Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 26, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 July 1888 — HIS VOICE FOR REFORM. [ARTICLE]

HIS VOICE FOR REFORM.

Senator Whiting for Cleveland—Principles Above Parties, Measures Above Men. The President Representing a Great Principle—Views of a Life-Long Republican. [From the Chicago Herald.] “Men do not make enduring political parties. To earn and retain the confidence of the voters of this country a party .must bold principle higher than men.” Lorenzo D. Whiting was the speaker. He saw Chicago in 1838, he came to Tiskilwa fifty years ago; he was the trusted ally of Owen Love joy, the Abolitionist; again and again through eighteen years he was returned to the State Senate.by Republican votes. In 1869, in the Illinois Constitutional Convention Senator Whiting was the first to introduce a measure looking to the control of corporations by legislative enactment. A man of pronounced ability and rugged honesty, he is rounding his threescore years and ten in the respect of those who know him best. Six months age the Herald presented at some length the views of Tiskilwa’s farmer statesman on the tariff question. He said then that the issue of tariff reform -would dwarf all other issues in the campaign of 1888, and expressed a hope that the Republican party would array itself on the side of the people in the surely impending conflict. Senator Whiting has been disappointed in the action of the Chicago Convention, but he will not eat crow. He says that the Republican masses of the country were not fairly represented by the body over which Thurston and Estee presided, and thinks there are hundreds of thousands of Republicans who will not surrender principle at the dictation of a class interest. “I do not like to take my Republicanism from B. F. Jone 3,” he said, “for it is so unlike the doctrine which Abraham Lincoln advocated. William Walter Phelps is not an acceptable substitute for Wendell Phillips. No protected lumber barons can interpret to me the Republicanism which was taught by the lips of Owen Lovejoy.“ln the old days the Republican party was not run in the interest of factory and mins owners, and a railroad man controlling $300,000,000 of capital was not supreme dictator.” The object of the wi iter in visiting Tiskilwa was to obtain Senator Whiting’s views on the platforms adopted at St. Louis and Chicago. “I have,” continued Senator Whiting, “studied the two platforms chiefly in reference to the tariff planks. The tariff issue now before the country is the most important question we have been called upon to consider since slavery was abolished. The Republican party, through its last convention, transformed itself into a high tariff and monopoly party. I cannot think of the convention that nominated Harrison as a Republican convention. It was a high tariff and monopoly assemblage. It took an entirely new departure on the tariff, leaving all the grounds it has formerly occupied. When the present war tariff was levied, as a compensation for the direct tax which was laid on manufactured goods, it was conceded by its authors and all supporters that the two, coming in t ogether, would go out together. But when the direct taxes were removed from manufactured goods the protectionists managed to retain the high tariff. The country submitted, on the groundthat the money, so far as it went to the Treasury, was. applied to pay off the war debt; but all parties conceded that the time was near at hand when it would be improper to continue this high war tariff. Strong protectionists then said its continuance would be unjust to other interests. But now what do

we eee? These protected Interests, having long enjoyed its advantages, have joined in a combination, offensive and defensive, to make a war tariff a permanency. Their first oracles to broach their scheme were Messrs. Randall and Kelley, who, something more than a year ago, openly advocated that the national revenue should be reduced by the removal of the tax on spirits and tobocob. This proposition was then deemed by the people generally to be too absnrd for serious consideration. Massachusetts and the F.ast generally (where the prole'-' d interests dominate in public affairs), thro gh State convention! and the press, gave it t • ’ indorsement. The nearly unanimous public sentiment of the West was for retaining the tax on spirits and tobacco and removing it from lumber, coal, salt, and reducing it on the other necessaries of life. The former, through their grangers’ alliances and fanners’ institutes, were unanimous in demanding su h a tariff redaction, but lhe politicians who secured the representative positions in the State and national conventions were passive and allowed the combin d protected interests to shape the revenue plank in the platform. “1 regard the action of the Chicago convention as a- new departure, dictated by powerful interests for perpetuating an unjust' advantage which the exigency of war had given them. I consider it a robbery of the West to enrich the Kast. I think it is drawing the life blcod from Western agriculture to give large bounties to a class interact. TJiis country affords so many advantages for such an enterprise that by running on full time and with economies which are now in many cases disregarded, their profits will not l>e reduced and the wages of their employes will be greater because of the increased demand. In the early days of the republic commerce was counted aa one of the great elements of prosperity. Commerce is a civilizer and enricher of nations. It is contrary to the genius of our institutions and the instincts of our people to adopt the Chinese plan proposed by the late high-tariff convention. Though I would not suddenly make radical changes in the tariff, the protected interests should prepare for the application of that sound principle that a business or interest which cannot sustain itself is not worth sustaining by others. The American people are rapidly learning that to protect one interest is to ao it at some other, one’s expense. “I would retain the internal revenue taxes on spirits and tobacco as one of the permanent sources of revenue. I fully indorse Mr. Blaine when he Baid, not long ago, that he would tax whisky so long as there was any whisky to be taxed. I fully indorse Presidents Grant, Garfield, Arthur, and Cleveland in their declared purpose to keep the taxes on spirits and tobacco so as to give a proper opportunity for reforming the war tariff. I regard the revenue plank in the high-tariff platform as no lees an indorsement of Grant, Garfield, and Arthur, with their distinguished Secretaries of the Treasury, than of Mr. Cleveland. This new departure of the late high-tariff convention at Chicago is not only condemnation of Mr. Cleveland, but of these distinguished Republican statesmen and of the Republican party up to a very recent period.

