Freeland tribune. (Freeland, Pa.) 1888-1921, 1896-09-28
A REPUBLICAN, ORGY,
GENERAL PROFLIGACY UNDER HAR.
RIS0N'S ADMINISTRATION

pleCely DiSproVeO - Republican
Extravaganza Mainly RESPONSE.
BILE for the Country's Distress.
To Mr.. Mckinley:
In your letter of acceptance you say
of the Wilson Tariff law:
cit lacks the essential virtue of the
creation-the raising of revenue suf-
fcient to supply the needs of the Gov
ernment. 1t hes contributed to swell
our National debt more than $685.
600, 900, and general business demorali-
zation is seen on every hand. =
Confidence in home enterprises has
almost wholly disappeared. Our men
at home are idle and men abroad are
occupied in supplying us with goods. "
In recent speech at your home
you were even more explicit. You
said of the sound-money Democrats
'They were chiefly instru-
mental in putting on the statute books
tariff legislation which has destroyed
American manufacturing, checked
foreign trade and reduced the demand
for the labor of American working
men,"
In the same speech you character
lied the existing (Wilson) tariff law
as:
Free trade legislation which has
already resulted SO disastrously to the
American people and entailed upon
the Government deficient revenues,
upon the people diminished trade
abroad and starvation wages at home. p"
These statements and characteriza-
tions are not true, Mr.. Mckinley.
l. The Wilson tariff has not "de.
stroyed American manufacturing" or
Checked foreign trade" On the
contrary, rs you very we'll know, the
exports of American manufactured
goods, which amounted under your
own tariff law in the fiscal year 1892
only to $15S, 100000 have SO in.
creased under the Wilson law that for
the fiscal year 1896 they were no less
than $22s, ZOO, 900.
9. When you assert that the exist
ing tariff has "reduced the demand
for the labor of American working
men" you are under obligation to es-
tablish the fact. What proof have
you thet the demand for American
labor is less under the present tariff
than it was under your own? If your
assertion is true you can easily esteb-
lish it by statistics. You doubtless
remember that in 1890 you asserted
that wages in protected industries had
advanced under your tariff, and yet
upon an oft-repeated challenge you
utterly failed to point out single in
stance in which any such thing had
occurred. Is your present assertion
equally without foundation of fact?
Is it fair, is it just, is it even honest
to make such an assertion if you can
not prove il?
3. The Wilson law is not "free trade
legislation" and you know it. You
know that the present tariff is higher
than the Republican tariff of 1888, un-
der which labor was amply protected.
You know that it is so per cent. higher
than the Morrill, war tariff. You know
it is the highest protective tariff in the
world. is it honest or fair to call this
"free trade?"
4. The Wilson bill, as you perfectly
know, has not 'entailed upon the
Government deficient revenues" You
know that but for the Supreme Courts
anomalous decision declaring its in
come tax feature unconstitutional the
Wilson measure would have produced
ample revenues to pay all Government
expenses and leave surplus. You
know that when that source of revenue
was destroyed it was Republican
Congress which refused to increase the
beer tax or do anything else to repair
the deficiency. Is it fair. is it manly,
is it wise, under existing circum-
stances, for you thus to misrepresent
facts?
But there is broader aspect ofthis
matter. In these assertions and sug-
gestions you challenge scrutiny of
Republican crimes under Harrison.
It is reckless and even fatal thing
for you to do.
The very mischieis which you charge
to Democratic legislation aud Demo-
cratic administration have been the
necessary results, the inevitable fruits
OF that orgy which began with Mr..
Harrison's Inauguration and ended
only with his departure from office
after his crushing defeat by the peo-
pie. AS you were yourself o promi-
nent ana influential factor in the
events vf that period you must know
this fact as well as we do. Is it fair for
you to ignore it and attribute to Dem
ocratic legislation and administration
results which were unmistakable con-
sequences of Republican misconduct?
l. You know perfectly we'll that
when Mr.. Harrison came into Office
Mr.. Cleveland turned over to him a
Treasury full to repletion, with sur
plus of more than hundred million
of dollars, and with revenue laws pro-
ducing vastly more money than the
Government needed.
Q. You know that at the end of Mr..
Harrison's term the surplus was ex-
hausted and that there would have
been deficiency apparent but for
the Juggling of accounts in the Treas