The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-01-17

seizes the centralized government. What then would become of the rights of the people? What would be done would be simply question of what might be desired by the men yielding this im- mense combination of financial and po- litlcai power. If they failed to find pre- cedents for their usurpations they would plead the iilustrious example of Tour present President, and call for the engagement of the powers of the Fed erai government by executive action," Legislative action," and Judicial inter- pretation and construction of the law" Doubtless however, they would not stop for even that much formality of law. Under the lead of the Presidents rough riding example the limit of their power would be only the limit of their desires.
 Moreover, expansion of territory de- mands more and more the shifting of weight from the Federal government to the local governments of the States. {. Otherwise the strain on the center will become too great, and the whole struct- ure will crumble beneath the load. The security of the Onion Is in the sover- eighty of the States.
 This Is certainly no time for the South, to cease contending for the strict observance of the Constitutional ,lim-
  ernment. A surreptitious revolution is proposed, and it. must be resisted as vigorously as if it were an armed. force attempting to subvert the government. Let us stand solidly against it, and If any other, section wishes to stand with Us we shall not object. But If any other section of the country invite us to abjure our devotion to the fundamental principles of the government in order 10, ~Ak kaf fr.f a <,f offices and appropriations let us give them to understand that neither we nor our fathers have been accustomed to &C., cept bribes. N, t'ba
 Historic Tariff Pesitfon-
 It should also be said that our long established view of the tariff is not to be surrendered. With possibly one exception the professors of political econmy in every respectable college and university in America tthe experts on the subject), unite with us in our un- waverinS opposition to protection. am not sure that there is one exception, but I understand that in the University of Pennsylvania the heresy of protection is entrenched If so. the location of such Instruction discloses its fnspira- tion.v Why should we renounce what is demonstrably correct with reference to . protective tariff? Certain protection ists are fond Of calling themselves the Stand -patters'; very we'll, if they can stand, pat for an erroneous economic dogma we may we'll stand pat for A sound economic principle The truth Is the system of protection is not found. cd in reason nor based on righteous ness: it Is maintained by trading and mutual concessions between the repre- sentatives in Congress of element and domineering interests. To employ the taxing power of the government<to en- rich certain interests at the expense Of all the people comes near robbery under the guise of Legislation. It Is utterly puerile to say such a system Is neces- sary In order to maintain the wages Of the laboring man. Who shall make the protected manufacturer. who does not scrt,ple to rob all the people, divide, his spofls with his employees? Wages are not thus determined. And even If it were true that wages were raised by protection. 1t Is also true that the ex- penses of the laboring man are raised even more by the system. and thereby it reduces the amount of his net income.
 We have nothing to take back con- corning the tariff. If other sections wish to unite with us in emb bodying fin law the sound and honest views which we have held on this subject we will welcome their association and assistance. But if they unite with us in our contention, what then will be- come of thier own solidarity about the dissolution of which We hear nothing?
 oother subjects might be brought forward, butt forbear for the present Let me inquire with reference to the