“Its success at the polls cannot destroy tariff reform, but it will a lay it and convulse the country for an indefinite time to the detriment of other reforms. It will continue a system of robbery which the farmers cannot much longer endure. Tariff-reform Republicans now face an exigency which taxes to the utmost their wisdom and courage and faithfulness to principle. It seems to be plain that they must refuse to support the doings of the Chicago convention. The majority of Republican tariff-reformers will be averse to identifying themselves with the Democratic party, though that party at this juncture, in its platform at St. Louis and doings in Congress, substantially represents their views. It seems to me to be desirable that there Bhall be some public consultation on the part of such Republicans to decide what action they will take to sustain their principles. If that decision should be to support Mr. Cleveland, the purpose of such support could be publicly made known. In the several Congressional districts of Illinois, and I think in the West generally, ’' there should be found a practicable way for all tariff-reform-ers, of whatever party, to combine in supporting a tariff-reform candidate. “I view with great apprehension the fact that the late Chicago convention was so completely officered and controlled by the great monopolies of the country. There is nothing less than the defeat of the Republican party that can purge it of this dangerouß element. Its success would be the success of monopoly. I somewhat anticipate that a real anti-monopoly party must be organized in the near future. On all of the principles which constituted the Republican party in regard to slavery and the war I am as ardent as I ever was. Were those issues present Ones I would be as zealous in the cause as ever. I helped to organize the Republican party in Bureau County in 1854, and never from that time till now voted for any candidate for office but a Republican. But I regard principle as above party, and party as but a means to carry out> principles. I can not regard the late Chicago convention as Republican. In all its essential features it was a convention of classes and monopolists.” “When you tell your Republican friends this, what do they say ?” “I am sometimes asked when I met with my change of opinion. I reply: I have not changed. One year ago, I say to my Republican questioner, you were with me for retaining the taxes on spirits and tobacco, and for making the reduction of national taxes on the necessaries of life. I know of no Republican who then dissented from this proposition. You were with me six months ago, and two months ago, and down to the time of the promulgation of the Chicago platform. If you now indorse that tariff plank, you must have changed almost in the twinkling of an eye. You accuse me of change 1 If you will Btudy your own case you will see where the change comes in. t “If the occasion called for it I could shout as ardently as ever: ‘Free soil, free speech and free men,’ but I do not expect that the high-tariff confederacy will ever induce me to shout forfree whisky and free tobacco. “The National Republican party was formed in Pittsburg in 1850, and the platform on which Fremont was nominated related to slavery, Mormonism and the public lands, making no reference whatever to the tariff. The platform on which Mr. Lincoln was nominated in 1860 was slightly injected with incidental protection to please Pennsylvania. The Republicans in Congress in 1858, even those from Massachusetts, joined the Democrats in reducing the tariff,' conforming to the principle of a tariff for revenue. The Republican platform in 1864 made no reference to tee tariff. Fromthat time up to the last Chicago convention the declarations' in regard to the tariff were moderate and constant in favoring a reduction of the war tariff/ Mr. Garfield did not Jose his standing as a Republican b declaring in his speech in Congress that he was for that kind of protection which’ led to free trade. “The high tariffites claim that the system of protection commenced under Washington’s administration. That tariff, however, averaged but 8 per cent., and up to the war of 1812 it did not reach 15 per cent. The war of 1812 forced into existence many manufacturing establishments. Henry Clay, with considerable pro-: priety, proposed to protect for a time these Infant industries. In 1843 Mr. Clay deolared that the doctrine of protection was a temporary expedient to protect infant industries which! hal now grown mostly to maturity, and would not much longer require protection.” “Does protection in any instance within your knowledge increase the pay of the laborer?” “I think that in no case within my knowledge does it increase the laborer's pay. The high tariff has tended strongly to derange labor by. stimulating into existence more establishments than the country needed. Many of the strikes and lock-outs have been caused by the desire of the mill owner to stop production. The wages of labor are regulated by supply and demand,. the employers always seeking to hire at the lowest price. The claim of a high tariff as a' protection for American labor really means high tariff to prot ct monopoly." “As between the St. Louis and Chicago platforms which do you intend to support?" “The Chicago platform clearly demands a continuance of the tax upon farmers to give bounties to the manufacturers. The St. Louis platform, on the contrary, demands such a reform of the tariff aa will give great relief to agriculture. Unless farmers are willing from partisan mo-, tives to vote that heavy and unjust burdens shall be imposed upon them, they must vote, down the Chicago platform. The St. Louis platform declares In the line of the interest of farmers and other consumers, and there should be found a way in this emergency by which they con give it their earnest support. Personally,' believing Grover Cleveland to be the forenjost champion of the rights of the people, I shall support at the polls the views he advanced in ms brave message. Grover Cleveland has grown in public estimation, in ability and in character. He represents a great principle, and when a, principle is at stake I shall be true to my convictions. This year, to be consistent, I must in-< dorse by ballot, pen and voice the platform of the St. Louis convention,” -J