessaries of life. but if tina
{ ,,.,ra true how mnch better of MOuu