The state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1891-1893, 1892-09-20

sufficiently large to prevent foreign
competition, irrespective of the ques-
tion of the needs of the treasury; while
the democratic party believes that the
government has only a constitutional
and moral right to impose such duties
as may be necessary to raise sufficient
revenue to support the government econo-
mically administered. This is the precise
issue squarely stated. Both parties cannot
be right one or the other must be wrong.
The consideration of this subject leads to
an analysis of the true functions of the
government. There are some things
which must be conceded because they
are too plain for argument, and one of
them is that the government has no con
stltutlonal power to enter into private
business directly, and what it cannot, or
ought not, to do indirectly. This is the
correct theory of government, and it
excludes the idea that one citizen NAV
be burdened to foster another citizens
priyate sGhemes groSssatiSs taEik i
tional platform gives forth no uncertain
sound upon this subject and correctly
states the true position of the
party. 1t denies the constitutional pow
er of the government to impose taxes for
other than public purposes. am aware
that concerted effect is being made by
our opponents to make it appear that
new departure has been entered upon
and that our party has abandoned its
former conservative position upon the
tariff question and assumed another and
bolder attitude leading absolutely to-
ward free trade. l do not regard it.
Some of it might have preferred little
different phaseology, but as whole it
sufficiently expresses our position with
reasonable clearnesss and accuracy. l
realize the difficulty of presenting the
question of the constitutionality of a pro-
tective tariff law to the courts, and in
that view it may have been unnecessary,
or not desirable, to have challenged
its legality. We need not have
placed our objections upon that ground
while 50 many fatal objections existed
10 the system itself, but that course was
a mere matter of discretion. The fact
remains that we have always in
sisted, and not insisted that no warran-
can be found in the constitution for the
imposition of tariff duties to aid private
industries, but whether such a tariff is
constitutional or not, or whether it is
practicable to have the question prop
erly raised or decided, the system itself
is vicious in the extreme. unjust to the
people, and contrary to the spirit of oul
free institutions. Let us examine the
point moment.
Whence comes the power to protec
private industries? What clause of the
constitution can be invoked for such
purpose? There is none. 1t must b.
conceded by every intelligent citizen tina
the constitution does not grant any sucl
s express power There is not an elemen
4 tary law writer any where whose treatie
: on the constitution is regarded as stan
> dard authority, who ventures to affirm
r the constitutional right of Congress t.
+ levy duties for any other direct purpos
e than for the support Of the government
Republican protection, therefore, doe
l not constitutionally exist, but is imposed
: upon the people by fraud, false pretense
0 evasion and gross abuse of the taxin
b power. All the socalled protection fo
50 'u'es W opponents have clamored AM
s r gpes&s gre & We have obtained in recent years
has as''V, wv oous cured, not by constitution,
C sanction, but by the abuse {
the conceded taxing power of tn
5. government. 1t is dangerous exercis
e of authority. 1t is perversion of til
/ powers of government. The democrat
d position is a safe, logical, conservati,
d and just position. No tariffs, excel
Il ''for the purposes of revenue only" an
l. then limited to the necessities of the go
r ernment honestly and economically az
E. ministered, is doctrine which appea
a to the good sense and sound judgme
of every honest and thoughtful ma
o. ses of the government and the enormo'
re amount of money, annually augmentin
IN required by the growing pension lis
s: these tariffs which must necessarily
n, exacted to meet these expenditures W
c. be for many years to come amply sui
id cient to afford, incidentally, all the pr
to lection which the most arde
to advocate of the system can reason
he ably ask. More than this ought not
te be conceded to anybody. In the il
ng position of necessary tariffs there shou
al be exercised wise discrimination in
ur amounts exacted and in the artic
no taxed. What should be placed upon
lis free list and what should be the M
d. heavily burdened, are questions not fl
e. from difficulty, and require the m
ra- careful consideration. The Mills bill
ar 1888 and the separate tariff bill pass
for by the present democratic House of r.
lp- resentatives indicate in general way
es. democratic position. They show: "Fir
la that the necessaries of life should be
ar solutely free. Second, that luXur
a should bear the heaviest burdens. Thi
IL that there should be free r
ne materials for the benefit of our manuf
w turcrs. Fourth, that the tariff W
ed manufact ctured articles should, as a ge
lily raj rule, be larger where similar artic
IAN are manufactured in this country tt
re" where they are not. Fifth, that the ia
&C. imposed upon all manufactured artic
.ry (other than those which for good reas
ed are placed on the free lisD should eq
IN the difference between the rate of wa
ess paid in this and foreign countries so
i'm as labor enters into the cost of their
his duction.
be President HARRISON in his ingeni
led letter of acceptance, endeavors to pl
irit our party in false attitude, by call
on, attention to the fact, that while our p
ned form in 1884, re adopted in 1888 c
'eo- tanned an express plank upon this a
,ac- tion of the equalization Of wages, ye
5 of was omitted in 1892, and asserts that
.tu- have changed our position. l beg to
S of fer with him There has b
i'm no change There was no necessity
ION. the repetition of that plank, as
ion party's position upon it had been
ion, denced by the Mills bill, which had