The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-09-12

rant, impeach them; but if they ara
capable and honorable, however mulch
we may not coincide with their judg-
ment. they should not be subjected It'd
personal criticism. -.
But let us not forget that the charge
was not only that the court was crltt-
clsed-that Is q small matter compared
with the charge that there was lal the
Chicago platform, the couched express
sion OF determination to so organize
sal of It's decision upon the constitutions
atty OF the Income tax act.
IhlS most serious charge is untouched
by the Senator Read his letter, line by
line. and you will find no refutatio0l.
lie resorts to much verbiage to show
that the language was respectrul; that
there was mo threat, no foreShadowing
OF revolt" With great verbosity, he
seemingly endeavors to cover up the
graVer point and conceal 1t under 4 SUR
plusage of words as to Judges being
men,. which everybody knows, and
courts being human" which nobody
disputes. and upon their foibles and
weaknesses.
repeat, the Senator left unrefuted the
main allegation. I am therefore JUS
t!hed In assuming that It Is admitted
as true and needs NO proof.
THE TARIFF PLANK.
The Senator glides softly over the
tariff plank. He has never been an
ardent tariff reformer; he thought in the
early eighties that the Internal reve-
nue. tax ought to be abolished and the
tariif let alone, and In behalf Of this
theory he made many speeches. Tariff
taxation is q matter OF minor import
ance In his estimation. He says briefly
mat L am In error in saying that from
lSfO to 1892 inclusive, every Democratic
platform that mentioned the tariff de-
clared for tariff-for revenue ONLY.
rms is special pleading and 1.-The
swapping up of urlconsidcred trifles."
Everybody knows that the particular
words tariff for revenue only" have
not been in every platform, but some
words OF expression restricting the levy
Ing OF tariff used the words tariff for
revenue" In that sense.
me Senator says the platform of 1896
is less protective than the platforms
OF 1884 and 1885," IF 1t is LESS pro-
tectiVe" why did Senator Vest recently
declare that "if he had understood II he
would not have touched 1t any more
than he would have laid his hand on n
i've rattlesnake hundred miles from
"nlskey, and If that be Democratic doc
trlne God save us from the new evan
gel"
FREE SILVER.
No national convention calling itself
Democratic has ever prior to 1885, de-
ciared for the free coinage of silver at
any ratio nor for unlimited and indepcn-
dent coinage. The platform of 1876 de-
CARED for "a sound currency" that Of
1871 for honest money consisting of
gold and silver, and paper, convertible
INTO coin on demand, and the strict
maintenance of the public faith, State
and national"
The plank OF 1854 was as follows:
we believe in honest money, the gold
and silver coinage or the constitution,
ana q circulating medium convertible
into such money without loss" This
was reafllrmed in 1858.
Here is the plank OF 1892: 1--WE hold
to the use of both gold and silver with
OUT discriminating against either metal
OF charge for mintage, but the dollar
mint of coinage Of both metals must he
or equal intrinsic and exchanged bic
Vaiuc. or be adjusted through interna-
national agreement, or by such safe
guards Of legislation as shall ensure the
rnaintenance of the parity of the two
metals. and the equaI power OF every
aoliar at all times in the markets and In
payment or debt, etc. Our State plat
form OF 1893 and upon which made my
iubernatorlal campaign, rcaffirmcd the
national plank of 1892. Soon after I was
nominated the vote in Congress on the
coinage of silver at different ratios wa c
ana other members OF the Committee on
Coinage, Weights and Mea sures tbnt
the silver dollar could be maintained
at parity with the gold dol
,ar at any ratio as low ms
10 10 l. My special duties as Chairman,
rue committee on Elections and
otherwise, had so absorbed nv time ns
10 &c, prevent me from giving the subject
the attention 1t deserved. with thn
surance referred to given by those wh,
mad the matter directly in hand. voted
Tor all the ratios
ato! Daniel arraigns me for incon-
alsleley IN voting for the ratio and now
ospusins the Tree coinage OF silver. but
taH,ittlng my Inconsistency for tho colo
OF argument in voting for Tho r.tio.
docs mat prove that free silver ia r;rht ;
Does 1t prove that this country rofnsi1 :,
10 herselr recognize the free COINAGE sill
yer dollar OF Mexico at more than ne
bullion value, I believe now abo,,, 40
cents, can float the silver of the world
TOT lt VIII come to her minis, at hundred
cents dollars The proposition answer
i'seil. suppose am inconsistent in on
posing free coinage, must l adhere 70 !,
theory when am convinced II is wronp
simply to be consistent i? / Womb % >
rather be right though inconsistent
shan wrong and yet consistent.
FOOLISH consistency fs the hobpoh,in
OF little minds. adored by little states.
men and philosophers and divines."
UNGROUNDED CHARGE.
I,he Senator complains that have
'heaped denunciation and opprobrium"
upon those who favor the free coinage
or silver. / deny with emphasis that 7
have done anything Of the kind. There
Is not line or word in my interview
rejecting upon the masses who support
7 10 n t1,e
II 1t is not / who have cause to com
plain of more thar dnnnnnia L.. l.