Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-05-14
Record Of the Texas congressman.

tMNCh WV i0CtiNho ~ 49,
Democracy upon the issue of pro-
tective or revenue tariff, there is no di-
vision of Texas Democrats. They are
as unit In favor of tariff limited to
the demands OF revenue for the sup
port of the government. Our entire
congressional delegation have, by
word and deed, shown their intlexible
devotion to the great principle of
tariff for revenue only. Throughout
the long debate upon the Morrison
tariff bill they maintained its cause
with zeal and ability, and pleaded for
its success. or the representatives in
the lower house, Culberson, Mills,
Wellborn and Lanham made exhaust
i've Arguments In its behalf. We
choose few extracts from these
speeches to show to the Democrats of
Texas how we'll her representatives
are discharging the trust confided to
their keeping.
Mr.. Mills, from whose speech THE
GAZETTE has already copied .copiously,
said:
High tariffs hurt us all when we buy, but
they hurt the farmer twice. They hurt him
when he sells and hurt him when he buys.
But did not the low tariff of 1916 ruin the
manufacturers? have heard all sorts OF
statements made about the pernicious effects
of that tariff on our manufacturers. The
official records show that our manufacturers
prospered under the low tariffs from 1916 to
1861 as they never did before, and rs am
sure they never will again until the way Is
again opened for our agricultural products to
foreign markets.
But IL is contendcd that high tariffs neces
sarily make high wages, and that the laborer
| working In the factory is the chief beneh-
clary of that policy. As proof of that we
are cited to the fact that our manufacturing
operatives get higher wages than the same
class in England where there Is free tiade on
all the products of manufacture. 1t would
be a sufficient answer 10 this to say that OPP
eratives in England get higher wages than
operatives of the same class in France and
Germany, where they have high tariffs as we
have here. lit is logical result that fol-
lows high tariffs why does 1t not have the
same elect there that 1t does here? If high
wages are produced by high tariffs why Is the
rate OF wages different in different localities
in the United States? We must re.
move both by legislation aud diplomacy
every hinderlpg cause that prevents the free
exchange OF the products of our labor In all
the markets OF the world. We must unfetter
every arm and let every muscle strike for
the highest remuneration for ats toll. We
must let wealth, the creation of labor, grow
up in all the homes of our people. Then
every industry will spring forward at q
bound, and wealth, prosperity and power
will bless the land that is dedicated TO free
men, free labor and free trade.
Mr.. Culberson was no less emphatic
, than Mr.. Mills. Though dealing less
|; in the exactness of statistics, his argu-
ment abounds in forcible blows at the
evil of protection, and in the following
e sentences states the case with an &C
curacy that cannot be improved upon;
Tariff for revenue, as contradlstingushed
from tariff for protection, represents the
theory and principle ofthe Democratic party,
as l understand them, upon tarirf tax ,tion.
and is the only constitutional and just mode
u of raising revenue by inpost duties. The
fundamental principles upon which tariff
II for revenue ought TO be constructed are that
taxes ought not TO be levied except for pub
II lie purposes over which the federal govern
y ment has Jurisdiction; that no more money
Oh should be collected than such public pur
| poses require under honest and economical
ie ad ministration; and that the burden of the
H. tax should be in proportion to the ability o
'r the taxpayer TO bear 1t.
,. Whatever doubt may have existed
of Mr.. Wellborn's perfect orthodoxy
nc under the tariff creed is dispelled b,
Id his utterances and his vote. In
ne speech made on the I'D ult., he as
A.. saulted the monster of protection il
lie, the following language
be Protection lays destructive hinderances Oh
IT. all the agencies OF commerce. and is monopJ
he ~ In Its worst form. Protection Is an lille
or, climate and pernicious use of the right O
ne taxation. g "Incldental protection
n sir, as designation of our present tariff /
hypocritical phraseology, and n practical Il
ed lustration of that treacherous device whicl
ca Pollock APPLY portrays in the idea of service
lat rendered to the devil in the stolen livery q
he the court of Heaven. II seizes upon higI
an constitutional right, that OF taxation, de
eb- signed for the beneflcent purpose of enab
OF ling government to live, and prostitutes II "a
ir. the abominable Office of extortng from th,
masses ofthe people to build up colossal for
'ts tunes for individuals. Such u situation
IN. the debauchsry OF government. Cor
ms gress should not content itself with the su
up periicial work of renewing excrescences ant
nr leveling inequalities, but should enter a
once upon policy, as does the Morrison bill
Ith which looks to the ultimate reduction of du
In ties to strictly revenue standard
as Aud Mr.. Lanham, keeping in lin
with his colleagues, answered the e,
yet pectations of his constituents and {
ay the entire Democratic party of til
yer state by an argument the equal i
M depth and breadth of any made 1
congress in favor of the Morrison bill
be- Among other things equally good, h,
al. declared that
IN Any theory OF taxation which has for 1
Tea foundation discrimination In favor OF class,
ust or particular individuals at the expense of N
Oh greatest number of the people, Is unsoupd
TO- policy and unjust in result. II we must ha,
IN tariff let its proportionate burdens be porr
NY by all. Let us not.makc fish, OF one indust,
'on anu "ilesh' OF another. Let not the so-calle
nat business interests" OF the country have nm
on greater exemption from tariff reductions. :
res enjoy more privileges OF draining the pub,
zen than the producers of the crude material
VIC 1 am one of those who belle,
Tue that In this period of our national greatness
nrlx TIA. f.r..