Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 7, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 March 1888 — KENNA ON THE TARIFF. [ARTICLE]

KENNA ON THE TARIFF.

The West Virginia Senator Replies to . the Ohio Protectionist’s Harangue. A Vlgorons Defense of the President’s Message and Administration. The Republican Party Arraigned for Its Sacrifice of Workingmen’s Interests. Mr. Kenna, of West Virginia, recently delivered an able speech in the Senate on the subject of the President’s message on the surplus, revenue and tariff matters. He said that Senator Sherman was conspicuous in the councils of his party and had much to do with the shaping of its policy, so that his assault on the President s position in favor of revenue reform and reduction of taxation was to be regarded as significant Time and thought had been devoted to the preparation of that speech, and the assault had been deliberate. It might, therefore, be fairly assumed that the Senator’s “reply” was exhaustive of his own and of his party’s resources on that important subject, and the speech might justly be regarded as a challenge. The speech, taken in connection with the Senator’s former utterances on

the same and similar subjects, presented an astounding contrast and irreconcilable 'conflict—an enigma which he would proceed briefly to analyze. After quoting some extracts from Mr. Sherman’s speech, and also extracts from the works of Jefferson, from messages of Presidents Jackson and Arthur, from the reports of Secretary Folger, Secretary McCulloch, and Secretary Manning, he summed up by saying that two Republican and two Democratic Secretaries of the Tresury and one Republican and one Democratic President had successively united in condemnation of a surplus revenue and in demanding a reduction in the public burdens. There never had been a time when the unnecessary withdrawal from circulation of the currency of the country and its hoarding in the Treasury was justifted or calmly contemplated. The Senator from Ohio was the only derson who seemed to regard such a condition as a “good fortune.” Such a condition had always created apprehension, and had sometimes contributed to panic and financial disaster. And yet. when the President, inspired by the teachings of his country’s history, dared to raise his voice to arrest impending calamity, the Senator from Ohio would laugh to scorn the admonition, and would hold up its author to ridicule. The Senator had forgotten his own anxieties when, surrounded in Congress by a majority of his own party friends in 1882, he exclaimed that there was no sentiment in the country stronger than that Congress had neglected its duty in not repealing taxes that were obnoxious and unnecessary, and that he was determined that the sin should hot lie at his door. The Senator from Ohio had assailed the President because of the statement in the message that there appeared be no just complaint of the taxes on spirits, tobacco, and beer, and had argued that “the traditions in policy of our people are against internal taxes.” When, asked Mr. Kenna, had the Senator undergone a change of heart on that important subject? The Senator had declared in 1867 that spirits, wine and tobacco were “undoubtedly the first objects that should be taxed.” He should not follow the Senator in all that he had said as to the surplus in the Treasury, but two instances would suffice. The Senator had denounced Congress for its failure to provide subsidies for postal comm unication with South American States, and had denounced the President for his failure to approve the river and harbor bill. But the question'of subsidies was familiar to the whole people. The antagonism of the President and of his party to the subsidizing of special interests or classes needed no defense at his hands. That invention of the Republican party had never found favor with the Democracy, It was against the fairness and spirit and genius of American institutions. This country had no ships. The pretended policy of protection had driven them from the high seas. They could not be built to compete with the Clyde ships, and the Republican obstructive policy would not allow them to be sailed under the American flag. Turning to the subject of the tariff, Mr. Kenna said that the tariff laws in force now, with some modifications, adopted by peculiar and questionable methods in 1882, are substantially those known as the “Morrill tariff of 1867.” The Senator from Ohio aided largely in passing that tariff. He denied that the large increase of that period was intended for the protection of labor. He denied that reducing the duties increased the revenue. The Senator has recognized the fact which all were bound to admit, that whether lowering or increasing the duty will add to the revenue is a question depending upon other considerations than the arbitrary amount of the schedule. A duty might be so high as to S revent importations and yield no revenue. 'he other extreme was free trade, which would likewise destroy the income, and nobody asked for free trade. The true solution was a fair and just mean which would produce exactly the revenues the country needed, according to the plain dictates of common honesty, as declared by the last Democratic platform, in “a spirit of fairness to all interests.” Mr. Kenna compared the present attitude of Senator Sherman with his former utterances on the subject of the tariff. The Senator had appealed to the labor of the country, and had declared that to lift the burdens of the laboring man and to give him equal opportunities in the great struggle ot life would be to degrade him. To show the Senator’s inconsistency on that point, he referred to the law ot July 4, 1864, passed under the special patronage of Mr. Sherihan, allowing immigration under contract This, Mr. Kenna said, was the first formal and official introduction of foreign serfdom into free America. In very recent years the Senator voted against a bill to restrict the immigration of Chinamen. He afterward pleaded for a limitation of the term of the exclusion to five years, and finally voted for the last bill, insisting that every skilled laborer in China should be excluded from its operation. It was undoubtedly true, Mr. Kenna said, that while our excess of import duties had a tendency to build up and foster monopolies and enrich the few at the expense of the many, it had a like tendency to invoke free competition to labor and to

