Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 39, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 October 1892 — The Speech of a Convert. [ARTICLE]

The Speech of a Convert.

William Dudley Foulke, who is how stumping the state for Cleveland, was the leader of the Republican side in the senate of 1883 and 1885. Until two months ago he was a member of the Columbia club of Indianapolis—the club that did so much at Minneapolis for Harrison. Four years ago he supported Harrison and stumped the states of New York and New Jersey. He has served as president of the National Civil Service Reform association. He is a tariff reformer. In his speech at Evansville last week he took strong groundis against the McKinley tariff and especially the reciprocity clause of the Dill, which gives the president the power to remove or replace the tariff against any country by proclamation. He said: “There can be no doubt that in this provision of the McKinley act the spirit of the constitution is broken in one of its most vital places. The charge is committed to the president, as to a dictator, to see to it that the commonwealth suffers no injury in these reciprocity arrangements. If the executive should be corrupt, where would be the limit of his power to perpetuate his own authority ? Let us suppose that in this election the exigencies of the Republican party and the unpopularity of the Republican administration required that not $1,000,000 but $10,000,000 of a campaign fund should be raised to overcome the convictions of the people. Two courses would be open to a president who is strongly convinced of the necessity of his own re-election: First. He could go to some great capitalist, say for instance to Mr. Wanamaker or Mr. Carnegie, and tell these gentlemen, ‘I must have a fund large enough to overcome any popular disapproval. A cabinet office, the very best cabinet office, the postmaster generalship, nay; the secretaryship of state, is at your disposal. Give me the sum I need.’ Or he can raise that sum in a manner far less patent to the people, and hence for less obnoxious, by saying to some trusty subordinate: ‘Buy all the sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and hides before the Ist of next November. On that day, I shall determine that the exactions of certain countries sending these articles to the United States are reciprocally unequal and unreasonable and the duties which will be imposed upon them will raise the price of everything you buy to the extent of the duty imposed.’ Hoyv many millions would be the profits of such an enterprise? What limit would there be to the debauchery of American politics possible under such an arrangement? Where the entire revenues of the government might be placed under the control of the president, as they conld be if sueh a precedent were logically extended, what limit would there be to the perpetuation of the power of an unscrupui lous dictator?”