We ask why there should be this difference, this discrimination! Did the McKinley bill unduly favor the woolgrower? Not so; for the statistics published by the Woolen Manufacturers' National Association show that under the operations of the McKinley bill the growth of the woolen industry was by leaps and bounds; not a wheel stood still, not a man was idle; old mills were torn down and larger,

BETTER MILLS TOOK THEIR PLACES,

enormous amounts of capital sought the business as a profitable investment, and there never was a more prosperous two years in all of its history. On the other hand, the number of sheep in the United States in 1891, when the McKinley law went into effect, increased from 43,431,136 to 47,273,553 in 1893, when the law was repealed, an increase. of less than 10 per cent, and this was only in the opening of new territory here in the west. (See annual reports of Department of Agriculture.)

"All legislation is the result of compromise," has been, is now, and always will be so, and it is too much to expect of human nature, especially such as is to be found among woolen manufacturers, that they will, after having secured all the possibilities of legislation in their own behalf, aid us in a revision.

TO RIGHT THIS WRONG.

No! We will be told, "tariff is not the issue this year," "business will be disturbed by the discussion of that question," "the country demands a rest from tariff tinkering," etc. We have been met in that way before this.

Our legislators should think twice before committing the absurdity of making it necessary to consult three laws of different dates to determine the duty on a pound of yarn or a yard of woolen cloth.

Our representatives in Congress, both House and Senate, should throw out the Dingley bill, and let it be understood, if the agricultural and pastoral States can not receive a fair and practically beneficial share in protective legislation, especially for wool, the people of these States will hail with delight the passage of a "horizontal bill," making a 60 per cent reduction of the duties on woolens.

GEO. H. WALLACE.

CHAPTER III.

THE WOOLGROWERS ELECTED WILLIAM MCKINLEY PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTER.

I. THEODORE JUSTICE ON THE ELECTION OF MCKINLEY
1. His letter of November 9, 1896, to William Lawrence.
2. The Gold Premium protection for woolgrowers..
3. His letter of November 10, 1896, on the subject.

II. FREE SILVER REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR MCKINLEY

1. The Utah Woolgrowers' Association on the subject. III. Hon. THOMAS H. CARTER'S VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT

IV. PHILADELPHIA "TRAFFIC”—A PROTECTION JOURNAL ON THE SUBJECT..
1. If woolgrowers are denied ample protection they may be driven to
go over to free silver

2. The statistics given

V. HOW THE SHEEP VOTED..

1. Figures from the Boston Commercial-Bulletin of November 28, 1896. VI. The Presidential vote of 1896

The Presidential election of November, 1896, resulted in immense popular majorities in favor of the election of William McKinley in several of the States, but in others-without which he would have failed of an election--his majority was very small.

(I.) THEODORE JUSTICE ON THE ELECTION OF MCKINLEY.

An eminent Republican wool merchant, Theodore Justice, of Philadelphia, who combines business experience with the statesmanship of comprehensive learning in political economy and statistics, in a letter November 9, 1896, forcibly and correctly said:

1. HIS LETTER TO WILLIAM LAWRENCE.

* *

*

I noticed a statement in the New York Times that a change of only 24,000 votes in six close States whose electoral vote went to McKinley by a very slender margin, would have changed the result and elected Mr. Bryan These States were California, Oregon, North Dakota, Kentucky, Indiana, and West Virginia, all important woolgrowing States.

2. THE WOOLGROWERS AND THE GOLD PREMIUM.

The woolgrowers were tempted by the proposition that Bryan's election meant a premium of 50 per cent or more upon gold, which would be equivalent to that much tariff protection, as the duties as well as the cost of importing wool would be payable in gold, but they never forgot that Bryan voted for the Wilson bill which destroyed one-third of this great industry and closed one-half of the American woolen mills, and thus destroyed, to this extent, the only market the American woolgrowers ever had for their wool.

