The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-09-27
From the indianapolis Press.

A political platform is supposed to
be constructed for the purpose of eX-
pressing the views of party leaders on
certain economic principles, as related
to constitutional government, and to
represent the attitude of the party on
current questions of public policy de-
manding immediate consideration. The
form and method of il are peculiar to
the politics of the United states. In
the early history of the government,
the candidates were accepted as rep
resenting definite principles, so that
no public or written declaration was
required. In the course of forty years,
however, party lines became more
gravitated to one party or the other,
Influenced by association, education,
heredity, sectional or personal inter-
est. The study of party platforms
adopted for the past seventy years is
interesting, not only as the express
sion of honest differences of political
belief. but also as examples of petit
Jogging and misleading statement for
partisan advantage.
Dividing Lines.
At the very beginning, there was
division of sentiment on fundamental
principles involved in the constitu-
tional organization of the government,
and on some of these principles the
division has continued to the present
time. For example, Washington and
Hamilton favored a strong central
government, expressed in the word
Nation" with a big IN" In their
judgment, the constitution authorized
and sustained such a government.
lee.
hand, regarded the system as union
of sovereign states, bound together in
a compact, which, according to the
views of many of their followers
might be broken at the pleasure of
state The Federalist the Whig and
the Republican parties successfully
maintained the views of Washngton:
while the first Republican party and
its successor, the Democratic party,
supported the staterights view of JEFF
ferson. The latter was exhibited in
opposing the recommendation of Ham
llton, that the general government
should assume the debts and reim-
burse the several states for their cx-
penditures incurred on account of tho
revolution. 1t cropped out in partisan
platforms many years later, in reso-
among the states of the proceeds Of
sales of government lands; in oppu-
sition to all internal improvements
undertaken by the United States; in
advocating the right of a slave holder
to take his slaves into a territory Of
the United States and hold them
there with ii view to establishing the
institution" in territories before their
"a Ia in h.,
opposition to a national bank and to
the establishment of a national cur
rency. And, again, dozen years after
the Civil war, the Democratic party
adopted in its national platform "A
resolution to remove the ten per cent.
nrOhibitive tax on the issues of state
banks, so as to enable them to pro-
vide the currency instead of leaving
TO the national government the sole
responsibility of issuing and regulat-
ing the circulating medium. The most
ultra latter-day pronouncement of the
doctrine of the paramount rights of a
state is found in the Democratic plat
form Of 1858, adopted by the first ma
tional convention held after the Civil
War-in denouncing the reconstruction
acts as usurpations, revolutionary and
void.
AS to Protection.
Another difference that may be re-
garded fundamental is observed in the
attitude of the two leading political
parties on the question of protective
tariff. There was ut the beginning,
practically no difference as to the
best method of raising revenue, and it
was not until 1924 that the discussions
In congress gave considerable promi-
nence TO the protective idea; and in
that contest Clay and Webster stood
opposed to each other. The former
\ waF champion of protection. Four
@<S ears later Webster was found in line,
supporting a bill for more adequate
protection, and gave as the chief rea-
son for his change of mind the fact
that protection harmonized with the
interests of his section. This view of
loCalizing the tariff as an issue cost
General Hancock the presidency fifty
years later. Democratic platforms al
most uniformly opposed the protective
feature of tariff, while Whig and Re-
publican platforms uniformly support
ed it. And the country has been
treated TO high or low tariff laws ac-
cording to the view of the party enact
ing them. The question has cut a fig