who would strike from this, or any bill, what is known as the bullion-redemption feature, making the notes redeemable in coin only, and there are those who would confine their redemption to silver alone. But all agree that we must have a larger volume of money, and that the added volume shall be silver or its equivalent based on silver."

Further on, the distinguished speaker intimates that even this bill does not do all that might be done for silver or for currency, by continuing:

"It is impossible, in any legislation that may come before this or any legis lative body, to have it entirely and in every part meet the views of every individual member. That is utterly out of the question. And so, Mr. Speaker, I shall support this measure, although it does not, in all of its provisions, meet my entire approval. I would have this bill different if I could. but it represents the purpose and the idea, not fully, it is true, which I have touching the silver legislation which is required, and I shall vote for it because it is in the right direction and embodies much which is good and all in the interests of the people. What does it do? First, it utilizes every dollar of the silver product of the United States, and to that extent it is just to the silver producers of this country." * * **

"Mr. Williams, of Illinois. Will the gentleman permit a question?"

"Mr. McKinley. I have but a minute and must, therefore, decline to be interrupted.

"So, I say, Mr. Speaker, this bill is just to the silver-producers of the United States, for it does what the present law, as administered by every administration for ten years, has not done: it takes every dollar of silver bullion that is produced in the United States and places it at the disposal of the people as money." * Congressional Record, vol. 21, part 6, page 5812. Again he says:

* *

"Mr. Speaker, I will not vote against this bill and thus deprive my people, and my country, and the laborers, and the producers, and the industries of my country of thirty millions annually of additional circulating medium."Congressional Record, June 7, 1890, vol. 21, part 6, pages 5812 and 5813.

This bill passed the Senate with an amendment providing for the free coinage of silver, and after its return to the House of Representatives Mr. McKinley, from the Committee on Rules, reported, and the House adopted, a resolution fixing a time for taking a vote upon the amendments of the Senate. In the debate upon the adoption of the rule, Mr. McKinley repelled the charge that it was the intention of the leaders of the House to prevent a vote upon the amendments of the Senate, and thereby prevent all legislation upon the silver question. "We have given to-day," he said, "a direct refutation of that unfounded charge made last week, that the purpose of this side of the House was to delay and indefinitely postpone silver legislation." He favored a non-concurrence in the Senate amendments and the appointment of a committee of conference out of which will come, he said he believed, “such legislation as will be satisfactory to our whole people of every section and

interest and conform to the majority sentiment here and throughout the country.

He defined his position in the following emphatic language:

"I am for the largest use of silver in the currency of the country. I would not dishonor it; I would give it equal credit and honor with gold. I would make no discrimination; I would utilize both metals as money and discredit neither. I want the double standard, and I believe a conference will accomplish these purposes."-Congressional Record, June 24, 1890, vol. 21, part 7, page 6447.

The Republican party had not, at the time of this debate, declared for the single gold standard. Mr. McKinley took an entirely different position from that now taken by his party and himself in favor of the single gold standard. Upon the free coinage amendment of the Senate Mr. McKinley voted nay, the bill was sent to conference, and the outcome was the Sherman silver purchasing law, which provided substantially for the purchase of silver, the issuance of coin obligations upon it, stopping the compulsory coinage of silver and converting our silver coinage laws to laws for the purchase of a commodity and the issuance of obligations payable in gold or silver upon it.

serve.

