ministration, the funds in the Treasury actually available, exclusive of the $100,000,000 reserve, were as follows:

Agency account....

Net balance in the Treasury.

Total

$64,502,445.02

165,846,471.10

230,348,916.12

"On the 1st day of March, 1893, the beginning of the present Administration, the funds in the Treasury actually available, exclusive of the $100,000,000 reserve, were as follows:

Agency account.....

Net balance in the Treasury.

Total

$38,365,832. 90 24,084,742.28

62,450,575.18

"This statement is made in accordance with the form now in use, and exhibits the actual condition of the Treasury at the dates mentioned, including all available assets of every kind.

"In addition to the ordinary receipts of the Government, there was, as you know, covered into the Treasury during the administration of President Harrison, $54,207,975.75, which was held in trust as a fund for the redemption of national-bank notes. This proceeding was authorized by the act of July 14, 1890, commonly known as the Sherman act.

"The item denominated 'agency account' is that portion of the miscellaneous cash in the Treasury held for certain liabilities appearing on the books of the Treasury but not represented by demand certificates or Treasury notes of 1890 outstanding.

From the 1st day of March, 1885, the beginning of Mr. Cleveland's first administration, to March 1, 1889, the public debt was reduced $341,448,449.20, and from March 1, 1889, to March 1, 1893, the reduction was $236,527,666.10.

"It is true, as you suggest, that for some time previous to the close of the last administration warrants upon requisition were held up to a very considerable extent in order to avoid a reduction of the balance on hand, but the amount of these requisitions can not now be ascertained without devoting a great deal of time and investigation to the subject. I think, however, they amount to several million dollars."

It will thus be seen that the deficiency created under the McKinley law amounted the last year of its operation to $69,803,260; that in the first year of its operation whilst it yielded about $26,000,000 surplus it dwindled to less than $10,000,000 the second year, and to less than $2,500,000 the third year, and that for the four years of its operation it fell beneath the requirements of the Government over $30,000,000. The deficiency from it the last year of its operation was more than $69,000,000, notwithstanding the fact that there was a saving that year under Democratic economy of over $16,

000,000 as compared with the preceding year. And for the last three years of its operations its aggregate deficiencies were over $57,000,000.

The bill that succeeded it is not responsible for the deficiencies that have characterized the revenues of the Government since its adoption. In fact, that measure, known as the Wilson bill, made ample provision for the revenue necessary to run the Government under the economics inaugurated by a Democratic Congress. It provided an income tax, which, with the other provisions of the bill, would have yielded all the revenues necessary; but the Supreme Court of the United States overruled its own decisions of nearly a hundred years and declared the income-tax feature unconstitutional. This remarkable result was reached through the extraordinary change of heart in one member of the court, who had decided on a previous hearing the law to be constitutional. This decision not only overruled the old decision on the subject, but overruled the decisions made under the income-tax laws of the sixties, through which over $340,000,000 had been collected, the Supreme Court holding that income-tax law constitutional, which was in every essential particular similar to the one passed by the last Congress and overruled by the court. So that the failure of the revenues of last year and this is in consequence of perverted judicial decisions and not because of the failure of Congress to impose taxes or provide revenue.

McKinley Bill Framed by the Interested Manufacturers, who Wrote the Schedules.

The facts as to how the McKinley bill was framed were called to the attention of the country both by the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Hon. H. G. Turner, and by the Hon. William L. Wilson, now Postmaster-General, then a member of the House, in a speech he made on the bill providing for free wool. He showed very ably and conclusively that the distinguished gentleman who presented the bill was not the "author," but merely the "compiler" of the McKinley bill. In fact, in presenting the bill to the House. on the conference report on September 27, 1890, Mr. McKinley said, in commenting on the wool schedule:

"This schedule has the hearty approval of the National Woolgrowers Association and of the several State associations throughout the country." Immediately following this he also said:

"And, Mr. Speaker, that is entirely true also of the tobacco schedule." One of the greatest schedules embraced in our tariff laws is the metal schedule. During the period the bill was being framed Mr. James W. Swank, secretary of the American Iron and Steel Association, was in Washington and about the committee room. He made the following report as secretary to the president of that association:

"During the long period in which this measure (the McKinley bill) received the consideration of Congress, the views of this association concerning the proper framing of the metal schedule of the new tariff law were frequently solicited and were promptly given."

He adds:

"The schedule as adopted is the most harmonious and completely protective of all the metal schedules."

It would be very strange if it were not so, when the men interested in having high protection were permitted to frame the schedules wholly in 'their own interests, and without any regard to the public revenues or the public weal and without any restraint from the committee.

On page 290 of the hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means, Fifty-first Congress, which were the hearings that preceded the McKinley bill and held on it, Mr. William Whitman, president of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, said he "had framed two clauses" prescribing the taxes on women's and children's dress goods. These clauses were incorporated as framed by Mr. Whitman in section 374 and section 375 of the McKinley act. Is it any wonder that almost the highest rates of duty imposed by the McKinley act were those on women's and children's dress goods? The following from the speech of Mr. Wilson, delievered in the House in 1892 on other schedules, concerning the action of the committee in allowing the outsiders to write what duties they wanted in the tariff law further illustrates this point:

"At page 281 of the hearings Mr. Isaac N. Heidelberger, in behalf of the wholesale clothing manufacturers, submitted a memorandum of their demands, and that memorandum, so far as it related to woolen clothing, is substantially embodied in paragraph 396 of the act.

