Rensselaer Republican, Volume 17, Number 2, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 September 1884 — Page 9

SPEECH OF HON. J. M. BUTLER.

DELIVERED AT Connersville, August 30, 1884. ♦ ■ — - Fellow-citizens: Standing on the battlefield of Gettysburg, Lincoln said: “It is for us. the living, to be dedicated to the unfinished work ■which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is for us to be here dedi* cated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion for that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, arid' that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this earth.” These words were spoken for all time. They are as applicable to the pending contest of the ballot as they were to the fiercer conflict of the bullet and the bayonet Government “by the people and for the people’’ car. only be perpetuated by continued dedication to intelligence, integrity and patriotism. The voter who casts a careless, ignorant or corrupt ballot is an enemy to free government. The study of politics, in the broadest and best sense of the word, .and the full investigation of the differing 'policies of the political parties contending for the control of the government, are duties good citizens will not omit The Parties and Their Work. . HOW TO MEASURE PARTIES. The man who expects to find a perfect political party whose every measure and policy meets his full approval, will be disappointed, and die without the sight. Something, often much, must be yielded by the. individual voter to the underlying principle that the majority must rule. The bed-rock upon which our government rests is that the average judgment of the majority is safe. The doctrine of the superiority of the remnant may fit a monarchy, or . a despotism, but it has no-place in a free government of the people, by the people. The voter who claims to be too good and too pure to vote with cither Of the great political parties, simply because neither of them has espoused his particular hobby, will hardly purify or ennoble any political party. He is too narrow for a free government based upon the aggregate will of the governed—almost too good for earth, and yet not ripe for heaven. Every intelligent voter in the United States knows that either the Republican party or the Democratic party will control this government after the pending election. Which of these two parties is to have control is to be. again determined at the ballot-box; If the results of the past prove one of these parties far better and safer than the other, if the leading policies and measures of the one party are good, and tend toward the development, prosperity and elevation of the country, while the policies and measures of the other party are bad and tend to retard development, unsettle business, crush prosperity and check growth; if the promises and pledges of the One party are plain, unequivocal and just, while those of the other party are ambiguous, equivocal and double-tongued; the voter who, knowing all this, deliberately withholds his ballot from the party t¥uit is right in the main, and wastes it by easting it in support of some pet theory impossible of present success, commits a wrong against his country but little less than a crime. There are three tests by • which it is sate to measure and compare political parties. First., their past conduct; second, their present principles, performances and. pledges; third, the moral character and standing of the leaders and of the rank and til*. These tests, fairly applied, will not leave an honest-minded voter in doubt as to which party best merits his support. A review of the record cannot be charged by Democrats as an attempt to call up unpleasant mem ories. Even if it were, the Democratic party could not complain. Fully one-half of the socalled Democratic national platform consists of false charges against the Republican party. A line or two will suffice to show its animus, and at the same time justify a comparison of the past conduct of the two parties. It says: “The Republican party, during its legal, its stolen and its bought tenures of power, has steadily decayed in moral character and political capac ity. Its platform promises are now a list of its past failures. • * * Honey combed with corruption, outbreaking exposures no longer shock its moral- sense.’’ If there is a grain of truth in these statements, the Republican party ought to be beaten. - Happily, the history of our country, known and read of all men, proves these charges to be malicious falsehoods, the fruit of corrupt minds. The Republican party courts and challenges the fullest investigation of every part of its record. Can the Democratic party say as much! Consider for a moment the chief political questions of the last twenty-five years, and let the facts of history show which party has been right and which has been wrong. The Democratic party was the friend and ally of slavery. The Republican party was the enemy of slavery The Democratic party declared that the United States was not a nation, but a mere federation of States, dissoluble at the will of any State. The Republican party declared the United States is A nation and proved the declaration. The The Democratic party declared that the government of the United States could not. and should not, protect its life from assassination at the hands ot its enemies. The Republican party did protect the life of the Nation, and “government of the people, bv the people,’ and for the people,” has not perished from the earth. Just twenty years ago this same Democratic party, in national convention assembled, solemnly declared the war for the preservation of the Union a failure, and demanded that the government should surrender and cease hostilities. The Republican party stead fastly continued its hostilities against armed re bellion until every armed rebel surrendered, and the Warwas a complete success. The Democratic party declared that our flair—the stars and stripes—was not an emblem of national power worthy of honor and homage. The Republican party unfurled it, and in the light of its stars conquered rebellion, and made it the proudest, freest banner on earth. The Democratic party declared that greenbacks were valueless, frauds upon the people, branded with the mark of Cain. The Republican party held that the promises of the United States government were worth their face in gold, and it has made them 80. The Democratic party declared that negroes should not be permitted to fight rebels. The Republican party enlisted negroes in the army and gave them the privilege of helping to preserve and redeem the govern ment The Democratic party declared that slavery should not be abolished. The Republican party said slavery is the the cause of rebellion; it shall cease. Slavery died and the Union