The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1904-09-30

least, untustly and oppressively bur-
dens the people. II secures to domeS-
Tic manufacturers, singly or in combi-
nation, the privilege OF exacung ex-
cessive prices at home and prices far
above the level Of sales made regularly
oy them abroad with profit, thus Civ
Ing a bounty to foreigners at the ex-
pense of our own people. Its unjust
taxation burdens the people generally,
FORCING them TO pay excessive prices
for food, fuel, clothing and other neces-
saries of life. II levies duties on many
articles not normally imported In any
considerable amount, which are made
extensively at home, for which the
most extreme protectionist would hard
~ justify protective taxes, and Wnlcn
in large amounts are exported. Sucn
duties have been and VIII continue 10
be a direct incentive to the formation
of huge Industrial combinations, which
secure from foreign competition, are
enabled to stife domestic competition
and practically to monopolize the home
market.
1t contains many duties imposed for
the express purpose only, as was OPEN
ly avowed, of furnishing a basis FOR
reduction by means of reciprocal trade
treaties, which the republican admin
istration, implicitly at least, promised
to negotiate. Having, on this promise
secured the increased duties, the re-
publican party leaders, spurred on by
protected interests. defeated the treat
les negotiated by the executive, and
now these same interests cling to the
benefit of these duties which the peo-
pie never intended they should have,
and to which they have no right.
Even now the argument most FREE
Quently urged in behalf of the Dingley
tariff, and against tariff reform gener-
ally, is the necessity of caring for our
s-v ~ e fhnCn dyG
tries. after a hundred years of lusty
growth, are looming up as industrial
giants. In their case, at least, the
Dingley tariff invites and
monopoly, and gives justification TO
the expression that the tariff is the
mother of trusts.
For the aforementioned reasons,
among many others, the people de-
mand reform of these abuses. and such
reform demands and should receive
immediate attention.
The two leading parties have always
differed as to the principle of customs
taxation. Our party has always ad-
vanced the theory that the object is
the raising of revenue for support Of
the whatever other results
may incidentally flow therefrom. The
republican party, ON the other hand,
contends that customs duties should be
levied primarily for protection, Social
ed, with revenue as the subordinate
thus using the power of tax
alton to build up the business and
property Of the few at the expense of
the many.
This difference of principle still SUBJ
sists. bni our party appreciates that
the I~Ong-continued policy of the coun-
try. as manifested in it's statutes,
makes it necessary that tariff reform
should be p~rudently and sagaciOusly
,.~Ia-foI rny, on cninn+iHn nVJnPiDiQC TO
the end tnat there should not be an
immediate revolution in existing CON-
ditiOnS.
In the words of our platform we de-
mand "a revision and a gradual re-
the masses, and for the common veal,
and not by the friends of it's abuses,
it's extortions and determinations"
in my response to your committee ]
pointed U the method under whicr
q gradual reduction of customs duties
may be accomplished without disturb
ing business conditions. l desire agar
to express the opinion hat this method
should be followed.
1t is true that the republicans, whc
do not admit in their p-atform that the
Dingley tariff needs the slightest al
teration, are likely to retain a majority
of the federal senate throughout the
next presidential term, n could
therefore, il they chose, block every
attempt at legislative relief. But /
should be remembered that the repub'
lican party includes many re~visionists
and believe it will shrink from defy
ing the popular will expressed unmis'
takably peremptorily at the bal.o
box.
The people demand reform of exist
ing conditions. Since the last demo
cratic administration the cost Of Gy
ing has ~grievously increased. Thos
having fixed income nave suffered
keenly; those living on wages, If Their
has been any increase, know that sue
increase has not kept pace with tn
advance in the cost OF living, including
rent and the neceSSarieS of life Man,
today are out of work. Unable to Sc
cure any wages at all. To aileviat
these conditions, in SO far as is in GU
power. shoul be our earnest endeaVor
TRUST REMEDIES.
I pointed out in my earlier respons
the remedy. which in my judgment
can effectually be applied agains
monopolies and the assurance wa
then given tlat if existing laws, in
Guiding both statute and common law
proved inade,i uate, contrary TO my ex
pectations. l favor such further legis
lation, within constitutional limita
tions, as will best promote and safe
guard the interests of all the people.
whether there is any common lay
which can be applied and enforced b.
the federal courts. cannot be deter
mined by the resident, or by a candi
rate for the. presidency.
The determination of this questio
was left by the people in framing tn
constitution, to the judiciary and no
to the executive. The supreme cour
of the United states has recently con
sidered this question, and, in h cas-
of the Western Union Telegraph c.
VS.. The Call Publishing Co., to b
found in the one hundred and eighty
first volume of the United States 81
preme court reports, al page 90. it de
cide that common law principles coul
be applied by United States courts i
cases involving interstate commerc;
in the absence of United States statute
specifically covering the case. Such
the law of the n