The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1892-09-12

II rs not fe1g0laDle 70 tnluk Lllht tucl
would leave their trade, to which you
are invited, and seek land Of pro!ec-
ton, unless they were quite able to fig
ure it out on q mathematical basis that
the change of location would be achange
for the better in their condition.
THE FREE TRADE POSITION, VOW AND
HEREAFTER.
oae point further. Suppose Mr.. Cleve-
land should triumph-have Demo-
cratic house and Democratic senate,
which latter. l regret to say, is not i'm.
possible. This we know. the free wool
bill would be passed, aud nobody here
can doubt 1t, because they have passed
it-passed it twice in the house. They
are going to better the wool growers
condition, and the manufacturers and
the wage-earner' Land in course OF time,
two, five or ten years, hit is found that
they were mistaken, and you tell them
go, they will answer that you should not
have voted to put them in ascendency
il YOU we're not in agreement with
them, and ii 1t is a mistake, it is an
honest mistake all round. They will
say, we held out the bait and you took
it. II you say, now, let US get back to
some degree OF protection on our raw
wool, they will say no, and more than
that, YOU have no right TO expect it.
They issue you good reading, and what
do you read? You read that in the
Chicago convention which nominated
Mr.. Cleveland, which made the plat
form on which he stands, there was a
platform report which recognized that
there shall be discrimination between
the industries of this country and OF
foreign countries. By an overYhelm-
ing majority they rejected that plank.
You can not read il or hear it too often.
Here it is;
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS REJECTED.
ave reiterate the oft-repeated doc
trines OF the Democratic party, that the
necessity of the government is the only
justification for taxation, and whenever
a tax is unnecessary, it is unjustitiable ;
that when customs house taxation is
levied upon articles OF any kind pro-
duced in this country, THE DIFFER
ENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF
LABOR HERE AND LABOR ABROAD,
when such difference exists, fully
measures any possible benefits to labor,
and the enormous additional IMPOSE
tions OF the existing tariff fall with
crushing force upon our farmers and
workinginen, and: for the mere advan-
tage of the few whom it enriches, ex-
acts from labor a grossly unjust share
of the expense OF the government. And
We demand such revision of the tariff
laws as will remove their iniquitous in
equalities, tighten their expressions and
put them on constitutional and eqult-
able basis
But, in making reductions in taxes,
1T is NOT PROPOSED TO INJURE
ANY DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES, BUT
RATHER TO PROMOTE THEIR
HEALTHY GROWTH. From the
foundation OF this government the
taxes collected at the custom house
have been the chief source of federal
revenue. Such they must continue to
be. Moreover, many industries have
come to rely upon legislation for sue
cessful continuance, so that ANY
CHANGES OF LAW MUST BE AT
EVERY STEP REG ARDFUL OF THE
LABOR AND CAPITAL THUS IN
V0LYED. The progress OF reform
must be subject in the execution to this
plain dictate of justice"
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ADOPTED.
They could not accept this plain die
tate OF justice" but they jumped for
this as hungry dog goes for bone:
ave denounce Republican protection
as a fraud-as robbery OF great ma
ioritv of the American people for the
benefit of few. WE DECLARE II
TO BE A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCE
TIE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO I'M
POSE AND COLLECT A DOLLAR
FOR TAX EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES
OF REVENUE ONLY, and demand
that the collection OF such taxes be i'm
posed by the government when only
honestly and economically administer
ed"
The first have read to you had too
strong flavor OF protection. They are
not for protection, and in the second,
the plank on which Mr.. Cleveland
stands, on which every other Democra-
tic nominee stands, they say point
blank that that protection IS unconstitu-
tional, and so they say in their speeches
and in their press.
1t would not matter if you gentlemen
should ask per cent protection for
your wool, 2 per cent protection for
your glassware in the city OF Wellsburg.
A quarter OF per cent protection is
lust as unconstitutional as a protection
OF 100 per cent. So that we may, if we
choose SO to, do decline to discuss
any phase of this question but that
which touches the constitutionality OF
il. We don't have to prove protection
is right, we don't have to prove 1t Is
expedient. If you believe protection is
not a violation OF the constitu-
ton you cannot vote the Democratic
ticket. The fact that under the consti-
tuition we can protect, has never been
questioned by any party in any plat
form, by the representatives OF any
party on any platform, nor in any press
since the foundation OF thegovernment.
There never has been a Democratic
President to question it. Mr.. Cleveland
in his tariff message challenged its ex-
pediency, not its constitutionality. But
new light has broken since then, and
under the radiance OF that new light it
is discovered that you cannot protect to
any degree any industry which is es-
tablished, or may be desired to be es-
tablished, in your own country.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION SETTLED.
Why, gentlemen, il l thought it worth
while would have brought here a mes
sage of Andrew Jackson to Congress in
1879 Hnnast Andrnw Iackann. like