hrnished with carts and packs, loaded with tinware and many other ticles. The peddlers were not expected to sell their wares, but were inructed to ask double and triple prices; and when people objected to their rices they were to say that all these prices had been raised on account of he McKinley tariff; and that they could not sell at lower prices. The Duntry folk did not know that these men were lying, and of course deounced the Republicans and voted against them. Merchants and traders the same political faith all over the land adopted the same tactics, and ith like results. Within three weeks after the election the same men eclared that those stories were not true, and all admitted that prices had bt been raised. One of the ablest newspaper defamers, the day after the fection, said: "It is probable that this intentional deception about the se of prices under the McKinley bill has now appeared for the last time, aving served the purpose of electing a Democratic House in the next ongress.

MR. DEPEW'S OPINION.-On the 6th of March, 1891, at a public inner in the City of New York, that genial, kindly-spirited and conservave gentleman, Chauncey M. Depew, referring to the election of 1890, pldly said: We had last fall our Bull Run. It was the triumph of the ar in American politics. The liar elected a Congress of more than twoirds, of some honest Democrats and many phenomenal cranks, and *hen that Congress shall have adjourned the American people will underEand, in regard to the liar, that the deeds of men live after them; and hile the liar will live as long as the race in its present degraded condion survives, he never more will be a factor in our politics."

A WOMAN'S SPIRITED REPLY.-But, strange as it may seem, his perversion of fact and of truth was continued for months by freeade organs. Six months after the McKinley bill became a law the Jew York Times said: "When a woman pays 50 cents more a yard for uff to make a dress of than she would have paid if the McKinley bill ad not become a law, she should keep it to herself. So doing, she ill confer a great favor on President Harrison, who thinks he may get nother term in the White House if people will quit making 'malevolent' emarks about the tariff." This false and bitter paragraph was copied pprovingly by a Chicago paper, and came under notice of Mrs. Elizabeth unt, of Bloomington, Ill. She wrote an indignant letter in reply, which eserves a place here, because it is so spicy, so full of facts, and so early proves that the women of the land now know the truth about this hatter. After saying that she "is a Democrat's wife, but is sick of seeing ich lies in newspapers whose editors claim not to be fools," she dds:

"Now don't this fool Democrat who edits the Chicago Herald now, or can't his wife tell him, that everything a woman wears costs less an it did before the McKinley bill passed? Calico is 4 1-2 cents per ard; a good summer silk costs from 25 to 35 cents a yard. It used to ost $1. Black silk can be bought for from 60 cents to $1 that used to ost from $2 to $3.50. Sugar costs 5 cents that used to cost 8 cents. ibbons are half the old price, stockings the same, and jerseys, since they 're making them in this country, cost half as much as the imported. adies' things are down. We ladies know that Democratic husbands can e to each other, but they can't lie to us. We women are not fools. e Herald liar stick to men's things when he lies, and not try to lie about omen's things. We won't stand it. I'm a Democratic woman, but I on't want any lying to keep the party up."

Let

SOME GOOD POINTS OF THE MCKINLEY ACT.-It proclaims and holds the principles of protection to American industries.

It forbids the United States government from importing articles for its own use free of duty.

It forbids the importation of obscene books, pictures and literature and also forbids the importation of any foreign goods that bear an Amer ican trade-mark.

The importation of all foreign goods made by convict labor is strictly prohibited.

The friends of free trade have persistently declared that if we would only have free raw materials from abroad for manufacturing purposes, we could increase our exports many millions, and soon take the markets of the world. The McKinley bill provides that whenever any raw materials shall be imported for manufacture and export, 99 per cent. of the duty shall be refunded when so exported; and free traders now have full permission to take the markets of the world.

It restores the protective features of the law of 1867 on wool and its manufactures, so that if left undisturbed by legislation the sheep and wool industry will again flourish.

It adds materially to the duties on agricultural products, and so protects our farmers from the cheap labor of Canada and other countries.

It lays a duty on imported linen products that will encourage the erection of many large plants for the manufacture of linens in our own country, and will, at the same time, add a new and valuable product to the farmers' list in the raising of flax.

HOW IT AFFECTS TIN PLATES.-It puts a duty on tin plate so high that it promises to transfer the most of that great industry to this country. Already many large plants are in process of erection, or have been completed, and we are producing a superior tin plate at Brooklyn, Pittsburg, Chicago, St. Louis, and other places, and others will soon go up if the duty is not changed. The largest mines of tin in the world have been found in the Dakotas, California, Texas and Virginia; so that it is morally certain that in the near future we shall be able to produce at home the full supply of tin and tin plate that we need, and which now amounts to over $30,000,000 in value annually.