On the other hand, McKinley favored not only protection for wool, but under the McKinley law the factories were running night and day; and enough woolgrowers in these States, with free-silver leanings, voted for McKinley in their struggle for life to elect him, and his election was due to the McKinley protection which woolgrowers in those close states believe in. The enormous majorities in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Illinois, and elsewhere were due to the patriotism of "sound-money" Democrats and equally to the Democratic workingmen, who, owing to the Wilson bill, are out of a job. WITHOUT THE ELECTORAL VOTE OF THE CLOSE STATES ENUMERATED MCKINLEY WOULD HAVE BEEN DEFEATED. The majority of these states have more woolgrowers many times over than was necessary to change the result. It is evident, therefore, without the least possibility of successful contradiction that MCKINLEY'S ELECTION WAS OWING TO THE WOOLGROWERS IN THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA, KENTUCKY, OREGON, INDIANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WEST VIRGINIA.

*

*

*

3. ANOTHER LETTER TO WILLIAM LAWRENCE,

In another letter, November 10, 1896, Mr. Justice said:

In the New York Times of Sunday, the 8th instant, attention was called to the fact that in six close States carried by McKinley by a slender majority, the change of only about 24,000 votes would have secured Mr. Bryan's election.

*

*

*

At all events there were enough woolgrowers in those States voting for McKinley under the hope of a restoration of a tariff upon wool to secure the States for McKinley, and without that incentive the silver men would have won. Many of these woolgrowers themselves are free silver men, but their interests in the tariff on wool were greater than their interests in the free coinage of silver.

He then alludes to the large majorities given for McKinley in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, and some other States, and proceeds to say:

The enormous majorities in these States do not count in this issue, and THE FACT STILL REMAINS THAT WOOLGROWERS, IN SPITE OF THEIR FREE COINAGE LEANINGS, VOTED FOR MCKINLEY AND TURNED THE SCALE.

M'KINLEY MADE A NARROW ESCAPE.

The bold fact remains that McKinley made a narrow escape. This shows that the Republican policy of (1) protection, and (2) sound money bimetallism by international agreement is not safe without the aid of woolgrowers.

A Republican President and Congress can not either safely or justly ignore the woolgrowers.

II. FREE SILVER REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR MCKINLEY.

The fact that free silver Republicans voted for McKinley is proved by the address of the executive committee of the Utah Woolgrowers' Association, Salt Lake City, August 8, 1896, in which it is said:

1. THE UTAH WOOLGROWERS' ASSOCIATION ON THE SUBJECT.

We believe that protection and free silver should go hand in hand, each supporting the other, and to accomplish this end we pledge our earnest support. Free trade and "go-it-alone free silver" are adverse principles and can never act in harmony and bring us the relief we desire.

See the address in the monthly sheep edition of the Boston American Wool and Cotton Reporter, August, 1896. See Chapter IV of this document.

The address makes an able argument to prove that a protective tariff is of more importance to the country than free silver.

To the same effect is the following from the Portland (Oreg.) North Pacific Stockman and Farmer, of September 30, 1896:

III. SENATOR CARTER'S VIEWS.

Hon. Thomas H. Carter, United States Senator from Montana, who has all along been considered a free silver bolter, writes to the Montana State Republican Convention, which met on the 9th instant, as follows:

As a Republican, I believe in the free coinage of silver and protection to American labor and American industry. I do not believe in free coinage coupled with free trade, and do not believe that free coinage with free trade can be successfully established and maintained by our Government. The free-trade policy will render the establishment of bimetallism an utter impossibility. The attempt to secure free coinage in conjunction with free trade is an Utopiau dream. After looking the whole situation over, it will be found that the Republican party has not declared in favor of the gold standard, but in favor of the restoration of silver. I find in this particular that it differs from the opposition platform in the matter of method. I believe the Republican party, in this behalf, too conservative, but as between the acceptance of the Republican platform, with its conservative expression on this subject, and the acceptance of the Chicago platform, with its free trade, States rights, free riot, and other objectionable features, I find no room to hesitate. I believe it is the clear and unquestionable duty of the delegates who assemble under and in conformity with the forms and usages of the Republicans of this State, and as the delegates representative of other people who reside here, to place in the field electors favorable to McKinley and Hobart.

The party in Montana should, in my opinion, indorse the entire national platform, except as to the feature declaring international conditions precedent to the remonetization of silver. For that declaration this convention should substitute a declaration for the free coinage of gold and silver in the same manner as our State conventions have heretofore declared.