lived. The Democratic party opposed the homestead Taw. The Republican party passed the law, and hundreds of thousands of independent, thrifty homes are the results. The Democratic party opposed the reconstruction acts. The Republican party passed the reconstruction laws, and re-established the government upon the sure foundations of liberty and equal rights before the law. The Democratic party was hostile to the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments to the Constitution. It voted against them and opposed their adoption, even to the forced dismemberment of State Legislatures by bolts and resignations. The Republican partysaid these three amendments, embodying the results of the war. shall be made part of our national Constitution. They were adopted. Slavery is forever pro hibited. Equal civil rights are guaranteed to all. The rebel debt can never be paid. Our national debt can never be questioned, and the humblest Diack man-casts as potent a ballot as the mightest Democrat. The Democratic party opposed the act providing for the resumption of specie payment. In his letter of acceptance, in 1876 ; Thomas A. Hendricks, now again Demo cratic candidate for Vice president, adopting the words of the Democratic national platform, said: “tVe denounce the resumption clause of the act of 1875, and demand its repeal.” The Republican party passed the resumption act, and specie payment was resumed on the day fixed by law. ’lhe Democratic party has re peatedly declared in favor of free trade, and ■when in power has, by legislation hostile to protection) paralyzed business, checked growth,

crushed our manufactures, crippled our home 1 industries, and reduced our laborers to want. J The Republican party has steadily maintained a protective tariff system, under which our national growth, development and prosperity have become the wonder and envy of the world. This is but a glance at the record, but it will serve to make pertinent a question each voter should carefully consider, namely: Which party has manifested signs of “decay of moral character and political capacity?” The Republican party has been right on all these questions, and it is right to-day on all the politi cal questions now in issue. When, and upon what question, has the Democratic party been right? What political capacity has it shown? . What has it done within the last quarter of a century, even tending to prove that it has any moral character? No Democrat will attempt to defend the record of the Democratic party. It is utterly indefensible. HONESTY, FIDELITY.AND THRIFT OF REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION. Andrew Jackson is no longer the patron saint of the Democratic party. He has been removed from his niche in the Democratic temple, and the shadowy form of Samuel J. Tilden, of Cipher alley, has been put in his place. On Juno 10, 1884. Tilden wrote a farewell letter to the Democratic party. A month later the Democratic party, in its National platform, warmly indorsed this letter and formally dedicated itself to the memory of the said Samuel J. Tilden. In this letter Tilden says: “Twenty years of continuous maladministration under the demoralizing influences of intestine war and of bad finance have infected the-whole governmental system of the. United States with the cancerous growths of false construction and corrupt practices.” As an echo to this base slander Thomas A. Hendricks, in his speech of July 12, ratifying his own nomination, said: “I come before you, Democrats, conservatives, independents—all men who wish to restore the government to the position it occupied before these corrupting times, to all such men I make my appeal for your support for the high office to which I have been noipinated by the Democracy at Chicago.” Twenty years of continuous maladministration! Let us consider for a moment. These twenty years cover a great deal in thW history of this Republic. They cover the march of Grant to Richmond and the march of Sherman to the Sea. They cover Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Mission Ridge <md Appomattox. They cover the redemption of the government from a Democratic rebellion. They cover the reconstruction measures, the legal-tender and national currency acts, the amendments to the Constitution, the resumption of specie payments, the refunding acts, and the inauguration of civilservice reform. Is all this mal administration? These twenty years extend back to the convention of 1864 in which the Democratic party declared the war for the preservation of the government a failure. Tills same Samuel J. Tilden was a member of the committee on resolutions of that convention, and Thomas A. Hendricks gave his full approval to that resolution. What would have been the history of the United States if the Democratic party had remained in power? A line would have told it all. • “Gone down in dishonor and blotted from the map of nations” would have been the recital. The official records of the government regarding losses by the dishonesty and corruption of officials, are in: structive to the voter who desires to cast his vote in favor of honest administration. These records show that during the eight years of •Jackson's administration the government lost by defalcation of officers $7.52 on each SI,OOO of the entire receipts and disbursements of the government. During Van Bu run's—administration the loss by defalcations was $11.71 per SI,OOO. Under Polk the percentage of loss was $4.08 per SI,OOO. Under Pierce $3.56 per SI,OOO. Under Buchanan $3.81 per SI,OOO. These figures give a fair illustration of Democratic official integrity. Compare this showing with the record of the Republican administrations. Remember that the Republican administrations have borne the expense of a great war, and have been subject to the risk and loss incident to the calling of a large number of new and untried men into public service. Yet mark the results. Under Lincoln the losses were only 76cents on each SI,OOO. Under Johnson the loss was only 57 cents on each SI,OOO, Under Grant the loss was only 24 cents on each SI,OOO. Under Hayes the entire loss was only eighttenths of one mill on each SI,OOO. Arthur’s administration is not yet finished, hence the record can not yet be made up in full, but it will show equally well with the other Republican administrations. Notwithstanding the fact that the Republican party, during its administration of the government, has collected and disbursed nearly ten times as much money as was collected and disbursed during the sev-enty-two years of the existence of the government, prior to the first Republican administration, yet the total losses by dishonest officials under Republican administration aggregate ten million dollars.less than the total losses by dishonest officials during the seventy-two years preceding Lincoln’s inauguration. ’ Reduced to a proportion the account stands thus: Losses by dishonest and corrupt officials have been one dollar Republican, to eleven dollars Democratic. Which party has proved itself the most frustwdrty? In his ratification speech of July 12, Mr. Hendricks devoted much of his time to the loss of $63,000, by the Navy Department through the dishonesty of two of the officials in that department, and made it the text for a pathetic appear to “let the Democratic boys come in out of the cold and warm their toes." It was an unfortunate text, because the context of the record of that same department sadly mars the beauty of the application. The official records disclose the fact that during the last six years of Democratic administration, from 1854 to 1860, in this same Navy Depart ment. there were numerous defalcations of Democratic officials, amounting, in the aggregate, to $478,000; and now. in twenty-four years of Re nublican administration $63’000 have been stolen, and it turns out thatJ:his_was stolen by two Democrats. During the last Democratic administration, Democratic officials embezzled many millions of dollars of trust funds, pillaged the Nation’s forts and arsenals, robbed the government custom-houses, bankrupted the treasury, and ended by committing treason against the government that had nourished and honored them. What has the Democratic party done to redeem its lost chraacter? Finance, Currency and Taxation. TBE SURPLUS, The Democratic party complains that the Republican party has too much money—that there is too large a surplus in the national treasury. (That is a charge that never could be .made against the Democratic party.) In 1861 the Democratic party retired from power, leaving as a legacy and abiding proof of its moral character and political capacity, a national debt of $64,842,287, contracted in time of peace and national prosperity: an empty treasury; an impoverished credit; andagigantie rebellion threatening the life of the Nation. The money cost of subduing the rebellion increased this national debt until on August 31. 1865, it amounted to $2,756,431,571.43. On June 30, 1884, that debt had been reduced so that our total debt, less cash in the treasury, was only $1,450,050,235. Amount of our national debt paid off in the nineteen years from 1865 tv 1884, $1,306,381,336.43. In 1865 at the close of the war, our annual interest charge amounted to to $150,977,697.87, On June 30, 1884,- our annualinterest charge was only $47,994,832. Total reduction of annual interest charge during the nineteen years $102,982,865. These fadts show that the surplus revenues, of which the Democratic party complains have been most wisely and economically used in the payment of nearly one-half of our entire national debt, thereby lifting an annual burden of over one hundred millions of dollars of interest off from our shoulders, and making the burden of debt that will descend to our children comparatively light The Republican party does not believe that a large national debt is a national blessing.. It believes in paying the debt as fast as it can be paid without oppression. So long as the Nation has an interest-bearing debt unpaid there will be a proper place to dispose of any surplus revenue. The Republican party, by wise legislation, has provided that all surplus revenue shall be applied to the reduction ’of the public debt, thereby making it possible to still '- further reduce taxation. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, $101,040,971 of the public debt has been paid off. Yet the patron saint of the Democratic party says we have had twenty years of mal-ad-ministration, and bad finance, and Hendricks—the remnant of the old ticket —begs for the support of “all men who wish to restore the gov-

SUPPLEMENT.

ernment to the position it occupied before these corrupting times!” During the" lust Democratic administration, the credit of the government was so low that the government loans could not be negotiated at less than 10 to 12 per cent, > interest. and found few takers even at those rates. To-day our citizens willingly lend money to our government at three per cent, interest (Yet the Democratic platform says that the Republican party has for twenty four years “steadily decayed in moral character and political capacity!” How sublime must have been the moral character, how transcendent the political capacity of the Republican party in its early days, if, after twenty-foiir years Of-steady decay, it can bring forth such results. , tThe Republican party has furnished the United States,with the best and safest currency it ever had. and as good as the world has produced. Who would dare to advance the proposition of a return toDemocratic free bank, worthless currency? The Republican party was right on the greenback question, and has always insisted that every dollar of paper currency issued should be readily convertible into gold and silver Without- loss. The voters of this Nation should remember that after denouncing greenbacks as frauds upon the people, the Democratic party demanded that "the government should violate its pledge, limiting by law the amount of greenbacks to be issued, and called for an unlimited issue of greenbacks, which would have been bad faith and virtual repudiation, rendering a return to specie payments impracticable. The Republican party stood, firmly by " the’ plighted -faith of the Nation, - kept inviolate its solemn promise, and speedily made every dollar of greenback and national bank currency worth its face in gold. The Republican party has long favored, and now urges the permanent fixing of the relative values of gold and silver coinage by iriternational agreement, to the end that a common standard of value may be established that will enable the United States to use the silver coined from its mines as an auxiliary in conducting its foreign commerce. Upon this important question theJDeniocratic party is si lent in its national platform. '. — —reduction of taxation! — The Democratic national platform contains this statement: “We denounce the Repuclican party for having failed to relievo the people from crushing war taxes which have paralyzed business, crippled industry and deprived labor of employment and just reward.” Hendricks in his ratification speech of Julj- 12, says: “There has been no reduction in public expenditures, although the war all the while is passing further and further away from us. Still, this Republican party makes no reduction in public expenditures. Shall we have good government? Shall we have low taxes?” Now. every intelligent person in the United States knows that both of those statements are untrue. The statutesand official records prove them to be false. But, before stating what