The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-07-21

sentatiyes. 1t expresses better than
can hope to do the true. sound and logical
position of the Democratic party upon
this question"
After reading extracts from this letter
Hill continued mi President, approve
every word that l have quoted. 1t is an
honest and manly statement OF the true
attitude which the party should assume in
this crisis. l am not required to defend
the propriety or wisdom of the promulga-
ton of this letter al this particular time.
1t may have been indiscreet. II may
operate as firebrand to spread the flames
of discOrd, already kindled among party
friends. honestly differing, as l am dis
posed to concede, upon questions of public
and party policy. 1t was time for d.
plomacv, craftsmanship and Cancellation,
rather than recriminatiOn, Remuneration
and arraignment. But aside from the
question of its expediency | am here TO
defend the Presidents letter, in 10 far as 1t
demands that the party shall not be led
astray into the violation Of Democratic
pledges and principles. Upon the ques-
ton of free raw materials the President Is
right and you know it. You cannot an
Swer his arguments. Yoa cannot success
fully dispute his propositions. You CAN
not doubt his sincerity and patriotism.
You must yield in the end to his views.
You cannot stand up against the senti-
ment of the great Democratic masses Of
the country, which will rally around the
President in his contest with you upon
this particular branch of the subject The
lime to yield is now, before there is
IN hur
discOrd.
'Mr. President, having demonstrated
that the true Democratic theory of reve-
nue. reform requires that free raw ma
terals should be its distinguishing feature,
let US next inquire what Is the condition
which confronts US. The Senate bill
which was passed violates this Democratic
theory, and while IL reduces the duties
on iron. coal, lead and some other raw
materials from those imposed under the
Mckinley law, and in that respect is COM
mendable, it nevertheless imposes some
duties thereon, and thereby falls to redeem
our pledges.
ut is not question of the amount of
duties which may be imposed. ques-
ton of principle is at stake, and single
penny'S duty violates our promises and
places us in false position. The PresA
dent well says there can be no compromise
on a matter of this character, where
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 a Democratic President has en-
has hot hot
tion which confronts US is one Of extreme
embarrassment. Shall we surrender TO
the House while we can do so honorably
or shall we wait until we are driven to it?
In the light of the letter of the President
the House cannot honorably retreat. 1t
has no other alternative except TO insist
upon its bill wherein it provides for flee
raw materials. The President cannot ap-
prove the Senate bill alter what he has
said in this remarkable letter. lie ar
raigns the Senate and intimates that the
enactment of the Senate bill means party
perfidy and party dishOnor.
"Ihese are strong words, which the
President of the United States would not
use toward measure which he ever eX-
pected afterward to approve.
This letter, unusual and unprecedented
in its character and method OF promulga-
ton though it may be, nevertheless clearly
foreshadows the veto of the Senate bill,
even if the House should finally concur in
our amendments. What person would
expect the President to approve the Senate
bill after its vigorous and scathing denuu-
citation contained in his letter? You
would think less of him for his glazing In
consistency.
No; this letter is significant 1t is q
bold and vigorous, even if an imprudent let
ter. 1t means war to the knife against the
Senate bill II justifies much that has
been said against the Senate bill during
all the last three months; 1t means that
it can naver receive the executive ap-
prOval; it means that the Senate cannot
be permitted to surrender or abandon the
great underlying principles for which we
fought and lost in 1888 and fought AMI
won in 1892. The President is right;
there is no middle ground which we can
occupy. No bill which does not provide
for free raw materials can be permitted to
become law. 1t is unnecessary to enter
into any argument, to define or designate
what articles constitute raw materials.
Every Democrat knows what they are
Any article may be considered raw ma
terial when It is in the lowest or crude
state. This definition is ample and suffi-
cient, and will redeem our pledges IL it is
honestly applied.
"The party platform was for free, not
freer raw materials, as is now ingeniousy
contended. Ii the President in his wisdom
had seen fit, while the debate was pro-
crossing in the Senae e, TO have aided my
efforts to secure adhesion to the princ-
pies by expressing his views in favor
thereof in some proper and legitimate
way, we should have been gratfied, and il
unquestionably would have been OF prac-
ticabe benefit to the cause. l rejoice that
he has expressed them even now, although
l am not required to defend the manner of
their presentation even If they so required,
which | do not assume.
II respectfully differ from the President
in his assumption that tax upon sugar Is
necessary at this time, coDceding that an
income tax is to be retained. Certainly
both are not needed for any leg innate
purposes of the treasury. The President
speaks of Democratic principles and policy
which led TO the taxation OF sugar. and
be asserts that in the taxation of sugar we
are in no danger of running counter to
Democratic principles. | desire 10 suggest
that if 1t was desirable that sugar should
be taxed as a legitimate and logical
article Of revenue taXation,' as he now
says. it seems strange that the Presi-
dent did not in his last annual mes
saoa maka gonna in,imoiio,, euanas.yon