Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 36, Number 110, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 September 1904 — PRESIDENT’S LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

PRESIDENT’S LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE

Compares Present "Stability with What Democrats Offer. • • .... Explains Reasons for All that the Administration Has Undertaken. Republican Control Will Be Solely Devoted Toward National Progress.

“Choose between » party of action and a party of negation, a party of honor and a party of dishonor, a party of honesty and a party of insincerity, a party of proved efficiency and a party of historic inefficiency." Such is the message to the American voter sent broadcast throughout the land by President Roosevelt in his letter accepting the unanimous nomination to succeed himself accorded to him by the Republican National Convention in Chicago last .Tune. In his letter President Roosevelt ur ralgns the Democratic party as a house divided against itself, as an organization without fixed 1 olh ies on ■ any of the great issues to be settled at the polls next November, as a political Artful Dpdger, wliost; more than dubious past augurs ill for the future in the event of its victory two months hence. - - Especial stress is laid by the Presi dent on the subjects of the Philippines, tariff, and finance. lie arraigns the Democrats for shifting three times in their last convention attitude on tlie Philippines, and declares that their policy of independence for the natives, if carried out, would be an international crime. In like manner he asserts that abandonment of the protective tariff system would bring national misery. On the financial issue lie holds up to ridicule the policy —or rather lack of policy—of flic opposition. Following are the leading features oi the letter, which in fill. 1 contains twelve thousand words: 1 accept the nomination for the presidency tendered me by the Republican national convention, and cordially approve tiie platform adopted by hi. In writing this letter there are certain points upon which I desire to lay especial stress. It is difficult to find out from the utterof our opponents Wliat are the roil issues upon which they propose to wage tiiis campaign. It is not unfair to say that, having abandoned most of the principles upon which they have insisted during the last eight years, they n>w seem at a loss, both as to what it is that they really' believe and as to lion firmly they shall assert their belief in anything. In fact, it is doubtful if they venture resolutely to press a single issue; «fs soon as they raise one they shrink from it, and seek to explain it away. Such an attitude is the probably inevitable result of the effort to improvise convictions; for when thus improvised, it is natural that they should be held in a tentative manner. Actions Louder than Words. The party now in control of the government is troubled by no such difficulties. We do not have to guess at our own convictions, anil then correct the guess if it seems unpopular. The principles which we profess are those in which we believe with heart and soul and strength. Men may differ from us, hot they cannot accuse us of shiftiness or insincerity. The policies we have pursued are those which we earnestly hold as essential to the national welfare and repute. Onr actions speak even louder than our words for the faith that is in us. We base our appeal upon what we have done and are doing, upon our record of administration and legislation during the last seven years, in which we have had complete control of the government. We intend in the future to carry on the government in the. same way that we ' have carried it on in the past. A party whose members are radically at variance on most vital issues, and, if united iff all, nre only united on issues where their attitude threatens widespread disaster to the whole country, cannot be trusted to govern in any matter. A pnrty which, with facile ease, changes all its convictions before election cannot be trusted to ndhere with tenacity to any principle after election. A party tit to govern must have convictions. In 1890 the Republican party came into power, and in 1900 it retained power on certain definite pledges, each of which was scrupulously fulfilled. But in addition to meeting and solving the problems which were issues in these campaigns it also became ueeessary to meet other problems which anise after election; and it is no small part of our claim to public confidence that these were solved with tlie same success that had attended the solution of those concerning which the battles at the polls were fought. In other words, our governmental efficiency pro veil equal not only to the tasks that were anticipated but to doing each unanticipated task as it arose. When the contest of 189<i was decided the question of the war with Spain was not an issue. When the contest of 1900 was decided the shape which the isthniian cannl question ultimately took could not have been foreseen. But the same qualities which enabled those responsible for making and administering the laws at Washington to deal successfully with the tariff and the currency enabled them also, to deal with the Rpanish war, and the same qualities which enabled them to act wisely in the Philippines and in Cuba also enabled them to do their duty as regards the problems connected With

