Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1884-07-05
Icontinued from, first paae.l

TContinued from first page.]
or sovereign government is an idea thai
belongs on the other side of the water
The constitution, laws and treaties are
supreme law and they should always bs
maintained as such. The union OF these
states is one and indissoluble, but l de
ny that my simple agent, elected Is
members of congress are, for two years
and the chief magistrate for four years
appointed to carry out my wishes ex'
pressed i the constitution which they
swear to support, are in q body,js su.
prem power. Where is sovereignty
With you, the people. You are, under
these new dogmas, as much abjecl
slaves as if you were under the tyran-
nical will of one man, and the tyranni'
: cal will of one man is far better than
the tyrannical will Of q thousand.
But, nv fellow citizens, l cay If the
Democratic party succeeds they will
bring this government back under the
leadership Of some grand statesman,
snch as Bayard or Cleveland to a more
just and equitable rule, and hand doWn
to your children the blessings OF are
publican government. [Great ap-
WHAT else will it do2 The republican
party says in its platform that 1t Is OPP.
posed to q tariff for revenue only.
am not going into q discussion OF the
tariff now, though I want sometime
during the canvass to talk about it, but
say Il the democratic party succeeds
it will bring this government back
under q policy which demands 9 tar1n
for avenue sufficient to pay the @
fpenses of the government economically
administered. l join issue there with
the republican party. Aye, at the
threshold 1 deny the power OF the ted
eral government under any clause or
section of the constitution to by any
other tax than to raise the money ne
cessary to pay the legitimate expenses
of the government. When the govern
ment Of the United States steps in and
lays a tax upon the imports OF this
country within the proper limits Tor
raising a revenue necessary to pay its
expenses, it acts within the limits OF
its duty. When it attempts to lay them
for any other purpose than to provide
such necessary expenses, it is,under the
guise of law, committing robbery.
There has been q great deal of talk
about this tariff. 1t is like discussing
the civil service. The great difficulty
is to make men believe you are in favor
of civil service, at the same time you do
nothing to bring it about. Just SO it is
with the tariff. Now what is it? Why,
/ 90 out into the world with q dollar
which represents SO much labor, SO
much sweat, so much toll. l 60 over
here and l propose to buy something.
invest in some article. The govern
ment of the United States steps in and
says, no, that man is q Frenchman, a
German, an Englishman or 9 Spaniard.
You can't buy from him, you must buy
from an American. Then patriotic in
spirit, ! say well, l will buy from my
own cougtryman. l go to him and he
says, no, a dollar and a half. The gov
eminent of the United States has laid
fifty cents on the dollar to protect me
in my business. l deny the power of
the general government TO force me,
honest tax to go and work for
another half day to get fifty cents to go
into the pocket Of this man.. 1 deny
the power, 1 deny the right. That is
the question, There it is in a nutshell.
Where is the authority to commit this
robbery? Why, the gentlemen say, we
will show it to you. And they turn to
the constitution which says that con-
gress shall have power to lay and col
lect taxes. J The object of the laying
on the n hand is to collect on the
other. If you lay the tax 90 as to
keep goods out, 30 as to protect this
mansin selling, you defeat the true OBJ
ject of the constitution, namely, to col
lect it. Congress shall have power to.
lay and collect taxes and duties upon
imports What for2 To pay the pub
lie debt and provide for the common
defense. There is the democratic plat
form in the constitution itself.
The republican party boasts and
points with pride to- the fact that
it has freed 30 many slaves. Take the
case I mentioned. Igo out with two
dollars to make q purchase. The gov
eminent says, no; he is q foreigner;
you cannot buy from him; buy over
here. I go to this manand he says, no;
three dollars. Must 1 90 back in the
heat and burden of the. day and make
this 50 1-3 per. cent to go into this mans
pocket? Black slavery is abolished, but
/ ask any man raised in this country,
did the STAKEHOLDER after feeding, cleth-
ing and paying doctors bills ever .ex-
pect to make out of his slaves more
than s.. 1-3 per cent? l say when you
compel the nan who rises in the early
morning and works until nightfall to
make an additional dollar to go into the.
pockets, not Of the government for
legitimate expenses, but into the peck
cts of his fellow man to enrich him, l
say for that day you have enslaved that
q l deny the power of the gov
ernment to do that. Where is it writ
ten in the constitution? In what sec
ton or clause do you find it? 1t IS a
monstrOus proposition. There are two
elements Of that class in this country.
One OF them is small aud Insignificant,
but they both radiate in different di-
rections from the same point. There
is the communistic spirit which says to
the man of property, you have no right
to all this property; it is contrary to
the law of God; the world owes me a
living; you must divide! Your prop
erty must be divided up! From what
point does his theory proceed? That
shC WI ~ tu0 PCOPIC ot largo oWC hiiil
a living. The protective system says
to the people at large, you W a GER
tain per cent. OF your money, time or
property TO us to aid lis in building up
our business. The communist says, 1
cannot make a living and the world
owes it to me. The protectionist says
my business is not profitable; you must
pay q tax to make it profitable. Where
is the difference? II is in this. The
protectionist, through the enormous
taxes laid on the American people has
grown rich,a and from well filed Golfers
he pours his wealth into the lap of the
republican party and it says, keep us
in power and will still protect you.'
On the n hand the communist is poor,
and is despised, hated and powerless,
and the other, who bases his demand
upon the same theory, is rich, grand
and powerful with its hand upon the
throat of the American people. There
is the difference.
Now, to go back to the question OF
the power ofthe government to do this.
l will read you something from repub-
hcan authority. In 20 Wallace, in the
case of Loan Association vs.. Topeka,
the supreme court of the United States,
the opinion being by Justice Miller,
whom nobody will accuse of being a
democrat, uses this language. Now,
mark you, I am denying the power OF
the government under the taxing pow
er to take the fruits ofmy labor and turn
II into tho nrivato ~cofforo >fonu oth.,