has been accomplished by the Republican party upon this point, let us inquire what has the Democratic party done toward reducing national taxation? The specious promise that it will reduce taxes is a favorite deceit practiced Ay the Democratic party. How has it kept these promises? It is now nineteen years since the war closed. During that period the Democratic party had control of the House of Representatives of the Fortyfourth, Forty-fifth, Forty-sixth, and Forty-eighth Congresses. All bills touching the raising of government revenues must,'under the Constitution, originate in the lower house of Congress. The Democratic party has had full control of the lower house of Congress -nearly one halt of the time since the war closed, and has had control of both houses of Congress two years of that time What reduction of taxes has it made? The only reduction of internal revenue taxation made during the eight years the Democratic party has had control of the lower house of Congress, is that the tax on quinine has been removed, and even that reduction was accomplished, byßepublican votes in the House and Senate. Now what has the Republican jiarty done towards lowering war taxes? During the war almost every article, trade and occupation was heavily taxed by the general government. Taxes thus raisedare called internal revenue, as distinguished from customs revenue derived from duties paid upon imported articles, which are called tariff taxes. As soon as the war was over the Republican party began to reduce taxation, following one reduction by another as rapidly aS the necessities and the preservation of the faith and credit of the Nation would permit. Eight different reductions of internal revenue taxes have been made by the Republican party, aggregating a total reduction of annual internal revenue taxation to the amount of over two hundred and fifty millions of dollars. Articles,,, trades and occupations that produced, in the year ending jlune 30, 1866. an internal revenue of over two hundred and fifty million dollars, are now entirely exempt from federal taxation. ■ --—... The Republican party has also made reductions in the tariff revenue aggregating a total reduction of nearly one hundred million dollars in our annual customs revenue. Only three articles now pay anyjnternal revenue tax; they are liquors, tobacco and national banks — while the list of imported articles admitted, free of tariff duties has been largely increased. Now let us see what truth there is in Hendricks’s statement that “This Republican party makes no reduction in expenditures.” : _A2__* The net ordinary expenses of the government, during the war, without including interest and payments on the national debt, were as follows, as shown by the warrants actually paid by the Treasurer of the'United States: 1862, $456,379,896.81: 1863, $694,004,575.56: 1864, $811,283,679.14: -1865, $1,217,704,199.28. As early as 1867 the Republican party had so reduced expenditures that the net ordinary expenditures of the government for the fiscal year 1867 were only $202,947,733.87, which is $56,253,353.26 less than the present Democratic Congress has appropriated for the net ordinary expenditures of the government for the current year ending June 30. 1885. By the year 1871 the" Republican party had reduced expenditures until the net ordinary expenditures of the government for that year were only $157,583,827.58, which is more than one hundred million dollars less than the present Democratic Congress has appropriated for the expenditures of this current year. In 1883 the expenditures were $206,248,006.39, about one-third of which was for pensions. Congress, at the session just closed, appropriated $259,201,087.13 for the current fiscal year. These statements, from the official records of the government, prove that the statements of the Democratic party on the sub ject of reduction of federal taxation are as false as the promises of that party upon the same subject have always proved to be. The record shows that the Republican party has reduced taxation as fast as the interests of the government would permit, and. proves that it can be trusted to make still further reductions whenever consistent with the public good. The Tariff Question. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR PROTECTION. Three ways are open to the United States gov eminent by which it may raise revenue, namely: 1. Duties imposed upon products and merchandise imported from foreign countries. This is called tariff or customs revenue. 2. Imposts or excise taxes levied upon home productions, manufactures, trades and occupations.. This is called internal revenue. 3, Direct taxes which, under the Constitution, can only be imposed by the national government upon the different States, as such, the- amount assessed against each State to be proportioned to its population, regardless of its wealth. No one can favor raising the government revenue by thiq method of direct taxation. It would bear with crushing weight upon the newer and undeveloped States, which are rich in population and material resources, but which have not yet become incomeproducing. To illustrate the enormity of direct taxation for federal revenue, let us compare Indiana with Massachusetts. In 1880 the population of Indiana was 1,978,301, and the population of Massachusetts was 1,78.3.085. Hence, under direct taxation under the Constitution, Indiana would have more federal tax to pay than Massachusetts because Indiana has more people than Massachusetts, and direct taxes are to be levied according to population, not wealth. But in 1880. the wealth of Indiana was $727,815.131 L while that sathe year the wealth of Massachusetts was $1,584,756,802. Therefore, while Indiana would have to raise more money than Massachusetts, it has less than one-half the wealth of Massachusetts. Hence, under direct taxation, federal taxes would-be more than twice as much on a dollar of property in Indiana as they would be ,on a dollar of property in Massachusetts. ' ' The political party that would openly advocate the raising of our government revenues by

direct taxes, levied in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution, would be buried beneath an avalanche of indignant ballots. Yet free-trade—-a, cardinal doctrine of the Democratic party —would require the government to raise its .revenues by direct taxation. Here it should be remarke<£...that not a dollar of the taxes levied by State, county, town and municipal authority ever reaches’ the United States treasury. Such a statement would seem'unnecessary: but the fact is that many Democrats, listening to the declamation of Democratic speakers against, taxation, really believe that the federal government pockets a large share of the taxes they pay over to their county ireasur'ers. An immense revenue must, be raised by the government each year. Pensions, the army, the navy, coast defenses, foreign diplomatic service, civil, legislative apd judicial expenses requite a vast stlrn of money, even if not a dollar were paid on interest or principal of the national debt. There are now over three hundred thousand pensioners on the pension rolls of our government, requiring an aggregate annual payment of about sixty-six million dollars. Nearly one-third of the annual expenses of the government is devoted to pensions. Internal revenue taxes are now reduced and limited to three articles and will not henceforth produce much, if any, more than enough revenue to pay our annual pensions. Hence the main part of our government revenue must be raised by tariff duties. The Democratic partynow admits this. The Democratic platform says, “From the foundation of this government taxes collected at the custom-house have been the chief source of federal . revenue. Such they must continue. 1 The question then is,, upon what principle shall the tariff duties be adjusted! Shall tariff duties be so levied as to protect and uphold American labor and American manufacture, American wages and American industries? Or shall they be levied regardless of the protection of the interests of American laborers and manufacturers! England votes with the Democratic party on this question and says, no protection. Is there an issue between the two parties on the tariff question! From its foundation down to the present the Republican party has steadily maintained, and will continue to maintain, the policy of protec; tion to American laoor, American production and American manufacture. One of the first acts of the Republican party, when it came into power in 1861. was the establishment of this principle of protection by the enactment of a protective tariff law. The Republican party has never advocated the passage of tariff laws for the single purpose of protection, but it has always advocated, and now believes tn, tariff laws for revenue and - protection. The time will never come when the United States government, will not need a large revenue. As our growth and development increase the need of revenue increases. So long as we have a pension roll, an unpaid national debt, unfortified sea coasts, harbors to construct and keep in repair, rivers to improve and render navigable, an army to maintain, a navy to build and equip, and the ordinary civil expenses of the government to pay, it will not be necessary to consider the question of the right or power of the government to levy tariff duties solely for protection, because we will need an immense revenue for revenue purposes, and can readily make provision for needed protection by the adjustment of tariff duties needed for revenue. In its adjustment of the tariff, the Republican party has kept three principles in-view. First To ad mit free of duty such products and materials'as are not produced in our own country, but are necessaries of life, or needed in the arts and manufactures. Coffee, tea. crude drugs, chemicals and dye stuffs are familiar illustrations of the principle upon which the Republican party makes up the free list. Second. To impose the duties upon foreign products, materials and manufactures the free importation of which would bring American wage laborers and American manu facturers into direct competition with the starvation wages, cheap manufactures and pauper labor of foreign countries. By pauper labor is meant the labor‘of that class of people who are compelled, in Europe, in order to avoid starvatiou of themselves and their families, to accept, anything as wages that may be offered them. Manufacturers of iron and steel, woolen, linen and cotton goods may serve as illustrations. Third, To still further discriminate in favor of the laborer dependent upon his wages for the support of his family, by imposing higher duties upon articles of luxury, such as jewelry, laces, velvets and silks, and lower duties upon the common necessaries of life. Do not these principles of tariff adjustment commend themselves to your judgement as wise and just! democratic opposition to protection. The Democratic party has always been an enemy to tariff protection. Once and again when in power it repealed and destroyed protective tariff laws, and brought disaster and bankruptcy upon the country. ——U— President Fillmore Well described the legitimate results of a Democratic free-trade tariff law in his mesShges to Congress in 1851 and in 1852, as follows: “The policy which dictated a low rate of duties on foreign merchandise, it was thought by those who promoted and established it, would tend to benefit, the farming population of this country* by increasing the demand and raising the price of agricultural products in foreign markets. The facts, however, seem to show incontestibly that no such result has followed the adoption of this policy. In the second place, as our manufacturing establishments are broken down by competition with foreigners, the capital invested in them is lost, thousands of honest and industrious citizens are thrown out of employment. the destruction of our manufactures leaves the foreigner without competition in our market, and he consequently raises the price of the articles sent here for sale." That is the history of one Democratic tariff law. After many years of hostility to protection of American labor and industry, and the repeated destruction of protective trriff laws, whenever it could compass their destruction, in 1856, and again in 1860. the Democratic party in its platform declared: “The time has come for the people of the United States to declare themselves in favor of free seas and progressive free trade, throughout the world.” The last Demo cratic President that was —or will be—was elected upon that platform. Just before his inauguration the Democratic party passed a free trade tariff law. still further destroying and substan tially wiping out tariff protection. But Buchanan. in his messages to Congress in 1857 and 1858, admitted the disastrous results of Democratic tariff legislation, and begged for a return to the protective system in these sad words: “In the midst of unsurpassed plenty in all the productions and in all the elements of wealth, we find our manufactures suspended, our public works retarded, outprivate enterprises of different kinds abandoned and thousands of useful laborers thrown out of employment, and reduced to want. * * * It would be ruinous to continue to borrow. Besides. it may be proper to observe that the incidental protec tron afforded by a re venue Tari ff would, at-the present moment, to some extent, increase the confidence of the manufacturing interests and give a fresh impulse to business. ” This is the testimony of the last