Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 21 March 1884 — REFORMATION NOT REVOLU TION. [ARTICLE]

REFORMATION NOT REVOLU TION.

New York, March 15. —The New York Free Trade Club gave its sixth annual dinner to-night, Horace White and Man ton Marble former editor of the World, were among the guests. Letters of regret were read from United States Senators Bavard, Pendleton, and Brent, Charles Francis Adams and Henry Ward Beechor. President Everett 8. Wheeler welcomedfthe guests, especially Speaker Carlisle. As' the name of Mr. Carlisle was mentioned, the gentlemen arose and cheered. The President, in a speech, referred to the resolutions of sympathy passed by the house of Representatives on the death of Herr Lasker, “the determined opponent of the protective policy,” and said that “We are delighted to notice that the whole* country has united, without distinction of party, in condemning the action of the. German Chancellor in refusing to transmit this resolution to the Reichstag.” Mr Wheeler said that another encouraging fact is the report on the Morrison bill. “It is a step forward and we welcome it. Free trade,” he said, “does not mean untixed trade. It does mean that commerce should not be burdened more heavily than agriculture or manufactures, and that no class of our citizens should have bounty from the Government at the expense of the rest. e urge a reduction of the tariff because we are Americans and because we believe in the power and effectiveness of American industry.’

When the President finished his remarks and said Mr. Carlisle would respond to the first toast, the gentlemen at the tables applauded loudly, and when Mr. Carlisle rose every man in the room stood up and cheered again and | again. The sentiment to which Mr. Carlisle responded was “Our Federal Union.” After making acknowledgment of the reception, he said: “I am obliged always for an opportunity of saying a few words in response to the toast which is assigned me. The formation of a Union peacefully and voluntarily, which made I such radical changes in the | relation between the several States themselves and between them and the General Government, was undoubtedly ope of the greatest political achievements of modern times. It is, I think, safe to say that in no other part of the world could such a change have been peacefully made at that time, and, perhaps, it i# s equally safe to say that it could not have been made here twenty or thirty years later. The old federation possessed no means of sustaining itself. In fact, it had no power to impose taxeSj regulate commerce or administer justice. It had but one of the essential departments of real government—the legislative, and even that was defective and almost impotent. Each State has the right to lay and impose duties subject only to the condition that they should not interfere with the duties entered into by the United States and foreign countries or States. There was no limitation whatever on the power of any State to impose duties upon the products of any other American State brought within its limits for consumption, For the purpose of protecting its own manufactures the State of New York has full power to impose any rate of duty upon Philadelphia goods, and New Jersey possesses the same poweiflin respect to the products of New York. If free trade is what it is and every one claims, if it enables them to overcome natural disadvantages and secure a higher degree of transportation, it must be admitted that the arrangement existing

under the confederation was a wise onj and onght never be disturbed. But the framers of the constitution, the men who founded this Federal Union, did not think so; they believed that free trade, absolute free trade between the several States, was imperatively demanded by the interest of the people. This free trade was established by the constitution, not only for trade’between the States then existing, b t between all States that might thereafter exist as members or the federal Union, and most all will admit that the wonderful transportation of this country is attributable largely to that provision more largely than to any othe one thing. What a different picture this country presents from what it would have presented if the policy of restriction and protection had prevailed among the States as it has prevailed so many} ears between the United States and foreign nations. Under the liberal policy established by the constitution our means of internal communication and transportation is increasing. Free commercial intercourse between the States has promoted the development of our National resources, fostered agriculture and manufactures and added millions to the wealth of the people, while the protective system has to a large extent at least shut us out from the markets of other countries, and brought us substantially to the demands of home consunption, and in many cases has actually arrested the free development of great industrial interest.

The Constitution not only prohibited States from laying imposts on imports or exports, but it expressly delegated to Congress power to collect duties to pay for general welfare. This is simply a power to raise revenue for public purposes. It is a monstrous abuse to use it, not for the purpose of raising revenue, but for the dut pose of prohibiting commerce. It is, if possible, still greater abuse of that power to employ it for private instead of for public purposes. Let no man, I pray you, misunderstand me upon tciis point. Experience alone has shown that it is almost impossible to devise any scheme that will not instantly, in greater or less degree, either injure of benefit private industrial interests. 1 mean to say that when the primary or one object of that taxation is the fostering of private interests, it is not in the ultimate used for the power of taxation, but it is simply spoliation. When we have adjusted ourselves in the same way as those who have been accustomed to it, it might be injurious to suddenly reneal or greatly reduce duties. Such a course would seriously alarm many who are employed in these enterprises and when capital is the same as if that was the real issue. For these reasons it has always been my opinion that it was the duty of Congress to proceed carefully in this subject, having due record of I every step. In other words, I am in favor of reformation, notjrevolution. This process of reformation must go on until the power of taxation is used only for proper purposes. There must be no step backj ward. I have already briefly intimated that this Federal Union is a commercial as well as a political one. We are ini stmcti vely opposed to the British system < u government in Americe. Taxation only for the purpose of raising revenue for public use should be the established law. I will aid any body of men in bringing about this grand result. The reference of Mr. Carlisle to “a revenue for public purposes” elicited emphatic concurrence, as did his declaration that he was for “a reformation not a revolution.” As he ut-

tered the closing sentence the company rose, waved handkerchiefs, and cheered heartily.