The Bland-Allison act provided for compulsory coinage; the Sherman act stopped compulsory coinage. The Bland act treated silver as money, and did not make the certificates issued upon it redeemable in anything else but silver., The Sherman law treated silver as a commodity, and issued certificates upon it payable in gold or silver, but not confined to redemption in silver alone. The price of silver went down under its operations. Secretary Foster, the Secretary of the Treasury of Mr. Harrison's Cabinet, construed the law to mean the redemption of the notes in coin instead of confining their redemption to silver. They thereby became an additional strain upon the gold reThat reserve was normally $100,000,000. It was held for redemption. Upon it rested $346,000,000 greenbacks. The national bank money, amounting to about $200,000,000, being redeemable in greenbacks, and the greenbacks in turn redeemable in gold, were indirectly also $200,000,000 weight on the gold reserve. When, by this legislation and construction, the gold reserve was still further burdened by nearly $150,000,000 Sherman notes, the weight became excessive, the reserve began to be drawn out and commercial disturbance set in. As this great burden of nearly $700,000,000 of paper rested directly and indirectly upon the $100,000,000 gold reserve, it became an easy matter for those who wanted United States bonds to bank on, to speculate on, or as an untaxed, safe investment, to deplete the Treasury of its gold and force the issuance of more bonds for its replenishment. And this process was worked to the extent of $262,500,000 bonds. It was worked not only when the Treasury was comparatively empty, but when it was full to overflowing. It was as easy to work it when the surplus in the Treasury above the gold reserve was more than $100,000,000 as it was when it was less than $100,000. And it was done. The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Carlisle, pursued the same course pursued by all of his predecessors in redeeming the greenbacks and Treasury notes in gold or silver at the option of the holder. This neces

sarily made it possible for those who forced the sale of bonds to take the very gold with which they paid for them out of the fund that the bonds were being sold to replenish.

MR. McKINLEY FAVORED CHINESE IMMIGRATION.

The question of controlling and restricting Chinese immigration has engaged the thought and required the action of the country's legislators for many years. How to prevent this immigration from flooding the countryespecially the western portion of it—and interfering materially with our laborers has ever required most careful and patriotic attention since this race turned in this direction.

Mr. McKinley has a record on this question as on many others. A bill on the subject passed the House January 14, 1879. Mr. McKinley failed to vote on the bill. But on February 22, 1879, Mr. White, of Pennylvania, moved to lay the bill and Senate amendments on the table. It is hardly necessary to remind those familiar with parliamentary law that the adoption of this motion would kill the bill and therefore prevent the desired legislation restricting Chinese immigration. On Mr. White's motion, the yeas were

95, nays 141.

Mr. McKinley voted for the motion.

As the motion failed to carry the amendments were concurred in, but the yeas and nays were not taken on this motion. It is presumable Mr. McKin ley stood by his former vote and against Mongolian exclusion.

The bill was vetoed by Mr. Hayes. The House took a vote on passing the bill over the veto March 1, 1879.

Mr. McKinley did not vote on this proposition, and although a majority voted to pass it over the veto it failed for want of the necessary two-thirds. His Republican colleague from Ohio, Mr. Townsend, made the following announcement: "Mr. McKinley is paired with Mr. Morse on questions generally, but on this question both would vote no."

It seems, therefore, that notwithstanding all of Mr. McKinley's vaunted partiality for the laboring man, he voted against excluding the most degraded class of competitors the laborer has had and who have been brought here by companies under contract.

It

Let it be remembered that this was by no means a radical measure. provided that not more than 15 Chinese should be brought here by a ship in any one voyage. Therefore, Mr. McKinley stands recorded thereby against any and all Chinese exclusion.

MR. MCKINLEY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FORCE BILL. No measure passed by either House of Congress in recent times has met with a more severe and overwhelming condemnation than what is known as the "Force bill." It is difficult to conceive how one person could be more responsible for its passage than was Mr. McKinley. Even in the House of Representatives, through which it was forced, the condemnation of it was

