The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1896-08-01
Their Platform on National Issues.

IL uotch CUsti luuCu spdtt-uut
half column--and devotes even less
attention to the issues of the day,
state or national, than it does space.
Our Republican friends are not dis
cussing the issues. Their prophet in
this campaign is Mark Hanna, and
Mark is too shrewd to discuss when
he is on the wrong side-he straddles,
Orwell, we all know Millionaire
Marks peculiar method of campaign
ing.
But let US examine the platform on
which the Republican leaders OF West
Virginia will have to stand in the
present campaign. There is so little
of it that it hardly presents standing
room for an able bodied politician, or
a target for even ssglobe-sights rife,
and we are compelled to use a miscro-
scope in order to get its pith and point.
1t has nothing whatever to say on
the leading issue of the campaign
the currency--but is content to en-
dorse that exceedingly indefinite
phrase ''sound money" and let it go
at that. Intelligent and patriotic
Americans contend that the money
prescribed by the constitution and by
all our laws and rulings is the only
''sound money and that money is
'sgold and silver" neither metal being
given the advantage over the other
according TO the fundamental and eve
ry other law of the nation, with the
exception of the law of 10. which Sc
cretly struck down silver as money
metal and the unlawful rulings of
Secretary Foster in 1891, that silver
certificates were payable in gold, which
means increasing the public debt
through the issue of bonds to main
tain the treasury gold reserve S275,-
900, 600. When the country has to buy
gold to pay off its silver obligations it
certainly is not on sound money ba-
sis. 1t is not on sound money basis
when one of its money metals is barred
from coinage.
| And now we come to something def
mite in the Parkersburg platforms:
| 1--WE condemn the Populist, Anareh-
istic Democratic platform adopted at
Chicago for its vicious attack on the
supreme and other federal courts upon
the enforcement of the law.
We have heard this absurd and en-
tirely unfounded charge against the
Democratic platform before, from peo-
pie who are either disingenuous or
have neglected to read the Chicago
platform with anything like care.
Here is the alleged Objectionable plank
lin full:
Until the money question is settled
we are opposed to any agitation for
further changes in our tariff laws ex-
cept such as are necessary to meet the
deficit caused by the adverse decision
Of the Supreme Court on the income
tax.
There would be no deficit in the
revenue but for the annullment by the
Supreme Court of a law passed by
Democratic Congress in strict pursu-
lance of the uniform decision of that
court for nearly 100 years, that court
having sustained constitutional objec-
lions to its enactment which have
been overruled by the ablest judges
who had ever sat on that bench.
| We declare that it is the duty of
Congress to use all the constitutional
power which remains after that decis-
son, or which may come from its re-
yersal by the court as it may hereafter
be constituted, so, that the burdens of
taxation may be equally and impair
TALLY laid, to the end that we may all
bear cur proportion of the expense of
the government
Where is the attack" here? What
is there in the above quoted plank be-
yond the statement of a plain and I'M
deniable historical fact? This plank
declares that the treasury deficit of
$50, 600, 600 this year was sicaused by
the adverse decision of the Supreme
court on the income tax" The Secre-
tary of the Treasury has borne the
same testimony, and he is now accept
ed by Republican organs and orators
as exceptionally good authority. BY
this decision of the Supreme Court the
treasury was deprived of at least $780,
900, 900 assessed on the wealth of the
country.
The next statement in this alleged
''anarchistic" plank is that the law
declared unconstitutional by the cast
ing vote of one justice who changed
his mind within few weeks was sin
strict pursuance of the uniform deci-
sion of the Supreme Court for nearly
100 years." Is there an attack on
the Supreme Court in this statement
of an undeniable fact? If there is the
assault is made by the Supreme Bench
itself, which has made its own record,
to quote which is all the Chicago plat
! form does. Here is another section of
this alleged ''attack." The platform
goes on to say the constitutional OBJ
jections'' to the income tax made by
the court in its recent decision ''have
been overruled by the ablest Judges
who ever sat on that bench" Here is
another simple statement of fact that
cannot be construed as anything
else. The principle of the income tax
has been sustained by the most emil
nent chief justices in our history
Marshall, fancy, Chase and White
and such renowned associate justices
as Clifford, NelsonOand Grey. These
and many Others have sustained the
principle of the income tax which was
recently declared unconstitutional by
a five to four decision through the
shifting Of one judge. All the federal |
judges that have sat on the United |
States Supreme Bench from 1900 to |
to 1896, with very few exceptions have
uniformly sustained the constitutions
atty of the income tax.
Does the statement of these undis-
puted facts in the most temperate Ian
guage constitute an assault on the SUI
preme bench? Hardly. The Chicago