Within the past forty-one months the country has fallen from the height of prosperity to the depths of despair. Thoughtless men talk of revolution. In the midst of the reigning chaos in political thought, our party stands as the only conservative force adequate to restore order and confidence. Without these elements, prosperity is impossible. In the future, as in the past, I shall stand for protection and free coinage. Firmly believing that the best interest of our State and the nation at large will be subserved by the election of McKinley and Hobart, I shall give them my support, notwithstanding the national platform does not meet my approval in one particular. The few who seek to find justification in the platform for advocacy of the single gold standard are at war with the party and its platform. Their discordant utterances are to be regarded as unavoidable noise incident to a great political campaign. To those of our party who feel constrained on account of a matter of method of one issue to depart from us on all other national questions at the coming election, we should manifest a spirit of toleration, well knowing that in due season they will return. Thus it is certain William McKinley owes his election to the woolgrowers of the United States.

IV. THE WOOLGROWERS ELECTED MCKINLEY PRESIDENT-TRAFFIC ON THE SUBJECT.

[From Traffic, a Philadelphia monthly protective-tariff publication, November, 1896.] A change of less than 25,000 votes in the six States of California, Oregon, North Dakota, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, some of which are normally Democratic, would have elected Mr. Bryan. These States are important woolgrowing States and are largely tinctured with the free-silver craze. We know from our correspondence that many of the woolgrowers of those States believed in free silver as an element of protection against foreign wool, but they voted for McKinly because Bryan was an avowed free trader (see extract from speech), and he not only helped to destroy their industry by voting for the Wilson bill, but by passing that bill he helped to close half of the mills, thus destroying the only market which they ever had for their wool.

We know that the more prominent and most intelligent woolgrowers in the Bryan States of Utah, Washington, Idaho, Montana (see copy of S. Doc. 17-6

letter), Colorado, Texas, and Missouri voted for McKinley, but they were only a small element in the total population of those States. Those woolgrowers who did vote for Mr. Bryan did so because they believed that a premium on gold, which would follow free silver, would be a quicker method of protection against foreign wool than a tariff law at some future period more or less remote.

1. IF WOOLGROWERS ARE DENIED THE “MOST AMPLE PROTECTION,” THEY MAY GO OVER TO FREE SILVER.

If the woolgrowers of the states named above fail to obtain relief through McKinley's election, it is feared that many of them holding the view that protection can be obtained through a premium on gold will at the next election turn the scale in favor of silver if that question is then an issue.

BRYAN FOR FREE WOOL.

Extracts from W. J. Bryan's speech on the Wilson bill:

Speaking for myself, it is immaterial in my opinion whether the sheep grower receives any benefit from the tariff or not. I am for free wool, in order that our woolen manufacturers, unburdened by a tax upon foreign wool and unburdened by a like tax upon home-grown wool, may manufacture for a wider market.

The following letter, which is a sample of many received by the firm to whom it was written, shows the views of some of the woolgrowers. The name of the writer is omitted because of the disposition to ostracize or even boycott men holding his views, so prevalent in that section:

JUSTICE, BATEMAN & Co.

MONTANA, November, 1896.

GENTLEMEN: As a Montanian, I essay to write you in humility. Verily, I am ashamed of the asininity displayed by the people of this Commonwealth. Let me pray you people of the East, who have been so cold-blooded as to apply the "golden rule" as the governing principle in the late election, to reflect that the remarkable antithesis presented in the returns of the silver States does not by any means voice the opinion of a large part of our people who are not engaged in the production of silver. You must bear in mind that these mining enterprises represent the capital and the speculative study of very many men who are as bloodless as a silver dollar. That this CAPITAL industry in reality controls the country even to that degree that we, the wool and stock producing people, can not secure the passage of a bounty law by our legislature on stock-destroying animals, even if we pay the bounty by special tax. In reality, these people control a large vote throughout the silver States. If in sections of the East this silver sentiment can get such a hold, you can see the disease is much more dangerous to people who live near the "condemned" districts.

2. STATISTICS SHOWING HOW THE WOOLGROWERS ELECTED M'KINLEY. Table showing how 24,000 votes, taken from McKinley's 47,000 plurality in the six States mentioned and added to Bryan's vote in those States, would have changed the result of the election: