Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 41, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 October 1892 — WHICH SHALL IT BE? [ARTICLE]

WHICH SHALL IT BE?

WILL PLUTOCRACY OR DEMOCRACY GET YOUR VOTE? The Democratic Party Still Occupies Its Old Historic Ground Against Monopoly Behind the Republican Mask—Worried by Ballot Reform. Plutocratic or Democratic? The eleetoral contest or this year is between Plutooraoy and Democracy. The Republican party, with its inslstance upon a greater exercise of the Government’s taxing power than any party ever before justitiod or attempted to defend, and with its demand for a Federal election law stronger in the assertion of Federal power than even the old Federalists dreamed of, has lost its charaoter as an American polltloal party. It has out-Federalized Federalism and out-Whigged Whiggory in its declaration that the property of the citizen and the rights of the States are alike subservient to tho demands of the National Government. It has, accordingly, ceased to be truly representative of any large body of citizens having Unrests ip Common with those of their fell&tys,and hits become the champion of classes vested with public privileges, whose interests lie in the direction of such a control of elections as will prevent any effective popular protost against their perpetuation. These glasses are varied and distributed among & number of industries, but they are all protected under one general law and combined fori the purpose of defeating any effort to repeal or amend it. They are all embraced in the terra Plutoeraoy.

Against .the plutocratic party thus for the first time oreatod in American politics the Democratic party still occupies its old historic ground. It Insists that the Government has no power to tax the citizen in excess of the needs of government economically administered. It protests against the principle asserted in the llopublioan national platform that the centralized government in ■Washington shall have control of the elections in tho States. Its position is that the fiscal legislation of the last generation, of which the McKinley law is the present consummation, is destructive of the great and prosperous middle class upon which the preservation of free government must depend, and tends towards the creation of widely separated classes representing great wealth and great poverty. It meets the assaults of its opponents on every line of detail involved in the discussion of the tariff question, but points to the thousands of colossal fortunes created by Republican legislation and the present prevailing comparative depression and want of opportunity in the great middle classes of society as a broad generalization of argument overshadowing all questions of petty detail, and as an illustration of’ prevailing tendencies. The Republican party as once organized and maintained for the assertion and defense of doctrine? defining the ideas of great bodies of men without special interests to serve is not a party to this campaign. The Plutocratic party Is masked behind the Republican name, but the disguise will be found a poor one if the results of the election of two years ago are not altogether misleading and deceptive. The Democratic party, at least, is fully aware of the tremendous importance of this struggle. Tho disappointments of great leaders or the ambitions of aspiring men have not been allowed to stand in the way of keen popu'ar apprehension of what would be Involved in the re-election of the man whose one term has carried his party away fiom Americanism to a Plutocracy asserting both the old feudal rights—to collect tithes and to govern i i council. The unification of the party in New York and the defeat of the People's party in the South is proof of this. There are abundant evidences that the situation is equally well understood in the Republican party. The men in middle life and middle rank in that party, who feel most heavily the hand of the tax-gatherer and most keenly the creation of a moneyed aristocracy which will overshadow themselves and their children, are pot unmindful of either their political or domestic portents. There are cheering assurances that the drst clearly defined conflict between plutocracy and Democracy in America will have a result worthy the history of our Anglo-Saxon race.—St. Louis Republic. ’ Cleveland or Harrison? While one might hesitate to predict the result of the election in November, it can be »ald without hesitation that Cleveland or Harrison will be the next President of the Unite I States. There is a disposition in certain quarters, where the Farmers’ Alliance' is strong, to abandon the Democratic candidate and vote for Gen. Weaver. This is due largely to the prevailing discontent and to low prices for farm products. Notwithstanding the agitation for free trade, little relief has been obtained. In fact, the exactions of the robber barons have been increased. Demagogues have used this dissatisfaction for their own purposes. What did the Democrats do, they say, when Mr. Cleveland was in office? They cut down expenditures; they put through the House of Representatives 1 bill reducing taxes, and Mr. Cleveland vetoed the dependent pension bill. It is to be remembered that the Democrats have not had since the war control or the law-making power of the Government They nad at one time the Senate and House; again, they had

the President and the House, but aid not have ihs Senate. They have: not been able to pass a single bill slnefe the war that was objectionable to the Republican party. All that they have been able to do has been in the House to check the extravagance of the Senate; in tho executive department, to introduce economy and business mothods. The purposes of tho Democratic party have been fully defined. They are written in the lamous tariff message of President Cleveland; they are found in the message vetoing the dependent pension bill; they were foreshadowed in Hie Mills bill. The Democratic party has moved forward step by stop. Every bill for the reduction of taxes supported by the party has been a step in advanoe of all previous measures. The Democrats presented first the Morrison horizontal bill, whloh was defeated. Next they offered the second Morrison bill, a more thorough and logical measure, and that was defeated. Then they formulated the Mills bill, a still more advanced measure, justified by the conditions of the country, a bill which should, as a compromise moasure, have been aocepted by the Senate; it was rejected. The next bill will be as far in advance of the Mills bill as the Mills bill was in advanoe of the Morrison horizontal bill. , Theso are the promises of the Democratic party, und the promises that they have made in every campaign have been fulfilled, as-far as was in their power when in control of either house of Congress. The recent. Congress refused the expenditures demanded by the Republican

officeholders and tho Senate They wero not able to return to the Cleveland level simply because the Reed Congress had so enlarged tbo pension list, and had enacted bounty and subsidy laws to such an extent that it was not possible to force the Republicans economically to administer (he government. If tho Democrats of the country will do their duty, if they will stand together, if they will refuse to divide their votes, they will not simply securo the election of Mr. Cleveland In November, but (hey. will also obtain control of the United Htates Senate. If that be dono, their professions muy for tho first time be put to the test. , The Republicaus in the North well understand that a vote cast for any other candidate than Cleveland is a vote for Harrison. In a recent speech in Ohio Gov. Foraker said: “There are a number of parties, and each has its candidate, but it may be assumed that, if they live, the next President of the United Slates will be either Harrison or Cleveland. If there were nothing more involved than a choioe between these men, every Republican should stand by his own standard bearer. His record Is much the better. Roth he and Cleveland commenced political life before the war. They began, and have ever since continued, in opposition parties. They havo all their lives represented and contended for conflicting and opposing ideas, principles and purposes." Let our friends of the t armors’ Alliance, and men who are dlsposod to try a new deal by voting for Gen. Weaver, consider this declaration of Gov. Forakor’s. It is as certain as anything In the future that the next Pro ident of the United States will be either Cleveland or Harrison. Failure to vote for Mr. Cleveland is at least a half vote for the election of Mr. Harrison.—CourierJournal. The Coat of Harrison. The ordinary expenditures of tho first three years of the Cleveland administration were $027,00(1,( 00. For the first threo years of the‘Harrison administration the ordinary expenditures have been $901,000,000. The three years of Harrison cost tho people $274,000,000 more than the three years of Cleveland. The average annual cost of the Cleveland administration was $209,000,000; of the Harrison administration over $300,000,000. These figures are for ordinary expenditures exclusive of expenditures for Binklng fund, for interest, for premiums and bond purchases and for the postal service. Harrison costs the country as much for ordinary expenses in three years as Cleveland did in four. Tho increase under Harrison is entirely due to the Republican policy of taxing earnings for the benefit of nonearners—a policy well illustrated In the case of the exorbitant direct bounty of over $10,000,0(0 a year paid to a few corporations in Louisiana and a few sap-boilers in Vermont. The Republican argument for giving these people public money Is that they could not earn It; that they were the crippled veterans of the tariff system, and that having existed under it until they were utterly incapable of independent self-support; they thereby became entitled to a pension direct from the Treasury. Every year, therefore, between $10,000,000 and $15,000,000 is taken direct from the pockets of people who have earned it sad paid to these incapables on the ground of their incapacity. There Is no metaphor about this. Tho money is taken directly out of the treasury and put directly Into their hands to do as they please with, and they are j not required to render the least service to tho Government in exchange for it. The same policy of bleeding.the earner for the nonearner is carried out in every direction —through direct subsidies to steamship corporations and In a general policy of extravagance intend-

ed to prevent the Igpßeningof indirect subsidies accruing uiser the high tariff taxes. The Republican party cannot be economical In admitaistratlon. Its theories involve the extravagant expenditure of other people’s earnings, and it grows more extravagant as it grows morn radical In the enforcement of its theories.