The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1897-04-28
BRADHAM TO STOKES.
DISCUSSION OCcaSlONEO BY M'lAU.
RIMS SPEECH.
The Tariff Question--Lslter from Con-
gresham Stokes Which the Pee Dee
Layman Replies TO at Some Length.

The Tariff Question: Letter from Con
gresham Stokes Which the Pee Dee
Layman Replies TO at Some Length.
ThefolIowing correspondence, grow
ing out of Mr.. McLaurin's speech on
the tariff, in so far as it relates to the
position that congressman recently
took on the matter Of the protective
duty to be placed on cotton, was Civ
en- tc the press Friday.
House of Representatives, I. s.
Washington, D. c., April Is, 1897.
Hon. D. J. Bradham, Manning, S. O.. /:
Ny Dear Colonel see IN the pa
pers an open letter from you to The
Register STACKING the latter's attitude
toward the import tax on cotton. l
would be glad to have your careful at
tention to an article prepared BY me
for use against the amendment when
ever it should be introduced. 1t was
not introduced, so I have had my ar
gument printed SIS g public document.
I believe it was reproduced IN The
Register of April Z. l regard the lu-
novation as the most dangerous to the
Democratic party in our State and the
south that has threatened 1t IL recent
years. It will inevitably divide the
farmer vote if pressed. I plead with
McLaurin not to press it. It is dla-
metrically opposed to our Alliance de-
mands and to the Democretlc doctrine
time out of mind.
It is evidently construed by the Re
publican stalwarts IS marking the
dawn of Republican responsibility IN
South Carolina. Just SIS similarpro-
vision has built up a Republican party
in the Louisiana sugar planters-they
have left the Democratic party for
good and all because the Democratic
party refused them the protection that
The RepU blican party gave. They got
something substantial for their defec-
ton from Democracy, while cotton
tax would, if supported by our people,
be an abandonment of platform and
principle for delusion and snare.
How can s protection import tax
help the price to the producer Of cotton
when the bulk of the crop is sold
abroad when there is no appreclaole
amount i'm ported2 Read the statistics
In regard 10 wheat and corn, which
nave had 25 cents and Is cents per
bushel protection respectively since
1891. Have they increased IN price,
though the production fell off nearly
million bushels2
The Republicans were the only ones
who showed any warmth in their con-
gratulations to McLaurin-the s;a-.
wart protectionists among them were
enthusiastic over mis- position. l think
even now it would be the psrt OF pa
triotism for US all to drop the issue.
Aside from inevitable division OF our
farmer vote, it will divert attention
from the real issue-the money cues
ton.
Iwould be glad to have line from
E=aternally,
]. Wm. Stokes.
Mr.. Bradham's reply IS as follows:
Hon. ]. VIM. Stokes, Washington,
Dear Doctor-Your favor Of the 13th
instto hand in reference to McLaurln's
You request me to read your article
recently published in the Congres
sional Record and give you my opln'
ion of the same.
I will do so with pleasure and with
utmost respect for your opinions and
regard for you personally. Ii SPEAK
plainly, it is because OF your invita-
tion. and of necessity N the language
of plain, blunt man"
To be gin with, after having careful
lyread your recent effort, see notn,
ing in it, except thesame old tune that
has been sung for 10 these many years.
am of the opinion that nothing IS
needed in the way OF criticism except
to read the first speech Of McLaurln,
yours and then the second Of McLau
rims, of April II.
In speaking of a tariff on cotton
YOU say: II regard it as the most dan
gerous innovation to the south, the
Democratic party" etc. 1t Will IN
eyitably divide the farmer vote:
This is singular argument for Dr..
Stokes, ex-president OF the Alliance,
to bring against any policy. Tne
question in your mind should be, IS 1t
right, will il benefit our people.
The time is not distant since you
were charged with similar crimes You
were advocating the sub.treasury and
the government ownership OF railroads
Neither of these demands constituted
part of the Democratic platform and
were certainly the most radical lnno-
vation of the century. They did lneV-
itably divide the farmer vote to the
extent of sending you to congress
pledged to enact these ''lnnoyatlons
into law within the Democratic party
If possible, but without II necessary.
At that time you took the states
manlike position OF principles" hrs5
and party second, and every member
from the State was pledged TO the Al
. lance demands, before those OF party.
We did not stop to examine platforms,
we decided what was right ana tnen
made platforms to fit right, not right
to fit platforms, as your letter now IN
dicates desire to do.
As I understar it, NcLaurln Is
standing right where he was when
elected to congress and you are trying
to prevent innovations" that viii!
s.inevitably divide the farmer vote.
We were irdustriously taught by
YOU and other leading Alliancemen
that the money question, not the tar
if. was the issue. We are taxing you
at YOUR word and I believe IN McLau.
rims idea of ''prolect all or nothing. :,
In other words, more money ana
equal taxation, IS the essence OF WIS
dom and the genius Of common sense.
a fair share of the benefits as well as
the burden of legislation, why should
an Alliancemen object to this doc
trine2
You say it is diam etrically opposed
to the doctrines of the Alliance, n