thought to cast suspicion on it till President Cleveland did so, by suggesting that it had become a law through the medium of an appropriation bill. McKinley said that if that fact cast a suspicion on the appropriation acts of Congress, the President must condemn and refuse to execute nearly one-half the public laws, including the one that made his salary $50,000 instead of $25,000. He closed by saying:

Well, now, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if there was any ulterior motive in piling up this surplus? I wonder if it was not for the purpose of creating a condition of things in the country which would get up a scare and stampede the country against the protective system? I wonder if this was not just what was in the mind of the President: 'I will pile up this money in the treasury, $65,000,000 of it, and then I will tell Congress that the country will be filled with widespread disaster and financial ruin if it does not reduce the tariff duties'? If the President thought that he was going to get up a storm of indignation and recruit the free trade army, break down the American system of protection, and put the free traders on top, he has probably discovered his blunder by this time; and the best evidence of it is that he now wants the very law which he has so long discredited solemnly re-enacted as if it were new and original with him; and so, having failed, he comes here through his Secretary of the Treasury - and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Texas will read the letter of the secretary upon this subject - he comes here through his secretary and asks us to pass this bill, which is a duplicate of existing law."

Mills introduced his bill on April 2d, rehearsing the

The

arguments made by Mr. Cleveland in his message. minority report was written by McKinley and was a clear, dignified protest against the measure and the method by which it had been framed and sprung upon Congress.

The bill was presented ready-made by Mills, was framed, completed and printed without the knowledge of the Republican minority. If any consultations were had in committee, Republicans were excluded. Every effort on the part of the minority to obtain from Mills and the majority the facts concerning the bill was unavailing. And a resolution to refer the bill to the Secretary of the Treasury for a statement of its probable effect on the revenue had been voted down by a strict party vote. The majority had worked on this bill behind closed doors, affording no opportunity to producers, consumers, experts, or workingmen to state their case. It was not an easy matter under the circumstances for anyone to prepare an adverse report, but it is acknowledged that the report made by McKinley is one of the best tariff documents which Congress has produced, though neither so elaborate nor so specific as the long speech which he delivered later.

The general debate on the bill began April 17th and continued for twenty-three days and eight evenings. There were one hundred and fifty-one long speeches. Then it was debated by paragraphs for twenty-eight days, and passed on July 21, 1888, by a vote of 162 to 149. It was May 18, the day the general debate closed, that McKinley made his long speech. The scene in the House was one seldom witnessed. The galleries were crowded. By special resolution ladies were admitted to the floor. It was a brilliant and expectant throng such as is attracted to

the House but rarely, and only when the greatest speakers in Congress are to make their greatest efforts on the question of the hour. For two months the discussion had been going on, and this was the great and final day.

It had been arranged that Judge Kelley, the veteran protectionist of the House, should open the debate, and McKinley, who had become the natural leader on the Republican side of the discussion, should speak last, closing the debate on his side, but Haskell of the Kansas delegation, and a Republican member of the Ways and Means committee, desired the honor of closing the debate, and asked Judge Kelley to persuade McKinley to give way to him. The judge sought out the generous McKinley, who readily consented, saying he did not care in what order he spoke, and he sat calmly awaiting his time at his desk, which was loaded with books and documents.

The speaker who preceded him was Samuel J. Randall of Pennsylvania, a Democrat of the old school, who was speaker of the House when McKinley entered Congress. Randall had been brought from a sick bed - it soon proved to be his death bed to speak on the bill and against certain provisions of it. He was the leader of the now reduced wing of protectionists in his party. In a voice at times almost inaudible, but still impressive, the great Pennsylvanian labored on, and before he was through, his time expired amid cries of "go on." Randall asked for an extension, but Mills, with a natural discourtesy, walked to the front and shouted, "I object." The cry was repeated by several Democratic members of extremely low tariff persuasion.

The pallid face of the great Democratic leader was sad

as he sank into his seat, and through the galleries and over the House sounded a murmur of disapproval at the discourtesy of the Texas "tariff reformer" in thus silencing one of his own party, and one who had thrice presided over the body as Speaker. In the tumult, the chair announced that McKinley had the floor.

"Mr. Speaker," he cried, and the tumult in the House faded into silence; "I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania out of my time all that he may need in which to finish his speech on this bill."

The great throng in the galleries and on the floor broke into a mighty cheer; ladies waved their handkerchiefs; the tall form of ex-Speaker Randall again appeared above his desk. He was deeply affected by the generous act, thanked McKinley feelingly, and closed his speech.

It was no wonder that when McKinley rose he was greeted as the favorite of the audience. His long speech was listened to with the deepest attention. Every strong point he made was followed by spontaneous applause. It was one of the most masterly tariff speeches ever heard in the historic Capitol. He began in a quiet manner, lucidly defining a revenue tariff, a protective tariff and their dif ference, and then turned to specific features of the bill, pointing out absurdities in it that could not fail to raise a laugh to the discomfiture of Mills and his colleagues. At one time, holding up an iron rod in his hand, he said: "Here is a piece of wire rod drawn from these steel billets which finally goes into fencing; this is dutiable at 45 per cent. under the bill; and the steel from which it is made is dutiable at 63 per cent. What do you think of raw material" for our manufacturers?"

66

He followed this up with a statement of other cases to show the shallowness of the free raw material" pretensions of the other side, turning the laugh upon the uncomfortable majority every time. In ridiculing the boasted claim that the bill, which provided free wool, was of advantage to the farmers, he asked what help they would obtain.

"None. They leave the shears he clips his wool with at 45 per cent. ad valorem. They make his wool free, and then make the farmer pay 45 per cent. for the shears with which he clips his wool. [Laughter.] But that is not all. The bell, the sheep bell if friend from Massamy chusetts (Mr. Russell) is here, if that golden-shod shepherd from Worcester is here [laughter and applause] he will understand. It is the bell that is put around the neck of the sheep to admonish the shepherd of the whereabouts of the wandering flock under his charge.

I

learn he is now here in his seat; I am glad to see him. He knows what I am talking about. [Laughter.] They have left them dutiable at 45 per cent. ad valorem. Why, even the sheep will be ashamed of you, gentlemen." [Laughter.]

Proceeding to the question of "cheaper clothes "one of the boasted claims for the bill, he intentionally and successfully drew Congressman Leopold Morse, the Boston merchant, and one of the free trade leaders, into a trap, to the great enjoyment of his audience and of the whole country, when it appeared in the newspapers. Proceeding quietly with his speech, McKinley said:

"The expectation of cheaper clothes is not sufficient to justify the action of the majority. This is too narrow for