riots at Paterson, N. J., among the striking silk weavers; United States troops called upon to quell a riot at Denver; State troops ordered to Cripple Creek for the suppression of mining troubles; Coxey's organization marches toward Washington.

April, 1894-Mob of strikers in East Liverpool become riotous; 5,000 plumbers and 5,000 coke workers in Pennsylvania go on a strike; government of South Carolina declares martial law in all cities of the State; six men killed and one fatally wounded in the riots of the coke region of Pennsylvania; 8,000 United Mine Workers order a strike; general strike of employees of Great Northern Railroad; 150,000 miners cease work in Pennsylvania.

May, 1894-Further bloodshed in the coke region of Pennsylvania.

June, 1894-Maryland militia ordered out to suppress striking miners; also State troops ordered out to the scene of strikes in Ohio; similar action in Montana; coke strikes, with killed and wounded in Pennsylvania; destruction of railroad property in Ohio and in Alabama by rioters; strikers arrested for stealing a train in Illinois; industrial army captures a train in Wisconsin; strikes of miners in Michigan coal mines; Pennsylvania troops ordered out to suppress riots; strike of Pullman employees affecting 50,000 working men.

July, 1894-Trains burned by strikers in Chicago and numbers of lives lost in the consequent following events; strike of 15,000 members of allied trades in Chicago; freight trains wrecked by strikers at Indianapolis.

August, 1894-Woolen mill employees strike in Utica, N. Y.; employees of forty mills strike at Fall River.

August 28, 1894-The tariff bill becomes a law without the President's signature.

DINGLEY BILL.

Legislative History of the Republican Tariff Measure. The bill known as the Dingley act was reported to the House from the Ways and Means Committee by Chairman Dingley March 19, 1897. The House began consideration of the bill March 22. It was reported to the Senate, after passing the House, by Senator Aldrich, May 4, and taken up for consideration May 25. It passed the Senate July 7 and was reported back to the House with Senate amendments July 8. Conferees were appointed and Mr. Dingley presented the conference report to the House July 19. It was signed by President McKinley and became a law July 24, 1897.

The bill commanded the votes of 28 Southern members in the

House. Of these 5 were Democrats-Messrs. Broussard, Davey, and Meyer of Louisiana, and Messrs. Slayden and Kleberg of Texas-and 1 Populist, Mr. Howard of Alabama. Sixteen other Populists answered "present" on its first passage but did not vote against the bill, and only 4 Populists voted no. They were Barlow and Castle of California, and Peters and Simpson of Kansas. In the Senate 6 Democrats voted for high protective features in the measure-Senators Bacon and Clay of Georgia; Tillman and McLaurin of South Carolina; McEnery of Louisiana, and Martin of Virginia. Senator McEnery voted for the bill on its final passage. All of the Southern members are natives of the South, not "carpet baggers" as has been alleged, and several of them served in the Confederate army. Altogether 33 Southern votes were cast for the bill in Senate and House.

In the Senate 40 voted yea and 30 nay; not voting, 19, as follows: Yeas, 40-Aldrich, Allison, Baker, Burrows, Carter, Clark, Davis, Deboe, Elkins, Fairbanks, Foraker, Frye, Gallinger, Gear, Hale, Hansbrough, Hawley, Hoar, Jones (Nev.), Lodge, McBride, McEnery, McMillan, Mason, Morrill, Nelson, Penrose, Perkins, Platt (Conn.), Platt (N. Y.), Pritchard, Proctor, Quay, Sewell, Shoup, Spooner, Stewart, Thurston, Warren, Wetmore.

Nays, 30-Bacon, Bate, Berry, Caffery, Chilton, Clay, Cockrell, Daniel, Faulkner, Gorman, Harris, Jones (Ark.), Lindsay, Mallory, Martin, Mills, Mitchell, Morgan, Murphy, Pasco, Pettus, Roach, Smith, Tillman, Turley, Turner, Turpie, Vest, Walthall, White.

Not voting, 19-Allen, Butler, Cannon, Chandler, Cullom, George, Gray, Hanna, Heitfeld, Kenney, Kyle, McLaurin, Mantle, Pettigrew, Rawlins, Teller, Wellington, Wilson, Wolcott.