the trusts and to secure the building of the isthmian canal. Wo are content to rest our case before the American people upon the fact that to adherence to a lofty ideal wfe have added proved governmental efficiency. Therefore, our promises may surely be trusted as regards any issue that is now before the people, and we may equally be trusted to deal with any problem which may hereafter arise. So well has the work been done that our opponents do not venture to recite the'faets about our policies or nets aud then oppose them. They attack them only when they have first misrepresented them, for a truthful recital would leave no room for adverse comment. Panama Canal. Panama offers an instance in point. Our opponents can criticise what we did in Panama only on condition of misstatfng wliat was done. The administration behaved throughout not only with good faith, but with extraordinary patience and large generosity toward those with whom it dealt. It was also mindful of American interests. It acted in strict compliance with the law passed by Congress. Our Foreign Policy. Similar misrepresentation is the one weapon of our opponents in regard to our foreign policy aud the way tlie navy has been made useful in carrying out this policy. Here again all that we ask is that they truthfully state what has been done and then say whether or not they

object to it, for if continued in power we shall continue our foreign policy and our handling of the navy on exactly the same lines in the future as in the past. In carrying out this policy it has settled dispute after dispute by arbitration or by friendly agreement. It has behaved toward all nations, strong or weak, with courtesy, dignity and justice, and "it is now on excellent terms with all. Do our opponents object to the settlement of the Alaska boundary line? I)o they object to the fact that after freeing Ctiba we gave her reciprocal trade advantages with the United States, while at the same time keeping naval stations in the island and providing against its sinking into chaos or being conquered by any foreign power? Do they object to the fact that our tlag now Hies over Porto Rico? Do they object to the acquisition of Hawaii? Once they “hauled down” our ting there; we have hoisted it again; do they intend once more to haul it down? l>o they object to the part we played in Chinn? Do'they not kpow that the voice of the United States would now count for nothing in the far Kast if we had abandoned the Philippines and refused to do what was done in China? Do they object to the fact that this government secured a peaceful settlement of the troubles in Venezuela two years ago? Do they object to the ship of war off Colon when the revolution broke out in Panama, and when only the presence of this ship saved the lives of American citizens and prevented insult to the flag? Do they object to the fact that American warships appeared promptly at the port of Beirut when an effort hud been made to assassinate an American official, and in the port of Tangier when American citizen had been ulslueted, and that in each ease the wrong complained of was righted and expiated, and that within ttie last few duys the visit of an American squadron to Smyrna was followed by the long-delayed coneession of their just rights to those Americans concerned in educational work in Turkey? Do they object to the trade treaty with China, so full of advantage for the American people In the future? Do they object to the fact that tjje ship* carrying the national flng now have a higher standard than ever before in marksmanship and in seamanship, as individual units and as component parts of squadrons and fleets? If they object to any or all of these things wc join issue with them. Democrats Silent on Money. On some of the vital question* that hare

* - —V - confronted the American people in the last decade our opponents fake the position that silence is the best possible way to convey their views. They contend that their lukewarm attitude of partial acquiescence in what others have accomplished entitles them to be made the custodians of the financial honor and commercial Interests which they have but recently sought to ruin. Being unable to agree among themselves ns to whether the gold standard is a curse or a blessing and np to whether we ought or ought not to have free and unlimited coinage of sliver, they have nparehtly. thought it expedient to avoid any commital on these' subjects and .individually each to follow his particular bent. Their nenrest approach to a majority Judgment seems to be that it is now inexpedient to assert their convictions one way or the other and that the establishment of the gold standard by the Republican party should not be disturbed unless there is an alteration in the relative quantity of production of sliver and gold. Men who hold sincere convictions on vital questions can respect equally sincere men with whose views they radically differ, and men may confess a change of faith without compromising their honor or their self-respect. But It is difficult to respect an attitude of mind such as has been fairly described above, and where there is no respect there can be no trust. A policy with so slender a basis of principle would not stand the strain of a single year of business adversity. We, on the contrary, believe in the gold standard ns fixed by the usage and verdict of the business world, and in a sound monetary system as matters of principle, ns matters not of momentary political expediency, but of permanent organic policy. In 1890 and again in 1900 far-sighted men, without regard to their party fealty in the past, Joined to work against what they regarded as a debased monetary system. The policies which they championed have been steadfastly adhered to by the administration, and by the act of March 14, 1900, Congress established the singe gold standard as the measure of our monetary value. This net received the support of every Republican in the House and of every Republican except one In the Senate. Of our opponents eleven supported It In the House and two lu the Senate, and 130 opposed It in the House and twenty-eight in the Senate. The record of the Inst seven years proves that the party now In power can be trusted to take the additional action necessary to improve and strengthen our monetary system aud that our opponents cannot be so trusted. The fundamental fact *» that In n popular government such as ours no policy is irrevocably settled by law unless the people keep in control of the government men who believe in that policy as a matter of deep-rooted conviction. Laws can always be revoked; It Is the spirit and the purpose of those responsible for their enactment und administration which must be fixed ami nn< " ingeable. It Is idle to say that the monetary standard of the nation is irrevocably fixed so long as the party which at the last election cast approximately 4(1 per cent of the total vote refuses to put in its platform any statement that the question is settled. A determination to remain silent cannot be accepted as equivalent to n recantation. Until our opponents as a party explicitly adopt the views which we hold and upon "which we have acted and are acting. In the matter of a sound currency, the only real way to keep the question from becoming unsettled is to keep the Republican party in power. As for what our opponents say in refer-