When this is accomplished, it will afford a new business that will annually pay to American labor not less than $23,000,000; it will require from iron ore miners not less than 1,000,000 tons of iron ore more than they now produce; from limestone quarries 300,000 tons more of limestone; from coal mines and coke ovens 2,000,000 tons more of coal and coke; from blast furnaces 400,000 tons more of pig iron; from lead mines and smelting furnaces 5,500,000 pounds more of lead; from slaughter and packing houses 13,000,000 pounds more of tallow and oil; from chemical factories 40,000,000 pounds more of sulphuric acid; from lumber yards 12,000,000 feet more of lumber; and will give constant work to at least 35,000 persons. Indeed, it is already in large part fulfilled, and unless the tariff on tin plate is greatly reduced the industry in this country will be a phenomenal success.

CHARACTERISTIC ACTION OF BRITISH FREE TRADERS.-A glance at the history of prices of tin plate for twenty years past will make clear the necessity and propriety of the McKinley tariff, and at the same time illustrate the characteristic policy of British free trade manufacturers. "In 1873 British importers advanced the price of tin plate to $12 a box in American markets; and at once American tin-plate factories commenced operations. British importers within three years reduced the price to $4.50 per box, and our mills had to shut down. When this was done British importers advanced prices to $9 and $10 per box, and under this stimulus, in 1879, American mills again started up. As soon as they were well at work British importers again reduced the price to $4 per box; and then made a standing offer, or more properly a threat to Sell their tin

plate twenty-five cents a box cheaper than the American product, no matter what the price of the latter might be. Of course, this action completely finished the American industry, and prices were at once advanced from $4 to $7 per box." (Rice.)

The McKinley tariff put an end to this outrage and robbery, and this fact alone is sufficient justification for its enactment.

THE FREE LIST AND THE REASON FOR IT.-The McKinley Act also puts upon the free list almost fifty per cent of the whole number of articles imported, including sugar; while the Mills bill put only about thirty-eight per cent on the free list; and left a duty on sugar amounting to nearly $60,000,000 a year, and a duty of 100 per cent on rice, two articles then produced in this country only in the South.

The principle of protection is this: Any articles (except luxuries which are used only by the rich) which we do not and cannot raise or produce, with profit in this country, but which are necessary in the common household economy of the masses of the people, such as tea, coffee, sugar, etc., covering over forty-nine per cent of all articles we import, we let in free of duty, or at mere nominal rates, but upon all articles we do raise or produce here, and in the production of which our workingmen are obliged to compete with cheap foreign labor, we place a duty large enough to cover the difference between the low wages of the foreign laborers and the much higher wages of our American laborers, in order that the wages of our own workmen may not be reduced. We also lay a heavy duty on luxuries, such as costly furs, cloths, wines, etc., which only the wealthy can afford; for the reason that if they will indulge in such expensive foreign productions they should contribute largely toward paying the expenses of the Government that grants them such exclusive privileges.

- MCKINLEY'S OPINIONS.-"This bill gives freer, broader, wider trade than any bill from Washington to Harrison. Nearly fifty per cent of all we imported last year is absolutely free under the law of 1890.

"Now do you know why we put them on the free list? We did it on the great principle underlying protection-because we do not manufacture them at home. For the same reason in 1872 we put tea and coffee there, and that is the exact reason that we make sugar free-that we produce but a small percentage of what we consume. (Speech in New York, April 29, 1891.)

A FREE TRADE TARIFF vs. A PROTECTIVE TARIFF.-To clearly illustrate the marked difference between these two systems in their application to the laboring and middle classes of England and the United States, and especially how they affect the earnings of the people, let us examine the English customs reports for the year 1888:

Whole amount collected from customs $97,897,380.

Now none of these articles are raised or produced in England, but with the exception of wines they are all necessaries of life, and the toiling millions of England must and will have them; and the greater part of the articles enumerated above are consumed by the laboring classes. In other words, under a free trade tariff, these few articles of necessity, consumed

mostly by the laboring classes of England, pay $76,514,462 out of $97,897,380-more than four-fifths of all the customs duties.

The American laborer pays no duty at all on tea, coffee, cocoa, chicory, and dried fruits; and none on tobacco and wines produced at home. In other words, a protective tariff saves our workingmen the greater part of $76,000,000 in customs duties.

In the United States under fifteen years of the free trade tariff of 1846 to 1861 our imports exceeded our exports by $432,355,721, and that amount of gold had to go abroad to pay that balance; in fifteen years of protection, from 1876 to 1890, our exports exceeded our imports by $1,669,444,246, and that amount of specie was sent to this country to pay us that immense balance. During the whole period from 1790 to 1861seventy-one years-we exported 80,869,000 bushels of wheat; but in 1883, after twenty-two years of protective tariff, we exported 150,000,000 bushels in a single year.

In 1861, after fifteen years of tariff for revenue, Government had to borrow money for current expenses at ten and twelve per cent. In 1891, after thirty years of protection, Government could borrow all it wanted at two per cent.

