The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1892-11-03

= - ei'C i-it'--tIlCS lie DttIIt kriyote
VI puolc e1 pense5 Shall the whole peoDle be
''t2ec Tor the benefit OF the Few, l. faTa,ion
~. - "U'ueh OF blessing to the whole pcor,l,?
thc9e pointed questions serve to ernrhasize
! the distinction between the two policies pre-
eeIted for our approval There il an ..irre
LFeasioie conflict between them. Both mar
Ties cannot be right: one or the other must hs
wrong. NV "
line consideration Of this subject leads mo
10 an analysis of the true functions Of govern
nieh'' ana 1t Is important to determine where
we are drifting. There are some things which
must be conceded because they are Too ,Ja;
lof argument. and Of them is that the
government has no constitutional power tn
enter into private business directly, and what
IL cannot 90 directly it cannot CT ought not tn
40 indirectly Its functions are public fnnc
IONS ana must be exercised for public pur-
poses. 1t fs an elementary principle that nri
'ate property can only be taken for public
use The right Of eminent domain cannot he
exercised IN aid of private enterprises When
railroad company enters upon NV land to
construct its railroad it is ONLY unon the tbeo-y
mat It's construction is for the public benefit
water company is permitted to lay its pipes
through our public streets only because II
serves public good. Highways are construct
90 at pubic expense only because thew are
Pubnc thoroughfares. You are taxed for the
support Of your court houses, your schools and
your asylums only because they are public in
atltutions. This is the correct theory of gov
eminent, and it excludes the idea that one
citizen may be burdened to foster another
citizens private schemes.
Inc Democratic national platform gives
iofth no uncertain sound upon this subject.
ana correctly states the true position of the
party 1t denies the constitutional power of
me government to impose taxes for other than
pubic purposes. Let me read the whole of
that plank
e declare 1t to be fundamental principle
d the Democratic party that the federal gov
5rn I'm has no unconstitutional power to impose
ana collect tariff duties except for the BUR
poses or revenue only, and we demand that the
CORRECTION OF such taxes shall be limited to the
necessities of the government when honestly
ana economically administered"
am not here to apologize for that plank. |
am here to advocate and defend it. 1t cor
rectly and substantially states the Democratic
ialth. am aware that a concerted effort is
being made by our opponents to make it an
pear mat 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 at
ltude, leading absolutely toward free trade, l
do not so regard it. Some Of US might have
preferred a little different phraseology, but as
whole 1t sufficiently expresses our position
with reasonable clearness and accuracy
lhere Is usually more than one way of ex-
pressing the same general idea and the pre-
else form used is not very material
1T Is enough for us to know that in every 90
Sehtlal particular this plank embodied in
the Democratic national platform Of 1876 upon
which Samuel }. Tilden was elected president |
of the United States, and having once been
ratified by majority of the American people
it is believed that it will be satisfactory to
Them now.
realize the difficulty Of presenting the
question Of the cOnstitutionality Of a pro- |
tectlve tariff law to the courts and in that
view 1t may have been unnecessary or not de- |
sirable to have challenged its legality. We
need hn n1ace1 oh;
ground while SO many fatal objections ex- |
isted to the system itself, but that course was |
II mere matter of discretion. The fact re- |
mains that we have always insisted and now
insist that no warrant be found in the |
constitution for the imposition of tariff duties
10 aid private industries but whether such a |
tariff Is constitutional or not, or whether it Is
practicable to have the question properly |
raised or decided, the system itself is vicious |
IN the extreme, unjust to the people, and con- |
srary to the spirit of our free institutions A |
tariff bill upon its face usually declares that |
IT'S object IS ito provide ways and means for |
the support Of the government" and whether |
The duties are high or low. reasonable or ex !
orbl;ant, prohibitOry or otherwise, it is impos- |
7ible for the courts to say that the purpose of |
the measure was not solely to provide revenue
Tor the government, no matter what the true !
OBJECT OF Its Trainers was, or whether or not |
the treasury may already be OVERLOOKING
Besides a law is not always held unconstitu-
tiollhi dItiOuSn IL may In some degree violate |
the spirit of the constitution. The conStitu-
on as well as act of congress can some
ines be successfully evaded without adequate
immediate remedy on the part Of the people
Whether by reason of these difficulties it is
ever practicable to obtain determination of
lie cOnstitutiOnality of a revenue law ostensi-
lily framed for the purpose of raising revenue,
lat in fact intended for other purposes it " as
competent for the national convention to de-
are the position of the party upon the sub
Jet. Let Us examine the point for moment.
Whence comes the power to protect private
Industries? What clause of the constitution
IN be invoked for such purpose? There is
one 1t must be conceded by every intelli-
mt citizen that the constitution does not grant
~ such express power. There is no men
On OF any such subject anywhere i'll it. The
lanket lower. to provide for the general
efare, will not answer in such case. If no
!ch power Is expressly conferred. then it is
rtually prohibited under article 10 Of the
c L5ttution, which provides follows: The
l. not delegated to the United States by
e constitution. nor prohibited by it to the
ates. is reserved to the states respectively
to the people" There is not elementary
Is W writer anywhere whose treatise on the
constitution is regarded as standard authority
Who ventures to affirm the constitutional
r sht of congress to levy duties for any Other
direct purpose than revenue for the support Of
u e government.
Republican protection therefore does not
c. nstitutionally exist, but is imposed upon the
ople by fraud. false pretense evasion ana
gross abuse of the taxing power. The consti
tuition gives congress power to LAY and collect
taxes, duties. imposts and excuses" article |.
section 81 1t can exercise that power consci-
etItiously, or ii can evade and abuse it. A II the
q called protection for which our opponents
ave ClamOred and which they have obtained
i'll recent years has been secured, not by con
sanction. but by the abuse Of The
conceded taxing power of the government. l.
is dangerous exercise of authority 1t is i
porversiou of the powers of government. II
furnishes a hazardous precedent which Wi
surely return to plague us. Let US see whci,
it will lead us.
If the general government, under the pre-
tense of raising revenue, can impose prohibit
cry duties and thereby protect domestic in
dustrleS from the competition which the Law
Of trade would otherwise provide, then under
the same pretense-the raising of revenue-it |
can by taxation essentially usurp most of the
functions of the state governments, and virtu-
ally regulate marriage and divorce. the rate of
interest on money, the purchases of property,
the formation of corporations, the making of
leases and contracts of every description, all
Of which are matters heretofore properly con-
sidered under the jurisdiction and regulation
Of the states
In what is known as the Topeka Bond
case" Judge Miller, of the supreme court of
tho United States, in delivering the opinion of
the court, said
ITO lay with one hand the power of the gov
eminent on the property of citizen and with
the other bestow ii upon favored individuals
TO aid private enterprise and build up private
fortunes is none the less robbery because it is
done under the forms of law and is called |
taxation. This is not legislation. 1t is a
decree under legislative forms. Nor is it tax
atloE. Beyond a cavil there can be no lawful
taxation which is not laid for public purposes"
Judge Cooley in his valuable work on con-
stitutional law. declares that:
"Constitutionally tax can have other
basis than the raising of revenue for public
purposes, and whatever governmental eXac-
ion has not this basis is tyrannical and I'M
lawful. a tax on imports therefore. the pur-
pc of which is not to raise revenue. but to Oh
str uct and indirectly prohibit some particular
import for the benefit of some home manufac
tuIer. may well be questioned as being merely
colorado and therefore not warranted by con-
sti.utional principles.''
Ia the light of these authorities, and under
tn arguments presented. fair minded men
wi arrive at the conclusion that the Demo-