ence to capital and labor. Individual or corporate, here again all we need by way of answer is to point to what we have actually done, and to say that If continued In power we shall continue to carry out the policy we have been pursuing and to execute the laws as resolutely and fearlessly In the future as we have executed them In the past. Ho far as the rights of the Individual wage worker and the individual capitalist are concerned, both as regards one another, as regards the public and ns regards organized cnptnl and labor, the position of the administration has been so clear that there Is no excuse for misrepresenting It and no ground for opposing it unless misrepresented. Tariff Attitudes Contrasted. When we take up the great question of the tariff we are at once confronted by the doubt as to whether our opponents do or do not mean what they say. They say that “protection la robbery." ami promise to carry themselves accordingly If they are given power. Yet prominent persons among them assert that they do not really mean this and that If they come Into power they will adopt our policy ns regards the 'tariff, while others seem anxious to prove that It Is safe to give them partial power, because the power would be only partial, nnd therefore they would not be able to do mischief. The last Is certainly u curious plea to advance on behalf of a party seeking to obtain control of the government. Of course, If our oppoueuts are not sincere In their proposal to abolish the system of n protective tarlfT, there Is no use in arguing the matter at all, save by pointing out ugaln that If on one great Issue they do not mean what they shv. It is hardiv safe to trust them on any other IkkuiV —ftn't If they are sincere In this liistter.'-tbru thelr advent to power would mean domestic misfortune and misery ns widespread and far reaching ns that which wc saw ten yeur* ago. When they speak of protection as •‘robl«‘ry,” they of course must mean that It Is Immoral to enact a turlff designed (as is the present protective tariff; to secure to the American wage worker the beuclit of the high standard of living which wc desire to see kept up In this country. Now. to speak of the tariff In this sense ns "robbery." thereby giving It a moral relation, Is iii.t merely rhetorical, it Is on lUofuce false. The question of what tariff is best for our people is primarily. one of expedience;-, to be determined not on abstract academic grounds but In the light of experience. It is a matter of business; for ftindauientnlly our/i Is a business people--manufacturers, merchants, fanners, wage workers, professional men, all nlike. Our experience as n people in the past has certainly not shown us ttint we could afford In this matter to follow those professional councilors who have confined themselves to stndy In the closet: for the actual working of the tariff has emphatically contradicted their theories. From time to time schedules mutt undoubtedly be rearranged and readjusted to meet the shifting needs of the country, but this can with safety be done only by those who are committed to the cause of the protective system. T<j uproot and destroy that svstem would be to Inoure the prostration of business, the closing of factories. the impoverishment of the fanner, the ruin of the capitalist and the starvation of the wage worker. Yet, If protection la Indeed “robbery,"