"The makers of firearms appeared at page 1255 with the sections they wished 'incorporated and made a part of the tariff schedule of duties,' and those sections appear in their own words as paragraphs 169 and 170 of the act, with a single trifling change.

"Again, at page 92 of the hearings, may be found the demands of the tinplate makers-that they were going to be proffered by their trusted counselor, my friend from Michigan (Mr. Burrows), and, although thousands and tens of thousands of consumers and laborers protested against these demands. Mr. Cronemeyer's wishes are exactly embodied in paragraph 143 of the McKinley bill.

"At page 79 of these hearings Mr. Charles S. Landers, representing the makers of table cutlery, presented the corrections and amendments which they wished in the Senate clause, and at paragraph 167 of the act his memorandum appears in the very words in which he wrote it.

“On page 65 of the hearings Mr. W. F. Rockwell makes known the demands of the makers of pocket cutlery, and these demands literally reappear in paragraph 165 of the bill.

"Now, I understand, for the first time in my life, how a 'consistent, logical, complete' protective tariff is framed 'with the different parts properly and justly related.' Our friends upon the other side merely leave the blanks on the committee table, and look at the ceiling or stroll around the Capitol while the parties who desire to tax the people come and fill in the blanks according to the suggestions of their own greed or selfishness."

Other instances equally flagrant and outrageous could be adduced showing that the McKinley law was not made by Mr. McKinley, but was compiled by him at the dictation of the parties interested in the high tariff duties. The job was not only done by them, but so bunglingly done that the track of the different manufacturers can be traced through the Ways and Means Committee room, through the hearings, and into the very statutes where their exorbitant demands were made law. So shameless a surrender and perversion of the taxing power was never exhibited before, and it is hoped will never be again. This fact is recognized of all men so thoroughly that even the Republican convention that nominated Mr. McKinley dared not indorse his bill. What hope is there for the Republic, what prospect of faithful government, if interested parties are permitted to make the tax statutes of the United States, noť in accordance with the needs of the Treasury, but in accordance with the greed dictated by their interests?

A survey of the foregoing remarkable record of Mr. McKinley, the Republican nominee for the Presidency, shows that he has voted on every side of the silver question; that, whilst he stands upon a gold platform now, he voted for free coinage in the past, and voted to override President Hayes' veto of the Bland act.

Second. That, pretending to be the friend of labor, he voted to table the bill providing for even a limited exclusion of Chinese.

Third. That the tariff bill framed under his supervision increased the taxes of the people and yet lowered the revenues so much that the last year of its operation it produced a deficiency of $69,000,000. And during the whole period of its existence the aggregate of expenditures was greater than the aggregate of receipts under it.

Fourth. That he allowed the interested manufacturers to come into his committee room, write the schedules that affected their manufactures, and fix the taxes that should be paid by the people on the goods they made, and insert them as thus written into the statutes.

Fifth. That, having power to defeat the "Force bill," he refused to do it, but passed it through the House and attempted to fasten it upon the country. Sixth. That he voted against removing troops from the polls.

XI.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.

Early in the history of the Government it became necessary for the Democratic party to determine what relation this Government and other governments of the world should bear to the governments of this continent. It was apparent to the men who framed the Constitution that if we permitted it, it was only a question of time when the monarchies which were extending their conquests to the uttermost part of the earth would by some means or under some pretext seek to acquire or extend power here, Meeting this responsibility as it has met every other responsibility, the Democratic party, through Mr. Monroe, laid down what is known as the Monroe doctrine. Mr. Monroe, by this, fixed the map for the world, and the Democratic party has required the world to live by that map.

President Monroe had been in correspondence through proper sources with representatives of one or more foreign powers on the subject. He submitted this correspondence to Mr. Jefferson, then in retirement at his home in Monticello. From the following letter addressed by Jefferson to Monroe it will be seen that ne strongly urged his successor to take the important step:

"To the President:

Jefferson's Letter.

"MONTICELLO, October 24, 1823.

"DEAR SIR-The question presented by the letters you have sent me is the most momentous which has ever been offered to my contemplation since that of Independence. That made us a nation, this sets our compass and points the course which we are to steer through the ocean of time opening on us. And never could we embark on it under circumstances more auspicious. Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe. Our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs. America, North and South, has a set of interests distinct from those of Europe, and peculiarly her own. She should, therefore, have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe. While the last is laboring to become the domicile of despotism, our endeavor should surely be to make our hemisphere that of freedom. One nation, most of all, could disturb us in this pursuit; she now offers to lead, aid, and accompany us in it. By acceding to her proposition we detach her from the bands, bring her mighty weight into the scale of free govern