GLADSTONE vs. FACTS.-Mr. Gladstone, the eminent leader of the free traders in England, admits the marvelous increase of wealth acquired by the United States under a protective tariff, but insists that the results would have been even larger under free trade. He produces no facts to sustain his views, and therefore it is simply an expression of opinion.

Prince Bismarck holds the opposite view, and it may be said that his view is also a matter of opinion. But undisputed facts are infinitely stronger and more decisive than opinions or arguments, no matter how great or how able are their authors, and therefore the facts shall decide this question.

Mr. Blaine marshaled these facts clearly and forcibly from the very best authorities as follows:

"In 1860 the population of the United States was in round numbers 31,000,000. At the same time the population of the United Kingdom was in round numbers 29,000,000. The wealth of the United States at that time was $14,000,000,000; the wealth of the United Kingdom was $29,000,000,000. The United Kingdom had therefore nearly the same population, i but more than double the wealth of the United States, with machinery for manufacturing four-fold greater than that of the United States. At the end of twenty years (1880) it appeared that the United States had added nearly $30,000,000,000 to her wealth, while the United Kingdom had added nearly $15,000,000,000, or about one-half.

"During this period of twenty years the United States had incurred the enormous loss of $9,000,000,000 by internal war, while the United Kingdom was at peace, enjoyed exceptional prosperity, and made a far greater gain than in any other twenty years of her history-a gain which during four years was in a large part due to the calamity that had fallen upon the United States. The United Kingdom had added 6,000,000 to her population during the period of twenty years, while the addition to the United States exceeded 18,000,000.

"By the compound ratio of population and wealth in each country, even without making allowance for the great loss incurred by the Civil War, it is plainly shown by the statistics here presented that the degree of progress in the United States under protection far exceeded that of the United Kingdom under free trade for the period named. In 1860 the average wealth, per capita, of the United Kingdom was $1,000, while in the United States it was but $450. In 1880 the United Kingdom had increased her per capita wealth to $1,230, while the United States had increased her per capita wealth to $879. The United Kingdom had in twenty

years increased her per capita wealth twenty-three per cent, while the United States had increased her per capita wealth more than ninety-three per cent. If allowance should be made for war losses the ratio of gain in the United States would far exceed one hundred per cent. Upon these results what ground has Mr. Gladstone for his assertion?" (Blaine's answer to Gladstone.)

RESTRICTED RECIPROCITY.-Another of the highly beneficent provisions of the McKinley act is the section on restricted reciprocity. This (third) section "provides that with a view to secure reciprocal trade with countries producing the following articles, and for this purpose, on and after the 1st day of July, 1892, whenever and so often as the President shall be satisfied that the government of any country producing and exporting sugars, molasses, coffee, tea and hides, raw and cured, or any of such articles, imposes duties or other exactions upon the agricultural or other products of the United States, which in view of the free introduction of such sugars, molasses, coffee, tea and hides into the United States he may deem reciprocally unequal and unreasonable, he shall have the power and it shall be his duty to suspend by proclamation to that effect the provisions of this act relative to the free introduction of such sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and hides, the production of such country, for such time as he shall deem just; and in such case and during such suspension duties shall be levied, collected and paid thereon as follows: Sugars from one to two cents per pound, according to quality; molasses, four cents per gallon; coffee, three cents; tea, ten cents, and hides, one and one-half cents per pound."

A careful reading of this section will show that it is strictly in line with the doctrine of a protective tariff.

The articles named are such as cannot be produced economically in this country: but they are universally regarded as necessaries by our people, and are therefore placed upon the free list. Our production of wheat and corn has become enormous and is rapidly increasing; and hitherto we have found a ready market in Europe for our surplus of these cereals.

But India and other eastern countries are increasing their production of these articles much more rapidly than we are, and as the wages paid to Indian and Oriental laborers are but a small fraction of the wages paid to American laborers, they can and will undersell us in the European markets, and so, to a large extent, cut off our markets there.

We are also producing agricultural and other machinery in unlimited quantities and of the highest quality, and we have, or easily can have, a surplus of these things.

Now it so happens that the countries that produce sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, hides, etc., do not produce their own wheat, corn, flour, meal, beef, pork, lard, etc., in the quantities required by their people; neither do they make their own machinery to any great extent; but, strange as it may seem, those countries that need, and must have, but do not produce, these agricultural, mechanical and food productions which we make, have, up to January 1, 1891, levied and collected on these articles a heavy tariff duty whenever we have exported them to those countries, such duties, in some cases, being almost prohibitory. It should be added here that we were just as unwise as to sugar, collecting therefrom duties amounting to nearly $60,000,000 a year, though we admitted tea, coffee and hides free from duty.

Under the wise leadership of Mr. Blaine, our eminent Secretary of State, supported cordially by President Harrison's Administration, and by a Republican Congress, this section on restricted reciprocity was inserted in the McKinley act. The reason for it was substantially this:

These southern countries produce sugar, coffee, hides, etc., cheaply and in great abundance; they want a steady and increasing market for