arnl if our opponents really belleTC what they say, then It is precisely to the destrnctlon and uprooting of the tariff, and therefore of oar business and iudustrv, that they are pledged. When our opponents last obtained power it was on n platform declaring a protective tariff “unconstitutional;’’ and the effect to put this declaration into practice was one of the causes of the general national prostration lasting from 18113. so 188?.; If a protective tariff is either “unconstitutional’’ ox “robbery,” then it;is "Just US unconstitutional, just as mueU';xobbfery. to revise it down, still lcav.infcit protective, as it would be to enact it. In other words, our opponents have committed themselves to the destruction of the protective principle in the tariff, using words which, if honestly used,-forbid them from permitting this principle to obtain In even the smallest degree. Our opponents assert (hat they believe in reciprocity. Their action on the most Important reciprocity treaty recently negothat with Cuba—does not bear out this assertion. Moreover, there can be no reciprocity unless there is a substantial tariff; free trade and reciprocity are not compatible. , We arc on record ns favoring arrangements for reciprocal trade relations with other countries, these arrangements to be on an equal basis of benefit to both the contracting parties. Pledges to Aid Commerce. The Republican party standg pledged to every wise and consistent method of increasing the foreign commerce of the country. That It has kept its pledge Is proven by the fact that while the domestic trade of this country exceeds In volume the entire export and Import trade of all the nn tlons of the world, the United States have lu addition secured more than an eighth of the export trade of the tforlil, standing .first among the nations In this respect. It is a matter of regret that the protective tariff policy, which during the last forty-odd years has become part of the very fiber of the country, Is not now accepted as definitely established. Surely we have u right to say that It lias passed beyond the domain of theory and a right to expect that not only Its original advocates but those who at one time distrusted It on theoretic grounds should now acquiesce In the results that have been proved over and over again by actual experience. These forty-odd years have been the most prosperous years this nation has ever seen; more prosperous years than any other nation has ever seen. Beyond question this prosperity could not have come If the American people had not possessed the necessary thrift, energy and business intelligence to turn their vast material resources to account. But It Is no less true that It is our economic policy as regards tho tariff and finance which has enabled us as a nation to wake such good use of the individual capacities of our citizens" and the natural resources of our .country. Every class of our people is benefited by the protective tariff. During the last few years the merchant has seen the export trade of this country grow faster than ever lu our previous history. The manufacturer could not keep his factory running if It were not for the protective tariff. Tho wage worker would do well to remember that if protection is “robbery” and is to be punished accordingly he will be tho first to pay the penalty, for either he will be turned adrift entirely or his wages will be cut down to the starvation point. As conclusively shown by the bulletins of the bureau of labor, the purchasing power of the average wage received by the wageworker has grown faster than the cost of living, and this in spite of the continual shortening of working horn's. The accu ) mulated savings of the workingmen of the country, as shown by the deposits In the savings banks, have increased by leaps and bounds. At no time In the history of this or any other country Ims there been an era so productive of material benefit alike to workingman and employer ns during the seven years that have Just passed. Prosperity of Farmers. The farmer has benefited quite as much as the manufacturer, the merchant and the wage "Worker. The most welcome and impressive fact established by the last census Is The wide aud even distribution of wealth among all classes of our countrymen. The chief agencies in producing this distribution are shown by the census to be the development of manufactures and the application of ue.w Inventions to universal use. The result has been an Increasing Interdependence of agriculture and manufactures. Agriculture Is now, ns it always has been, the basis of civilization. The 0,000,000 farms of the United Stntes, operated by men who, as a class, are steadfast, singleminded and Industrious, form the basis of all the other achievements of the American people and are more fruitful than nil their other resources. The men on tjjose 6,000.000 farms receive from the protective tariff what they most need, and that Is the best of- all possible markets. All other classes depend upon the farmer, but the farmer in turn depends upon the market they furnish him for his produce. Conditions change and the laws must be modified from time to time to fit new exigencies. But the genqlne underlying prln clple of protection, as It has been embodied In all but one of the American tariff laws for the last forty years, lias worked out results so beneficent, so evenly aud widely spread, so advantageous alike to farmers and capitalists and workingmen, to commerce and trade of every kind, that the American people, if they show their usual practical business sense, will Insist that when, these laws are modified they shall be modified with the utmost care and conservatism, and liy the friends and not the enemies of the protective system. They cannot afford to trust the modification to those who treat protection aud robbery ns synonymous terms. Nalls Deficit Fallacy. Our opponents contend that the government Is now administered extravagantly and that whereas there was “a surplus o’s 880.000.000 in 1900” there is “a deficit of more than $40,000,000' * In the year that has Just closed. This deficit Is Imaginary and Is obtained by Including In the ordinary current expenses the sum of $30,000,000 which was paid for the right of way of the Panama Canal out pf the accumulated surplus in the treasury. .Comparing the current or ordinary expenditures for the two years, there was a surplus of nearly sßo.ooti,ooo for the year UK*) and of only a little more than $8,000,000 for the year that has Just closed. But tills diminution of the annual surplus was brought about designedly by the abolition of the war taxes in the Interval between the two dates. The acts of March 2, 1901, and April 12, 1902, cut down the Internal revenue taxes to an amount estimated at slo3,(KK).***> a year. In other words, the reduction of taxation has been considerably greater than tlie reduction In the annual surplus. Since the close of the war with Spain there has been no substantial change In the rate of annual expenditures. As compared with the fiscal year ending In June. IWII. for example, the fiscal year that has Just closed showed a .relatively small increase In expenditure (excluding the canal payment already referred tot, while the year previous showed a relative!)' small decrease. The expenditures of the M^jfti< u have been managed In a spirit of economy as far re ipoved from, waste us from niggardliness, niia In-the future every effort will lie confltnied to secure nn efwomy as strict as Is consistent with effiejem-v. Once more onr opponents have promised what they cannot or should not perforiii. question of the I'hi'ippinee. Our opponents' promise Independence to the Philippine Islands. Here again we arc confronted by the fact that their Irrecoi cilahle differences of opinion among themselves, their proved Inability to create n constructive policy when In |s>wcr and their readiness, for the sake of moment »rv political expediency, to abandon the principles upon which they have Insisted as cssentl|tl. conspire to puzzle us ns to whether they do or do not Intend In good fiiltli to carry out this promise If they are given control of the government. In" their plat form they dec Is re for independence, apparently for their language is a little obscure - without qualification as to time: and. Indeed. a qualification ns to time Is an ah surdity, for we have neither right nor power to bind onr successors when It Is Impossible to foretell the conditions which may confront them, while If there Is any principle Involved In tho matter It Is Just as wrong to deny Independence for a few years as to deny It for an Indefinite period. But In later and equally official ntlernnces by our opponents the term self-for* eminent wss substituted for independence, the words used living so chosen thst In their natural construction they described precisely the policy now being carried on. The language of the platform Indicated a radical change of policy; the latter utterance* Indicated a continuance of the present policy. But tbla caused trouble lu tbetr own ranka; and In a still later, although less formal, utterance, the self-government

