The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1890-11-21
A STRONG LgrrER.
Albany, Or, Nov 18th, 1900.

aused me 10 give the question thorough in
thing never did before, and It
las resulted in satisfying me clearly that the
'iews | entertained not great while since on
he tariff we're wrong. My researches have
'aused me to believe beyond question Of
loubt that our COVER ment has no legal righ,
o tax, directly or 'adireetly, any individual
except for public purposes o1iy. That our
government ha, no legal right to impose tar
II duty for any purpose except for public rev.
,nue only, and that, whenever Il places tar
II for the sake ofpioteetion. il is then unjust
y lending the strong arm OF the government to
build up private fortunes, for the enriehmen, Of
\ lew private individuals. Iflhs government
had used the vast millions collected by tariff
aulies from the consumers Of the country, in
building government manufactures, owning
aad operating them for the benefit Of the gen
eral public Of this country, then 1t might claim
the protective tariff was OF is for public pur-
pose, but when class legislation is enacted, and
the government taxes the general public to
build up.private enterprises, it is unjust. The
Supreme court OF the United States in the case
Of the Citizens Saving Association vs. Topeka,
decided that the government has no constiu
tonal tight 10 tax any individual Cxcep: for a
public purpose. and the late eminent Jusiiee
Miher in delivering the opinion Of the Supreme
eour, in :ha, case said: "ro lay With one
hand the power Of the goven ment on the
property Of the citizen, and. with the other,
beStow Il upon favored individuals to aid pri.
vaie eRterrrises and build up private fortunes
is none the less robbery because il IS done un-
der the form Of law and is called taxation.
Beyond cavil, there can be no taxation sE
eept for public purposes" The Supreme
court Of Iowa lays down the same doctrine in
the case Of Hanson VS. Vernon. Judge Thorn
as Cooley, formerly Of the Supreme court oi
Michigan in his work on Principles Of Con-
Stitutional Law" uses these words; "ConsIitu-
tionally a tax can have no other basis than the
raising Of revenue for putlic purposes, and
whatever governmental exaetion has no. this
basis is tyronnieal and unlaw full. A tax on
imports, therefore, the purpose OF which is not
to raise revenue. but 20 discourage and indi
recIly prohibi, some particular import for the
bsnefit OF some manufacturer, is not warrant
ed by constitutional principles" As this is the
law Of the land the tariff moaopolis,s and The
combined capital Of manufacturers, seek to
make it dead letter By the passage Of tariff
laws that are both wrong in fact. and uucon
sti,utional in principle. 4 tariff for revenue i
Legal tax. a protective 'ariii tax is illega
and unjust, and is paid by the consumer, to en-
rich the pocket Of the capitalist and mapu
faciurer. Where protection begins, revenue
is diminished, and as protection advances
revenue eontin1>s to diminish, and when pro-
lection is productive, revenu: ceases aliogeth-
| er, and then the consumer is impoverished an.
the government is not aided Shall this sys
TEN, ihA; permits lh. American manufacture
TO form combines and trusts, free from outside
competition, be allowed and continued? Th'
millions Of men who protected the country il
the hour Of sore peril, and the descendants O
those who established tins Tree goyernmen, be.
cause Of unjust taxation. demAnd that thi
question be answered Dur soil is free, ou
men are free, our thought is free, our speech j
free, and our trade and commerce shonid be a
tariff should b. placed only on the laxuries
and all the common necessaTieS Of life shoull
be free and as cheap as possible. | do no; be
lieye the tariff protects American labor. A
merican laborers virtually have no protection
| The laborers OF other countries come here Tree
an underbid our native American laborers
and capital will Turn American labor out anC
employ the cheap labor eveYlime. There j
free tfade in labor.
Why should American laborers pay {
protective tax to the rich man 10 enable
him TO hire foreign labor al his own price
The priee Of labor has been constantly de
creasing. Where men In the eastern
states, twenty years ago, received Ss.oc
per day, they now work for ninety cents
ard board themselves. In any new county
labor is paid better than in old ard densely
populated countries, and the tariff has
nothT;, 20 do with It. The great law o.
supply and demand regulates the price OF
labor. We have had a protective tariff
since 1867. Why is !, that the prices paid
laborers have been decreasing all the tine;
Again, II is said that goods are cheaper
now than twenty years ago. Thatiis true
but It is not caused by a protective tariff
The cause is, the new paten: and methods
in machinery. Steel rails under the
Bessamcr patent can be made and sold
many times cheaper than they could have
been made and sold twenty years ago. II
the protective tariff had made things
cheaper n this country, then why is 1t, they,
the tariff men, fear outside competition.
The fact is, that free trade England and
all other manufacturing countries have
kept pace with the improved methods and
can make and sell goods cheaper than we
can to day simply because they are moi
taxed on their raw material. believe the
American manufacturer has been pro-
tected long enough and his plea for pro-
lection is a pretense, and that, as a matter
of fact, with our free raw materials and
improved methods in manufacturing we
can successfully compete with any nation
in the world without one cent OF projection
and payour labor as good price as they
are paid now. Under the seductive inAu-
ence of the tariff, every man who has a
title capital wants the government to passl
class legislation to.protect him, that he may
grow fat at the expense of the farmer and
laborer who are unprotected. The duty
on the farmers corn, wheat and pork, does
not protect him any. He exports those
and need not fear from importation. The
tariff is selfish, operated in the interest oi
capital and private enterprises, and not in
the interest of the government or people
AS have no hesitancy in giving my
past political action, / will add here, In
brief. that IN first vote was of no political
significance, being cast at the city election,
at my native city, Huntsville, Missouri, in
May, 1882. In the November elections OF
that year made my first political speech,
and that was for the entire democratic