Iowa state bystander. [volume] (Des Moines, Iowa) 1894-1916, 1896-07-03

nomination of Mr.. Mckinley, has been
taken with too much uneasiness. No
doubt the threat was made in the heat
of anger and disappointment But
when its effect is analysed it appears
ridiculous.
In the first place it must be remem-
bered that all this talk against MI.
Mckinley originates, and exists, only
in the columns Of few free-trade
newspapers and in the minds of hand
full of disgruntled republicans. The
latter will recover, SO we need not Wor-
ry further about them. As to the free
trade papers, it is well known that they
are simply trying to divert attention
from the ignominious muddle that ex-
lists in their own party Therein they
have been successful 1t is only nee
essary to turn back to the files OF these
very papers Of 1892 to refresh our mem
cries upon ali the wonderful good
things they promised the people IN the
event of the election Of a complete
Democratic administration.
Then their fight was for the repeal
of the Mckinley tariff, concerning
which they printed falsehood after
falsehood. They promised cheaper
goods, more work, higher wages and
lower taxes, These alluring bats car
ried the people. The authority asked
for was given to the Democratic party
The Mckinley tariff was repealed and
the Wilson monstrosity has reigned IN
its stead. But with what results? 1t
is true that the prices Of farm products
have been cheapened, but there has
been less work for the people, lower
wages and higher taxes, The national
revenue has been in sore straits as
well as the revenue Of the individual
The very character of the tariff Dill
passed by the Democrats differed so
widely from the kind of measure that
had been promised that it was stigma
tized as party perfidy and party dis
honor" by tho Democratic president
and as a 'trag-bag production" by the
Democratic senator, Mr.. Hill, of New
York state. The Democratic free-trade
press dare not face discussion OF the
tariff question, so it is now occupied
in reviling the most prominent candi-
date for the Republican presidential
nomination because il knows that his
election will eradicate every free-trade
idea from the country during the pres
ent generation.
The Democratic threat to create a
financial panic is deliberate act of
cowardice That it was ever seriously
sustained by one solitary bank presi-
dent, be he Republican or Democrat,
we can hardly credit, Who would be
the greatest sufferers by financial
panic? The bankers themselves. Bank
presidents are merely salaried officers
appointed to manage banks finances.
These finances consist of the money Of
the stockholders and depositors. An at
tempt to create a panic would be de-
liberate mismanagement OF the trust
reposed in president and it would
very speedily result in his dismissal.
No bank president would ever be per-
mitted, by a majority Of his board of
directors, to play ducks and brakes
with their money or with that of the
depositors. 1t would be a criminal act,
meriting the severest punishment, and
any Democratic paper that lends itself
thereto is particeps criminis, and NOR
ally, if not legally, guilty
If bank presidents, bank directors
and bank stockholders will carefully
consider the condition of their banks
when the Mckinley tariff was in force,
and compare it with their business to-
day, we have no besitation in saying
that the unanimous verdict will be that
restoration of the Mckinley era of
prosperity is very much to be desired.
The financial situation calls upon
bankers to support the nomination of
Mr.. Mckinley, not to allow spleen and
bad Judgment to control their more
mature business judgment Bankers
have large sums Of money to lend, not
to keep idle, and they know that they
now have plethora of idle money for
which there is no demand. In 1892,
on September go, the national banks at
the United States had s2,153 .4sS,S2s of
money out on loan and discount that
was earning interest This year, on
February %, their loans and discounts
amounted only to S1,951 ,7S2, or
5000, 900 900 less than in the Mckinley
tariff year The earnings and profits
of the national banks cannot be as sat
tsfactory as they were In 1892. and
they are even less satisfactory to-day
than they were last February. Why?
Because manufacturers are borrowers,
and more of our industries are idle oW
ing to the Democratic tariff.
In 1892 On September 30, before the
election Of q complete Democratic adj
ministration, the amount of money on
deposit in the national banks of the
United States was $2,O22, 100000. This
year, on February %, it was only
81, GAS, 09s $3.50, or 1875 ,006.6oo less than
in the Mckinley tariff year. With so
much less money at their disposal the
national banks have not the opportun-
ity for earning or transacting such a
profitable business as they possessed in
1892. Then money was in demand.
Why? Because our industries were in
| active operation on account of the Nc
| Kinley tariff. During the first four
months of 1892 the volume of business
| transacted throughout the United
States, as represented by bank clear
ings, amounted to 500 1913 ,S79 $40. Dur
ing the first four months of the pres
ent year it aggregated only SIT o59,5 14,-
662, loss of 74,653,l IFS OF business
| in only one-third of the year This is
q most serious matter. And why does
! this condition exist? Because of the
free-trade tariff, which has lessenet
! our industrial production, has de