Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1894-07-26

| triotism You must yield in the end to his
| views You cannot stand up against tho
sentiment of the great Democratic masses
| of the country which will rally around the
| President in the contest with you on th;s
particular branch of the subject
| 1.-THE time to yield is now before there
| is further humiliation, embarrassment
and discord
'Mr. President having demonstrated
| that the true Democratic theory of reya
| nue. reform requires that free raw M
i terials should be it's DISTINGUISHING fea,
ure, let us next inquire what is the condl-
| ton which now confronts US. The Senate
| bill which has passed violates this Demo-
cratic theory, and WINE II REDUCES me
| duty Oh iron, COAL lead and some other
raw materials from those imposed under
| the Mckinley law, and in that respect is
| commendable, it nevertheless imposes
some duties thereon and thereby fails to-
i redeem our pledges. 1t is not question
of the amount of duties which may be i'm
posed. question OF principle IS involved,
and q single pennys duty violates oar
promises and places us IN false position.
AS the President we'll says, there can be
no compromise OH a matter or TINS cnar>
acter, where a vital principle is at stake.
The House of Representatives, fresh
from the people which represents more
distinctly and peculiarly than we do the
taxing power of the people, repudiates
our bill and Democratic President has
emphasized that reputation, and the con-
dition which confronts US IS one OF eX-
IRENE embarrassment. Shall we retreat
or advance? Shall we surrender to the
House while we can do SO honorably or
shall we wait until we are driven TO 1t:
''In the light of the letter OF the Fresi~
dent, the House cannot honoraoly re-
treat. It has no other alternative except
to insist upon it's bill wherein 1t provides.
for free raw materials. The PRESIDENT
Io
he has said in this remarkable letter,
He alraigns the Senate and lnUmatea
that the enactment OF the oenate DIX
means party perfdy and party dlshonoI:
These are strong words Whlcn lne = ig s,9.
dent of the United States would not use
towards a measure which he ever expect
ed afterwards to approve
'"rhis letter, unusual and unprecedented
in its character and method OF pronal-
CATION, though it may De, neyef5heless
clearly foreshadows q veto OF the Senate
bill even if the House should flnally con-
cur in our amendments. What person
would expect the President TO approve
the Senate bill fter its vigorous ana scath-
ing denunciation contained IN MS letier.
You would think less of him for his glar-
ing inconsistency. No. this letter is sig
nificant it is a bold, vigorous even II M
prudent letter. 1t means war 70 the khlle
against the Senate bill; it justifes much
that has been said against the Senate DIE
that it can never receive executive ap-
prevail: it means that the Senate cannot
be permitted to abandon or surrender !ne
great underlying principles for which
he struggled and lost in 1888 ana fought
and won in 1892. Ire President is right;
thert is no middle ground which we can
occupy. No bill which does not provide
for free raw materials can be permltteO
to become a law.
1T is unnecessary to enter into any
lnf,1,
articles constitute raw materials. Every
Democrat knows what they are. ANY
article may be considered raw material
when it is in the low est or crudest form;
This definition is ample and SUFFICIENT ana
will redeem our pledges ii it is honestly
applied The party platform was for
free. not freer raw materials as is now
ingenously contended.
''If the President in his wisdom. hAd
seen fit while the debate was progressing
to secure adhesion to this principle by
expressing his views in favor thereof III
some proper and legitimate way, | shouId
have been gratitied, and it unquestionaoly
would have been Of practical beneht to
the cause. / rejoice that he has expressed
them even now, although | am not re-
CURED to defend the manner and form
of their presentation even if they SO re-
quired, which | do not assume.
II respectfully differ from the Presi-
dent in his assumption that tax upon
sugar is necessary at this time concedlng
that an income tax is to be retained.
Clearly both are not needed for any legitl-
mate purposes of the treasury. The
President speaks of the Democratic prin-
ciple and policy which lead to the taxa
ton of sugar. He asserts that in the tax
alton of sugar we are in no danger Of
running counter to Democratic principle
| desire to suggest that if it was Gesira-
bic that sugar should be taxed, as le-
gitimate and logical article of revenue
taxation as he now says, it seems
strange that the President did not in his
last annual message make some intima-
ton, suggestion or recommendation to,
that effect. He endorsed the Wileon bib
explicitly in his message, although it pro-
vided substantially for free raw sugar.
He permitted the House to pass that
measure without a word of protest, sug-
gestion or advice that there should be a
tax upon sugar, which has come to be
largely regarded as one of the necesa-
ries of life.
Secretary Carlisle the trusted fnan-
cial officer of his cabinet, speaking I'M
questionably ex cathedra, outlined with
great care the essential provisions of the
proposed tariff reform bill, but made no
recommendation whatever for tax upon
sugar. While free sugar was being car
ried through the House, the administra-
ton remained quiet and passive, but
now after the House has acted and the
the administration shows it's hand and
declares for duty upon it
II am not now antagonizing it's sugges-
ton; l am simply stating the facts of re-
cent history. Under the existing circum-
stances-with an income tax retained i'm
this bill voted for free sugar BEFORE
and shall do SO again. In my judgment
the House cannot now honorably retreat
from it's position in favor of free sugar.
The Presidents suggestion came too late.
The Senate must recede from it's amend
ments."