Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-10-31
THE ILLOGICAL G0FF.
ION. DAN LUCAS TAKES UP HIS SPEECH
IN CONGRESS
nd Riddles It With His Col Reasoning He
Exposes Most Completely the Wild, Absurd
Fsllacis Of The Republican
Campaign.
CHARLEsTowN, October 90, 1888.

CHARLEsTOwN, October 90, 1888.
Hon. Nathan Gog:
MY DEAR GENERAL:-You were kind
enough to send me } oar recent speech II
the House of Representatives on the BILL
to reduce taxation" &c, commonly called
the Mills BIZ.
In the first place, you start out By deny
ing that the bill will reduce tie revenue.
Buz General, thu otje-t Of the blu, as
expressed on its face, Is TO re
IEes taration." TIE present average rate
of custom or import dutiss is forty seven
percent, and the bill proposes to reduce
The av: rage down to AZ per cent. Now
when the bill Ieiuces the average tariff
fax five per cent, how can shy man Of
common sense deny that this is "a re6uc-
ton of taxations You do not, and will
not deny that the reduction is as / have
stated, and yet you undertake to maintain
that srch q reduction does not reduct!
IT WOULD REDUCE TIE REVENUES.
The proposition thst the bill will not re-
luce the revenues, which is your second
;Iropositi.n, whils perhaps untenable and
Untrue, is rot, like yoCr first proposition,
!hsurd. It would to m natural to infer
hat reduction of five per cent impost
tax, would certainly reduce the revenues
from that source; but sugpoee net: sse
what sn admission here is against your
War Tariff! That it is not kept up fer
the jutt purpose Of supporting the govern
meut, bat for this benefit Of private enter
pr:za! And thst our preseat taif tax is
30 far above the revenue standard, tina. you
msy reduce it five par cent, aad yet there
by increase tie revenue!
You do not deny tie necessity to reduce
She revenues; on the contrary, you say
s"Thst We have q surplus revenue, and
that it should be reduced, al will coDeede.
How is the reduCt On to be made? That is
the CONTROVERSY"
Instead of at Seripg your own question
In some intellig bic fashion, You do moth
ing Of the kind; on the contrary, you plume
your wings for several fms flights Of GA
tory into armament of
GATHERING GENERALTTIEs, "
ont Of which I defy sDy human being t:
derive one single pract cal suggestion as tC
how the surplus is to be reduced. Ali the
positive acton which you proposed is EN-
hracsd in the following sentence:
II would make il in 3 spirit of fairness
90 all our interests and with desire t.
rrotect our agricultural, mining snd man
IfactuIing industries and the labor sn(
ari'al employed therein, and rot with ;
declaration of war against them all, as
ind in the Mills bill, low undfr consider
niDn."
That is, ytu propose to protect every
body alike, and to the same extent
farmers, miners, manufacturers profes
sional men, lab,Iers, aad specialists; AM
the REVENGE is to be reduced, without an!
reduction Of duties; and reduction is Il
made by every mans holdingon to all tina
he has got.
Again on page IL you sey:
'Mr. Chairman, it is pleasant TO con
template the labor employed in minips
and using that coal. In opening tn
mines, in building railTO7ds ~ them, ii
digging iron ore, making it into rails TO
pieks. cars; engines, and other things tO'
numerous 10 mention. And Mr.. Chair
man, remembering that oil those so labor
ing were utilizing the cotton and wool l
Roods, hats, boots and other articles man
uf4ctured at our protected establishments
and they in turn were consuming tee Cea
80 mined, and al were making marke
for The products of our farms"
Which hi intaFnreteI rnnana the
manufs cturerer, or employer, is to sell hi
goods to his labcrer, or employee, at thu
very highest price in order that he may b
abe 20 Tay the later higher wages; and tn
emuloye is to charge the highest figure fol
his work 10 order 10 enable him to buy
more gDods from his employer; and th'
rmer shall he required to pIy for ttt
Inb:red p'oIucts of both lah0rer arC
manufacturer an excIbitant bonus, il
gdsr that they may in turn afford a BIZ
lice (toue market for bis cTOIs!
THE ILLOGICAL GoFF.
Oh, General, was there ever such logic
rs this! Do ycu not perceive that WRirer
sal protection is the same as Incidental pro-
lection, and that there can be no protec.
fion for projections sake without diSerim
iaatiRq duties; that there can be no reduc-
iion without somebody gives up some
thing; and that the only remedy for the
surplus is 70 reiucs it at ores by heroic
treatment?
On page 5, you say: 81 an a protec-
ti1nist; believer in the system of High
Protective Tariff"
admire your candor, General, in max
ing this acknowledgment. |, however,
differ with yo1. am for ReVe2us-
limited Tariff, with only Incidental Protee-
ion. So also was Henry Clay. In his
1st speech on the Tariff, left as q legacy
o his country, he said:
''L:t me not Ee misunderstood, ard lie;
ne tn'reat that l be not misrepressnted.
lam not aivocs ting the revival Of High
Protective Tariff. / an for sbiding by the
principles Of the compromise act; am for
doing what no Southern man Of fair
or oardid mind ever yet denied-giying to
the country q revenue which may prove
for the economical wants of the GoYsrr-
ment and a. the same time give al Incl
dental protection 20 our home industry"
AT HIN AGAIN.
Again, you say on page 5:
''I balieve in the system Of our fathers,
In the thscry as e2unciatod by the found
ers Of the Republic, by the trainers of our
Constitution. believe that our fnt Con-
Pr 80 was right when it enacted our first
protective tariff law, sad / t ink that this,
L. al - ryhoy,