Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1894-07-25

u.lotIsm. lou HiuSU yleId IN the end to his
views. You cannot stand up against the
sentiment of the great Democratic masses
OF the country which will rally around the
PRESIDENT in the contest with you on this
PARTICULAR branch of the subject.
he time to yield is now before there
and discord. ~
Mt PRESIDENT, having demonstrated
.naC me true Democratic theory of reve-
! nue. reform requires that free raw nit
Ieridis should be its distinguishing fear
IRE, let us next inquire what is the cond1~
ton which now confronts MS. The Senate
oHI Wnich mas passed violates this Demo
crane theory, and while it reduces the.
duty On 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.
redeem our pledges. 1t is not 4 question
OF the amount Of duties which may be i'm.
posed, question Of principle is involved,
and Il single pennys duty violates our
promises and places us in Il false position.
AS the President well says, there can be-
no compromise on a matter of this char
acter, 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
ipiIetoIISu lldI TcpuuIdtiOu, anu lue COiI-'
dltlon 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 hoDorably or
snail we wait until we are driven to it?
In the light Of the letter of the Presi-
dent, the House cannot honorary re
treat. 1t has no other alternative except
to insist upon its bill wherein it provides:
for free raw materials. The President
cannot approve the Senate bill after what
he has said in this remarkable letter,
He arraigns the Senate and intmate9
that the enactment Of the Senate bliL
means party perfdy and party dlshOnor,
These are strong words which the Presl~
dent Of the United States would not use
towards a measure which he ever expect
ed afterwards to approve.
This letter, unusual and unprecedented
in it's character and method Of pTOnuI~
CATION, though it may be, nevertheless
clearly fOreshadOws a veto OF the Senate
bill even if the House should finally con-
cur in our amendments. What person
would expect the President to approve
the Senate bill fter its vigorous and scath-
ing denunciatiOn contained IN his letter.
You would think less of him for his glar~
ing inconsistency. No. this letter is sig
prudent letter. It means war to the knife
against the Senate bill; it justiies much
that has been said against the Senate bin
during all the last three months; 1t means;
prevail; it means that the Senate cannot
be permitted to abandon or surrender the,
great underlying principles for which
he struggled and lost in 1888 and 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 permitted
to become q 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 materiaH
when it is in the lowest or crudeSt form.
This definition is ample and sufficient and
will redeem our pledges it 1t IS honestly
applied. The party platform was tor
free. not freer raw materials as IS now
ingeniously cOntended
IF the President, in his wisdom. had
seen fit while the debate was progressing
in the Senate to have aided my efforts
to secure adhesion to this principle by
expressing his views in favor thereof III
some proper and legitimate way, | should
have been gratified, and it unquestionably
would have been Of practical benefit to.
the cause. / rejoice that he has expressed
them even now, although L am not re
Guired 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 a tax upon
sugar Is necessary at t1lS time cOUceuIIlS
that an income tax is to be retained.
Clearly both are not needed for any legiti~
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 desira-
BILE that sugar should be taxed, as Il le-
Ultimate 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 WILTON bill
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 q
tax upon sugar, which has come to be
largely regarded as one of the neces9.-
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 a tax upon
sugar. While free sugar was being car
ried through the House, the administra-
ton reTrsined quiet and passive, but
now after the House has acted and the
country has been led to expect free sugar,
the administration shows its hand and
declares for a duty upon it.
II am not now antagonizing its sugges-
ton; am simply stating the facts of re-
cent history Under the existing circum-
stances-witn an income tax retained in
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 its amend
ments."