Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1888-10-17
THURMAN'S LETTER Of ACCEPTANCE.

The following is Judge Thurman's let
ter accepting the nomination for Vice.
President on the Democratic ticket:
COLUMBUS, Ohio, October ~, 1888.
Hon. Patrick A. Collins and others, COM
mittee-Gentlemen In obedience to Gus
tom, I send you this formal acceptance OF
nv nomination of the Office of Vice-Pres-
ident of the United States, made by the
National Convention of the Democratic
party at st. Louis.
When you did me the honor to call upon
me at Columbus and officially notify me
of my nomination, l expressed to you my
sense of obligation to the convention, and
stated that although I had not sought the
nomination, I did not feel at liberty, un-
der the circumstances, to decline it, l
thought then, as I still think, that what
ever I could properly do to promote the re-
election of President Cleveland, l ought
to do. His administration has been mark
ed by such integrity, good sense, manly
courage and exalted, patriotism that q just
appreciation of these high qualities seems
to call for his reelection.
I am also strongly impressed with the
belief that his reelection would powerfully
tend to strengthen that feeling of fraterni-
ty among the American people that is so
essential to their welfare, peace and hap
piness, and to the perpetuity of the Union
and its institutions.
l approve the platform of the st. Louis
Convention, and / cannot too strongly en-
press my dissent from the heretical teach
ings of m~onopolists, that the welfare Of the
people can be promoted by a system ofexor-
bitant taxation far in excess of the wants
of the Government. The idea that the
people can be enriched by heavy and un-
necessary taxation, that a mans condition
can be improved by taxing him on all that
he wears, on all that his wife and chill
dren wear, on all his tools and implements
of industry, is an obvious ahsurdity.
To fill the vaults of the treasury with
an idle surplus, for which the Government
has no legitimate use, and to thereby de-
| prive the people Of our currency needed
for their business and daily wants, and to
| create a powerful and dangerous stimu-
lus to extravaganza and corruption in the
| expenditures of the Government, seems to
me to be a policy at variance with every
| sound principle of Government and politi-
Cal economy.
The necessity of reducing taxation to
prevent such accumulation of surplus rev-
, enue and consequent depletion of the cir
culating medium, is so apparent that no
party dares to deny it but when we come
to consider the modes by which a reduc-
ton may I've made, we find a wide antag-
onism between our party and the monopo-
listic leader of our political opponents.
We seek to reduce taxes upon the necesSa-
ries of life our opponents seek to increase
them. We Say give to the masses of the
people cheap and good clothing, cheap
blankets, cheap tools and cheap lumber.
The Republicans, by their platform and
their leaders in the Senate, by their pro-
posed bill, say increase taxes on clothing
and blankets and thereby increase their
cost, maintain high duties on the tools of
the farmer and mechanic, and on the
lumber which they need for the construc-
ton of their modest dwellings, shops and
barns, and thereby prevent their obtain
ing these necessarieS at reasonable prices.
Can any sensible man doubt as to where
he should stand in this controversy? Can
any we'll informed man be deceived by
the false pretense that a system so unrea-
sonable and unjust is for the benefit of
the laboriug men? Much is said about
comparison of American laborers with the
pauper labor of Europe, but does not every
man who looks around him see and know
that the immense majority of laborers in
America are not engaged in what are
called protected industries? And as to
those who are employed in such industries
is it not undeniable that the duties pro-
posedby the Democratic measure called the
Mills bill far exceed the difference between
American and European wages, and that
therefore if it were admitted that our
w%orkingmen can be protected by tariffs
against cheaper labor, they would be fully
protected and more than protected by that
bill? Does not every well informed man
know that the increase in price of home
manufactures, produced by high tariff,
does not 20 into the pockets of the labor