The Coconino weekly sun., 1894-04-05
business, involving alike all our agricultural,

the secession of the southern states and brings this review to period within the recollection Of many of my hearers It will Dc seen that In the early days of the country tho tariff was not only not D sectional question, but had among
 It's hrmest supporters the leading statesmen of the south Then this question was as broad n5 our country and ns national us our flag. May we not confidently hope that 1t will be again so | held in the near future? 'l Is history worth nothing? Arc experience and Its lessons to be forgotten? Arc tho teach | ings Of tho past to count for naught? Is tho | national distress, the business depression and | the universal poverty of the people, which have relcntcSSly tolloweu tho enactment of every | revenue tariff measure in all our history. to be | lost upon us in the calm consideration of this | economic subject! Are all these to be discard | ed in the making up of our verdictS l impiore l you 10 study them without bias, for they will
 steady your Judgment in reaching righteous | The Wilson bill is not like any of the early | tariff measures, but Is one in which the | changed condition of tho country and It's mar | vicious growth and development are utterly ig- | norcd and forgotten. Its promoters forget that | slavery no longer exists They do not recog-
 nize nor appreciate the independence and dig | nity Of labor and cannot understand that the | protective policy under which WIG have had | such splendid prosperity Is not to be deter,
 mined by eographical lines The bill is mar | row, sectional and provincial measure, Yn.
 worthy the great party which proposes 1t and
 wholly unsuited to the needs of the country.
 The Wilson bill turns to the past: away from | the present It is for the plantation not for
 tho farm and the factory As 1t passed tho
 house 1t had for it's foundation principle free raw material It's authors argued that with
 free coal, freo iron ore, free lead and free wool
 the manufacturers of tho United States would | be placed on anequality with the manufacturers | Of free-trade countries, and we therefore could
 not only retain our own markets but con tro 'the markets of the world" Based upon this | argument, which believe to be false. they de. | clared that with these great primary products | Tree we would have steady employme nt for all | the workingmen of the country at good wages
 AEd so in this form the bill passed the demo | cratic house of representatives and Is now the
 dread subject of angry contention in the demo- | cratic senate
 An examination of the bill by the democratic | members of tho finance committee of the sem | ate evidently convinces them that Mir. Wilson's 8 | bill and his argument III support of the same | arc altko based upon false principles. So coal 1 goes back to the tariff list, iron ore 10 the
 tarir list and lead to the tariff list leaving free | wool alone, the only product of agriculture 10 | support the false theory of the house bill Even
 MT Cleveland is disregarded, for in his Madt son Square garden speech, after his nomination In lSgS he said: "We believe that the advant. | age of freer raw material should be accorded
 10 our manufacturers We propose therefore to stimulate our domestic industrial enterprises | by freeing from duty the imported raw ma
 terials which, by the employment Of labor, are
 used in our home manufactures, thus extending
 the markets for their sale and permitting an in
 creased and steady production with an allow. ance Of abundant profits" | l havo looked with some degree of care | through the bill find nothing but irritation
 and aggrayaton to the great industries of the | country No interest suffers by it more severe | ly than agriculture, and labor of all kinds
 seems to have been singled out as it's
 foremost victim l have examined it careful | ly to hnd some section, paragraph, clause or line removing the great burden Of tarin taxes
 from the shoulders of the people" about
 which we have heard so much for so. many years from the democratic orators and havs
 read so frequently in democratic neWspa-
 pers and platforms but have been unsuc-
 cessful in finding any such provision. lt is true that sugar. an article Of prime neces-
 sity to every household and which the law of 1890 made free to the people, has been tar flied at from 1 to 4-l0 cents per pound. every
 cent of which will be paid by the consumers l of the United States But, doubtless, fin com. | pensation for this added burden Of upward Of $50 0OlOo0, aud because of 1t, they lowered the
 tarIn Cn tobacco and have extended the bonded
 period for tho warehousin5 Of whisky and gjy-
 en to the distillers eight years in which to pay | the tax. They nave restored tho tarin on coal,
 but then in fairness they should De credited
 monds They reason that the manufac-
 turers are few, forsettiug that tho work
 men are many: They look 10 tho oDlivlous to the fact that the agriculturist is
 everywhere. Their blows are directed against
 tho welfare of the masses of tho people but from them the country will yet near, for this i5 | still a government of the people and tho popu- | lar will has already marked shem for political Il overthrow. do not believe that the Tuc inter.
