New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1894-04-18

: nave rejected credit upon the country,
and would have avoided the promulga-
ton Of the un-American policy-a de-
parture from Democratic presidents
which was sought to be forced upon an
unwilling people"
Senator Hill assumes upon public ques-
lions many positions which the public
might find it difficult to favor. But on
the Hawaiian fasco he is taking ground
that is notably expressive of the popular
verdict. Nothing too strong can be said
in condemnation of the unsavory Liliu-
okalanian mess, and Senator Hill shrewd-
ly takes cognizance of the fact.
Entering upon the tariff question, Mr..
Hill pertinently observes that revenue re-
auctions which mi light have been safe in
the prosperous time eff 1892 would be
little short of crime in the distress and
revenue deficiencies of the present. With
the following statement few thinking
men in any party could take exceptions:
"What was safe and prudent and wise
IN it would be criminal folly to at
tempt now. The present was no time
for partisanship, and Democrats and Re-
! publicans alike should strive to solve
existing problems in a spirit of broad
patrlotism.'
The gentleman from New York then
devoted himself to the prolonged con-
demnation of the income tax feature of
the Wilson bill, He introduces his phi
| lippic with some hot comment upon the
peculiar connection of the administration
with the income tax clause:
In these latter days the distinction be-
tween functions and prerogatives of the
executive department on the one hand
and the Legislative department on the
other do not seem to be always observed.
The truth is that the first information
which congress had of the details of the
proposed bill was in the message itself.
But the strangest part of this unpre-
cedented proceeding was that, in fact,
that at the very date of the message, to-
wit, Dec. "A, 1898, neither the full COM
mittee of ways and means nor the Dem
ocratic members thereof had agreed up
ON any income tax, or upon other inter-
nal taxation.
In other words, tie president fathered
the income tax and forced the house
| committee to insert it in the tariff bill.
Congressman Wilson, chairman of the
tariff committee, and the nominal father
of the measure, was strongly opposed to
the income tax, and so expressed him.
self publicly in an article in the North
AmericanReview Almost at the same time
that Wilson was condemning an income
tax through the Review, the president
was informing the public through his an
nual message that the income tax was to
be feature of the bill. Events prove
that the president knew more about the
future contents of the bill than the chair
man of the tariff committee and author
of the measure. Properly, therefore, it
should be called the "Cleveland," and
not "Wilson" bill.
The senator from New York then dis
cusses the political origin of the income
project, and declares that t'Neither the
Republican nor the Democratic platform
proposed any such method of raising re-
venues. No prominent Democrat or Re-
publican suggested any such measure.
It's approval was limited to the platform
of the newly formed Populist party,and
its advocacy was restricted to Populist
orators" He finds that New York alone
paid 80 per cent Of the income tax of
1863.73, and that the Eastern and Mid
die states paid II per cent. He then
scores those who would enact such Sec
tional measure and make the Democra-
tic party the tail of the Populist kite.
The results to the party he depicts in the
following sombre ink sketch:
sLet those who insist upon injecting
| this bill this odious and un-Democratic
feature of an income :ax-a relic of war
legislation-pause and reflect upon the
possible consequences of their unwar-
rantable demands. They should realize
! that it means the loss of the control of
this senate, now nearly equally divided
between the two great parties; it means
the loss of the next house of representa-
tives it means the loss of the electoral
vote of New York, New Jersey, Connecti-
cut and probably every Northern state;