The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1894-06-29
The Democrat.
War On Mckinley.


A l. Conger, ex-member of congress
from Ohio, and ex- member OF the republic
can national committee, gave out long
interview in Washington the other day
warning the republican party that 1t will
never do to nominate Mckinley for presi-
dent. Among other things he says: III
have no ill-ieellng toward Governor Nc
Kinley. l have always been lis friend,
and during ths past twenty years have
contributed more Of my time and means to
his success than any other man in my city
or county. BY his administration of the
affairs of Ohio, however. he has shown
himself to be untitled for the Presidency OF
the United States The men who have
always aided him in his political contests,
the friends of years, he has cast aside, and
he is now guided and controlled by men
whose sole Interest in politics is personal
advancement. 1hsy are not the men
who are lying awake nights t. devise
plans for keeping the wheels of the great
industries running for the ensuing weeks.
They are not the men who keep people
out of the poorhoase and free from suffer
ing.
alt is we'll to speak plainly about thi'
matter Mckinley could not carry 8
single State 10 the Union upon the McKin
ley law in 1896, and believe that nine
tenths Of the business 7en of the counsr,
will concur with me in the view that tn
Mckinley la,i,f is not only Inconsistent bu
not In line with the business sentiment o
our people.
"We los' the campaign of iS9a on IN
Mckinley Law. and We will lose that OF iSo
II that law be the paramount Issue. 1t i
! unfortunate for the Republican party tha
Governor McKinley's friends should hav
prec:pitated his candidacy at this time
We were all for him for Governor, and hi
irisnds misinterpreted the large majority b
received last year. That was a protes
against the Wilson bill, no: an indorsemen
Of the Mckinley tariff The business me-
ieara by experience one day and profit b
t the next. Why shoul3 not politicians
MANY of the leading manufacturers G
agricultural implements were opposed to
duty on binder t~iae. Bv request weE
before Major Mckinley, wien lie was fran
ing his bill, and asked that no duty be pG
upon binder twiue, aud explained TO kir
! the reasons why il would be sgeinst th
interests of the Republican party and th
! people to put duty upon i. but the du,
went on. The binder trust was uanrfaS
turing sisal irvine, which cost cents
. pound, manufactured, and L. ~cs bein
sold 10 the farmers aiI4 IS and 10 cenis
900 or 400 per cen, above is cost. Tn
! trust. with perhaps q, 6,ooo,ooo or $7.Ooo
} 600 invested, has been paying dividends o.
4 capital OF over S3a,oOo.oOo. Now iher
is not farmer 10 ihe United States. IL |
! unders'anis his Interests. who ~iIi vote f
any bill which perpetra.es sash an injus;it
J upon him there is not a merchant, busina.
Z man or manufacturer outside OF the ira
! in the United States who i, interested
perpe,Isting such an injustice.
"S0 far as the MeK,nlry bill Is eonoe
/. ned, we lost the cAmraisn in sS9l upon ,hi
issue. Tnr Republican party is for Pre-
lection. The country has prospe=ed md
1t, but as we have grown older we Ia,
neejed less protection. We mean, in o.
national platform in ISSo-or Al ltas: it vi
the Interpretation put upon il by The part
that We rad row rached a point in OF
history when We could afford 10 make 7
duciians 10 the tariff. This xss so state
by our speakers on the sicmp and by III
Republican press. but when We put fort
the McKinley Liil We viols'ed The Pirdg'
Of he party. then wen. forth TO bait
upon the proposition and were beaten.