Freeland tribune. (Freeland, Pa.) 1888-1921, 1896-10-12
WILSON LAW A SUCCESS.
AMPLE FOR REVENUE AND PROTEC-
TI0N TO LABOR.

Mr. Mckinley begins the unfortun-
ate high-protection portion of his let
ter of acceptance by claiming that in
December, 1892, under the tariff act
bearing his nama, the country was in
condition of extraordinary pros
perity. He cites from President Har-
rison's message the statement that be-
tween October, 1890, and October %,
1892, 345 additional industrial plants
had been established and los extern
sions had of existing plants, and that
during the first six months of the cal.
endar year 1892, 135 new factories
had been built. The facts were that
the two preceding years had been
those OF steadily increasing industrial
depression. Omitting oil instances OF
labor troubles the cause OF which was
either doubtful or clearly other
wise to be classified, there has been
collated and published as a challenge
to protectionists, with date and place
and circumstances in each case, nearly
twelve hundred instances of wage re-
ductlons during those very two years,
with strikes against them or lockouts
by employers in order to force accept.
ance. The number of new plants and
factories and extensions of such quoted
by him from President Harrison is SO
petty, when the size OF this country
and the myriGds of its industries are
taken into account, as to be but
trifiing Offset to the terrible record of
OF disaster then daily being added to,
and in reality a humiliating confession
OF the failure of Mckinley legislation
which has promised better things.
As proof of Democratic depravitv
Mrs Mckinley then quotes from Presi-
dent Cleveland's message of August S,
1898. 1t correctly characterized the
condition of our country eight months
later, when its condition, still under
Republican legislation, had reached
such a crisis that Congress was called
together in midsummer to save our
finances from rum by the repeal of
the purchasing clause of the Sherman
act, for which Mr.. Mckinley had voted
and which the party which now poses
as a knight errant of sound finance
had vociferously pointed to with pride
in its platform of a short year previ-
Gus. The abyss from which the action
OF the Democratic Administration then
rescued the country was but the end
of the descent upon which it had been
started by the twin protection sis
ters.
Mr.. Mckinley says that from 1880
to 1892 we had "a protective tariff IN.
der which ample revenues were col.
lected for the Government and an nc.
cumulating surplus" OF these years
he was responsible only for two-lS9O
to 1892 during which his law was in
operation. So far from surplus ac.
cumulating under his bill the annual
surplus had fallen from $lO6, 900, 900
lin the year before the passage OF the
Mckinley billy to $37, 900, 900 in the
irst year of its operation, to $40, ,O00,
900 in the second year, andto s., 300,
900 in the third year, and had turned
to deficit of 500, 600, 600 in 1891, the
last year before its repeal.
Sdch is the decentralization of our
financeG,' resulting from Republican
legislation, with which our commerce
aud manufactures have struggled fo1
years; and Mr.. McKinley's figures by
which, charging to the Wilson bill the
run caused by the Sherman act, he
strives to make tire Mckinley bill
tolerable by comparison, are not
merely unfair, but, when rightly read +,
the best proof that he is wrong. That,
under all the circumstances, our ex.
ports of manufactured goods are SO
nearly the maximum figure for our
most prosperous years; that the bal.
Gnce in our favor of our foreign trade
is SO large anc so rapidly growing,
shows how much the Wilson bill has
done to Offset the disaster bred by the
Sherman act.
Mr.. Mckinley charges the Wilson
tariff with failure to raise revenue
sufficient to satisfy the needs of Gov.
ernment. What does he mean? Does
he not believe that, even from pro.
tectionist standpoint, all interests OF
business demand that IN adjusting u
tariff it should be 50 fixed as to remain
without substantial change for n con.
siderable period, say eight or ten
years? If this be true, must he not
also admit that It's rates should be SD
adjusted, not in view of the maximum
revenue probable under exceptional
prosperity or to the possible minimum
under an extraordinary depression,
but to the probable average of condi-
tions during the entire term contem-
plated? To adopt the latter measure,
Mr.. Mckinley must admit, would be
wantonlv to overtax our people ami
derange their finances by locking up
in the Treasury an increasing proper
tion of our inelastic circulation.
The monthly receipts and expendi-
tures of our Government each vary so
much, both in fact aud in relation to
each other, that any argument drawn
from comparing single months would
be misleading. But If we take the
first complete year under the opera.
tion of the Wilson bill (the one ending
June 80, 1896, and one of extraordin.
ary depression) we find the deficit for
the whole year 20 be some $26, 600,
| 600 Onlv Evan 6urinn tbaE vnor =, y !