so great and the sentiment against it so strong, both among Democrats and Kepublicans, that those in charge of the business of the House despaired of success in passing it through the House except by the adoption of a gag rule to force its consideration. This could only be done by the passage of a rule through the Committee on Rules limiting both debate and amendments upon its passage. The Committee on Rules consisted of the Speaker, Mr. Reed; Mr. McKinley, of Ohio, and Mr. Cannon, of Illinois, Republicans, and Messrs. Blount, of Georgia, and McMillin, of Tennessee, Democrats. Speaker Reed and Mr. Cannon favored the rule to force the consideration and passage. Blount and McMillin opposed it. Therefore, the balance of power rested with Mr. McKinley, and he could either compel its consideration or defeat its consideration. He cast his vote in favor of the rule, and helped to put it and the "Force bill" through the House, and thereby assumed the responsibility of this obnoxious measure which sought to put Federal force at the polling places in the States in defiance of State laws, which gave to the Federal courts power to appoint men to conduct elections in the States against State staututes, which took away from the Governors of the States the authority under certain circumstances to certify the members of Congress elected in their territory; and which forced the Clerk of the House of Representatives to disregard the governor's certificate of election and place upon the rolls men not certified by him, but men who, in violation of State laws, and the practice of a hundred years were certified by Federal authorities. If the bill had passed the Senate and become a law it would have subverted the Government and turned it over to the Federal courts.

But this is no new sentiment with the distinguished candidate. Both troops and deputy marshals had been sent to the polls under a law then on the statute books, and it was condemned by the masses of the people. An amendment was offered and came to a vote in Congress, in 1879, on the 8th day of February, to a. bill then pending, prohibiting the use of troops at the polls except "to repel the armed enemies of the United States," and providing a penalty against disobedience to the law. On this salutary amendment the yeas were 110, nays 95.

Mr. McKinley voted nay.

On February 19, 1879, a proposition somewhat similar to the foregoing, providing against the use of supervisors and deputy marshals to control elections, came before the House. On the passage of the bill the yeas were 145, the nays 117.

Mr. McKinley voted nay.

The provision of the army appropriation bill, prohibiting the use of troops at the polls, passed April 5, 1879. The vote stood-yeas 148, nays 122. Mr. McKinley voted nay.

The bill was vetoed by the President, and on motion to pass it over his veto Mr. McKinley again voted nay.

On May 6 a separate bill to prohibit military interference at elections--

to prohibit troops at the polls-was voted on in the House. The yeas were 125, nays 90.

Mr. McKinley voted nay.

It passed the Senate, was vetoed by President Hayes, and on May 13, on a proposition to pass the bill notwithstanding the veto, Mr. McKinley voted

nay.

Do the people want their elections taken from the States and their own officers and placed with the Federal courts?

Deficiencies Caused by the McKinley Bill.

Let us see what the facts are concerning the revenues raised from the McKinley bill and the deficiencies produced by it. I use a statement of Secretary Carlisle and figures taken from the records of the Treasury Dcpartment:

[Extract from letter addressed by the Secretary of the Treasury to Hon. William R. Morrison October 2, 1894.]

"The records of the Department show that during the fiscal year 1888 the receipts were $111,341,273 in excess of the expenditures; during 1889, $87,761,080; during 1890, $85,040,271; during 1891, the year after the passage of the McKinley bill, $26,838,541; in 1892, $9,914,453; in 1893, $2,341,674, and in the year 1894, during the whole of which the McKinley bill was in full force, the expenditures exceeded the receipts to the amount of $69,803,260, notwithstanding the expenditures were $16,752,676 less than in the preceding year. You will thus observe that the receipts in excess of expenditures diminished annually under the operation of the McKinley tariff act, until finally a large deficiency was the result.

"The statement of Mr. McKinley that I had used the gold reserve to meet the daily expenses of the Government is incorrect.

"I inclose herewith a printed document containing the statements made by me before the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives in January last, from which it will be seen (see page 13) that United States notes and Treasury notes of 1890 had been redeemed in gold to the amount of $58,641,866 in excess of the reserve fund raised by the sale of bonds. These redemptions were made with gold received from all the various sources of revenue. The total amount of United States notes and Treasury notes of 1890 redeemed in gold up to the present date is $249,808,494, while the whole reserve fund provided for by law was $100,000,000 in the first instance, and the proceeds of the bonds sold in February last, amounting to $58,560,000. Instead, therefore, of using the lawful reserve to defray ordinary expenditures, we have in fact largely used the ordinary receipts for the purpose of redemption—the purpose for which the reserve itself was intended.

"On the 1st day of March, 1889, the beginning of President Harrison's ad