The Coconino weekly sun., 1894-07-26
SENATE SCENE.
Tariff tho Subject Of a Lively De-
 bate in the Senate.
Mir. Hin Makes Remarkable Defense of tho Presidents Letter on the Tariff Bul-Mr. Vests
 Reply.

the conference committee on the tarlu bill being under discussion, Senator Hill, of New York, spoke with much feeling. He said:
 A theory as well as a condition now con- fronts us. The theory of the democratic party is that in the enactment of tarin legisla- tion free raw materials should be an essential and conspicuous element; it is our creed that the materials which enter into our manufact- ures should be freed from the burden of tariff taxation The best interests of the manu- lecturers aS well as the consumers of the land demand the recognition of this wise diScrim- ination, We are committed to this side of the question, and we cannot retreat and we cannot retract. We are honorably bound to redeem our professions and our promises. Justice, good faith and decent regard for public senti- meut all require this
 Until recently had supposed that there was no dispute upon this question of principle, but that every democrat worthy of the name was willing to cOncede that if there was one thing more than another to which the democratic party was committed, it was in favor of the doctrine of absolute free raw materials The true and honest construction of every demo- cratic national platform for twelve years past irrevocably commits us to this just and reason able principle.
 Mir. Hill read the democratic national platform of 1892, and. .continued:
 Torepeal the Mckinley law in form simply; to re-enact it in effect, is keeping this promise to the letter but breaking it in spirit. The plat form pointed with pride and deliberately ap- proved the measure for free iron ore, free coal and free wool, which were pending in congress at the time of the convention. The democratic position was so plain and is so clear that he who runs may read.
 If any democratic senator in any part of the country, forgetting the interests of the whole land and subServing the supposed interests of a locality, promised the people of any state or section that there would be any exception made to the enforcement of the general prin- ciple of raw materials when the democrats should obtain power, he exceeded his authority and misinterpreted our position.
 It is said by some in justification or excuse for their present action, that the presidents letter of acceptance in 1892 modified the ex treme demands of our platform. It is true that some portions of his letter may tend to bear that construction. It was not that bold ringing and explicit declaration in favor of the platform which his party had Q right to expect but was regarded by many as timid, cautious and conservative; but whether this criticism is or is not well founded, the factremains that he had no power or authority to change or alter one line or sentence or provision of the national platform which had been deliberately adopted by the national convention assembled. No president can be above his party; no presi- dent can dictate Co his party; no president can change his party platform.
 But no matter what idea it may be claimed was intended to be conveyed in his letter of acceptance in mitigation or modification of the platform, there can be no doubt as to the presi- dents position at this time upon this essential principle of free raw materials. Let me read from that remarkable letter of the presidents which was yesterday presented to the house of representatives. It expresses better than can a.U ..Ns. of the democratic party upon this question.
 After reading extracts from this let ter, Mir. Hill continued:
 MT. President approve of every word that I have quoted. It Is an honest and manly state ment of the truo attitude which the party should assume in this crisis. am not required to defend the propriety or wisdom of this pro- mitigation of this letter at this peculiar time. It may have been indiscreet; 1t may operate as a fire-brand to spread the flames of discord all ready kindled among party friends honestly differing as I am disposed to concede, upon questions of public and party policy It was a time for diplomacy, statesmanship and concili- tion, rather than recrimination, denunciatiOn and arraignment. But aside from the question of it's mere eXpediency, am here to defend the presidents letter in so far that it demands that the party shall not be led astray into the vio- lation of democratic pledges and principles.
 Upon the question of free raw materials the president is right, and you know it. You can not answer his arguments. You cannot suc- cessfully dispute his propositions. You cannot doubt his sincerity and patriotism. You must yield in the end to his views. You cannot stand up against the sentiment of the democratic masses of the country which will rally around the president in his contest with you upon this particular branch of the subject. The time to yield is now before there is further humilia- tion, embarrassment and discord.
 MT President having demonstrated that the true democratic theory of revenue reform re- QuireS that free raw materials should be its distinguishing feature, let us next inquire what is the condition which now con- fronts us. The senate bill which was passed violates this democratic theory and while it reduces the duty on iron, coal and some other raw materials from those imposed under the Mckinley law, and in that respect is com mendable 1t nevertheless imposes some duties thereon, and thereby fails to redeem our pledges. It is not q question of the amount of duties which may be imposed but Q question of principle involved, and single pennys duty violates our promises and places us in false position. As the president well says, there can be no compromise on question of this char acter, where a vital principle was 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 emphasized that repudiation, and the condition 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 itS In the light of the letter of the president the house cannot honorably retreat It has no other alternative except to insist upon it's bill wherein it provides for free raw materials The president cannot approve the senate bill after what he has said in this re- markable letter. He arraigns the senate and intimates that the enactment of the senate bill means party per6dy and party dishoror." '" These are strong words, which the president of the United States would not use toward a measure which he ever expected afterward to approve.
 This letter, unusual and unprecedented in It's character and method of promulgation, though it may be, nevertheless clearly fore- shadows a veto of the senate bill even if the house should finally concur in our amend ments. What person would expect the presi- dent to approve the senate bill after it's yigor- ous and scathing denunciation contained in his letter. You would think less of him for his glaring inconsistency. No, this letter is significant, 1t is bold, vigorous. even if an im- prudent letter It means war to the knife against the senate bill; it justifes much that has been said against the senate bill during all the last three months; it means that it can never receive the executive approval; it means that the senate cannot be permitted