The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1894-05-05
who is Responsible for coxez ?
From the New York Post.


A controversy was sure to arise as to
which of the two parties was responsible
for the industrial armies" now in the |
field, and it has arisen. According to the |
Republicans, the "armiesn are distressed
and thoughtful citizens who have been
thrown out of work by the Wilson bill, and |
are coming to Washington to lay before |
Congress their "views" on the existing
financial situation. This way of looking |
at them has been prominently produced by
ex-President Harrison, and was really en-
dorsed by the thirteen Republicans, in
Guiding Hawley, who voted with the Pop
ulists on Monday in favor of a motion that
committee of nine be appointed to meet |
the Coxeyites on their arrival, as number
of citizens in an organized body coming to
Washington ''for the purpose of personally
presenting to Congress their views with
respect to pending and prospective meas
ures of legislation Stronger encourage
ment to tramps to march on to Washington
in armies could not be given, short of APP
propriating money to feed them on the way
The Democratic view, on the other hand,
is that the Coxeyites are bands either of
lazy men or men unavoidably out of work,
who march to Washington because they
have been taught by the Republicans that
the government ought to take care of them,
and that there can be no prosperity in this
country without government aid. The
Tribune naturally resents this theory bit
terly, and stigmatizes Secretary Morton as
''reckless demagogue" for calling the
Coxey army 'large kindergarten class in
protection" and says "the Republican
party is not responsible for the present
outbreak of lawlessness, social restiessness,
and secialistic discomfort in nearly every
state in the Union" Now, if the large
minded editor of that paper would allow IT
to answer questions, its responses to the
following would, we are sure, bring out the
truth, and the truth would be as clear Il
case against the Republican party as was
ever laid before jury:
a. Have you not, ever since 1865,
been telling the workingmen all over the
country that the amount Of their wages.
depended on the result of the Presidential
election, aud that, in voting for your man,
they would he putting money in their
pockets ?
60 Have you not, through every form
of human expression, also Taught them
that it was the most solemn duty of Con
gress TO lay such taxes and to pay such
bounties as would enable all.sorts Of bust
ness to make SDod profits, and have you
not represented to them in default of snch
J - aa,,11
that, in short, the chief function of govern
ment was to employ plenty of men at good
wages
CD Have you not since the present
crisis began ascribed it wholly to the belief
that Congress would modify the Mckinley
bill, thus making it appear that without
the Mckinley bill the country would go
to the dogs?
a. Has not your chief, ex-Presidcnt
Harrison, declared within few weeks, in
one of his thoughtful speeches, that it was
the duty of the government to find work
for the unemployed?
90 Have you not also maintained for
thirty years that when manufacture did
not flourish in America, it was because it
did not get enough help from Congress,
and have you not always advised the own
ers of such enterprises to go to Washing
ton, see the committee, and get the prices
raised?
Were we allowed to go before jury in
support of these charges, we would produce
such overwhelming proof from Tribune
articles and Congressional speeches that
conviction would be certain. Is it not,
therefore, absurd to blame the workingmen
or the tramps for going to the place, and
to the body from which only, you have al
ways assured them, comfort and prosperity
could come? 1t must not be forgotten,
too, that this tendency of every body who is
''down on his luck" to go to Washington
for relief is not an American tendency at
all. 1t never showed itself before the pc
Rod of high tariffs. From 1859 to 1860
we had large population of pioneers along
our Western border undergoing extraordi-
nary hardships, but the last thing they
thought of was asking anything from the
government except good title to their
FARMS When they found their toll made
quately requited, or fit of restlessness came
over them, far from marching ON Wash
ing, they plunged deeper into the Western
wilderness, without other dependence than
their rifles and their axes. In truth, the
strong individual courage and indepen-
dence Of the American was the most IA
nous trait of the national character.
Thirty years of protection have made him
an irrational, whimpering nurseling Of
Congress and the Department of the In
| terror
We ought not to conclude without re-
minding our readers that they will find in
nearly all the tariff-reform publications
since 1865 warnings of the change which
the protective system would work in the
popular attitude towards the government,
and of the intensely socialistic tendency of
protectionist teachings What we are now
witnessing, both in the Populist movement
and the Coxey marches, has been predicted
with more or less clearness in them all.
IF the people could have listened to the
protectionist orators and editors for two
generations, and have believed them, with
out concluding that the government owed
them living, it would show that the hui
man mind in America had undergone a
great change. But it has undergone no
change The protectionist gospel has
worked its natural and Legitimate results.
If it is true gospel, we ought to be all IN
Washington today loading up the Republl-
cans with our sviews.