The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-10-17

democratic party for, because they have forced
the lighting upon this question. lAp-
plause.l But for the position assumed by
party, there would have been nothing
accomplished upon this matter. What is the
position of the democratic party upon the
tariff question? We are willing, my friends,
that our opponents shall interpret their own
platform We claim the same poor privilege
upon our part.
say that the democratic party is not free
| trade party, and will reiterate it wherever
go. Applause. deny that there is anything
In the democratic platform that can be con-
strued in favor Of free trade. But, my friends,
it does not follow from that that the democratic
party does not favor tariff reform. 1t is alto
gether different thing. We are opposed
! 70 excessive taxation, opposed TO unnecessarily
/ high tariff we believe the time is come when,
without injury to any interest in this country,
taxes can be reduced. That is the demo-
cratic position. 1t is the position that is un-
assailable in this campaign, and all the clamor
OF the republican politicians simply TO SUBJ
serve party purposes cannot change the
honest, fair, square, manly position of the
democratic party. lApplause.l
In framing tarif-in framing first plat
/ form-permit me TO say we cannot of course
place in the platform all the details of the tariff
measure. We can simply reiterate in our
national platform i'm general terms the prinei-
!
should be framed. The democratic platform
/ states our position precisely. We believe
/ that there should be tariff duties
! sufficient to meet the expenses of the
/ government economically administered. We do
not believe that under our constitution the gov
/ eminent has the right to impose taxes for any
/ other express purpose. We believe further.
/ that IN the adjustment of the tariff, it should
be so adjusted that as far as possible and as
may be necessary, every interest of labor should
nrOrpetpl
! afforded to our industries. [Applause.1 But
/ 1 desire to call your attention right here TO
the much-abused Mills bill. 1t has been
stated that it will destroy the Industries of our
country. | deny both propositions emphati-
! cally.
am now speaking of the articles placed on
the free list. That is one question. / am
/ speaking now of the articles manufactured and
brought into this country upon which the du-
ties are reduced. There is not single manu-
featured article upon which the dutyls reduced
wherein there is not left by this much abused
Mills bill a sufficient revenue to represent the
| whole cost of the labor involved in its produc
ton anywhere. [Applause.l Therefore, the
1lrst position take Is that the democratic party
/ fayors thereby the protection OF labor. But
We don't believe that when sufficient tariff is
still left to represent the cost of the
| labor involved in the production,
that 1t is necessary to still further
/ burden the people simply to give an
I oACcSSNc pEoub 10 InOnOpOllStS ana
turers. This position is plain, clear and
readily understood. Our opponents, for party
] purposes. may misrepresent il. That Is to be
expected; but my friends, every democratic
orator reiterates this position, which is plainly
! stated IN the democratic platform, that the re-
/ duction which we propose can and must be
/ effected without injury TO single
/ industry in this country, and without
q reduction of the wages of a single laborer in
! the land. That is the democratic position TAp-
snf oil flxrnra Of fba dash
4 OF the American people to be just; taking adj
| vantage OF their desire 10 be generous, there
! are selfish interests clamOring for n higher
/ tariff; clamOring that sum shall be put upon
! goods unnecessary for the purpose OF the gov
] eminent and unnecessary for protection of the
/ laborer and also unnecessary for reasonable
/ protection to American industries. We say the
/ time has come when the lines should be drawn,
\ and when some legislation should be made in
/ the interest OF the people, and when the legis-
lation of the past in the interest OF classes and
| IN the interest OF monopolies should cease
/ hereafter
] In framing this tariff we laid out two prin-
! ciples-two principles which submit to your
4 candid judgment are sound. The first is that,
as tar as possible. the necesSaries OF life should
/ be made free. Who can object To this? How
4 will this iniure the industries of your country?
4 tall to see. How will any labOring man be
/ injured by having the neceSSaries of life made
as cheap rs possible?
/ My friends, the cry of the other side is a
/ false cry 1t is a misleading cry; there is
nothing upon which TO base it. For instance,
1 let me take one item-the item of salt. Tell
me, will you, why any laboring man should OBJ
/ Ject TO this being put upon the free list? VIII
II lnIure any industry to any extent? Not at
all: Some OF the very men engaged in the salt
industry IN this country favor putting salt on
the free list. Once in a while, my friends,
! you md an honest manufacturer who will
cOncede the propriety of the action taken in
the Mills bill. And everywhere | go | find
honest manufacturers coming to the front and
sitting upon the platform and endorsing the
Mills bill. lApplause.l The democratic party
proposes to put this one article the free list,
the article of salt. 1t is an article used in
every family in the land. Ii ought to be made
as free as possible, and / don't know why any
one should object. 1t has been said there was
a trust-a salt trust. l never heard of it. 1t
was discovered day or two ago by distin-
guished gentleman who spoke here. / care
not whether there is or not; but If there is, so
much the worse. Then let us place this salt
upon the free list and tend, if we can to de-
stroy these other trusts. [Applause.l
Let me call your attention to the position
taken by our opponents upon this question.
A few years ago the distinguished candidate
Tor ylce-preSident was member of congress
from the city of New York He didn't then
have the vice-presidenta bee in his bonnet,
and think he was honest with his own con
science, honest with his constituents. When
the question came up a lew years ago To
whether salt should be placed on the free list
or not, Mr.. Levi p. Morton voted TO place salt
upon the free list. Three years ago, when he
was a candidate for U. 5. senator in state
against Mr.. Evarts some of the republicans who
were opposing Morton and favOring Mr.. Evarts
made the charge against him that it would not
do to elect Mr.. Morton u. ). senator because he
was free trader and they instanced the fact
that he voted 10 put salt upon the free list, and
at that time Mr.. Morton came out in a card in
which he said that il was unfair to him to call
him free trader because he voted to put salt
upon TIE free list: he said he did this and he
ought not to be blamed for it, be-
cause he did 1t in the interest of the farmers
and dairymen of the state of New York.
Laughter and applause He was right, my
friends, then; but how can he reconcile his at
titude then with the attitude of the republican
party now and the attitude taken in his own
letter of acceptance? | read that letter of ac.
ceptance carefully the other day to see if he
would not give us some CLEAN of hope that he
would possibly vote for free salt in the future
but found not word of it. [Applause.l When
j made this statement the other night TO an
audience in New York City, a gentleman
hallOoed out: "Salt won't save him this time"
Immense laughter.l
Another article we propose to put upon the
free list is the article of wool. Ii seems to me
there can be no reason whatever why this arti-
Gle, which enters into the composition of your
clothing, should not be put upon the free list.
You have unquestionably heard the arguments
here in favor of il and against it. / believe
that the putting of this article upon the free
list will stimulate the wool manufacture OF
this country. lApplause.] Pray tell me where
and whence came this demand for wool 1t
said that the democratic party is acting