The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-11-29
WHERE THE HERALD STANDS.

The Herald objects to a definition of
its policy by opposition papers. It does
not object to their criticism CT its DO
sition or its arguments But when
they attempt to explain that which is
not, and base their objections upon
their own definitions, neither The Her
aid nor the public are fairly dealt with
An Ogden paper, which at present in
politics, on its own showing, is neither
fish, flesh nor fowl, but uses Republi-
can sophistry, says as a foundation for
some alleged arguments:
THE Herald is not paper for Utah s
interests. The Herald is for the Dem
ocratic party first, Utah afterward.'
The premises being incorrect the ar
guments that follow are also unsound.
The Herald is Democratic because it
believes that Democratic principles are
for the best interests not only of Utah,
but of the entire nation. The Herald
admits that it is not for Utahs inter-
est alone, or for the interest of any
one small section of the country as
opposed to the welfare of the rest of
the country. 1t does not believe in
sectionalism, nor in eXpediency when
that is opposed to principle. 1t is
therefore opposed to Republicanism
and in favor of Democracy, which
means equal and exact justice to all
people and all sections, with special
privileges to none.
The paper which misrepresents The
Heralds policy goes on to describe
what it understands to be the similar
ity, and then the difference, between
the doctrines of the two great political
parties. It's preterice of teaching The
Herald "a lesson or two is as absurd
as it is impudent, for a great deal of
it, if not copied from The Herald, is
merely an echo of its simplest lessons.
On the question of the tariff that pa
per says:
"The Republicans believe in making
that duty higher on some things in
order to protect American industries,
regardless of how much money such a
tariff might produce. The Democra is,
however, say that the duty must not
be larger than is required to raise just
enough money to run the government"
Suppose we take that as fair state
ment Of the position Of the parties on
this question. What is the constitu-
tional purpose of tariff? Is it not ito
pay the debts, provide for the common
defence and the general welfare of the
United States?' And is not that a
tariff for revenue? That is the Dem
ocratic tariff. The Republican tariff
is levied regardless of the amount of
money it may produce. What warrant
is there for such a tariff in the con-
stitution Of the United States, by
which alone Congress obtains any
power whatever?
If a Republican tariff is levied "re-
CARELESS of how much money it may
produce is not the very purpose of a
tariff prostituted and perverted? What
is the intent, then, of a Republican tar
| iff, taking this view of the question? Is
it not to confer special privileges on
pet industries, or rather the individuals
or corporations that control them
Have they not dictated the amounts of
duty to be placed on the articles
which they produce. in order that they
may charge high prices for them be-
cause the high duties shut off for
eign competintion? And is that for
the interest Of Utah, or for the inter-