The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1892-08-11
LIKE A SLEUTH HOUND.
Continued From First Page.

Continued From First Page.
cheat everybody, except an intelligent
American citizen. 1t was read to the
convention. It recognized the difference
between labor here in the United States
and labor in Italy. 1t kindly recognized
that and said that in adjusting the tariff
you had to take that into consideration.
Moreover, it recognized the fact that
great industries had sprung up in the
United States under the influence of q
protective tariff, and that they ought not
to do them any harm in re-adjusting the
tariff. The consequence was that by an
overwhelming vote of some two Or three
hundred majority they voted down
tie proposition that in the
tariff YOU should take into consideration
any difference between labor here and
labor abroad. They deliberately voted
down the proposition that, in adjusting
the tariff, since many industries have
sprung up under the influence of the
tariff, you ought not to do them harm.
What did they vote in its place? ''We
denounce the Republican protection as
fraud upon the labor of a great majority
of the American people for the benefit
of few. We declare it fundamental
the federal government has no constitu-
tional power to impose and collect tariff
duties except for purposes of revenue
only
They have dropped incidental protec-
ton. Incidental protection is unconstl-
tutional, and no onstitution-loylng
Democrat-and they have
| Loved the Constitution Better Than Life
| for the last forty years as you well know
no constitution loving Democrat can vote
| to impose duties to raise money to carry
on this government, can vote to raise it
| that it may help your workmen and pro-
| tect their wages OF prevent injury to
your industries. That is unconstitutional,
so they may put the tariff upon sugar
| once more suppose, which would not
! interfere with our protected industries
because sugar raising is not an industry
| in the United States and cannot be by
| reason of the climate. They would put
| it upon tea and coffee and in that adopt
| the English plan of raising money, OF
else resort to direct taxation. 1t is the
| only thing they can do. Now the Demo-
cratic party has never within my ex-
| perience, dared to make that bald, bold
| declaration until it was made at Chicago
the other day. The Democratic party
| made it before, but never but twice. In
the days of modification, when the
United States Congress made a
| tariff and the South Carolina legis-
lature was called into session to
consider the condition of affairs,
that legislature passed a resolution that
protective tariff was unconstitutional
and an interference with and a charge
| upon the rights of sovereign states, and
| itIegislatively declared that the state of
| South Carolina would not submit and
would not pay an unconstitutional tax
! And Jackson, Democrat suppose, not
| like the Democrats now, but Democrat
then, said: ''By the eternal, you will
pay" And they paid. Applause. ]
That was in South Carolina. There was
one other time. When the Democratic
| it that was IN rebellion, met at Richmond,
and deliberately went to work to frame
constitution for the confederacy, they
put in the eighth article of that constitu-
| ton this: mo bounty shall ever be
| paid, and no protective tariff duty
| shall ever be enacted in this
confederaey.. They made it unconsUi-
| tutional, but there is no confed-
eracy now. So twice before this they
have had the courage to declare that a
| protective tariff was unconstitutional.
This declaration will, in my judgement,
meet the fate of the other two. Zap
| plause.) If it was unconstitutional, it
| was unconstitutional wasn't it when the
| last House of Representatives met? Ii it
was unconstitutional, the Mckinley bill
was unconstitutional was it not? There
is not single line or letter in the Nc
| i,,1o hi no nlo
! down to the close, that is not a protec-
| tive tariff, Not one; you cannot find one.
| There is not a line in the Mckinley bill
| that does not recognize that there is a
| difference between labor abroad and
| labor in the United States, and does not
| undertake to make a duty high enough
1 to be an equivalent between the labor
| there and the labor here. So every line
| of the Mckinley bill is unconstitutioal,
and they knew it when this Congress met.
They had 140 majority in that House
| who believed the Mckinley bill to be
unconstitutional. Have they repealed
it? Have they revised it? | should
have thought they would have revised it,
shouldn't you? They have been reyis-
ing the tariff for the last 16 years.
was in the House and member of its
committee on ways and means, a COM
|
patriot, Fernando Wood, was then chair
man of the committee, and the cry went
out at once, and business all over the
country trembled when it heard it, ''We
will revise the tariff" was on the sub
committee to revise it. KNEW little
something about the tariff then, not
much-not SO much as do now. But
the men who were associated with me
knew nothing about it at all, not the
least thing. I guess then there were
1000 items in the tariff bill. Today there
are about $50. the
Republicans Having Put on to the Free
| List
everything we cannot raise, thus reduc-
ing the items very largely. remember
we struck the matter of bunting. The
| duty on bunting think was about K
per cent Randolph Tucker, very
learned man and very much of gentle
man, and of whom l was very fond in
deed was on the subcommittee with me
He had been professor ina college ant
he was lawyer; he had always lived il
Virginia. Said he, ''that is abominable. >
Said l, what do you mean Tucker.
Said he, II mean that duty on bunting. .