Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-10-27

something elSO- 4 LO ASS N--A-o ~~S
they said that
WOOL SHOULD NOT BE EXPORTED
because if you exported it it would be got
ten cheap ia France, and 1t must be Kept
for the wooden men who were weaving
goods in England aud they made the onense
punishable by the less of the left arm ana
standing in the stocks TO take wool out OF
England. in order that the weavers might
have a good time and in getting cheap WOOL
they made them keep the home market 10
themselves. That was their way TO geti
That wasn't enough. They decided ana
cot an act Of Parliament that every dead
BODY must be buried 10 a wooden shroud IN
order 10 make a wooden market out or the
corpses. Applause Then they wouldn't
die fast enough TO suit the weaver ana
make their home market. TheE they GOT
an act Of Parliament making II me
OF 6 for woman 10 wear calico as dress,
aud they fined the man who made u ~
Just to protect wool and wooden. Ana they
still were not satisfied. Cctton-beautlIul
fiber coming into vogue TO be woven, and
they got the duty on raw cotton TO keep
cotton out OF England in order to protect
wool and wooden. Amt right when say
M'KINLEY IS MISTAKEN
in bis, biography He hasn': looked up the
family tree.
When. however, Golden and Peal came
along they did what Wilson did-they gave
free wool and they drove the hoggish pro-
tected industry cut Of England forever.
Applause.
Now, what is the Republican argument
on this subjects I am going to take one
thing, ana the reason ] am OBTAINING you a
little longer on one thing is this: My eX-
perience is if you just take one thing you
can get the whole idea. You learn Her
cules and his size from foot and the foot
print. Naturalists restore an animal to
perfect anatomy from a single bone,
and If YOU will let me play
the part of a political anatomust
l will take one bone Of the protective sys-
tenn in order TO restore the whole thing and
show YOU what it is, and l do II, too, De-
cause know l am near the WOODEN coun-
try, because l know l am near where the
finest woods are raised, and il is with spe-
cial reference 10 that and TO West Virginia,
and not as a mere abstract proposition that
l am here. because in few moments you
will hear from the practical side OF 1t.
Let US see what the Repu 0lican argu-
ment is. The Republican argument was
stated by the minority of the Ways and
Means Committee. If you want TO get at
the precise argument of protection you
ought to take somebody that is authority.
II you pick up the newspapers or PICK up
Mckinley, why they say
PROTECTION HAS DONE EVERYTHING
the soil. the sunrise, the rain, the coal in
the mountains, the ore the great blessings
OF Providence, the AngIo-Saxon sturdiness,
robust courage and intelligence-all these
are nothing. The prosperity Of the country
all comes from a single thing, and IN my
native State across here I used TO observe
the strength Of its agriculture; trim In or
chard, sweet in garden, luxurient wheat
fields and tended corn, and l am told by
Mckinley that it all comes from protec-
ton. Laughter That he has got a little
Tiger that he calls taX-protective tax
and he says lone hundred per cent, unless
otherwise provided by law" and behold
prosperity / don't propose to argue with
such stuff as that. l am not going TO de-
mean my intellect nor am l going TO insult
your intelligence by replying to rot OF that
sort-claiming that this country and its
blessings are due TO protection by simply a
wave OF the hand l am going TO analyze
the specific protection and the specific in
dustry whose specific prosperity is alleged
TO be due 10 specific tax. Isn't that the
yvav 20 get at it! When the doctor comes
TO see you does he indulge in the whole
history OF medicine and go through
whole pharmaceOpea! He gets down
to the specific thing, the specific
disease. Therefore 10 test whether
protection does produce prosperity
[ do not throw bundle Of statistics "Lo
and behold, five hundred million or thou
sand million dollars was what Protection
has done. / think il is rot. l take spe-
cific case. l take the specific test case that
is the Oldest and which has come with the
highest authority from the Republican
party, and that is the case OF wool, and on
that case | ask for the Republican state
meut-I want their statement Of the way
they say protected tax does its work, not
my statement, but their statement, and 10
whom shall l shall go to get their state
mentl l 90 to the minority Of the Ways
and Means Committee, headed by Thomas
Reed, with associates, Mr.. Burrows,
OF Michigan; Mr.. Payne, of New York;
Mr.. Dalzell, my friend from Pitt
burg, and others equally prom
inent in the PrOtectionist ChurCh-high up
in the synagogue-I take their definition Of
their specific creed and their specific rea-
sons for specific tax. Isn't that fair
way when you are discussing a subject
with an antagonist! l like TO get
close when l am wrestling with
an antagonist My purpose is to get
close with two different things, first, 10
r
examine il, and then let you decide, not
me; and second, to show from samples that
have that their facts are untrue.
First, l propose TO admit all their facts.
Isn't-that fair! / admit the declaration,
and propose now to demur TO il and the ev-
idence. First, what is their statement
about wooll
l have il in little book here, too long to
read. / want you TO believe am fair
man in debate. have never found IL good
moral or intellectual practice 10 dodge an
issue and state unfairly the position OF an
antagonist My position is to state your
antagonists position more strongly than he
does, il you can. l state il from Mr.. Reed s
position and that OF the minority. They
say that wool in this country can not be
produced for less than % cents pound.
/ phev ADOPT the letter Of an Idaho ranch
man that the wool that completes with our
% cent wool can be produced in Australia
aud the Argentine Republic and landed at
New York or Boston for cents pound.
That is their argument. Their argument,
then, is that free wool will throw open our
wooden, our flock masters, our shepherds
the Argentine Republic and from Austria
liza, aud, therefore, they say that it is man
fest that our wool cannot compete with
that wool and would be driven from the
market They give as reason for the
Australian wool being cheap that there the
focks are large, grasses are nutritious and
are gotten without pay, while here the
land IS costly, the climate is severe and
the fiocks must be housed for large part
Of the yea TIA. IS the argument.
The argument Is that Australian ranch
men, sunny CLINE and soil are such that
our flock masters, with our cline ana Que
soil, cannot compete with the provisions of
the Almighty in Australia and Argentine.
That is their statement.
lam admitting their facts. Do not make
a mistake But am coming TO the other
side. Admitting that as the fact what's
the conclusion which they themselves
give. They say we use six hundred million
pounds of wool, that is - pounds of wool
10 each family OF i've, isn't il, IN this coun-
- .-.-.-...... ......