The united opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1881-1970, 1896-01-10

the ability of the government to maintain
Its notes at par with coin
The president makes no mention in his
message of these deficiencies, no mention
of the issue of interest bearing bonds to
meet them. The secretary of the treasury
is more frank in his statement, He rep ,rts
deficiency of $50, S03, $50. 5S during the
fiscal year ending June 80, 1894, and for
the year ending June 30, 1895, $40, $685.
223.18, and for the six months prior to
Dec l, 1885, $l7 6l3, 530.24, in all $780,.
22l, 023.
No complaint was made that the Nc
Kinley law twas inefficient for the pur
poses of revenue when the Wilson bill was
pending. The objection to the Mckinley
law was that it was protective tariff
and the Wilson bill was "revenue tariff. I"
have statement showing the receipts
and expenditures under each law each
month, the Mckinley law from it's passage
TO the election of Cleveland and the Will.
son law from it's passage to Dec l, 1895
During the 90 months of the Mckinley
law the average monthly surplus was
81, 1879, 821. During the existence of the
| Wilson law the average monthly deficiency
was 81, 500, SOB. If the Mckinley law was.
In the opinion Of the president, inefficient
for revenue, he should have said of the
Wilson law that it was bounteous In de-
| fciencies
| Attack on the Wilson Tariff Law.
The agricultural imports during the
first year of the Wilson law (all of which
are such as are produced in the United
States) were of the value of $107, 342, 522.
During the last year of the Mckinley law
the imports of the same farm products
We're of the value of $51, Ala, 844.
Notably during the same time the I'M
| portation of the two articles Chat we can
| produce in the United States) under tie
| Wilson law were WOOL valued at $32, $780,.
| 791, and hides 1874, 623,239 Under the
Mckinley law wool valued at $1,000, 934
and hides valued at $10 $50, 562 were i'm
| ported. Importations of wool were in
| creased under the Wilson law skiold, and
| of hides two and one-half fold. The Amer
| lean farmer was thus deprived of his home
market.
Other ilnportations made during the
year under the Wilson law of articles which
we can readily produce in this country
were valued mt $263, GS4, 513, while under
the Mckinley law the value of the same
articles imported was $l12, 743, 610.
The enormous importations under the
Wilson law for which we had to pay gold
| necessarily diminished the exports of the
United States. Our chief reliance in our
foreign trade is to export products, main
ly agricultural, in sufficient quantity or
more to pay for our imports, so that the
balance of trade shall be in our favor. I'm
der the Wilson law we exported in year
agricultural productions valued at $30l,
SIS, 1856, while during the last year of the
Mckinley law we exported similar pro-
auctions valued at 1871, 1875, 800.
could pursue the analysis of these two
laws further But have said enough to
explain the preference by the president of
the Wilson bill. He believes in large i'm
portations at the lowest cost without re-
gard to the industries and labor of our
countrymen, while l believe in a careful
discrimination and the imposition of sue
duties on articles that compete with home
productions as will diversity our employ
ments and protect and foster impartiality
In all industries, whether of the farm, of
| the workshop. the mine the forest or the
sea. / have not been satisfied with any
tariff law made during my public life,
though l have shared in framing many I
prefer a law that will mpartially protect
and encourage all home industries and
regard the Mckinley law as infinitely bet
ter than the Wilson law, which | believe
Is the cause of al! the evils which we now
encounter by adverse balance of trade, by
expectation of gold and arrangement of
our monetary system. The Wilson law has
produced a deficiency in every hour and
day that it has been on the statute book,
while the Mckinley law has always pro
duced a surplus until after the incoming
of this administration, and if administer
ed since that time by friendly agents
would have furnished the government all
the revenue needed.
Cause of Our Financial Condition.
The deficiency of revenue was the
primary cause of the demand for gold
for the United States notes. The gold
boarded for resumption purposes was not
separated from the money received for
current revenue, and this revenue being
insufficient to meet expenses the gold ac
cumulated for redemption purposes was
drawn upon to make good deficiencies.
This created a doubt of the ability of the
government to maintain the parity of
United States notes with coin and led to
their presentation for redemption in coin.
The draft on the treasury for coin during
this administration has been greater than
the amount of deficiency of revenue dur
ing the same period. In every aspect in
winch Jne suDJect presents llSelI TO my |
mind come to no other conclusion than |
that the deficiency of revenue and the con-
sequent encroachment upon the redemption |
fund are the causes of our present finan- |
oial condition and that the only remedy |
Is either a radical reduction of expendi |
lures or an increase of taxation, or per |
haps both do not believe that the con. |
dition requires suspension Of pnblic |
works or a postponement Of measures now |
In progress TO strengthen the army and |
navy |
1t is strange that the president in deal |
ing with our financial condition should |
ignore entirely the pregnant and control. |
ling fact that during his term Of Office |
thus far three issues of bonds have been |
made amounting in the aggregate TO Sl62,
3l5, 400. TO meet current expenses in time |
CT profound peace He attributes all our |
financial difficulties to the continued cir
culatior of United States notes and treas
ury notes. debts bearing no interest |
amounting TO nearly $500 900 900 His |
statement OF the origin and history of the |
United states notes is strongly tinged |
with prejudice for though these notes |
were irredeemable for a time they were in |
convertible ;nto bonds bearing interest |
payable in coin They replaced notes l.
sued by banks chartered BY the several |