The record-union., 1892-10-19


midst honest but irreconcilable differ
ences of opinion with regard to the re-
spective systems of protection and free
trade, we remit the discussion of the sub
ject to the people in their Congressional
districts and to the decision of Congress
thereon wholly free from executive in
reference or dication."
Here was a cowardiy submission to
party exigency in the form of the most
grotesque episode that ever occurred in
our history. A high protective tariff
man was placed upon a non-committal
platform and supported by an avowed
antl-protective tariff party. The straight
out Democrats met and nominated
Charles O'Connor and resolved:
That having been betrayed at Balti-
more into false creed and a false leader
ship by the convention, we repudiate both,
and appeal to the people to approve our
support the true platform and the candi-
dates who embody it." Strangely, how
ever, this convention said not a word
about tariff.
Notwithstanding this vigorous protest
the popular vote showed: For General
Grant 3,597 ,010, for Mr.. Greeley ,, ,S34, ,079,
for Mr.. OConnor 29,4S9. This was
Democracy i'll 1872.
In 1876 the Democratic National plat
form declared as follows:
1--WE denounce the present tariff. =
We demand that all Custom house
taxation shall be only for revenue"
This is the first clear and unequivocal
declaration of that party that imports
shall be taxed only for revenue.
In 1880 it declared in favor of ''a tariff
for revenue only"
1t must not be overlooked, however,
that the Greeley Convention did recognize
of ,,l,
the subject as it thought best, either for
protection or for revenue only.
The Republican platform declared
That the annual revenue should be
raised by duties upon importations, the
details of which should be so adjusted as
to aid in securing remunerative wages
to labor, and promote the industries,
prosperity and growth of the whole coun-
try"
In 1884 the National Democratic plat
form straddled the tariff question, as Mr..
Waterson termed it in his Chicago speech
The declaration is curiosity in political
literature, but, by all rules of construc-
ton of the English language, it favors
protective legislation and refutes the
present position of that party that such
legislation Is unconstitutional. 1t reads:
Knowing full well that legislation af-
tecting the operations of the people
not in advance of public opiu-
ion, but responsive to its demands, the
Democratic party is pledged to revise the
tariff in spirit of fairness TO all inter-
ests. But III making reduction in taxes
it is not proposed to injure any domestic
but rather to promote their
healthy growth. From the foundation of
this Government, taxes collected at the
Custom-hOuse have been the chief source
of n
tinue to be. Moreover, many industries
have come to rely upon legislation for
successful continuance, 50 that any
change of law must be at every step re-
gardful of the labor and capital in-
volved. The necessary reduction and
taxation can and must be effected
without depriving American labor
of the ability to compete success
fully with foreign labor and without i'm
posing lower rates of duty than will be
ample to cover any increased cost Of pro-
duction which may exist in consequence
of the higher rate of wages prevailing in
this country"
This was Democracy In 1884, and defy
anyone to reconcile it with the declara-
ton made at Chicago in 1892. | chal-
lenge anyone to show that it is not q clear
of the power of Congress to
pass protective tariff laws. Further, [
any Democrat to show that it
does not distinctly and clearly indorse
the principle of Republican protection
where it says THAT any change of law
must be at every step regardful of the
labor and capital involved" And ''that
1t must be effected without depriving
of the ability to compete sue
with foreign labor" Is this not
the very essence of Republicanism? MIR.
Cleveland was carried into office under
these fine promises.
In 1888 the Democratic party placed
Mr.. Cleveland again in nomination and
declared as follows: THE Democratic
party will continue with all the power
con1ided to it the struggle to reform these
laws IN accordance with the pledges of its
last platform indorsed at the bailot-box
by the suffrages of the people"
There was no declaration Of tariff for
revenue only, but practically a declara-
ton in accord with the protective idea as
set forth in the 'straddle" of 1884.
Mr.. Cleveland had, before the conven-
ton assembled, sent in his famous free
trade message to Congress, in which he
selected out the wool industries of the
country as illustrating his view, and he
boldly recommended the placing Of these
upon the free list.
The convention, however, reiterated its
platform of 1884 and went to the people.
There occurred what astronomers
would call a political occultation. The
was lost to view. The candidate became
the platform.
Mr.. Cleveland was braver and more
honest than his party. The people be-
lieved that he more nearly spoke the true
policy of the party. The result was Ben
jamin Harrison received 233 electoral
votes and Mr.. Cleveland 16S.
Four years later, in 1892. the party
comes out boldly and, throwing off ali
it declares:
1T to be fundamental principle of the
Democratic party that the Federal Gov
ernment has no power to impose and col
lect tariff duties, except for the purposes
of revenue only"
The time for successful political lug
glery in party platforms has passed. Mr..
Watterson saw this at Chicago. He
brought his party to the test of its prin-
ciples, and he was sustained by vote Of
554 to 342.
We now know where to find Democrats.
and whatever they may say in 1896, we
hold them TO their latest and apparently
well-considered declaration.
We are thus brought fairly to discuss
the proposition of tariff for revenue with
or tariff for revenue only.
| shall not further notice the constitu-
tlOnaI question raised. have shown
that our Congress and our people have
legislated for one hundred years upon
the belief that Congress has the power
to pass protective tariff laws; it is now
too late TO call in question that construc-
ton of the American Constitution.
The serious question for US to decide is
it is safe to turn over the Gov
ernment to Tarty whose fundamental
principle is that Congress does not pos
sess this power. May we not conclude
that this fundamental principle will lead
that party to reverse the policy of CEN
tury, and overthrow all protective Iegis-
lation should they come into power?
TARIFF FOR REVENUE ONLY AND TARIFF
FOR PROTECTION.
A tariff law is schedule of duties