Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-08-10

ment of law and order and rugged l opposition to all encroachment upon the sovereignty of the people.
 The foregoing suggestions but eIfl. l phasize the distinction which exists between 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 Dy an enlightened public sentiment. The difference in these powers is the
 difference between republic--such
 as ours, based on law and written
 const1tuuon, supported by intelli- l gence, virtue and patriotisrn--and a narchy--sustained by force exerted l by an individual, uncontrolled bg laws other than those made or sane l tloned by him; one represents consti.
 tutionalisn1, the other imperialism.
 The present tariff law is unjust in
 US operation, excessive in many of it's
 rates and so framed in particular in- stances as to exact inordinate profits
 rom the people. So well understood
 naS this view become that many
 prominent members of the republican
 party, and at least two of it's state
 conventions, have dared to voice the general sentiment on that subject. mat party seems, however, to be col. lectively able to harmonize only upon l a plank that admits that revision may from time to time be necessary. but l 1t Is so phrased that it is expected to
 be satisfactory to those in favor of an
 increase of duty, to those who favor
 reduction thereof, and to those op-
 posed to any change whatever
 Judged by the record of perform ance, rather than that of promise, on | af oYsfr 4 :x
 would seem as if the outcome. in the
 event of it's success would be to grati. I fy the latter class With absolute
 control Of both the legislative and ex.
 ecutiye' departments of the govern. ment since March 4, 1897, there has
 been neither reduction nor attempt at
 reduction in tariff duties 1t is not l unreasonable to assume, in the light
 Of that record, that future congress
 of that party will not undertake a r,.,
 vision of the tariff downwarn in the
 event that it shall receive an endorse
 ment of it's past course on that subject
 by the people. 1t is q fact and should De frankly conceded that should our
 party be successful i'll the coming
 contest we cannot hope to secure d l majority in the senate during the next four years, and hence we shall be lin. able 10 secure any modification i'll the
 IaflH save that to which the republi. ] can majority ill the senate may con- sent While, therefore, we are unA l able to give assurances of relief to l the people from such excessive duties l as burden them, it is due to them that
 we should state our position to be iii favor of a reasonable reduction of the
 tariff; that we believe that it is de. manded by the best interests of both f f11a,0 ,13 that wise and benefcent revision of the tariff can be accomplished as soon as both branches of congress and an executive i'll favor of it are elected. l without creating that sense of uflcer. tainty and instability that has on IOther occasions manifested itself. This can be achieved by providing that such reasonable period shall inter- yene between the date of the enact l ment of the statute making d revision
 and the date of it's enforcement, as shall be deemed sufficient for the ins dustry or business affected by such revision to adjust itself to the changes
 and new conditions imposed So con. l fident am | in the belief that the de. mand Of the people for a reform of the tariff is just, that I Indulge the hope that should democratic house of representatives and democratic executive be chosen by the people,
 even a republican senate may heed the warning and consent to give at least some measure of relief to the
 people.
 The combinations, popularly called trusts, which aim to secure q monope
 oly of trade in the necessaries of life as we'll as in those things that are employed upon the farm, in the fac4
 tory and ill the many other fields of industry, have been encouraged and stimulated by excessive tariff duties These operate to furnish substantial 1 market in the necessities of eighty
 millions of people, by practically ex>
 cluding competition. With So large a
 market and highly remuneratlve
 prices continuing long after the Iine
 of possible competition would naturals ly be reached, the temptation of all engaged in the same business to conn
 bine so as to prevent competition at
 home and q resulting reduction of
 prices, has proved irresistible iii a
 number of cases. All men must
 agree that the net result of enacting
 laws that foster such negotiable con-
 ditions, is most unfortunate for the people as a whole, and it would seem as if all ought to agree that the ef- 1 fective remedy would be to appropri-
 ately modify the offending law. The
 growth of monopoly, of which conn l plaint is justly made, cannot be laid
 at the doors of the courts of this
 country. The decisions of the SUI
 preme 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
 complete legal remedy against rnonop- olies. The fact that they have multi piled in number and increased in pow CT has been due, not to the failure of the courts to apply the law when properly moved by administrative of ficiaIs or private individuals, but to l the failure of officials charged with
 the duty of enforcing the law to take the necessary procedure to procure l the judgments of the courts in the ap- propriate Jurisdiction, coupled with the fact that the legislative depart l ments of some of our state govern