The Camden chronicle. (Camden, Tenn.) 1890-current, 1896-10-02
A REPUBLICAN, ORGY.
GENERAL PB0TLIGAOY UNDER Ear.
RlaOE8 AUTHORIZATION

pietely Diaproved p Republican
ENiravaganeo Mainly Responsl.
bic for the Couutry's distress.
10 Mr. Mckinley:
IN your leltor Of acceptance you cay
Of the Wilson Tariff Jaw.
at lacks the essential virtue Of the
creation-tho raising Of revenue sui.
hciont 70 supply the needs o, tie Gov
ornment II has contributed 20 swell
our National debt more than $780,
600, 0oo,and general business demorali-
cation IS seen on every hand
Confidence In home enterprises has
almost wholly disappeared. Our mon
at home are idle and men abroad are
occupied IN supplying us with goods.
In a recent speech at your home
you were even more explicit. You
snid Of the souud.monoy Democrats:
"Ihcy were chiefly instru.
mental in puttiug on tho statute books
tariff legislation which has destroyed
American manufacturing, checked
foreign trade aud reduced the demand
Tor 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 20 the
American people and entailed upon
the Government deficient revenues,
upon the people diminished trade
abroad and starvation wages at home.
These statements and characteriza-
tious are not true, Mr.. Mckinley.
l. The Wilson tariff has not "de.
stroyed American manufacturing or
checked foreign trade. On the
contrary, as you very well know, the
exports Of American manufactured
goods, which amounted under your
own tariff law in the fiscal year 1892
only to Sl5S, 600, 900, have so in.
creased under tbs Wilson lew that for
the fiscal year 1896 they were no less
than 1928, 00O,0O
2. 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 that 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 estab-
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 a single in
stance in which any such thing had
occurred. Is your present assertion
equally without a foundation of fact?
Is it fair, is it just, is it even honest
to make such On assertion if you can
not prove it?
3. The Wilson law is not Stree trade
legislation" and you know it. You
know that the present tariff is higher
than the Republican tariff of 1888, IN
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
Stree trader"
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 O surplus. You
know that when thatsource 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 ii manly,
is it wise, under existing circum-
stances, for you thus to misrepresens
facts?
But there is a 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 mischie'swhich you charge
TO Democratic legislation and Demo
cratic administration have been the
II