In the House the vote stood 186 yeas, 115 nays, 41 not voting, as follows:

Yeas, 186-Adams, Alexander, Babcock, Baker (Md.), Barber, Barham, Barney, Bartholdt, Beach, Belford, Belknap, Bennett, Bingham, Bishop, Booze, Boutelle, Brewster, Broderick, Bromwell, Brosius, Broussard, Brown, Brownlow, Brumm, Bull, Burleigh, Burton, Butler, Cannon, Capron, Chickering, Clark (Iowa), Clarke (N. H.), Cochrane (N. Y.), Codding, Connell, Connolly, Cooper (Wis.), Corliss, Cousins, Crump, Crumpacker, Curtis (Iowa), Curtis (Kans.), Dalzell, Danford, Davenport, Davey, Davidson (Wis.), Davison (Ky.), Dayton, Dingley, Dolliver, Dorr, Dovener, Eddy, Ellis, Evans, Faris, Fenton, Fletcher, Foote, Foss, Fowler (N. J.), Gardner, Gibson, Gillet (N. Y.), Graff, Griffin, Grosvenor, Grout, Hager, Hamilton, Harmer, Hawley, Heatwole, Hemenway, Henderson, Henry (Conn.), Henry (Ind.), Hepburn, Hicks, Hilborn, Hill, Hitt, Hopkins, Howe, Howell, Hull, Hurley, Jenkins, Johnson (Ind.), Johnson (N. Dak.), Joy, Kerr, Ketcham, Kirkpatrick, Kleberg, Knox, Lacey, Landis, Linney, Littauer, Lorimer, Loudenslager, Lovering, Low, Lybrand, McCall, McCleary, McEwan, McIntire, Mahany, Mahon, Mann, Marsh, Mercer, Mesick, Meyer (La.), Miller, Mills, Minor, Mitchell, Moody, Morris, Mudd, Northway, Olmstead, Otjen, Overstreet, Packer (Pa.), Parker (N. J.), Payne, Pearce (Mo.), Pearson, Perkins, Pitney, Powers, Prince, Pugh, Quigg, Ray, Reeves, Royse, Rus

sell, Sauerhering, Shattuc, Shelden, Sherman, Showalter, Simpkins, Slayden, Smith (Ill.), Samuel W. Smith, Snover, Southard, Southwick, Spalding, Sperry, Sprague, Steele, Stevens (Minn.), Stewart (N. J.), Charles W. Stone, William A. Stone, Strode (Nebr.), Sturtevant, Sulloway, Tawney, Tayler (Ohio), Tongue, Updegraff, Van Voorhis, Wanger, Ward, Warner, Weaver, White (Ill.), White (N. C.), Wilber, Williams (Pa.), Wilson (N. Y.), Wright, Young (Pa.), The Speaker.

Nays, 115-Adamson, Allen, Bailey, Baird, Baker (Ill.), Ball Bankhead, Barlow, Bartlett, Benner (Pa.), Berry, Bodine, Botkin, Bradley, Brantley, Brenner (Ohio), Brucker, Brundidge, Burke, Campbell, Carmack, Clardy, Clark (Mo.), Clayton, Cochran (Mo.), Cooney, Cooper (Tex.), Cowherd, Cranford, Cummings, Davis, De Armond, De Graffenreid, De Vries, Dinsmore, Dockery, Elliott, Epes, Fitzgerald, Fitzpatrick, Fleming, Fowler (N. C.), Fox, Gaines, Griggs, Handy, Hay, Henry (Miss.), Henry (Tex.), Howard (Ga.), Hunter, Jett, Jones (Va.), King, Lamb, Lanham, Latimer, Lentz, Lewis (Ga.), Lewis (Wash.), Little, Livingston, Lloyd, Love, McAleer, McClellan, McCulloch, McDowell, McMillin, McRae, Maddox, Marshall, Martin, Meekison, Miers (Ind.), Moon, Norton, Ogden, Osborne, Peters, Pierce (Tenn.), Rhea, Richardson, Ridgely, Rixey, Robb, Robertson (Pa.), Robinson (Ind.), Sayers, Settle, Simpson, Sims, Smith (Ky.), Sparkman, Stallings, Stephens (Tex.), Stokes, Strait, Strowd (N. C.), Sullivan, Sulzer, Swanson, Talbert, Tate, Taylor (Ala.), Terry, Todd, Underwood, Vandiver, Vehslage, Vincent, Wheeler (Ala.), Wheeler (Ky.), Williams (Miss.), Zenor.

