The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1892-02-19

be wanting in candOr if did not state
that one fact was developed by this con-
test above all others, and that was the
fixed and unalterable design in certain
quarters to strike down all hope or pros
pect of Mr. Clevelands nomination. The
personality of Mills and Crisp had little
to do with the result. Every intelligent
man knew that the issue on which we
had won many States in the recent past,
and upon which we must win in the
future, was tariff reform. Grover Cleve-
land had risked his public career on this
issue, and had made success possible,
and Roger Q. Mills stood before the
country as its leading defender and eX-
ponent in the House of Representatives.
| am dealing with facts, not motives,
and distinctly disClaim any attempt to
depreciate the ability and high standing
of Mr. Crisp. Parties are like armies,
and while the private has equal patriot
ism and courage with the commanding
general, the latter is known to the world
as representing the cause for which the
army contends, and history so records
it,
The fight is over, and every true Dem
Ocrat should forget its acrimOny and
prepare to meet the enemy, but it seems
to me unquestionable that, if the Demo-
cratic party proposed to take no step
backward as to tariff reform. the logical
result would have been the election of
Mr.. Mills. The same reasons which
caused me earnestly to hope that Mr..
Mills would be elected Speaker lead me
to support Mr.. Cleveland, for | believe
that any retreat from the advanced po-
sition of the party on tariff reform, and
nnCSotipn of nnnn
the Mckinley act, will result in over
whelming disaster. My. support of Mr..
Cleveland is simply because of his repre-
sentative character as the foremost eX-
ponent of tariff reform.
My personal relations with Mr..
German, who is prominently men
toned for the Democratic nomination,
are exceedingly pleasant, and noe knows
better than myself his services in the
last Congress in defeating the Force bill.
| would not pluck one laurel from his
brow, but he does not represent the great
cause of tariff reform. No personal con-
sidcration influences, for in 1888, when
Mr.. German and the late William l..
Scott came to the st. Louis convention
with a cut-and-dried platform containing
the old straddle of 1884, approved, as
they stated, by Mr.. Cleveland, the con-
vention repudiated the movement and |
heartily indUTSed it's action. Not even
Mr.. Cleveland's name was potent enough
to pull down the flag which he had him
self placed ut the masthead. 1t floats
there to-day and will never be furled un-
til the war taxes which the Republican
party promised to remove upon the re-
turn of peace have been taken from the
statute books.
Nor do | agree with Governor Hill that
the Tariff Act of 1888 should be re-en-
enacted. That law is not SO extreme as
the Mckinley act, but it is equally Obiec-
tionable. Many of its provisions were
voted down III both the Senate and the
House of Representatives, but an er-
purte conference committee, upon which
no Democratic Senator would serve, re-
ported the bill at midnight in the last
hour of the session, and it passed the
Senate by one majority. To favor such
legislation now is reactionary and abso-
lutely fatal. 1t seems to me that the
Ways and Means Committee of the
House should report general tariff bill
representing in its provisions the true
position of the Democratic party. Raw
materials shoul9du R}ftGd" on all the neces
sarieS of life to the lowest rates by
mon Tie amount can be collected nee
essary to carry on the Government. At
the same time bills should be reported
attacking in detail the most fragrant and
oppressive features of the Mckinley act,
so that the fight should rage on the right,
left and centre, and the Republican Sen
ate should be compelled to meet the
issue squarely
OF course all these measures will be de-
feated, but there will be no opportunity
for the enemy to escape, and
nothing but unblushing falsehood can
then charge the Democratic party with
insincerity or cowardice. Our party is
now practically united on the tariff, but
hopelessly divided on the silver question.
No one differs from Mr. Cleveland more
earnestly and radically than myself as to
che free coinage of silver. consider his
letter to the New York meeting, at the
time and under the circumstances. I'M
wise, ineXpedient and an outrage on his
friends i'll the Senate. never question
ed his honesty, however, nor was | sur
prised at his position. In 1888, although
openly and VIGOROUSLY against free coin
age, he was nominated unanimously by
the Democrats and enthusiastically sup
ported by the men who now denouncc
him for his views upon silver. In fact.
large majority of the Eastern people of
all parties are opposed to the free coin
age of silver. No party and no candi-
date favOring it can carry New York.
New Jersey or Connecticut. The only
difference between Cleveland and Hill as
to silver is that the former leaves no
doubt of his position, while the latter's
friends even are unable to understand
him.
In his Elmra speech Governor Hill |
declared that the melting pot furnished |
the crucial test, and the silver dollar of |
Allison, the silver dollar of Sherman |
cannot now abide the test of intrinsic
value In the same speech he said: Il |
admit the Bland-Alllson act of 1878 to be |
and he denounced as |
babes and sucklings' those who adj
vised the postponement of the silver
question. 'The gold dollar" he said,
loses nothing by being melted, but the |
dollar loses many grains"
If Governor Hill does not mean that |
enough silver shall be added to the dol
ar to make its market value equal to the
gold dollar everywhere, his statements
IRE unintelligible. If he means that free
coinage would, of itself, makes the silver
lollar equal all over the world .
% the gold dollar, he should
rave said so. Whatever may have
'een his meaning at Almira, he
lfterward declared at Albany that no
rec coinage bill should be passed by this
congress, but that the Bland-AllisOn act