Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1894-06-28
M'kINLEY DENOUNCED.


/ - 1@tN00INSGDs
Protection an Issue Upon which Repab-
| Leans Cannot Win.
Col. 4. l.. Conger, ex-member of the
| republican national COMMITTEES from
| Ohio and one of the most prominent
| manufacturers in the middle states.
threw bo4bshell into the ranks of
the republicans of Ohio few days ago
by denouncing, in the most vigorous
English, the Mckinley tariff, sharply
criticising Gov McKinley's admins
tration of state affairs and pronounc-
ing Mckinley un&t for president. In
reference to the Mckinley bill Col.
COnger said:
Il have no ill feeling toward Gov.
Mckinley. l have always been his
friend, and during the 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 al
ways aided him in his political con-
tests, the friends Of years, he has
cast aside and he is now guided and
controlled by men whose sole inter est
in politics is personal advancement
They are not the men who are lying
awake nights to devise plans for keep
ing the waeels of their great indus
tries running for the ensuing weeks.
They are not the men who keep people
out of the poorhouse and free from suf-
fering. It Is we'll to speak plainly
about this matter. Mckinley could
not carry a single state in the union,
upon the Mckinley law, in 1895, and
believe that nine-tenths of the bust
ness men Of the country will concur
with me in the view that the Mckinley
tariff is not only inconsistent but not
in line with the business sentiment OF
our people. We lost the campaign Of
1892 on the Mckinley law and we will
lose that of 1896 if that law be the par
amount issue. 1t is unfor tunate for
the republican party that Gov. McKin-
ley's friends should have precipitated,
his candidacy at this time.
I'VE were all for him for governor.
and his friends have misinterpreted
the large majority he received last
year That was a protest aginst the
Wilson bill, not an Endorsement of the
Mckinley tariff. The business man
learns by experience one day and
profits by it the next Why should not
politicians?
Il do not quite understand what all
this political hubbub is about, but the
people who are kicking it up are kill
ing off their candidate and making
votes for Tom Reed every day. Gar
field said in the republican national
convention of 1885, and it has been the
law of the party ever since, that every
republican should have the right to
criticse the action Of our party lead
ers, and went so far as to say that he
should not be ostracised Or read out of
his party if for good reasons he could
not vote for his party candidate. l
have been educated for a high protec-
zionist, but have been engaged in bust
ness in some of the leading lines of
manufacture of the country for num-
Der of years, and during that time have
learned some things by experience
which have changed my views upon the
tariff question.
Gov. Mckinley is the leader of our
party in Ohio. The correspondents
sending out the news from our recent
state convention said that every plank
in the platform was first submitted
to the governor for his approval. They
seek to commit the party to the in
1896. They also put another plank in
the platform straddling the silver
question. Of course, we can fairly and
justly hold the governor RESPONSE BILE
for these two propositions as the plat
form upon which he would stand in 1896.
so far as the Mckinley bill is con-
cerned. we lost the campaign in 1892
upon that issue. The repu blican party
is for protection. The country has
prospered under it, but as we have
grown older we have needed less pro-
lection. We meant in our national
platform in 1ss0-or at least it was the
Interpretation put upon 1t by the
party-that we had now reached a
point in our history when we could at
ford to make reductions in the tariff.
This was so stated by our leaders on
the stump, and by the repu blican
press, but when we put forth the Nc
Kinley bill we violated the pledges of
the party, increased duties, then went
forth to battle upon the proposition,
and were beaten. Now. it would
simply be political suicide to start out
upon that proposition in 1896.
We will take, for instance, the sub
ject of binder Irvine. There are
three hundred millions of capital in
vested il the manufacture of agri-
cultural implements and farm ma
chinery in this country, giving en-
ploynent directly and Indirectly to
more than 300, 900 Of Americas labor
ing men. Whatever Is good for the
American farmer and will advance his
interests is good for the interests of
the manufacturers of agricultural
machinery and their employees. Their
prosperity must go hand in hand.
Many of the leading manufacturers of
agricultural implements were opposed
to duty on bin der Irvine.
by request l went before Maj. Nc
kinley when he was framing his bill,
and asked that no duty be put upon
binder Irvine, and explained to him the
reasons why it would be against the
interests of the republican party and
the people to put duty upon it, but
the duty went on. The binder trust
was manufacturing sisal Irvine. which
cost cents a pound manufactured,
and it was being sold to the farmer
at IA, Is and 16 cents, 300 or 400 per
cent. above it's cost. The trust, with
perhaps SO. 600, 900 or $1,000 200 invest
ed. has been paying dividends on a
capital of over $50, 100000. Now, there
is not farmer in the United States,
# he understands his interests, wile,