Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 33, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 12 September 1884 — GOV. HENDRICKS. [ARTICLE]

GOV. HENDRICKS.

The Next Vice-President on the Political Issues of the Day. Cogent Seasons Why There Ought to Be a Change in the Control of Public Affairs. One hundred campaign speeches were delivered on Saturday, Aue. 30, in Indiana cities, where both parties formally opened the campaign Hon, Thomas A. Hendricks addressed a vast «pen-air assemblage at Indianapolis. He said: Fellow-citizens, I appreciate the privilege and the honor of addressing yon, and I recognize the duty of speaking, frankly and without concealment or exaggeration of any material fact or opinion. May I first ask your attention to the necessity and importance of revenue reform? 'The power to levy and collect taxes is among the highest and most responsible of the attributes of government. It ranks with the right and faculty of taking private property for public use, and with the right and power of transferring the citizen from the pursuits of private life to the duties and hazards of war. It takes from a man that which is Jds and appropriates It to public nse. It seizes upon the earnings of labor, aa well as upon the accumulations of capital To every man the inquiry is of personal concern, and the answer is of public conse--quence, how far may government go in the exercise of the power to tax the people. Freely and cheerfully we all answer there shall be no limitation nor restraint this side the absolute and entire maintenance of public authority, with all of its faculties and functions unimpaired. Whatever the Government can lawfully •do, and of right should do, the taxpayers will furnish the means to accomplish. Beyond this Is the province of private right,ito invade which Is usurpation. The Government economically administered shall be supported. Are you men from the farms, the shop , and the stores willing that any other rule should be adopted? May they take your money for uses not authorized by the Constitution, or not for the public welfare, or that it may be piled up in vaults to tempt the greed of the unscrupulous? When the war came taxation was necessarily and wrightfully increased. Large revenues were needed to supply and maintain great armies. But with the war and the expenditures consequent upon it there passed away the necessity for a war standard of taxation. Why. then, has such a standard been continued? The party that has held almost unbroken power for nineteen years of peace must respond to that inquiry. In his message/)! Dec. 4, 1882, President Arthur admonished Congress that at the prior session he had urged upon its attention “the Importance of relieving the industries and enterprise of unnecessary taxation.” In the same message he said that the people have been In substantial accord In the doctrine “that only such taxes onght to be levied as are necessary for a wise and economical administration of the Government.” The President continued: “Of late the public revenue's have far exceeded that limit.'and unless checked by appropriate legislation such excess will continue to increase from ■year to year. For the fiscal year ended June 80, 1881, the surplus revenue amounted to $100,000,•000. For the fiscal year ended on the 30th of June last the surplus was more than $145,000,000. ” What say you, my countrymen, did that showing not call for revenue reform? During that Congress the House was made positively Republican, largely by partisan' action. Not much Reed was given by it to the startling statement by the president of the enormous excess of the ■revenue. The modification of the internal-rev - ■ -onue system and of the tariff made on the March following left an excess of $85,000,000 of revenue. In his last annual report—3d of December last—the Secretary of the Treasury estimates the surplus for the current year at $85,000,000, and adds: So the question still presses, what legislation Is necessair to relieve the people of unnecessary taxes?” Tes, it is the question of $85,000,000 unnecessary taxes in one year. The accumulation is constant. In a speech recently made at Richmond, Mr. Calkins, the candidate for Governor, boasting of the achievements of his party, made the statement, which I adopt without examination, that “the Republican party found an empty treasury; now it has a surplus of $400,000,000.” That Is an enormous sum of money. More, t believe, than half the paper currency of the country. Estimating our population at •60,000,000, it is $8 for each man, woman, and •child. That great sum of money Res idle in the treasury. If it had been left with the people it would become the willing and active servant of labor. It would stimulate and strengthen old, -and develop new, enterprises. It would restore to the merchant his market and give the farmer good prices again. In the language of the Secretary of the Treasury: “The question atill presses, what legislation is neoessary to relieve the people of unnecessary taxes?” It Is the question of revenue reform. Solve this question, my countrymen, by reducing the taxes, and thus leaving the money not needed by the Government in the pockets of the people and in the channels of trade and commerce. The party :ln power will not give us this reform. As the years have rolled by with them in power, the machinery of law, inexorable in its action, has gone on collecting from the taxpayers in excess; hoarding and accumulating. The candidate Tor Governor boasts of the accumulation. In •contrast with the low taxes, and short revenue, and empty treasury of former days, the high rates and overflowing treasury of these times become, in the appreciation of himself and his political associates, the achievements of exalted statesmanship. Learning and argument are •exhausted in the political papers of these times, in support of high taxation, to the end and for the purpose of relieving favored classes from the competition of generous and liberal trade. Of course, revenue reform must come from other quarters. It can not come from the representatives of favored classes, who ask inequality in legislation that there may be unjust inequality In the profits of the varied pursuits of the people* May I ask your attention to the plan and principles of revenue reform to which the Democracy are pledged by the Chicago platform? Federal taxation shall not exceed the needs of the Government economically administered.” Do you approve that? If not, would you have the Government wastefnlly or corruptlv administered to make room and pretext for nigher taxes? “Federal taxation shall be exclusively for public purposes.” Would yon have it otherwise? If taxation can have for its object ether than public purposes, then what purposes? May the object and purposes be individual and private gain? Ido not question that it mav be, •and often is, an incident, that one man receives a greater benefit, or carries a greater burden than another because of a prescribed tax. If I buy an imported article with a duty upon it, 1 bear the burden of that duty. If you manufacture a like article, and sell it at an advance of price equal to the duty, then to that extent you are benefited. But the individnal benefit or burden is not the object or purpose of the law; it is but the necessary incident. Nor do I question that, in the adjustment of the details of a tariff law, the legislative mind and judgment may and will be Influenced, not only by considerations of general policy, but also by the probable effect of the measure ■upon the business interests of the country. It is in accordance with this sentiment that the Democratic party stands pledged in its platform “to revise tne tariff in a spirit of fairness to all interests,” and that "any ■change of law must be at every step regardful” of the labor and capital employed in the industries of the country, and that custom-house taxes shall bear “heaviest on articles of luxury and lightest on articles of necessity,” and that "“the necessary reduction in taxation can and must be effected without depriving American labor of the ability to compete successfully with foreign labor.” These principles of the platform are plainly written and early understood. They present The conservative purpose of the Democracy touching revenue reform. When expressed in the laws their beneficent influence will become active and universal. Lower taxes will signify lighter burdens upon the people; money returning to the channels of trade: enterprise restored and stimulated; renewed demand for the products of industry, and the consequent increased demand for labor and universal prosperity. If the $400,000,000 now locked up in the Treasury were restored to the channels of trade and commerce, who can doubt that labor would find employment and the manufacturer a market for his fabrics? May I ask you now to consider the question whether there ought not to be a change in the control and management of pubilo affairs? What other remedy for the correction of possible abuses have the citizens of a free republic? Even in England change is the remedy. When the Commons disapprove an important measure, or censure maladministration, the Cabinet, beaded by the Prime Minister, retire lrom office, and others in harmony with the will of the peoole succeed them. There are many valuable reforms that cannot be accomplished by a party that has been long in power. JCe an illustration, consider our army of office-holders, now above 110,000. Reform in the civil service requires its reduction, perhaps 80,000. It seems to be constantly Increasing. Who can check the evil, and discharge all who hold positions and receive pay without useful employment? Not the party that created the positions and appointed its favorites to fill them. That is impossible. It is hard for a party to reform itself. Party ties are difficult to break. Partisans stand by and protect each other. You have seen that even in courts and Juries. The partisan friend, at the same desk, will not become an informer. He will rather close the book, and it will remain dosed until investigation

