The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-10-24

escape observation, and that is that the mo-
ment the Mckinley law was repealed and the
new tariff law enacted-August %, iS94-the
times began TO improve and have continued to
improve ever since-slowly it may be, but
surely, safely and satisfactorily.
lam sure that Senator Miller did not speak
for the manufacturers and business men of our
State when he advocated return to the Nc
Kinley law of 1890. That policy would afford
no relief; on the contrary, it would aggravate
whatever differences now exists, which are few
and much exaggerated. What the business
interests of New York require at this time is
industrial peace. Renewed tariff agitation
can serve no useful purpose, because no legis-
lation hostile to the principai features of the
present law can possibly be enacted until after
March 4, 1897, the expiration of the term of
the present executive. 1t is Jolly 10 attempt it;
it is unwise to advocate it.
What wooden manufacturer wants to restore
the duty on wool? Who desires the tax on raw
materials to be restored or increased? Who
favors change in the present tax on whisky?
Surely the masses of the people are not clamor-
ing for restoration of sugar bounties, nor do
do they desire renewal of another tariff strug-
gle for years to come.
Our opponents forget that the recent panic
was not the result of any Democratic tariff
legislation, but it came full year before the
tariff bill passed. The dire predictions of our
adversaries year ago are not being realized.
They assumed that business would not revive,
that prosperity would not return, that our
mills and shops would continue idle and our
people would be unable 10 find employ
ment; and, so assuming, they were prepared
to assert that such results would
be owing to the unwise provisions
of the new tariff. But the country refuses to
descend into the slough of despond;'' it de-
clines to be bankrupt; it insists upon being
prosperous and it is contented with the present
law. If our opponents really desire to present
the issue of q continuance of the present tariff
versus return to the Mckinley law we shall
welcome that issue and shall have no fears of
the result.
No one should be heard to object that the
duties upon the necessaries of life were either
removed or largely reduced n the existing
law The average general reduction in tariff
taxes was about 331s per cent from those of the
Mckinley law and it is barely possible that,
considering the revenues viii oh now seem to
be needed by the Government, less reduction
would have been preferable, but that fact is
not by any means conceded and time alone
can determine it. This much may be
safely stated, that the duties are reasonable
and fair and intelligently imposed with good
| Judgment and discrimination. They were
honestly designed for purposes of revenue and
not for the fostering of monopolies or the aid
| ing of private interests. The interests of labor
have not been lost sight OF or ignored for while
the duties imposed have been only directly for
| the purpose OF revenue, they have, in all in
stances, been sufficiently large to represent the
| differences in wages paid between this and for
| eign countries, so lar as the cost of labor has
entered into the production of manufactured
| article. This is a fact and cannot be success
| fully disputed.
| The Democratic party may not always have
acted with entire wisdom in regard to silver,
| but this much can be said, that it is not re-
sponsible for the Sherman law. That law was
Republican in its conception, in its enactment
and in its enforcement. The President called
| an extra session of Congress to secure its re-
peal and after long and weary struggle a
Democratic Congress wiped it out and it no
| longer exists.
| The law ceased, but its mischief remains, be.
cause there had been issued under its provi-
sions $3.50 100000 of legal tender paper
money, with substantially no available assets
with which to redeem, and which to-day is dis.
| turbing the treasury and embarrassing its
| operations. Our Republican friends may seek
to explain their attitude toward that bill and
may assert that 1t was passed to prevent some
| thing worse; but they cannot escape response.
bility therefor, because the salient facts re-
| main undenied and undeniable that Repub-
| lican Congress passed it and that Republican
| President approved it and that q Congress un.
conditionally repealed il, and a Democratic
President signed the repeating act.
| The National Democratic administration is
| giving to the country Il well-administeredG Gov
eminent. The various departments are being
honestly, economically and wisely conducted
No scandals have disgraced them; no irregu
| larities have occurred; no abuses of power
have been tolerated.; no extreme partisa n
ship has characterized them. With honor
dignity and diligence they are diseharg
| ing their duties as public trusts fol
the welfare of the whole people. I have
read nearly all that has been said by ou1
opponents in this campaign, and can recall
no criticism which reflects upon the fairness
| the industry or the consciennousness with
which the various officials of the Government
at Washington are conducting public affairs.
We are indeed enjoying an area of good
| Government, and no good citizen can furnish
| adequate reasons for desiring change of par
ties in the control of National affairs
Senator Hill was frequently inter- upte6
| by applause. When the Senator concluded
his speech he announced that he was 60
ing to Ohio to give his services to Governor
Campbell in the latter's campaign. HI
will remain in Ohio three or four day.
making speeches. The meeting then ad
journed.