The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-08-11

peioVeu country supposed crimInais have been seized and punished by q mob. notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution of each State guarantees to every person within its Jurisdiction that his life. his liberty or his property shall not be taken from him without due process of law.
 Labor and Capital.
 In struggle between employers and employees, dynamite is said to have been used by. the latter, resulting in the loss of life and the destruction of property. The perpetrators of this of fence against the laws of God and man, and all others engaged in the con- spiracy with them, should, after due out to them the most rigorous pun ishment known to the law. This crime, added perhaps to others, led tp the formation of committee of citi- itary authority. deports from the State. without trial. persons suspected of be- longing to the organization of which the perpetrators of the dynamite In both cases the reign of law gave way to the reign of force. These illustrations present some evidence Of the failure of government to pro- tect the citizen and his property, which not only justified the action of made 1t its duty to call attention to the fact that Constitutional guarantees are violated whenever any citizen is denied the right to labor, to acquire. and to enjoy property. or to reside where his interests or inclination may determine; and the fulfllment of the assurance to rebuke and punish all denials of these rights. whether brought about by individual or govern ment agencies. should be enforced by every official and supported by every citizen, The essence of good govern lice In ctricf nf stitutional limitations. enforcement of law and order and rugged opposition to all encroachment upon the sover- eighty of the people.
 The foregoing suggestions but em- phasfze the distinction which exists be- tween our own and many other forms of government. It has been well said. in substance, that there are but two powers in government, one the power of the sword. sustained by the hand that wields 1t. and the other the power of the law. sustained by an enlightened public sentiment. The difference in these powers is the difference between q republic-such as ours. based on law and a written constitution. supported by intelligence. virtue and patriotism and a monarchy-sustained by force exerted by an individual uncontrolled by laws other than those made or sanctioned by him: one represents Con- stitutionalism, the other Imperialism
 ahu ha"
 The present tariff law Is unjust in its operation, excessive in many of it's rates and so framed in particular in- stances as to exact inordinate profits from the people. So well understood has this view become that many prominent members of the Republican party. and at least two of its State conventions, have dared to voice the general sentiment on that subject. That party seems. however. to be col lectively able to harmonize only upon a plank that admits that revision may from time to time be necessary. but it is so phrased that it is expected to be satisfactory to those in favor of an increase of duty. to those who favor a reduction thereof. and to those op- posed to any change whatever.
 Judged by the record of performance. rather than that of promise. on the part of that party in the past. 1t would seem as if the outcome, in the event of its success would be to gratify the lat ter class. With absolute control of both the Legislative and executive de- partments of the government since March 4, 1897, there has been neither reduction nor an attempt al reduction in tariff duties. It is not unreasonable to assume. in the light of that record. that a future Congress of that party will not undertake a revision of the tariff downward in the event that It shall receive an endorsement of its past course on the SuDJect Dy the peO- pie. It Is fact and should be frank ly conceded that though our party be successful in the coming contest we cannot hope to secure a majority in the Senate during the next four years. and hence we shall be unable to secure any modification in the tariff save that to which the Republican majority in the Senate may consentx While, therefore, we are unable to give assurances of relief to the people from such excessive duties as burden them. 1t Is due to them that we state our position to be in favor of a reasonable reduction of the tariff; that we believe 1t Is demanded by the best interests of both manufacturer and consumer and that wise and beneficient revision of the tariff can be accomplished as soon as both branches of Congress and an ex- executive in favor of it are elected, with out creating that sense of uncertainty and instability that has on other oc- casions manifested itself. This can be achieved by providing that such a between the date of the enactment of the statute making n revision and the date of its enforcement shall be deemed sufficient for the industry or adjust itself to the changes and new conditions imposed So confident am I in the belief that the demand of the people for reform of the tariff Is just.
 
 Democratic House of Representatives. and a Democratic executive be chosen by the people, even q Republican Sen ate may heed the warming and consent to give at least some measure of relief to the people
 MonopoIistic Combines.
 The combinations, popularly called trusts. which aim to secure n monopoly of trade in the necessariss of life as well as in those things that are em- nlOyed upon the farm in the factory and in many other fields of industry, have been encouraged and stimulated by excessive tariff duties. These oper- ate to furnish substantial market in the necessities of eighty millions of people, by practically excluding com petition. With so large a market and highly remunerative prices continuing long after the line of possible compe- titiOn would naturally be regChed, the temptation of all engaged in the same business to combine so as to prevent competition at home and a resulting reduction of prices, has proved ire sistible in number of cases All men must agree that the net result of en- acting laws that foster such incquit- able conditions, is most unfortunat" for the people as a whole, and it would seem as if all ought to agree that the effective remedy would be to appro- priately modify the offending law. The growth of monopoly. of which com plaint is Justly made, cannot be laid at the doors of the courts of this coV- try. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. the Court of Appeals of this State and the courts of last resort in many other States warrant the assertion that the. common law as developed affords a~cOmplpta a legal remedy against monopolies. The fact that they have multiplied in mum Der and increased in power has been due. not to the failure of the courts to apply the law when properly moved by a6mi iStrltiNp officials nTiy-.tfa i,,