Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1892-08-30

President - Tariff Truths Vigorously
stated-An Ever Growing Burden
At the great Democratic meeting in
Bloomington, Ills, on Aug. %, Mr.. Steven
son discussed the issues of the campaign
at length and with much force. Speaking
OF the last administration he said:
1.-THE four years. administration of Presi-
dent Cleveland was confessedly an honest
administration. None of the predicted
evils of which Democratic triumph was to
be the forerunner followed his Inaugural
ton. In the campaign of 1884 the people
were told by Republican speakers that
Democratic success would bring blight
and ruin upon the commercial interests of
the country. Those who predicted evil
from Mr.. Cleveland's election proved false
prophets.
1.-THE Democratic administration ending
March 4, 1889, has gone into history as an
economical and able administration of the
government. No scandals attached to any
of its appointments to Office. Under it the
rights of all property-of all sections-of all
the people were recognized and enforced.
Under it the bonded debt of the govern
ment was paid at maturity, trust funds
were not used to avoid a treasury deficit
and the gold reserve was not menaced by
expenses of the government Under that
administration no additional burdens were
laid upon the people. At the close OF
President Cleveland's administration the
surplus in the treasury, exclusive of the
gold reserve, was, in round numbers, $685..
100000.
What is the condition that now con
fronts us at the end of 81 years of Re
publican administration? On the basis OF
by the secretary of the treasury for the
present fiscal year, and of the liabilities OF
the government on account of the annual
and permanent appropriations for the
same period, there will be deficit of $52-
100000 Upon the assumption that the law
requiring $48, 600 for the sinking fund
will be complied with there is no escaping
the deficiency have mentioned. And this
too, notwithstanding the fact that the ad
ministration made default in providing fol
the sinking fund to an amount exceeding
$11 900, 900 during the last fiscal year. The
bankruptcy which now threatens the treas,
ury is the result first, of the enactment OF
the Mckinley tariff law, and secondly, OF
the lavish appropriations of the Fifty first
congress"
Mr.. Stevenson devoted a large part OF
his speech to the discussion of the tariff is,
sue, which he said is the all important
question of the campaign. The ISSUE"
he said, sis squarely presented. Upon the
one side are the advocates of high pro-
tective or prohibitory polcy-a policy that
enrichcs the few at the expense of the
many. On the other the advocates of such
reduction of tariff duties as will give tc
our manufacturers the benefit of CHEAP
raw material, and lessen to the consumer
the cost of the necesSaries of life. The
argument advanced by the early advocates
of protective system was the necessity OF
protecting our infant industries
After brief presentation of the main
facts in our tariff history, in which he
pointed out the great prosperity of the
country under the low tariff of 1916, and
called attention to the internal revenue
taxes and the increased tariff taxes made
| necessary by the war, Mr.. Stevenson con
tinued:
"Where are the statutes imposing these
internal revenue war taxes? With but
| few exceptions swept from the statute
books while the nation was yet grooming
under the burden of enormous debt. One
| of the reasons given at that time for the
| high protection to manufacturers was the
| percentage they were required to pay out
| of their earnings as war taxes With the
war closed, Republican congress relieved
| the manufacturers from this taxation anC
| added to their profits and to the burden:
! of the people by increased duties. ! grant
| the necessity of repeating these interna
| war taxes when the eXigencies of war III
| longer demanded their continuance.
But why did not the Republican congress
| repeal the war taXeS-tariff taXes-whicl
| bore so heavily upon the farmer, upon the
/ mechanic, upon the laborer, upon tn,
| great mass of our people? Why was no
| the war tax reduced upon the necessarie
1 nj wholly tn
| corporations and allow it to remain upoI
| the tools of the mechanic, the implement
| of the farmer, upon the food and clOthin!
of the poor? Why remove from the manu-
| facturer the tax of less than per cent. anC
| leave him the power to tax the consume
Az, GO, 50 per ceut upon hats, upon shoes
| upon blankets, upon clothing?
| But this is not all. The protected classe
| growing year by year stronger and NOR
powerful with the protection afforded
them, demanded of the Fifty-irst congress
yet higher duties. AS Infant Industries
they had been for the time content witt
the moderate protection given by Mr.. Clay
Later they had demanded the higher dutie
imposed by the Morrill, tariff and that O
later congresses. In 1890, during the frs
session of the Fifty-first congress, their de
mand was in substance for prohibitOr
tariff The response to this demand wa
Il
the Mckinley bill. The avowed object O
this bill was to check importation. 1t
purpose SO to increase the rate of duties
as in many instances to exclude absolutel
| foreign goot from our markets, and thu
| by cutting L competition enable the HON
manufacturer without let or hindrance t
fix the price of his wares.
"In word, the Mckinley law. by its pre-
hibitory features gave its beneficiaries
1 nd 1a1
fact tc levy an additional tax upon tn
consumer to the extent that the duty ha
been increased. Was this legislation de
manded by the people? Was it in their il
terest? Was it not class legislation of tn
most odious character-such legislatio
as enriches the few at the expense of tn
many? The American people unmistal
ably set their seal of condemnation upo
this bill. Slowly but surely they have b,
come convinced that protection does nc
protect them.
eft is worse than idle To sneak Of II