Democratic President touching the evil results of Demo cratic tariff theories. Prostration of business, bankruptcy and want have always followed in the wake of Democratic tariff legislation; and they will again so follow, if So dire a calamity overtakes this country as the return of the Democratic party to power. The Democratic theory of free trade grew out of its devotion to slavery It never cared for the interests of the laborer. It believed in slave, or forced, labor. It regarded laborers as the “mudsills” of society, and believed in, and bowed the knee to. an arisocracy based on human bondage. Slavery demanded cheap food, clothing and utensils for slaves, and a high price for the raw products of slave labor and the Democratic party always wanted just what slavery and the slave-holding interest demanded. It cared mpre to foster the co-part-nership between the planters of the United States and the British manufacturers than it did to foster home manufactures and build up the wages of American laborers. Slavery is dead, but the ’ Democratic party still clings to its political heresies. The new, South, let us hope, will some day shake off the blight and mildew of slavery, and awake-* to its real interests. It is even now beginning to ask protection for its new-found industries, out the Democratic party still sides with England against America. and votes the English ticket on the question of protection of American labor and manufacture. ENGLANDS INTEREST IN ?REE TRADE. England believes in free trade,™ because she wants all the nations of the earth subservient and dependent upon her. If she thought the tide of trade Co did be turned from her shores, and that another 'nation could supplant ana overshadow her, making her in

any sense dependent, she would instantly seal her ports against that nation* by a prohibitory tariff, or by anv other means within her power. Even now, England, notwithstanding hex boaSted free-trade principles, is imposing a high protective tariff on many articles for the protection of the. British manufacturer. Fpr example, * England admits gold and silver bullion free, but . on manufactured gold plate she. imposes a duty of $4.08 per ounce, and on silver plate 36 cents per ounce. On unmanufactured tobacco England levies a tariff duty <)t 75 to 84 cents per pound, and on manufactured tobacco from 96 Cents to $1.30 per pound, '(his is a protective tariff, and a heavy one at that The laborers of England are begging for protective-tariff legislation. In a recent address of iron-workers, in South Staffordshire, to their employers, they say: “We ask you, gentlemen, can you expect that we will continue ‘like dumb, driven cattle,’ to accept with indifference the present state of things, as if we had become living dead mens The low price of labor and the high price of living has driven, and is driving, your best workmCta from the country to compete with usdn the labor markets of the world.” On March 5, 1884, Earl Dunyaven. at a public meeting in Birmingham—a manufacturing center of England—said-: “Free trade was a great profit to us at one time, for the simple reason that we had the monopoly of the world’s markets. Other nations had no means of supplying themselves with goods. They had to buy from us, and consequently, as our market was assured and there was no difficulty in selling, it was an immense benefit to us to be able to buy everything as cheaply as possible. Since then things have materially altered. Foreign nations havelearned t,o supply themselves, and are beginning to supply us. The circumstances have changed, and. to say that the system which benefited us under these circumstances must be equally beneficial under altered circumstaiiees, is absurd. It is true that England made great strides under free trade; it is equally true that other nations made greater strides under protection. The United States increased £165,000.000 in accumulated wealth: France £75,000,000. and Great Britian only £65,000,000. In percentage of trade, the increase of Great Britian was 21 per cent., arid that of the United States was 67 per cent. In fact. England was the last of the great nations instead of the first. ” There is English testimony to the' fact that our protection tariff system is of inestimable benefit. No wonder England sides with the Democratic party against our protectite Tariff system. She would rejoice to see our manufacturing and mining industries crippled and our development and prosperity crushed, because our necesity would be her opportunity. Our poverty and want would be riches and prosperity to her. England has always hated and done alf in her power to cripple and destroy American manufacturing interests. :Lord" Brougham, in a speech in Parliament, said: “England can afford to incur some loss, on the ■export of English goods for the purpose of destroying foreign manufactures in their cradle.” How perfectly that sentiment ex plains our condition under Democratic tariff leg islation, as described by Presidents Fillmore and Buchanan, already quoted. Democratic freetrade laws enabled England to bankrupt our manufacturers, crush out bur manufacturing establishments and reduce our laborers to want', and the moment thb wreck was accomplished England, freed from competition, raised the price of her merchandise at her will. Just that she will do again if she can. IVhat does England care for the laborer? A member -of the English Parliament said, not long ago: “To enable capital to obtain a fair remuneration, labor must be kept down.” The London Times, in discussing the protective-tariff system of the Republican party of the United States, says- “ The object of their statesmen is not to secure the largest amount of wealth for their country generally, but to keep up. by whatever means, the standard of comfort among -the laboring classes.'