West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1888-08-30

protective tariff, from the foundation
of our government to the present time,
have left a "free list and nobody
called them free traders.
Under the first tariff law adopted by
this government, and of which meas
ure Alexander Hamilton was one of
the prime movers, wool was put on the
free list and kept there for thirty-fve
years, and Hamilton was not accused
Of being free trader
Blaine and Allison and other leading
Republicans, high protective tariff ad-
vocates, fOvorcd putting coal on the
free list in 1872, and nobody accused
them Of being free traders.
To-day, under a Republican high
protective tariff, cotton, raw hides, bed
feathers, fruits and many other articles
Of American production are on the free
list, and nobody accuses the Republi-
can party of being free trade party.
This is all the argument, pretended to
be supported by facts, that the Journal
advances in its column and half art-
Gle to prove that the Mills bill is for
free trade. What this or that person
may have said about the bill, unsup-
ported by any facts or reasons, are mere
political clap-trap; hence the quota
tons made by the Journal need not be
noticed. The argument must fall.
The Mills bill Is not 'free trade
measure" and the question of free
trade ia not an issue. No arguments
are advanced to show that President
Clcvcland's message is free trade
scheme, nor can there be any. The
Mills bill and the Presidents message
are in accord, and the Democrats of
Preston endorsed both with their eyes
open, and with full realization of the
force of the language used in their
platform.
Second, it is claimed that by the
adoption of this plank, the party COM
mitted itself to free trade:
We are opposed to class Legislation,
and deny the right of the government,
whether National, State, county or
municipal, to collect more revenue
than is necessary for the support of
that government economically admin
istered.
Then the Journal pnts a continue
ton of its own on, the first clause of
that plank. "Protection they say is
for the benefit of class" says the
Journal, unfairly. No, we do not
say so, nor anything like it, We say
we are opposed to class legislation, and
so we are, and charge that in many res
poets the present tariff operates for the
benefit of the few and to the detriment
of the many. Protection should ben
eft the many and not the few. For
this reason we are seeking to revise the
tarif-not to remove it-which alone
is free trade.
Our denial of the right of the gov
eminent to collect more revenue from
the people than that government needs,
the Journal braads as ga staple free
trade argument"
Does the Journal want to collect
more revenue than is necessary? The
"surplus" is what the government has
collected more than it needs. This ex-
cess, we claim, belongs in the pockets
of the people, whence it came. We
therefore knew just what we were say
ing when we adopted that plank Does
the Journal or the Republican party
claim that the government has right
to create a surplus in the treasury by
collecting more taxes than it needs
Now, in conclusion, we have en-
dorsed the Mills bill and the Presi
dents message, with full knowledge
of what each contained, and we can still
consistently and intelligently denounce
the Republican press and party for
raising the false cry Of "free trade"
Free trade can never be adopted so
long as we have $3.50, 900, 600 Of ex-
penses to meet every year; and which,
by the doctrine Of the Democratic
party, must be met largely by a tariff
adjusted in a spirit Of fairness to all
interests. This the journal must
know VIII the Journal, therefore.
explain what it means by the term free
trader"
Now, either the Republicans are
"not informed" as to the meaning Of
free trade or, being informed and know
ing that Che term has attached TO IT
Al