The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1909-06-12

should be placed upon the free list;
material reductions should be made
In the tariff upon the necessaries Of
life, especially upon articles COM
peting with such American man l.
factures as are sold abroad more
cheaply than at home, and gradual
reductions as may be necessary to
restore the tariff to a revenue basia
Existing duties have given the
manufacturers of paper a shelter be-
hind which they have organized COM
binations to raise the price of pulp
and OF paper, thus imposing tax
upon the spread of knowledge. We
demand the immediate repeal OF the
tariff on wood pulp, print paper
lumber, timber and logs and thai
these articles be placed upon the free
list"
It will be noticed that the last
sentence of the last paragraph Of the
plank contains definite and specific
demand Tor "the immediate repeal OF
the tariff on wood pulp, print paper.
lumber, timber, and logs, and that
these articles be placed upon the free
list
No language could be more clear;
no platform promise could be more
explicit. II the democratic party is
committed to anything, it is commit
ted to the repeal of the tariff on
wood pulp, print paper, lumber, tim
ber and logs.
In the tariff contest in congress n
number Of democrats in the senate
and house have voted for tariff on
lumber, and have attempted to defend
their action in so doing. Two ques-
tions are involved and the democratic
party must be prepared to meet these
questions and answer them to the
satisfaction OF the country.
First, is a platform promise bind
ing? We are now charging that the
republican party is guilty Of breach
of promise in not revising the tariff
downward. But how can the demo-
Gratis criticise the republicans for
constituting the word revise" to
mean an increase in the tariff II
democratic senators and congressman
deliberately repudiate a plain AMI
unmistakable promise of free lumber?
The democrats who voted against
free lumber will, Of course, be called
upon to defend themselves, and to do
so they must deny that national
platforms are binding, or they must
insist that the national platform was
not binding upon them. II they say
that platforms are not binding, they
attack a well settled democratic doc
trine, namely, that the voters can in
struct their representatives. A plat
form that is not binding is worse
than no platform at all, because it
misleads the voters. 1t is better
for a party to make no promises than
to make a promise and then break it,
II those democrats who have op-
posed free lumber opposed ii on the
ground that, while platforms are gen.
orally binding this platform was not
upon them, 1t is incumbent
upon them to show either that they
were elected before this platform was
adopted, or that in their campaign
they openly repudiated the platform
and gave notice of their adherence
to a different doctrine Even the
senators elected before the platform
was adopted might feel justified in
giving some consideration to a plat
form endorsed by 80 large vote a.
the polls. The democrat who sets his
Judgment up against the declarations
Of his party assumes the burden OF
proof to establish the righteousness
of his own position and the error in
the position taken by his party.
Aside from having to meet the
question OF platform, the anti
lumber democrats will have TO be
to defend their votes upon
the merits Of the question. Will
they insist that as a national propo-
sition a tariff on lumber Is desirableY
Or will they defend their action on
the ground that they speak for the
interests OF their states or districts?
Even II they attempt to Justify