Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1882-11-16
THE CONTEST FORsPEAKER OF THE
HnUSE.

HOUSE,
KEEPERS career as Speaker of the
House has demonstrated the power for
evil a man may exert in that position,
both as respects the country and tne
party he represents.
The Speakership is practically the
most influential and responsible posi-
ton in the government, next 70 the ex-
ecutive office. 1t is, therefore, looming
I'D as the first thing 10 be settled under
the changed condition of political par
ties.
The unanmity with which public
opinion has pointed to RANDALL, OF
Pennsylvania, and CARLISLE, of Ken
lucky, in this connection, is not less re-
markable than is the fact that there Is
scarcely shade of difference in the
views of these men upon most OF the
leading questions which might be re-
garded as entering into such a contest.
They stand upon platform so harmon
ious that a contest between them must
necessarily turn largely upon the per-
sonal characters and qualifications OF
the two men.
Upon the leading question of tariff
and revenue reform both Mr.. RANDALL
and Mr.. CARLISLE have expressed them
selves in favor of total abolition OF the
internal revenue system. Mr.. RAN
pear ot an s sdtff taSsa af n 1nd In sup.
port of this position Mr. RANDALL says,
first, that "the government does not
need the money derived from the inter-
nal tax; that the internal taxes are often
sive to the people as mode of raising
revenue in this country, and have been
submitted to only as necessity result
ing from the war; that the system main
tains four thousand people in office who
are kept by the nation at a cost of S., 0O0,-
900 year, and with the repeal of the
service this burden will also be removed
from the public shoulders"
On the tariff Mr.. CARLISLE be ewes
that the object of all taxation should be
for revenue only, but if with this object
in view the duties can be so adjusted as
to aid. our Industries without imposing
any burdens upon the people beyond
what would otherwise have been neces-
sary he would favor such policy. He
says, ~ do not recognize principle
that would impose a duty above the
revenue point merely for the purpose Of
giving protection"
If Mr.. RANDALL does not express
himself in the same way, he at least
marches to the same conclusion. He
says, ~ do not favor a tariff enacted
upon the ground Of protection, because
/ doubt the existence of any constitu-
tional warrant for any such construc-
ton, or the grant of any such power.
1t would manifestly be in the nature Of
class legislation, and to such legislation
favoring one class at the expense of any
other Ihave always been opposed. In
my judgment the question of free trade
will not arise practically in this coun-
try during our lives, so long as we con-
tinue to raise revenue by duties on i'm
ports, and therefore the discussion OF
that principle is an absolute waste
Of time. After our public debt
is paid in full, our expendi-
lures can hardly be much below $780,
0OO, 900, and if this is levied in a bust
ness-like and intelligent manner it will
afford adequate protection to every in
dustrial interest in the United States.
The assertion that the Constitution per-
mits the levying Of duties in favor of |
protection for the sake of protection is
equally unealled for and unnecessary.
Both are alike desultory and not in
volved in any practical administrative
policy. < If brought to test believe |
that neither would stand for day.
Protection for the sake of protection is
pure and simple, of impor-
tation, and If there be no importation
there be no duties collected and eonse-
quently no revenue, leaving the neces-
sary expenses of the Government to be
by direct taxes, for internal
taxes would interfere with the pro-
lection principle, and when the people
were generally asked to bear the burden
Of heavy taxation to sustain class legis-
lation and the interests Of portion of
our people at the expense of the great
bulk Of our population, there would be
IN emphatic and conclusive negative.
So it is with free trade. There is now
hardly a man in public life who advo.
'ates it pure and simple. Nobody wants
lirect taxation, although it would bring
axation so near and so constantly be.
ore the people that Congress would
lesitate long before it voted the sums of
money it now does If not for improper
It least for questionable purposes"
The positions occupied by these two
andidates for the Speakershfp upon
hese questions foreshadows very cor
Getty, no doubt. the policy that will