St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-03-29


forgotten. Its promoters forget that
slavery no longer exists. They do not
recognize nor appreciate the independ-
ence and dignity of labor, and cannot
understand that the protective policy
under which we have had such splendid
prosperity Is not to be determined by
geographical lines. The bill is a mar
row, sectional and provincial measure,
unworthy the great party which pro-
poses 1t. and wholly unSuited to the
needs of the country.
The Wilson bill turns to the past
away from the present. 1t is for the
plantation, not for the farm and factory.
As it passed the house it had for its
foundation principle free raw material.
Its authors argued that with free coal,
free iron ore, free lead and free wool
the manufacturers Of the United States
would be placed on an equality with
the manufacturers of free-trade coun-
tries, and we therefore could not only
retain our own markets, but control
1.-The markets of the world Based
upon this argument, which L believe to
be false, they declared that with these
great primary products free we would
have steady employment for all the
Workingmen or the country at good
wages. And SO i'm this form the bill
passed the Democratic house of repre-
sentatives and is now the dread sub
Ject of
ANGRY CONTENTION
in tho Democratic senate. An examine
ton of the bill by the Democratic MEM
Ders or the finance committee of the
senate evidently convinceS them that
Mr.. Wilson's bill and his arguments in
support OF the same are alike based
upon false principles. So coal goes
back TO the tariff list, iron ore to the
tariff list. lead to the tariff list, leaving
free wool alone, the only product of
of the house bill. Even Mr.. Cleveland
is disregarded. for in his Madison Square
garden speech. after his nomination in
1892, he said: I'VE believe that the adj
vantage of freer raw material should be
accorded to our manufacturers. We
propose, therefore, to stimulate our do
meStic industrial enterprises by freeing
from duty the imported raw materials
which, by the employment of labor, are
used i'll our home manufactures, thus
extending the markets for their sale
and permitting an increased and steady
production. with all allowance of abun-
dant profits"
have looked with some degree of
care through the BILL | find nothing
but Irritation and aggravation to the
great industries of the country. No in-
tereSt suffers by it more severely than
agriculture, and lauOr OF all kinds seems
to nave been singled out as its foremost
victim. have examined it carefully to
find some section, paragraph, clause or
line removing the great burden OF
tariff taxes from the shoulders of the
q Inc "a 81
much Tor so many years from the Dem
ocratic orators aud have read SO fire.
quently in Democratic newspapers and
platforms. but | have been unsuccessful
i'll finding any such provision. 1t is
true that sugar, an article OF prime
necessity TO every household, and which
the law of 1899 made
FREE TO THE PEOPLE,
has been fairfield at from l to l Alt
cents per pound. every cent of which
will be paid by the consumers of the
United States. But. doubtless, in com
pensation for this added burden of up
ward of SJ0,000.000, and because OF It,
they lowered the tariff OH tobacco, anC
have extended the bonded period fol-
the warehousing of whiskey, and giysl
to the disti!iers eight years in which to
pay the tax. They have restored the
should be credited with having taker
the tariff off of diamonds. They
reason that the manufacturers art
few, forgetting that the workmer
are many. They look to the
Interests of importers, ignoring the
farmer, and Oblivlous to the fact thai
the agriculturist is everywhere. Thei,
blows are directed against the welfare
of the masses of the people, but from
them the country will yet hear, for thi:
is still Is government or the people, and
the popular will has already marked
them for political overthrow. L do no
believe that the true interests OF the
South. nor of any other section of the
country. lie in the direction of free
trade. nor Of the revenue tariff legisla.
ton proposed by this congress.
The present position and action of th'
Democratic leaders on internal taxes i
peculiarly an anomalous one. They art
so determined to break down the pro
tective system that they are willing Il
resort to internal taxes, which hav'
been opposed not only by every Demo
cratic national administration proceed
Ing the present one from Jackson'S t
Buchanan's, but also, as matter o
principle, by every other adminstra
tion, Federal, anti-Federal, Wing o
Republican, in our history. The only
excuse for the resort to such taxation
has been the
FINANCIAL EXIGENCIES
of actual war. Laws imposing interna
taxes have always been repealed a
rapidly as such exigencies disappeare,
and have never before been Seriousl,
proposed in times of profound peace
Some of the same Democratic leader
who, during and subsequent to the war
stood in congress speaking and votin!
against internal taxes and an income
tax, are found today heartily fayorin!
them. They were unwilling to adOp
these methods Of taxation when it Wa
necessary 20 preserve the government
and the flag, but they are willing
adopt them now as a means Of breakin
down the patriotic principle of prOtee
| ton under which the North and North
west, as we'll as the South, have enjoye
| such unparalleled prosperity and nav
| attained such marvellous development
| 1t would be interesting to the SUDDEN
| of political history to examine the var
Gus acts and resolves of congress touch
| ing internal taxes, beginning in 1S6
| and including the years during an
| shortly after the war. and to note tn
| position of the leaders Of the Demo
cratic party thereon. l have time
refer to but one such law-the interns
revenue act which was approved b
President Lincoln July l, 1854. 1t passe
the house April IS, the vote being yea
lilo. nays 80. every Democrat preseu
and voting responding in the negative
Among the Democrats who then con
| demned
INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION
were John w. Chanler, James Brook
and Fernando Wood, of New York
Charles A. Eldridge, of Wisconsin
Benjamin j. Harris. of Maryland; Oar
iel Marcy, of New Hampshire; job
Law. James F. Mcdowell and DAME
w. Voorhees,, OF Indiana; Anthony |
Knapp. John t. Stuart AMI William r
Morrison, of Illinois; John L. Dawso
and Sydemham Ancona, of Penr
Sylvania; Nehemiah Perry,
New Jersey, and Samuel
Cox. Alexander Loug and George
Pendleton, OF Ohio. The negative voi
by states was as follows: Ohio, L
Illinois, s; pennsylvania, 6; New Yorl
5; Indiana, 4. and New Hampshir,
New Jersey, Maryland and Wisconsin
| | each all Democrats. The hill we