Rensselaer Republican, Volume 26, Number 38, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 May 1894 — THE CAMPAIGN. [ARTICLE]

THE CAMPAIGN.

A IPortent of Victory—lgnorance and Dishonesty. The Indiana Convention. Chicago Inter Ocean. ~ ~ The Indiana Republican convention was a portent of victory. Whenever the Republicans of Indiana do their best they win, and this year they are prepared to do a better best than ever before. More than 1,700 of the best men of the State served as delegates, and an equal number of hardly less representative men were present as alternates, and had Tomlinson Hall, the most spacious building of Indianapolis, been thrice its size it could not have contained the number of those anxious to be present. The honors of the day were divided between General Harrison and the distinguished chairman, who was “Dick Thompson, of the Wabash,” when Jackson was President, and whose eloquent denunciation of the Swartwout embezzlement still is a classic of oratory. Thompson was a Whig orator of protection when Harrison was a boy. Harrison learned political philosophy from such teachers as Thompson, and lived to sign that great measure in which Blaine’s theory of reciprocity and Clay’s American theory of protection were blended by the master hand of McKinley. The platform of the convention is magnetic. Beginning, as is proper, with praise of the wise and honorable administration of national affairs under the Presidency of General Harrison, it reaffirms the devotion of the Republican party to the principle of protection to American industries, impeaches the free trade policy of the Democratic party as the origin and incentive of commercial panic, repudiates auv effort to re-establish the “wildcat banking currency” of Democratic days, and favors a currency of gold, silver and paper of equal value, readily exchangeable, each for each. There could not bean Indiana convention of Republicans that did not resolve for “liberal construction of our pension laws,” and accordingly the platform speaks strongly on this matter. The repeal of the reciprocity agreements and Cleveland’s un American foreign policy are strongly condemned, and his shameless trading of places in exchange for Congressional votes is held up to scorn: The extravagance of the Democratic administration of the State finances is denounced, partisan management of the State charities is pledged, and the gerrymander is re*pudiated. The strong platform is made the standing ground of a strong body of nominees. The ticket is excellent. The organization of the party now is admirable, and will be inspired with in unusually aggressive spirit by General Harrison, who will be a leader throughout the campaign. The only question of interest left unsettled by the convention is: “What will be the size oTthe majority?”

Is it Ignorance or Dishonesty. mdianapolis Journal. The Chicago platform which denounced Republican protection as •‘a fraud, a robbery of the great majority of the American, people for hho benefit nf the-lewv’' -also declared that, “we denounce the Sham system of reciprocity” established under the McKinley law. If this declaration meant anything it pledged the Democratic party not only to the repeal of the reciprocity provisions of the McKinley law, but to the abrogation of all existing reciprocity arrangements. Yet the Wilson bill as amended by the Senate committee expressly saves all existing reciprocity treaties. repeals the reciprocity section of the McKinley law, but provides that this shall not affect “anv act done or • any right accruing or accrued before the said repeal,” and that all rights and liabilities under said laws (the reciprocity provision) shall continue and may be enforced in the same manner as if said repeal or modifications had not been made.” Senators Voorhees aud Vest both state that under these provisions no existing reciprocity agreements will be affected. l lf this be true it shows that the Democrats are afraid to repeal “sham reciprocity” just as they are to abolish protection, which they denounced as a fraud and a robbery. Their preservation of existing reciprocity arrangements is a distinct repudiation of their platform pledges and as distinct a recognition of the merits of the reciprocity policy. They will not permit any more reciprocity agreements to be entered into, but they dare not repeal those already made. The journal has already pointed out that the continuance of the existing reciprocity arrangements with Germany and Brazil means the continued importation of free sugar from Germany and Cuba. In other words, it wilfgive the Sugar Trust free raw material which, in connection with the duty on refined sugar, will be worth a great many millions to the trust. But there is another aspect of the case. The Wilson bill is claimed to be aboVe all things a tariff for revenue, and to this end a duty has been placed on sugar. Senators Voorhees and Vest both profess to believe that this duty on sugar will yield a large revenue to the government But bow can it if, as they both say, the reciprocity arrango-

nn&ts ate to continue under which sugar from Germany and Cuba will come in free? Very nearly all the sugar we import comes from these two countries. In 1890 we imported $87,227,669 worth of sugar from Germany and Cuba, as against $14,035,658 from all other countries. Dec. AU 1893, we imported 3,223.656,073 pounds of cane sugar and 543,288,489 pounds of beet sugar, nearly 90 per cent, of which came in free under reciprocity arrangements. If, as‘Senators Voorhees and Vest say, these arrangements are to continue, nine-tenths of all the sugar we import will come in free. Where, then, is the large revenue to come from which they have been claiming the duty on sugar will yield? It will not come at all. The duty' will only affect about one-tenth of our importations of sugar, and the revenue derived from this moiety will be very small. The treatment of the sugar question by the Democrats shows either that they do not know what they are talking about or that they are deliberately trying to deceive the people. They are either ignorant or dishonest. P.epuhlican Victory in the HouseIndianapolis Journal. Yesterday the Democratic House of Representatives, by a vote of 212 to 47, adopted a rule for the counting of a quorum. In other words, a large majority of the Democrats voted for the principle which they denounced in the Fifty-First Congress as an unprecedented outrage and the destruction of the rights of the minority. It was while the Democrats were protesting against Mr. Reed’s counting of a quorum that Mr. Bynum made a spectacle of himself by declaring that the Democracy would lay waste the country, “burn the last spear of grass,” before they would yield to such tyranny. Because of this counting a quorum ex-Speaker Reed was stigmatized as a “czar” and the Democrats refused to extend to him the usual vote of thanks at the close of his term. In the campaign of 1890 the Republican House, which made quorum counting one of its rules, was denounced by every Democratic newspaper and stumper in the North. Turn to the files of those papers, and columns of inflamed editorials can be found setting forth the dangers of such an outrage as counting aquorum. Even the “too good” mugwump newspaper.and the 1 alleged “journal of civilization” Lpiped their protests against a rule which made it possible for a House in which the majority has but a small majority to legislate.

And now the same men who denounced the quorum-counting rule a year ago were found, yesterday, supporting it. Hereafter they and the Democratic party cannot repudiate that rule, since, having been indorsed by both parties in the House, it has become as much a law for the future as if it had been enacted by both branches of Congress. It ih not necessary to prove that it is a most important gain for popular government. To insist that a minor itv in a legislative body where th l majority is small can prevent legis* lation by refusing to vote after them has been a reasonable opportunity for discussion is to insist that men are elected to Congress and Legislatures to defeat the aims of popular government. A seditious minority could, under a rule which per. mitted silence to break a quorum, refuse to pass appropriation bills and thus paralyze the Government. There has been a disposition to criticise the Republicans in the House for refusing to make a quorum during the past three weeks. Such criticism is unfair. They believed that the counting of a quorum involved a most important principle which should be acknowledged by both parties, and, this opportunity presenting itself, they availed themselves of it to compel the Democrats to adopt a rule which will make im- | possible in the future all revolutionary methods depending upon silent minorities. Now nil fair minded people will approve of the practical sense which the counting of quorums involves and will hail it as an important reform. It is all the more important and a more sweeping vindication of Republican good sense because the party which denounced it has been forced to adopt, it.