The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1893-12-16
A Nondescript Measure.

sis drawn in accordance with the national
| Democratic platform, and is revenue meas
ure." The Chicago platform of 1892 declared
protection unconstitutional and the AdrocGte
has recently reasserted that principle.
''Now, win that paper explain in what
manner the bounty on sugar affects the reve-
nue., and tell its readers whether it adds to or
takes money from the treasury As it re-
quires an outlay of public money will the
Adrocdte enlighten its readers as to the pur-
pose of that outlay, and inform them whether
it is or is not designed to protect American
sugar producers in competition with foreign
manufacturers of that article? Tell them
squarely whether it is or is not Il protective
measure. and if the former, whether it is not
downright outright and palpable violation
of the principle laid down by the Democratic
platform? When the Adrocdte has given its
explanation concerning this point in the new
tariff bill, perhaps it will go a step further and
explain where the revenue comes in on free
wool, coal iron ore, salt, lumber and thousand
other items, and tell its readers why these
articles are to be placed on the free list.
That action was not without purpose. Was
that purpose the destruction of these indus
tries, the promotion of English interests, the
reduction of the wages of American miners
for all these are involved in and wrought by
it in measure or was it to protect manu-
featuring class TO the great detriment of some
of the chief sources of labor and wealth in
Maryland Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsyl
vauia, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, Michigan
and other States ?-SeRtinet.
The ADVOCATE adheres to its statement
that the Wilson bill sis drawn in accord
ance with the national Democratic plat
form, and is revenue measure That
platform declared that taxation for Protec
ton was unconstitutional. The party adj
heres to that declaration. 1t was the
enunciation of a principle, and the princi-
pie should be applied to taxation as speedily
as possible. But the Democratic party
does not propose to attempt to reverse, at
single bound a system of thirty years
growth 1t does not propose to do violence
to the manufacturing interests. The rev.
enue principle must be applied by gradual
stages, but because the tax laws are not
reduced to this principle at once is no de-
NAL of the principle.
The Wilson bill was not completed when
the Sentinel propounded its questions, and
its nterrogations were founded upon what
it supposed the bill would provide. And
if the Sentinel had no more knowledge of
the measure than it gathered from the
daily press, its information is very meagre.
A comparison of the bill as originally
drawn and the Associated Press synopsis
will show that the Association did its work
imperfectly and its report was misleading
in some repects.
The bill has again been amended and it
will be further amended by the Democratic
majority, no doubt, when it comes up for
discussion in the House
The Sentinel has been harping on the
'.free trade intentions of the Democratic
party, and attributed the results in the re-
cent elections to fear, born of Democratic
intentions.
The Sentinel knows, as everybody knows,
that free trade was never intended, for it
knows that free trade would preclude any
tariff bill at ALL 1t knows that any taxa
ton, though laid for purely revenue pur-
poses, is incidentally protective, and the
talk of free trade was for partisan ends
only-to create distrust among the people.
1t knows, further, that taxation must neces-
sarily be high, to meet the large continuing
appropriations left as a legacy by the Re
publican Reed Congress,
The Sentinel seems to be afraid the
Democratic party will not smash business
to smithereens, so as to make true the
words of the Republican calamity howl
ers."
As to the sugar bounty, the ADVOCATE
does not sanction it, neither does the
Democratic party. 1t takes money from
the treasury, and is the work Of the Re
publican party. The sugar section OF the
proposed Wilson bill denies the principle
of government bounty, and Pro0ides for
its abolition. But it is to be done grad
ually, and perhaps it will be abolished at
once, when the matter comes before the
House. And even if it is not, the party
has declared the principle is wrong and
decreed its abolition.
When the Wilson bill comes up for dis
cnssion in the House, and its provisions
become fully understood by our neighbor,
it will be time for it to PROFOUND ques-
tions. Its interogatories last week were
founded upon suppositions merely