The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-09-11

lean wage-earner 10 receive the hsghcst
/ rate oi compensation Tor services render
60 ana the right 10 claim sud receive th.,
pest ana OF money in exchange for his
iAoor shoa.d not De !uterfered with"
Mr- fo"deriy then took up the Chicago
Platform and compared IL with previous
platforms OF the Democratic party. say
/ ing. The Democratic platform ~ foi,~
years ago pledged The party entering into
power 10 overthrow the American system
of protection and wlth All his and their
I power elih ali tho force ami influence AT
MS anu their command, the man ard
party upon which the poger wss con
| ierred lahorcd to place he foreign work
ingman on higher piaue lhan his Amer
lean competitor. and that platform was
! anything hat meaningless Four years
ago the pivotal point around Nnich the
Democratic platform swung was free
trade
When that congress asser, bled there
WAS no deficlt. the revenue MAS amp,y suffI-
Glen, FOR the needs ns tfsc government a,,d
there was no ineone tax IAN upon the
statutes Of thiS nation. The income tax
law was an after consideration: Il was
no part OF the Democratic platform OF iss2
and WAS only thought or when IL heca me-
manifest 10 its oriEIuaters that they had
sawed on tho revenue limb on which they
had been sitting in their mad attempt 10
undo What their Republican predecessors
had 50 Wei planned ami 80 faithfully ex-
csGted. To make amends for n blunder
they woHld perpetrate a crime, ana the
income tax law was no less than a crime
II NAV he charged with opposing one ~
The cardinal principles or The knights of
Labor. which demanded chat "A graduated
Income tax he levied. That section was
adopted by the Knights Of Labor in op-
position t. my earnest and emphatic pro-
test. ! never believed ia IT, and have
always opposed It. when congress assem-
hjcd IN 1893 there Vas no income tax law
upon the statute books. Under the gAovl-
eions Of such a law no revenue accrued 10
the government, and * is unfair. as well
as dishonest. 10 r1arge a falling revenue
20 something which had TO existence
when the agitation for change rs our
economic law began.
Does Il not appear inconsistent to tl1e
defenders q The Chicago platform % aA-
sert tha- they are opposed 20 English rule
ia America ON the financial question, after
tAey have opened our ports TO the pre-
duets of the English factory and init-
our chief competitor IN the domain of
manufacture is England: and he must ha
an ignorant man iudfTd WHO viii demand
tie abolition Of our tariff laws and n0t
know that rho gamer by the shoiifi0n og
these laws Rili pc England. They ti.il us
that the manufacturers are YohbeF hsr-
ons and that the tariff which protects
Them aud fhose wAo work for Mem III a
robbs~ tarIH Well. rat o. - II work
sngmen VIII not organize. as the window
glass -rade and railroad workmen are or
gnnized. 20 unite VITA employers IN pro
tectug fhelr trades ard cailfngs, they
have the mseiveS 90 blame for NOT secWr-
lng al tne advantage OF protection. The
fsct that 80 sro ~ worth of agriculture
products we're imported 10 this country In
ore year. ard that 3, Wa bought and con
sfrattt bv Ama Tftmns. proves most cNFl-