shall place another at the desk. It Is nineteen years since the dose of the war—nearly five Presidential toms. During all that period the executive and administrative service of the country has been under the control and management of one party. Should it so continue? ■During the period I have mentioned the receipts and expenditures aggregate a sum so enormous that I find myself unable to express them in words or figures within ordinary comprehension. I will take for illustration the year ended June 30,1883. The receipts into the Treasury were above $398,000,000, and the ordinary expenditures were above $265,000,000, making the receipts and expenditures of one year $663,000,000. The record of the collections and payments is .found in thousands of volumes, and it was made by many thousands of men. They were of one party, and, as I have said, bound by strong party ties. Inexorable and cruel proscriptions excluded one-half the people from all participation in that work. We know enough to justify the suspicion of ways that are dark; but I do not choose to consider the exposures that have been made. I prefer rather to appeal to your judgment that a change is necessary, because in the management of business so large, so varied and so complicated, mismanagement and corruption were possible and probable. I believe that good policy and justice unite in demanding a change, and without it we need not hope for administrative reform. But I would not imitate the Republican party in its proscription of all but party adherents. I repeat what I formerly said; '“That I hope never again to see the cruel and remorseless proscription for political opinions which has disgraced the administration of the last eight years. Bad as the civil service now is, as all know, it has some men of tried integrity and proved ability. Snoh men, and such men only, should be retained in office; but no man should be retained on any consideration who has prostituted his office to the purpose of partisan intimidation or compnlsion, or who has furnished money to corrupt elections.” Not long since I made the acquaintance of Gov. Cleveland. I found him affable and conrteous, clear and distinct in his views, and strong and direct in the expression of his purposes. He seemed to me as free from concealment and tne arts of the demagogue as any man I know. As far as I could judge iu a single conversation, I thought him in a marked degree governed in his official life by his convictions of duty. You do not expect him to escape criticism upon his official life. That can hardly be the fortune of any candidate. Touching that I believe his motives have not been impnnged nor his honesty questioned. In respect to his private life, we will not accompany his defamers in their search for ground of accusation back of the overwhelming vindication by his neighbors in three political contests of extraordinary brilliancy and success. In concluding his speech, Mr. Hendricks made a personal appeal for support, saying: “I cannot express how earnestly I desire the vote of Indiana. Although I did not want the nomination, now that 1 have got it, the vote of Indiana is the desire of my heart."