reduce the workingmen to the minimum of compensation. It had drawn a vast army from Europe to compete with labor in America. By the increased cost of living it had made life a burden to workingipen here. By a false stimulus to his industries for a time it had invited millions to become his open competitors from every hilltop and valley in our own country, and from every quarter and section of the civilized world. The Hungarian, the Italian, and the Chinaman had crowded him alike. They had “come from every nation, come from every way.” Yet laboring men are blandly told they are to bind themselves, hand and foot, forever and forever, to a system which gives them all the free trade and competition, and to others and the priviliged few the monopoly and the profit Mr. Kenna said he was mistaken in the intelligence of American labor if it allowed that condition longer to exist. He had no further purpose in the discussion than to indicate his co-operation with the President in the interest of the people. A bill to reform the revenue system and to reduce taxation would come from the House of Representatives, and be did not doubt that it would be framed in a spirit of conservative fairness to all sections of the country, and to all interests. The cry of the demagogue that the President and his policy were aiming at the lessening of a just reward of labor was as indecent as it was false. The system of taxation in this country for the last twenty years had been a standing menace, and a'constant injury to the laborer himself. Wno would deny that the system which had prevailed under Republican administrations in this country and for years past had made more strikes, driven more men from employment, filled the country with more tramps, created more discontent, and produced more starvation and death than any other system the country ever saw? Was it not time for a change? And yet, when the President of the United States, confronting bravely the solemn requirements of his high office and daring to preserve a patriotic regard for his public responsibilities, ventured the suggestion of a remedy which had been demanded by one administration after another, he was assailed by one of the acknowedged leaders of the Republican organization as frivolous in his action or bent on destruction. It might as well be understood now as hereafter that this movement for reform and the relief of public burdens, in which the President baa gallantly and manfully taken the lead, meant practical results. The country was aroused to the justice of its demands. The ranks would be closed. A spirit of fairness and of justice would prevail in all things, and both the benefits and the burdens of our system of taxation would be distributed fairly. That system, both internal and external, would be treated as a whole. The tax on tobacco he had no doubt would be reduced or repealed. Iron and coal and wool and other products of labor and care and enterprise would not be sacrificed in the revision. They would stand as other industries stood, subject to their fair share, in the benefits of whatever the system as revised might be, and bearing their fair share of the burdens of the common lot. The Senator from Ohio had been greatly agitated over the wool question. It might be that his vote in 1882 to reduce the duty on wool, when, as a leading member of the Conference Committee which practically framed that revision, he led in the movement, had made him unduly sensitive on that subject. Having aided in reducing the product of the wool growers, he might now feel impelled to “pull the wool over their eyes." A statement had been made in open Senate and in the hearing of the country by an honorable Senator in 1881, that “anything that will beat down that party and build up our own is justifiable in morals and in law.” There was ample room for a reduction of the existing taxes without violence to any interest. No extremes needed to be resorted to. The measure of duty which filled the difference between the cost of production in the United States and abroad (with cost of transportation! was protection to labor and fair competition to the employer. The measure that went beyond that was monopoly to the employer and unfair competition to labor. The Democratic party had never been the enemy of labor. Maintaining the ancient doctrine of home rule, special privileges to none, and equality before the law, it had ever been the safest guardian of the poor and the humble. Labor would find under its control of the Government a fairer, a securer, and a better reward: but monopoly, fortified and intrenched behind twenty years and more of Republican exaction and misrule, would have to go. Its citadel would be stormed, and in this Congress its oxactions would be denied. Its hold on the throats of the masses would be broken. The mask of Republican protection would be torn from the face of hypocrisy and deceit and extortion. In conclusion, Mr. Kenna said:

The question before us at this time is the bare reference to the President’s message. The debate upon that question has been precipitated and calculated to alarm and to territy the country. But the country has been long preparing for this conflict. It is now ready for the fray. It is my candid judgment that the great masses of the people will indorse and support this brave struggle for their rights, and for relief from their bondage. A generation of young men is rising up about us who are to control the dest nies of the republic. They are to be taught that the password to their future advancement is “Equality before the law." They are to realize their obligations to country, but they are to realize and cherish as well the obligations of country to them. The child of labor and the child of fortune, linked in a common destiny, bound by the ties which should know no breaking, are to go on together, guided by the spirit of our institutions and inspired by the genius of our country’s freedom. These are to constitute the men of the republic