Wilson-gormanism, Please

There is not a Free-Trade or an antiProtection paper in Detroit, and we presume not one anywliere else, that has not condemned the Dingley bill as another McKinley bill, yet il asked to restate any particular schedule of each, DOt one of tliem could do so without referring to "tlie books." They have made a few comparisorjp, perliaps not. Eïowever, they seem to think that to characterize the Dingley bill as anothi i McKinley bill is to discredit it. Well, Dow, if the Dingley bill should become luw and proye to be another McKinley law, Mr. Dingley might become President before niany years. Want to look out for that, you Free-Traders. Alter you killed off McKinley and buried him be didn't do a tbing but come to lif'e and walk into the White House with tlie biggest popular vote on record. But i f we are going to listen to Free ïrado denuciations of the McKinley law we propose to do what no Free Trade organ or orator bas yet dared to do, and that is to compare the working of the McKiiiley law with the working of the Wilson-Gorman law, the latter still being defended by many anti-Protectiouists. The American Economist contained some tabal ated statements showing comparative results. It finds froin the official reporta that during the flrst 31 nionths of the Wilson-Gorman law the total Treasury receipts were $799,656,413, and that durinf; the first 31 months of the McKinley law the tota Treasury receipts were $945,036,418, a net loss in 31 months, under Democratie "Tariff Reform," of $145,380,005. The actual revenue deficit during that time under the Wilson Gorman law was $122,297,250. Now suppose our good friends of the opposition let up a little on McKinleyism and give prayerful consideration to the imperative necessity of setting rid of Wilson-Gormanism.