 ests Of tho south, nor of any other section or | the country, lie in the direction of free trade,
 nor of the revenue tariff legislation proposed by this congress. ..
 The present position and action of the demo-
 cratic leaders on Internal taxes is peculiarly l an anomalous enc They are so determined to | break down the protective system that they are willing to resort 10 internal taxes, which | have been opposed not only by every demo- | cratic national administration preceding the | present ono from Jackson's to Buchanan S.,
 but also, as matter or ,IIT principle, by yy every | whig or republican, in our history. Tho
 only excuse for the resort to such taxation
 has been the financial exigencies Of actual | war Laws imposing internal taxes have | always been repealed as rapidly as such exi- | gcncies disappeared and haVe never before
 been seriously proposed in times ot profound
 peace. Some of the same democratic leaders l who, during and subsequent 10 Inc war, stood
 iu congress speaking and voting against in
 ternal taxes and an income tax,are found to-day
 heartily favoring them They were unwilling | to adopt these methods of taxation when 1t was
 necessary to preserve the government and
 the flag, but they arc willing to adopt them l now as means Of breaking down the patrl- | otic principle of protection under which the
 north and the northwest as well us tho south, | have enjoyed such unparalleled prosperity and | have attained such marvellous development
 It would be interesting 10 the student of po- | litlcal history to examine the various acts and | resolves of congreSs touching internal taxes | beginning in 1861, and including the years dur | ing and shortly after the war, and to note the
 position of tho leaders of thedemocratic party | thereon have time 10 refer to but one such l law-the internal revenue act WhlCh was ap- | proved by President Lincoln July 1, lSSI It
 passed tho house April 2S the vote being yeas, | ilO; nays 50, every democrat present and yot- | ing responding in the negative, Among
 the democrats who then condemned in- | ternal revenue taxation were John w.
 Chanler, James Brooks and Fernando Wood, | of New York; Charles A. Eldridge, of | Wisconsin; Benjamin J. Harris of Maryland: | Daniel Marcy, of New Hampshire; John Law,
 James r. MCDowell and Daniel W. Voorhees,, | of Indiana; Anthony l.. Knapp, John T. Stuart
 ana William R. Morrison, of illinois, John L. l Dawson and Sydenham Ancona, of PennsyE | yania; Nehemiah Perry, of New Jersey, and | Samuel S. Cox, Alexander Long and George IL | Pendlcton, of Ohio. The negative vote by | states was as follows: Ohio, l2: Illinois, s; | Pennsylvania, 6; Now York, D; Indiana 4, and | New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maryland and | Wisconsin 1 each--all democrats. The bill was
 passed as amended by the senate on June G. | yeas g; nays. g. The negative votes were cast | by Garrett Davis and l. ". Powell, of Ken | lucky and Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana | As illustrating further the position of the
 democratic party on internal taxes, the resolu- | tion of July 4, 1861, providing for special war
 income tax may be cited This was adopted by
 nays Every affirmative vote was cast by re-
 publican and every negative vote, except four | by democrat. It received the cordial support | Henry L. Dawes, James A. Garfield, William | O Kelley, Elihu.B Washburne, William B. | Washburn and William Windom. It was op- | posed by such democratic leaders as Samuel s | Cox, George H. Pendleton, Charles A Eldridgc | yViIiiop, D Morrison LErnnpia Kernan