The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-12-30


ment itself. On one side we had Mr..
Jefferson and Mr.. Madison advocating strict
construction Of that great fundamental law,
while on the other side Mr. Hamilton and those
who agreed with him. who favored loose and
broad construction. There was time when the
people even of the North were compelled to the
enactment of laws which did not come within
what they deemed to be constitutional re-
quirementS, for the necessities of the
occasion [cheersl; yet did submit.
But when that was over. we say now, and have
continued to say from the moment, that condi-
ton of things must cease, and, as far as pos
sible, we must return to strict construction of
law in every particular
'You naturally have right to ask
have stated, in what way l would get
rid of this surplus. 1t is not altogether new
subject to the American people. 1t agitated the
law makers for period Of twenty years, from
1916 to 1886; but it was finally agreed upon all
hands that there must be deposit to be called
for at any time, That deposit was made, or
three fourths of it, among the States
1t never was admitted that we had any right
to collect money for that purpose. Now will
show how would get rid of this surplus, There
may be some who will differ with me as to this
matter, but my convictions on that subject are
the result of study and investigation, and at
least entitled to respect. The internal revenue
system is system of taxation which we
derived from England. Even from the period of
its enactment, nll643, it has odious III that mon
should it be odious in a free republic like ours
| need not remind you that in 1891, when Mr.
Jefferson became President of the United States
he then and there recommended to Congress
that every statute raising money for pubic
purposes through an internal system of taxation
should be repealed that had accumulated during
the administrations of Washington and Adams
Again, in 1917 Mr.. Monroe made like recon-
mendation on this subject for during the war, and
up to the battle of New Orleans, there had been
a necessity for this resort to taxation; but theE
two years after the victory Of jackson at New
Orleans, all this taxation was swept from
the statute books. Nay, more, the power given
in the Constitution of the United States as to
the manner of raising money in this
way was given after warm discus
sion, and it came to be generally
understood that this means of taxation
should only be exercised during period of war
and its necessities. And now, twenty years
after our unfortunate war has closed, we lind
this system of taxation still continuing. 1t is,
in my Judgment, an unjust mode OF
leyying tribute from the people ICheers.
An economical administration Of the government
az Washington can do without this $l20, 000, 900
of money that was collected last year, and is
likely to be collected again, not needing it. You
will naturally ask me in what way would L
conine the collection of public money.
I say deliberately that l would confne it to levy
ing duty on imports into the United States at
the border. 1would do that through the agency
of tariff the traditional mode of collecting
ton of great delicacy, about which there
many opinions. have never been able to find
in the Constitution of the United States any
warrant, and have never made an utterance,
either in public or private life, at variance with
what l am going to say. do not believe
there is in the Constitution of the United States
any authority to levy import duties
for projections sake. In other words, can find
nothing which gives authority to the Congress
of the United States to raise taxes on impost
duties for protective purposes. l say, also,
that would so levy the duties on the imports
into the United States that the difference be-
tween the foreign product and the American
article, when the two are here in com
petition-so that the difference in the foreign
ratio of interest and that of our own
country, the difference in the wages of me-
chanic and laborer abroad and the laborer of the
United States-shall be equal only to fill that
gap. Cheers You may talk to me
about free trade There cannot be any
free trade between the United States and any
country successfully where the business rate of
interest in is different from the business rate
of interestin the other, and where wages for
like work is different IN one from the other.
The country which has the lower rate of
interest and pays the lower rate of wages, will
exhaust the other We had six years, from 1888
to 1889 of what may term freestrade, and it was
that which induced the first tariffs act introduced
by BIr Madison, father of the Constitution, and
in il was developed the principle which am to
night conten6ing for. If two countries. with
different interests and different wages, are to
continue, one of two results must follow:
either our country must be brought down to
the lower rate ofinterest in the foreign country,
and our wages come down to the lower rate OF
interest in the foreign country, bringing
with it disaster and hardship, or else the other
plan must be adopted, so as to exactly fill the
cost of the foreign article, and make it equal to
the product of the United States / prefer the
latter In other words, favor what Mr.. Jefferson
described as discriminating tariff, what Gen
11nA s.alfu .ffT laaf
that great intellect. Silas Wright for he early
learned the use of terms, said he waLted-a tariff
with incidental protection
Now, there are three classes of thinkers in
the United States. There is the high pro
teetive tariff advocate. high protective
tariff leads to monopoly and to class
legislation, which, as representative
of the people, have in my humble way always
resisted The next class is that body of the
people who theorize on the subject
of tariff legislation. They do not take
the time to enter into details. While a high pro
tectiYe prohibitory tariff leads to the creation of
monopoly, free trade invites you to direct
taxation, and that, l consider, is not a means of
raising revenue to which the American people
will ever submit There is another class, of
which claim to be an humble member, who
favor incidental, or common sense tariff, deter
mined upon business requirements, and deter
mined to maintain an interchange of commodities
between two countries by conditions that exist
in each And there is other way, in my Judg
ment to adjust this matter. This is not
new declaration on my part, for if
people who are interested in my
position in that particular have examined my
record, they would have found a distinct and
unqualified declaration in the direction l have
stated"
The foregoing covers the main points of Mr.
Randalls address, the remainder of his speech
being devoted to illustration and elaboration of
the positions taken above.