- -They tell us England is opposed to the Republican party, and does not like James- G. Blaine. We are glad of it. It is a sure sign that Blaine and the liepublican party are in favor of the true interests of our own, country - . Only a few days ago the London Pall Mall Gazette contained the following statement of its objections to our party and our candidate. It says: “We own nearly one half of the northern continent: we do an imtnense trade with South America; our treaty ob ligations in Central America are considerable; and the intervening seas are sprinkled with British posessions. On Mr. Blaine's theory of the universe, this is all wrong. He is not a lunatic, but a very able and shrewd Yankee. Whenever he can he will oust us from the position we hold: whenever an opportunity offers he will use it to the uttermost to replace our influence and our trade by the trade of the United States, and he will regard it as his chief object to promote a great American confederacy under the aigis of the ’government at Washington, which would tend to increase the .export trade of the United States at the expense of that of Great Britain." The Democratic platform declares that the Republican party “never had a Well-defined foreign policy - .” England knows the policy of the Republican party and its leaders, and it disquiets her. She knows that it is the steadfast purpose of the Republican party to foster and protect American manufacture, Jtmeriean Jabor, American pro duction, American trade; to develop the agricultural and mineral resources of our country, and stimulate its continued growth in all that tends to make a nation independent, powerful and prosperous. Wherever England has her iron hand forced her free-trade penury and dependence have followed. The crumbling ruins of the abandoned factories of Ireland; her diminishing population; her destitution and woe, furnish a truthful commentary upon the freetrade doctrines and the merciless greed of England. The Republican party asks every Irish voter one question. Do you want the United States—the home of your adoption—governed by the same policy that has crushed and impoverished Ireland! If you do. vote the Democratic ticket. If you do not, vote the Republican ticket. the platforms on tariff protection. There is an issue between the two parties on the tariff question, as proved by their platforms. The declaration of the Republican party is clear, explicit and unevasive. Here it is: “It is the first duty of a good government to protect the rights and promote the interests of its own people. The largest diversity - of industry is most productive of prosperity and of the comfort and independence of the people. We therefore demand that the imposition of duties on foreign imports shall be made not ‘for revenue only,' but that, in raising the requisite revenues for the government, such duties shall be so levied as to afford security to our diversified industries and protection to the rights and wages of the laborer, to the end that active and intelligent labor, as well as capital, may have its reward, and the laboring man his full share in the public prosperity. Against the so-called economic system of the Democratic party, which would degrade our labor to the foreign standard, we enter our earnest protest-” Everybody can understand that Everybody knows that the Republican party is in favor of the continuance of the system of protective tariff legislation. Changed conditions and relations of trade demand occasional changes and readjustment of the tariff duties. The Republican party Is wedded to no particular tariff law. It has made many revisions, and may well be trusted to make any further readjustments demanded by the interest** of the people. It holds firmly and steadily to the principle that protection of home labor and home industries by tariff legislation is riqht In 1876 the Democratic party- declared: “We denounce the present tariff, * * '* We demand that all custom house taxation shall be only for revenue." In 1880 it declared for “a tariff for revenue ONLY-” The Democratic plat; form of 1884 is double-tongued, evasive, ambiguous and insincere. It says; “The Democratic party is, pledged to f revise the tariff in a spirit of fairness to all interests, but in making reduction in taxes, it is not proposed to injure any domestic industries, but rather to promote their healthy growth. * * Many industries have come io relyiupon legislation for successful continuance, so that any change of law must be at every step regardful of the labor and capital thus involved. * • The necessary reduction in taxation can. and must be effected without depriving American labor of the ability to compete successfully with foreign labor, and without imposing lower rates of duty than will be ample to cover any increased cost of production which may exist in consequence of the higher rate of wages prevailing in this country." Now, an honest-minded man would say that seems fair and right That promises protection to the laborer and the manufacturer, and he would be right in saying so; but that Is not all of the tariff plaukof the Democratic plat-

form. Just after these smooth promises of tariff protection, comes this free-trade declaration, m the.avowed principle 'of the Democratic party: "We demand that federal taxation shall BE EXCLUSIVELY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.” No one can fail to see that these statements are self contradictory and utterly irreconcilable. They were meant to be so. The Democratic party did not dare to make a deer and ’truthful announcement of its tariff principles. It knew that certain defeat awaited it if it openly reavowed its free-trade doctrines. It intended to put out a platform that can be read either for “revenue* 'Only ’ or for a protective tariffj.aa locality may require. It is fi, platform deliberately planned for the express purpose o£ guilin g and <tecei ving ignorant or tin wary Democrats, and keeping them from abandoning the party. A tariff law that is “at every step regardful of the labor and capital thus involved" in “many industries” that "have come to rely upon legislation for successful continuance" cannot “be exclusiv.-Iy for public purposes." One of the purposes of such a law must of necessity be protection. A tariff law that takes good care to make all its adjustment of duties “without depriving American labor of the ability to compete successfully with foreign labor, and without imposing lower rates of duty than will be ample to cover any increased cost of production which may exist in consequence of the higher rate of wages prevailing in this country," is a high protective tariff law A political party that pledges itself to the enactment of such a tariff law, arid immediately afterwards solemnly declares, as a cardinal doctrine of its creed, “We demafid that federal taxation,shall lie exclusively - for public purposes, ” is false either in its idedge to enact such a law, or in its declaration of principle. Both can not be true. Ask Randall. or any protection Democrat, what this platform means, and he will "point with pride” to its pledges that all tariff laws shall be carefully protective: and tell you It is just what he wanted. Ask Morrison. Hewitt. Hurd, Carlisle or Watterson what it means, and with a chuckle they will say, “It means just what it says: - We demand that federal taxation shall be exclusively for public purposes.’ ” There are two ways to arrive at the true meaning of this Delphie utterance. 