The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1892-05-06
PRESUMPTION AND, ASSUMPTION IN pol
lTlCS.

The whole fabric of protection argumen
rests upon basis Of presumption and as
! sumption. For example, the 0regonial
{ recently stated that the republican vote wa
largely increased in manufacturing center
, and cities of tie east, especially where th
tariff question lad been thoroughly discuss
ed, and assumed or presumed the reason t.
be that the laborers in these industries wers
satisfied with their condition and that b,
reason of the protection of the manufacturer
their conditions were very much better than
it would be if the tariff was reduced to a
revenue basis on the articles manufactured
Now this is wholly gratitnous assumption.
1t being an affirmation on the part of pro-
tectionists. it stands them in hand to prove
this proposition to the satisfaction of labor
ers and consumers. The tariff Of conrse'
insures to the benefit of the party engaged
in the manufacture Of the articles upon
which the tariff Is laid. and to;the full ex
tent OF the protection provided the parties
are not too numerous to form themselves in
to trust. 1.-THE legitimate oifspr ng of pro-
tection,l otherwise protection may not pro-
tect. But am nothere to prove negative,
but come to demand of protectionists the
establishment of this affirmation Of theirs. A
duty which they owe to the laborers of the
United States, and to honest journalism.
That the vote in the manufacturing cent
crs and large manufacturing cities in the
east, for the republicans, was increased is
not because of the conviction of the laborers
IN these industries. that protection on man
ufactured goods insure to the benefit Of the
iaborer, but doubtless 10 the fact, that the
manufacturer himself is deeply interested in
retaining and sustaining the tariff tar. why.
because he is the direct beneficiary. and 10
the full extent Of the tax If able TO form the
necessary trust 10 enable him TO regulate the
production and limit 1t to.the consumption
OF the article manufactured. Again the
Oregozianspresumes .that..th wool growers
OF Eastern Oregon, are Of the same opinion
a they weEe..two yeas ago, and. hence the
Hon J H Slater, being an advocate ot free
wool. will be completely snowei under by
these same wool growers. too much pre-
sumption and assumption again. The cam
paign of education that hes been going on
for the last two years has convinced the
wool growers Of the fact that protection
dos not always protect. That they. the
wool growers. are too numerous TO organize
themselves into 4 trust, and that their
narse; is confined 10 the United States ex-
Gsively, and regulated at the wish of the
manufacturer himself. and because tbs man
atActarer has to pay more for the foreign
article by reason Of the tariff he naturally
lowers the price o: the home product. as cur
observation and experience have amply
taught Us since the enactment Of the Nc
kinley tariff act, which the prosectionist
promised Us .woa'd raise the&p-ice of cur
domestic product. But proved the contrary
exactly. But as before stated did not
come here 10 establish negative. But to
demand of the Orego<saz and other protac-
tion organs, the establishment ssof the AZ
aruaatiye Of these two propositions. by an
honest statement Of facts and arguments.
and not 50 much presumption and assump-
tlon without rhyme OF reason. TIE peo,,l
are beginning 10 think for themselves and
The mys;ifca:ion thrown around protection
By It's beneSciaries. IS fast being dispelled
by The application Of little common sense
10 the question. And now i; viii take
something more than presumption and as
sumption arguments 10 even hold, let
alone convince the laborers and wool grow
ers that protection inures to their benefit.
Two years ago the republican party reaped
the benefit Of the supPort-largely-of of the
wool growers Of Eastern Oregon on this
assumption argument, but experience has
taught a very different lesson, even to the
everlasting overthrow aud complete iefuta-
ton Of both arguments and promises Of
protectionists made to the wool growers.
who were compelled by reason of the enact
u,ent of the Mckinley at, to take from 2
to cents less for his wool than before the
law was passed. their promises to the con-
trary notwithstanding.
CONSUMER.