The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1884-08-01
TRE REAL Issrr.


of public opinion. The main count in
the indictment made by the Democratic
party against the Republican party is
the loose, unjust and ill-coustructed
laws for raising revenue to support he
government. The principle allegation
is that under the operation of these
laws ono hundred million dollars more
than is necessary to meet the demands
of the government are collected yearly
from the labor, capital and industry of
the country and boarded up in the
treasury at Washington City, aud there
allowed TO remain idle, as tempting
bait for that great crowd of cormorants
and ghouls which cling leech-like upon
the body of the II publican party. The
Democratic position is that a tariff is
tax, aud that such an amount of such
tax only should b. raised as will pay
the expenses and demauds~ of the gov
ernment economically administered,
The salient and conspicuous feature OF
D emscratic faith upon this subject is
tsrsely expressed in their NATIONAL plat
form adopted at Chicago. 1t is as fol-
lows:
1--WE demand that federal taxatie n
shall be exclusively for public purposes
and shall not exceed ;he needs of the
government economically administered.
The theory and practice of tho Re
publican party is that taxation, (reve-
nue. deriYed from tariff duties shall be
primarily for private purposes, (protec-
tisn,) and that If these laws result in
accumulating more money in the treas
ury than is sufficient to meet the de-
mands of the government, they say LET
it accumulate and turn it over to the
states, or spend it In vast internal im.
provement enterprises. Some men with
out thinking, or without knowledge
of the subject matter, say thers is nc
difference between the parties on the
tariff question, but any person who will
lay aside whatever bias or personal
interest he may have with reference tc
the subject and give the matter intclli-
| gent investigation will discover radi.
cal distinction between the parties. ii,
viii see fundamental difference in the
object of tariff from the standpoint ot
the two parties. The primary object q
tariff from the Democratic standpoint
is revenue. The primary object from
the Republican standpoint is protection
In other words the Democi attic party,
making protection secondary consid.
GRAFTON, would lay tariff upon foreign
imported goods just high enough 4
raise q sufficient amount OF revenue Il
meet the needs of the government eco
nomically Administered, while the Re
publican party, making revenue a Sc
ondary consideration. would lay tariff
high enough to protect every industry
which any one of th. liftyfou millions
of people of the country might engage
in who might demand such projections
and this tariff they would lay high
enough to protect even to an actuaI
prohibition of importation with no re-
srlting revenue.
To defend this iaIf tytssm ont
must be able TO show that i. is proper
right and legal fo' the government tc
tax the many to benefit the few. Thi:
prizciple is wholly and utterly at vari
ance with that fundamental principle
of Democracy which rsquires that equsl
and exact justice shall be vouchsafed to
all citizens, and that other principle
which proclaims all citizens equal before
the law. The real Issue then In this
presidential campaign il, shall the
amount of revenue collected from tariff
duties be limited TO the necessities Of
the government administered in a fru-
gal, business like wa, or shall we go
on under our present tariff laws, collec-
ting one hundred millions surplus every
ear, thus taking the hard earnings Of
the people and boarding them in the
treasury vaults, where they do no good
to any one. Is the farmer, the laborer,
the mechanic, the business man,in favor
of thus gathering in the peoples money
and boarding it up when the govern
ment has no use for it,simply to protect
the wealthy manufacturers who have
already smassed fortunes off the hard
earnings of the people : II so they will
cast their votes for BI4ine. If, ON the
contrary they are opposed to this hoard
ing up the peoples money to benefit
few, if they would limit the amount of
revenue collected to the needs of the
government, then they will cast their
votes for Cleveland.
The uureliabiIity of the Ore 1onian
may be clearly seen in paragraph
in last Mondays issue stating that the