Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1904-03-31
INTERPRETING .M,klNLEy.

From time to time there appears con-
siderable discussion over the question
OF the Interpretation of William Nc.
klnley's last speech, especially that
part of it referring to reciprocity. Free
traders contend that on the day when
he was struck down by the assassin's
bullet he renounced his belief in the
great Importance of the great home
market and professed a desire for
freer and larger competition in the
outside world. Republicans and pro-
tectionists insist that no such inter-
probation can rightly be placed on his
speech nor any part thereof In the
matter of interpretating Mr.. McKin-
ley's speech it is only reasonable to
suppose that those men who were
closely acquainted with him and be-
lieve in his views are best qualified
to give this Interpretation.
In his recent speech in the house of
representatives Congressman Dalzell
gave answer to this contention in such
manner that it cannot be questioned:
Il know that certain enemies of pro-
lection have contended that President
Mckinley in his last speech abandon
ed that doctrine. There are detached
sentences in that speech which might
mean most anything, but taken as a
whole it was Mckinley speech. It's
keynote sounded the supreme import
ance of the home market. But whether
he did or not, the faith of the republi-
can party today on this subject is de-
clared in the platform of 1907
Concerning this statement and its
rnfnrnn1n n tho 81 ir4o
ing Mr.. McKinley's utterances the
American Economist says:
'Well said and true. 1t is not to be
denied that in certain detached SEN
fences Mckinley seemed to favor some
plan, as yet uniformed in his mind, for
the enlargement of our foreign trade
through reciprocity arrangements, but
always with a reservation in behalf of
home production. He had made no
special study of the subject from the
standpoint of protectionism. He had
not advanced beyond the stage of gen
eralization. Great and pressing prob
lens in his first four years of the presi-
dency has left little leisure for exami-
nation of the intricate economic ques-
tions involved in reciprocity. He was
feeling his way it is true, but with
no uncertainty of step, no stumbling
on the broad, general question of
protection as national policy
His attitude in that regard was distinct
ly defined in the following statement
in conversation at the white house with
Congressman Robert w. Taylor, of
Ohio, the member who succeeded Nc
Kinley in the Canton district In the
early part of June, 1901, just three
months prior to the Buffalo speech,
President Mckinley made to Repre-
sentative Taylor the following state
ment: I favor no plan of reciprocity
that takes from single American
workingman his job,
eft is not reasonable to suppose that
President Mckinley had changed his
attitude toward the American work
ingman in the three months which
passed before he made his last speech
at Buffalo. McKinley's entire public
life gives evidence that his one SUI
preme desire was to serve the people
of his country and to promote their
welfare. That this was in his mind
when he made his Buffalo address is
apparent from the following:
by sensible trade arrangements,
which will not interrupt our home pro-
duction, we shall extend the outlets
of our increasing surplus,
"And again:
1--WE should take from our customers
such of their products as we can use
without harm to our industries and
labor.'4s
1.-THE objects expressed in these two