The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-06-26
JUDGE FORAKER.
A Defiant Issue on the Scott Law-Import-
ance of the Tariff.

A Defiant Issue on the Scott Law-Import-
i ance of the Tariff.
Cincinnati Special
Judge Forakers speech at the Lincoln Club
reception in his honor, last evening, has been
much read and commented upon to-day.
Touching the Scott liquor law, the constitu-
tionality of which has not yet been decided
by the Supreme Court, Judge Foraker said
"But whether the law as such stand or not,
we know that the principles of regulation
and taxation, for which it declares, are eter-
nal, and will stand, and to these principles
of regulation and taxation of the liquor
traffic, be-it known of all men, the Republi-
can party is unalterably committed. We
have taken our position there. We intend
to go through this fight without making any
apologies whatsoever, and we intend to do
that because it is equitable, because it is
right and because it is just, and, being
such, l say it is a SANDER upon
the German Republicans of Ohio, and
upon any other class of Republicans,
to say that for that reason they will with
hold their support from the Republican
party in this campaign. [Applause.l The
Scott law is not sumptuary legislation. 1t
has nothing TO do with the habits and per-
nothing to do with what people shall eat or
drink"
Taking up the national issues Judge For
aker said: "This tariff question is one of the
gravest import 1t is part and parcel of the
everyday life of the government Every
artisan, every mechanic, every merchant,
every business man is interested in it. 1t
affects the development of our resources. 1t
affects all the industries and enterprises of
this great country 1t is q question of such
vital Importance that both parties ought to
have well-defned positions with respect to
it. The Republican party has, Nobody
needs to be told what that position is. 1t has
been defined by all the years of experience
that the Republican party has had while it
has been in power. The Republican party
has acted upon the idea that American labor
ought to be protected; that the laborer ought
to have fair days wages for fair days
work; that he ought to be able not only to
procure for himself and his family the neces-
saries of life, but to procure means to edu-
! cate them and to advance in the
social scale and make better
citizen of himself-that the laboring
men of this country ought not to be re-
quircd to work in competition with the
workmen OF other countries, who are ground
down by bad government; that this coun-
try ought to be independent in all products
within its capability. The wisdom of this
policy of the Republican party is attested by
the unexampled prosperity all the time it
has been in power. What is the position of
our Democratic friends? Will anyone be
kind enough to take the platform and tell
me from it whether they are for free trade
or for protection, or whether they are trying
to stand in between? In 1880 we know that
in their national platform they declared for
tariff for revenue only. That was inter
preted rightly to mean free trade, and the
people of this country, after mature thought,
decided that they did not want the change.
Ever since then the Democratic party has
been trying to take the acid off the edge of
that resolution, and guess that they were
trying to do it at Columbus the other day.
l think it is manifest that it was intended
that in free-trade districts it could be made
to favor free trade. and in protection dis
tricts it could be made to favor protection.
The Democratic party has no principles up
| on which its members are united with re-
spect to this vital question, or else they have
not the courage to express their convictions"