Answered "present," 12-Cox, Gunn, Howard (Ala.), Jones (Wash.), Kelley, Maxwell, Newlands, Plowman, Shafroth, Stark, Sutherland, Wilson (S. C.)

REVENUES UNDER THE DINGLEY ACT COMPARED WITH THE WILSON TARIFF, AND WAR EXPENDITURES. Lack of revenue compelled the Cleveland Administration to incumber the taxpayers with an additional burden of $262,330,692 by the issue of bonds in time of peace to provide means to run the Government. Under the operations of the McKinley act there was no lack of funds in the Treasury, nor has the Government been embarrassed for funds at any time under Republican tariff policy. This embarrassment began with the enactment of Democratic tariff legislation, the passage of the Wilson bill. Revenues began to fall off soon after the triumph of the Democratic party at the polls in 1892, when it became known that the new House would lower the duties on imports, and importers began to hold back in anticipation of a reduced tariff. For the first three years of the McKinley act the receipts from customs were:

President Cleveland was inaugurated in 1893, and with the triumph of the Democratic party and the early prospect of a reduced tariff, the revenues from imports fell off $76,591,965.69, amounting to only $112,590,939.77 for the eleven months ended August 31, 1894. For July and August, 1894, under the McKinley bill customs receipts were abnormally small for this reason, amounting to only $8,427,338.46 for the first and $11,804,911.21 for the latter month, against average monthly receipts of $15,765,242.12 for the twelve months of the year preceding.

The Wilson act took effect on the 28th day of August, 1894, and was repealed July 24, 1898, by the Dingley tariff. Receipts from customs for the three years were as follows:

The four years' record of the deficiency under the Wilson bill is as follows for each fiscal year ended June 30:

For reasons the reverse of those which caused imports to be abnormally small during the closing period of the McKinley act, there was an abnormally large increase in customs receipts under the Wilson act for the closing months of its existence. Importers rushed in wool, sugar and other imports in large quantities to avoid the payment of the higher rates under the Dingley act, and receipts from customs for March, 1897, rose to $22,833,856.46; were for April, $24,454,351.74; for May, $16,885,011.55; for June, $21,560,152.36 and for July, $16,966,801.65. As a result, when the Dingley act took effect July 24, 1897, receipts from this source dropped to $6,987,702, because the immediate demand had been supplied by excessive importations under the lower rates of the Wilson tariff.

This was foreseen by the Republican leaders. and in all the de

bates on the Dingley bill in Congress this temporary dropping off of revenue was taken account of and coupled with the general prediction that as soon as the effect of these anticipatory importations had been overcome the operation of the new tariff act would provide revenues sufficient to run the Government without further bond sales. Within a few months from the passage of the bill, this prediction was verified, and the receipts for November and December, 1897, and January, February, and March, 1898, exceeded the monthly disbursements of the Treasury.

The following table will show the customs receipts for the first six months under the Wilson and Dingley acts:

It will be noticed that while the receipts under the Wilson act for February were more than two millions less than for the September preceding, the receipts under the Dingley act were seven millions larger for the same periods, and while there was almost a continuous falling off for October, November, and December, under the former, there was a steady increase under the Dingley tariff. In January, 1895, customs revenues showed a spasmodic increase of six millions, only to drop back four millions in February. The seventeen-million mark for January was never again reached under the Wilson tariff except during the five months preceding its repeal; and taking this out of account, it will be seen that the receipts for February, 1898, under the Dingley act were not eclipsed during the first six months of the Wilson bill save by a small sum for September, owing to the increased importations from the repeal of the higher duties under the McKinley act. Deducting the receipts for January from both, the receipts under the Dingley act for five months exceeded those of the Wilson bill for the same period $1,862,556.69, while the receipts for February under the Dingley act were but $2,321,235.51 lower than the highest receipts under its predecessor, the record of January, 1895, except the five months marking the debate of the repeal of the Wilson tariff in Congress.

With the blowing up of the Maine in February, 1898, every one