The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1888-10-06
The Sentinel as cleveland's Critic

The Sentinel as Cleveland's Critic.
The selections made by the Sentinel from
Mr.. Cleyeland's Letter of Acceptance are
indeed excellent sentiments" as our con-
temporary styles them, but the comments Of
that journal upon the sentiments are SO far
off we feel constrained to call it back to its
text.
Does not the Sentinel see the error into
which it has fallen when it says:
'With laws affording ample authority to
protect and maintain the rights of our peo-
pie, the Administration has wasted its efforts
in negotiating treaty that simply surrendered
every point OF vantage to our Canadian neigh
bors.n
If this be true, will our contemporary tell
its readers why the Republican Senate, as a
part of the treaty making power, did not
amend the treaty, instead of rejecting it ?
Why did not the Republican Senate perfect
the treaty when it had the whole subject be-
fore it, and with ample power to preserve the
"point of vantage ?'' When the Sentinel has
explained this very singular omission of duty
on the part of the Republican Senate, it can
then consistently find fault with the President.
1t is useless to discuss the Senate's rejection
of the treaty, for the country is convinced
that the rejection was simply party move to
obtain, if possible, a temporary advantage in
the presidential campaign. The patriotism
of the Senate may well be questioned, when
it permits party to prevail over the country S
interests.
The vetoes by the President of certain PEN
sion bills evince no brutality as the Senti-
mel claims, but this Characterization of brutal
ity evinces total ignorance on the subject by
the Sentinel The President simply dis
charged his duty, and in doing so he not Only
protected the treasury, but protected the true
soldier, who regards the pension list roll of
honor, not to be married with the names of
vagabonds and frauds and those not entitled
to receive pensions If time and space would
permit we could show that in every instance,
save one, the President was right, and the
fact that but in that one case no attempt to
override veto was made, clearly proves it.
We could show that most of the benehciaries
of the vetoed bills had their applications re-
lected by the Pension Bureau, and very many
of them during Republican administration.
If Congress had acted honestly, the bills
would never have been passed. Not caring
to incur the possibility of offending voter or
two, the bills were rushed through without
consideration or scrutiny, Republicans and
Democrats alike relying upon the President
to protect the soldiers roll and the treasury.
This was cowardly, but nevertheless it is true.
We could show further, if it were necessary,
that under this Administration more pensions
have been granted than under any former one;
that the value of pensions has increased, and
that the cost of the Pension Bureau has been
less.
Instead of the President being brutal, he
was manly, honest and conscientious. He
would not curry favor by disregard of duty.
Our contemporary admires fidelity to duty,
and we are confident that if it were in pos
session of the facts concerning the President S
yetoes, it would not have praised, for it is too
partisan, but it would have maintained ST.
lence.
The ''highly euphcnious sound' which the
Letter gives out to the Sentinel on the recog-
milton of the value of American labor is in
exact keeping with the policy of the Admin
istration on the subject of the tariff. That
policy may be formulated thus-revenue du-
ties plus the difference between the cost Of
labor in America and foreign countries. Thus
the constitutional rule Of laying taxes is COM
piled with, and 'scrupulous and just appre-
citation of the interests of our workingmen'
provided for, without, further than existing
circumstances require, taxing the many for
the benefit of the few, or exacting from agri-
culture tribute for manufactures. There is
no ''crusade for free trade" either in the
policy of the President nor in the Mills bill.
The crusade is to bring the country back to a
simpler form of taxation; to eliminate from
our laws special privileges to extend equal
Justice to all men, all trades, all professions,
all callings, by giving preference and privilege
to none. This is country of equality, but
protection is privilege, and against the spirit
| of our institutions and the letter of our laws.
Our esteemed contemporary is not less
happy in its comments on the Civil Service
than it was on the treaty, the labor subject
and the pension vetoes. Itsinaccuracies, the
result of superficial knowledge in some cases
and absence of knowledge in others, will fail
to receive credence from even Republican
readers, if it does not come nearer the facts
than it does when it says that "the mail SER
vice has cost forty-fve millions of dollars
more during the last four years than it did
under the Arthur Administration. What
our contemporary ought to have said is, that
in consequence of change in the rate OF
postage from three to tlco cents, and other
reductions, the receipts of the Postoffice De-
partment under Mr.. Cleveland has fallen
largely behind what they were under Presi-
dent Arthur; and could it have lifted itself
above its prejudices it would have added that
the postal service had been improved and ex-
tended and made of greater efficiency than
ever before in the history of the Department.
We care not to follow the Sentinel further,
but we would ask it, in conclusion, ifthe pres
ent taxation of SAT on the 500 be Protection,
how can $40 on the 500 be Free Trade?
!
Hon. Frank T. Shaw will take an active
part in the present campaign and will make a