The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-10-03
MKINLEY,s SPEECH.

Tt cannot be questioned that Mr.. Nc
Kinley made a most able and eloquent
appeal to the ignorance Of his hearers.
Every one of his points that was re-
ceived with applause was based on a
false assumption or a suppression of the
truth. His speech is almost without
parallel in this respect. It is a catchy,
superficial, misleading effort. It will not
bear analysis. The first part OF it is
based on the assumption that the demo-
cratic party caused the panic OF 1893.
He does not say so, but he repeatedly
mentions that the democratic party was
in power when it occurred. We submit
that there was not man in his audi
ence who will consider this assumption
for five minutes who will not be forced
TO admit that 1t Is absurd. Mr.. McKin-
ley says that the country was in most
prosperous condition while Mr. Harrison
was in Office. and yet in three months
afterward IT was involved in the worst
panic the country ever knew.
Think OF it. We all concede that this
the world. Its resources are unrivaled.
The industry and intelligence Of it's peo-
pie are unexcelled. And yet the mere
fact that a new president was in Office
a president whose preceding term was
conceded by republicans to be safe"
and wise-with no law changed in any
respect, with congress not in session and
not expected to be till December. was
sufficient to change great prosperity to
unprecedented disaster. No man believes
that or can believe it. Every man knows
that the causes which overthrow the
commercial prosperity of a great coun-
try must be long in action. 1t is as if
a man who has ruined his stomach by
excuses, and has been ordered on a diet
OF oatmeal by his physician. should aver
that his trouble was due to the anticipa-
ton of oatmeal. The real causes Of this
country's commercial dyspepsia are
plainly apparent. Mr.. Harrisons empty
treasury, Mr.. Sherman's absurd silver
purchase law and Mr.. McKinley's dona-
tion of the earnings of the country to
the trusts and combines afford a full
and sufficient explanation of it.
Mr.. Mckinley dilated on the fact that
the present tariff law was unsatisfactory
to large part of the democratic party,
but he carefully suppressed the reason
why. That reason is that the law con-
tains some remnants of McKinleyism.
No genuine democrat has any other OBJ
lection to it. He rehashes his old story
Of protection to southern products, but
suppresses the fact that the protection in
every case was reduced from that given in
his own law. He mentions rice, the duty
on which was reduced below that of his
bill % per cent. on cleaned and 20 per
cent. on uncleaned. He mentions pea
nuts, on which the duty was reduced 70
per cent. He mentions sumach, on which
the duty was reduced so per cent. He
mentions mica, on which the duty was
reduced 43 per cent. He even has the
audaclty to mention sugar, although the
Louisiana sugar planters have just bolt
ed to the republican party because the
Mckinley bill was 50 much more favor
able TO them than the new law, although
Havemeyer himself said under oath that
the Mckinley bill was more favorable
to the trust than the present law, and
although the market price of sugar is
now lower than it was at this time both
one year ago and two years ago.
Mr.. Mckinley evidently takes the In
diana republicans for a lot of chumps,
and he may be justified in doing so.
Unquestionably the large majority of
them regard him as the Moses of their
party and would vote to put his law
on the statute books again. But there
certainly must be many republicans who
can see through his shallow sophistries
and transparent misrepresentation, and
feel disgust for the ideas of the man.
There must be many who have long I'M
derstood the folly of protectionism and
longed to see their party break the
chains that bound it to the tariff bene-
ficiaries. This year they must vote for
McKinleyism or tariff reform. There is
no middle course. They must vote to
support the president and the house, or
the senate traitors. the republicans and
the trusts