The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-07-27

beer resd, Mr.. Neal of Ohio arose and
said:
have been unable to consclentiously agree
with the majority OF my fellow members OF the
committee upon the section of this platform
relating 10 the tariff l gave notice to the. COM
nltgee that would move in open convention to
strike out that section all the words preced-
ing the denunciation of the Mckinley bill and
substitute therefor the following:
We denCunce the Republican protection as
fraud upon the labor of the great majority OF
the American people for the benefit of the few.
We declare it a fundamental principle OF the
Democratic party that tile Federal government
mas no constl utionai power to impose ana col
lect tariff duties, except for the purpose of rev
enue only. We demand that the collection OF
such taxes be limited to the necessities of the
government when honestly and economically
administered.
This substitute, the record tells us,
was received with cheers and applause.
Col. Watterson supported it in long
speech. 1t was opposed by Mr.. Villas of
Wisconsin, who wanted the tariff plank
OF 1884 on which Cleveland was elected
adopted After a gcneraland somewhat
acrimonious debate the record tells us
that the convention refused to accept the
plank of 1884, which the committee had
reported, and adopted Mr.. Meals substi-
tute by vote of 564 to 345. This is the
record.
We are now told by the Boston Herald
and a number of other Northern Demo-
cratic papers that are hedging on the
tariff question that Mr.. Meals resolution
which the convention adopted is mere
generality, that is, that tits lacking in
specifcalness or application. Suppose we
examine it by paragraphs and see where
this generality CONS in. First, "We de-
nounceRepublican protection as a fraud?'
Is there any lack of specificalness OF appli-
cation about that? Second, 1--WE declare
it fundamental principle of the Demo-
cratic party that the Federal government
has no constitutional power to impose
and collect tariff duties, except for the
purpose of revenue only" Is this a gen
crafty? Does it lack specificalness or
application? Is it not as direct and
specific a declaration that protection is
unconstitutional as could well be framed?
Third, 1--WE demand that the collection
of such taxes be limited to the necessi-
ties of the government when honestly
and economically administered. De-
mand of whom? Evidently Of Congress
and the executive who make and en-
force the laws. Is this paragraph gen
erality? Does demand Of Congress to
strictly limit revenue duties to the ne
cessities of the government honestly and
economically administered lack specifi-
calness or application? But the Herald
and its fellow dodgers say that the plank
is not to be taken seriously. The con-
vention appears to have taken it seri-
ously, very seriously indeed. 1t was the
only subject treated Of in the platform
that called forth any discussion, and
the discussion was exceedingly earnest
and even bitter. 1t has been left for the
Herald to discover that this resolution
was joke. But there is another way of
disposing of it. Besides being ':gener-
ality'' and Joke it was a piece of
mischief put up by men who hated the
Democratic party. Mr.. Neal who intro
duced it has always been regarded as a
pretty good Democrat, and Col. Henry
Watterson who espoused it rather prides
himself on his loyalty to Democracy.
Then there were 5S4 delegates who voted
for it-more than two-fifths of the con-
vention-did they vote for it for the pur-
pose Of hurting the party? Any such
contention is absurd and unworthy of a
newspaper or an individual who makes
any pretence to intelligence. The truth
is that the tariff plank Of the Democratic
platform was deliberately prepared and
deliberately adopted. No other resolu-
ton in the platform received so much at
tention in the convention or tout of it.
No other plank was SO much debated.
Indeed we believe no other plank was
debated at ali. The convention pledged
the party to 1t by nearly 200 majority, it
demanded that Congress legislate in ac-
cordance with it. The plank is
in apable of but one construction,
which is that protection is a fraud,
is unconstitutional, must be torn up
root and branch by the Democratic
Congress and the executive. Such
talk as the Boston Herald INDUCES in
means that the Eastern Democrats are
trying to stink away from it, and are
trying to cover mp their treachery by the
false ana absurd pretence that it is a
mere generality or a mischieyous Joke.