1. The interpretation put upon it by those who made U. and by the chief leaders of the Democratic party. Morrison, the leader of the free-traders and author of the horizontal reduction tariff bill pressed by the Democratic party in the lower house of Congress last winter, was chair--man of the committee on resolutions, and himself reported the platform to the convention. He is well known to be most bitterly hostile to protection. Does any one think he intended to report to that convention a platform in favor of protective tariff! Mr. Moreton. of Nebraska, was a member of the committee that drafted the Democratic platform. Before leaving Chicago he was asked to state, pointedly, just what the tariff plank of the platform • means. In answer, he said: “The tariff clause iq the platform means that we have got to make a fight for a tariff for revenue exclusively, which sounds much better than a tariff for revenue only. ” Speaker Carlisle says: “I do not see how the discussion of the tariff issue can be avoided. The platform is in every respect a sound and honest Democratic platform, and as such I heartily indorse it." The election of Carlisle as Speaker was recognized as a triumph of the tariff for revenue only Democrats. He is the recognized leader of the bppohentsTo’any kind’of tariff protection. The Louisville Courier-Journal of July 22, 1884, says: “In national convention assembled the party has just' confirmed the decision rendered by the election of Mr. Carlisle.” Mr. Watterson, of Kentucky, another member of the committee that drafted this platform, said, in Chicago, after the platform was adopted: “That plank means nothing more nor less "than a tariff for revenufe-only,” In his ratification speech at Louisville, Ry., on .July 16. 1884, Mr. Watterson, speaking of this tariff plank, said: “When the fight came in the general committee some feeling arose and a sharp contest was had upon two propositions, the first one being to strike out the word ‘exclusively’ from the declaratory clause, and the second relating to the selection of a permanent chairman to report the platform to the convention. It was contended by Mr. Hay, of Pennsylvania, and other politicians who supported him, that the word ‘exclusively’ was synonomous with the word ‘only.’ Nobody disputed this; but the friends of revenue reform defended the tariff planks of 1876 and 1880, accepted the issue made by the other side, and, when the vote was taken retaining the word ‘exclusively’ by 18 yeas to 16 nays, its significance was clearly understood. The subsequent election of Mr. Morrison to present the report to the convention answers the charge that Mr. Randall had the committee in the hollow of his handj and got all he ever wanted or asked for." These statements of the leaders of the Democratic party leave no doubt as to the meaning of the party in tins devious and evasive plank of their platform. But if they did, there is another and surer way to determine what the Democratic party means, and that is: 2. The interpretation of the platform by the acts of the party. We only need to go back to last winter for proof of the meaning of this platform. The Morrison tariff bill speaks much clearer than this platform. Did it comply with these false pledges of this blatform! Did it keep the promise to restore the tariff on wool upon which Ohio Democrats carried that State! Did it carefully guard and seek to protect American labor and American industries? It was an attempt at wholesale destruction of all protoctiou by a horizontal reduction of all tariff duties, utterly regardless of the results to the laborer and manufacturer. If that bill had passed it would have bankrupted hundreds of manufacturing establishments, and thrown thousands of laborers out of employment. The issue, then, is clear and distinct The Republican party is in favor of tariff protection. The Democratic party is opposed to tariff protection. RESULTS OF REPUBLICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF. The growth and prosperity of our country under Republican administration have been so marvelous as to excite the wonder and envy of the nations. Notwithstanding the fact that a devastating and expensive war occupied nearly one-fourth of the time Lhe Republican party has been in power, still our national growth, development and increase in wealth have been so great as to dwarf all former periods of our history. Mr. Hendricks feels keenly the irresistible force of the argument in favor of the Republican party drawn from the history of the country unaer Republican rule. On July 19, 1884, in his speech to the “Autocrats," he said: “Our resources and industry have made us the great and prosperous people which we are, and not the policy aud work of the Republican party. • * * The country is not prosperous because it has been under the policy of the Republican party, but because we have had the resources of the country developed.” Why did not the Democratic party develop the resources of the country? Why has the policy of the Democraticparty, whenever in power, always retarded growth, and prevented development of our resources! Why is it that the country made such slow progress and was bankrupt in purse and credit at the end of of sixty years of Democratic rule! The answer is plain and obvious, and that is the rcasto it troubles Mr. Hendricks. The Democratic party has always onposed tariff protection. Protection of home labor and home industries is the life blood of development and growth. The Republican party has adhered to the protective system and the result is unparalleled growth and prosperty, and, in the words of Mr. Hendricks, “We have had the resources of the country developed." The admissions of the Democratic platform, and of Mr. Hendricks are worthy of consideration. In the speech just cited, Mr. Hendricks admits that our country is prosperous; so prosperous that ho deems it necessary for the Democratic party to try to account foe our phenomenal prosperity on some other hypothesis than that the’policy and administration of the Republican party have had any share in bringing it about The Democratic platform makes several very suggestive admissions. L It admits that wages are higher in the United States than they are in foreign countries. Hence there is no need of argument on this point Wages in our country are from one fourth to one half higher than they are in England, and the countries of Europe. This is a fact the voters of this countty would better consider with care. 2. It admits that a protective tariff does uphold American wages, and that without the protection afforded by. protective tariff legislation American wages cannot be kept up. These admissions are vitally opposed to the Democratic theory of “tariff for revenue exclusively.” Yet here is th® proof from the Democratic platform: “Th® necessary reduction in taxation can; and must,bo effected without depriving American labor of th® ability to compete successfully with foreign labor, and without imposing lower rates of duty than will be ample to cover any increased cost of