nr’BrfiQiT-n -■'Ur 1 and Independence at some future time was promised in> its place. They hays'occupied different positions within fifty days. Which la the really intend to keep? They do not know their own minds, and no one can tettjhow. Jong they would keep of the same ffmrd should they by any chance come to n working agreement among themselves. If girch aiiihlgtilty affected only the American people It would not so greatly matter, for the American people can take care of themselves. But the Filipinos are in no such condition. - It may well he that our opponents have no real intention of putting their promise iuto effect. If this is the case; if, In other words, they are insincere In the promise they make, it Is only necessary to say again that It Is unwise to trust men who are false In one thing, to deal with anything. If, on the“other hand, onr opponents came into power and attempted to curry out their promises to the Filipinos by giving them independence and withdrawing American control from the islands the result would be a frightful calnmlty to the Filipinos themselves, and in its largest aspect would amount to nn international crime. Anarchy would follow, and the most violent anarchle forces would be directed partly against the civil government, partly against nil forms of religious and educational Civilization. Of course, the practical difficulty In adopting nny such course of actlon--such a “policy of scuttle,” as President McKinley called It —would be found well nigh Insuperable. If It Is morally Indefensible to hold the archipelago as a whole under our tutelage In the Interest of Its own people, then It Is morally Indefensible to bold any part of It. In such-ease what right have we to keep a coaling station? What right to keep control over the Moro peoples? AVhnt right ■ to protect the Igon-otes from their oppressors? What right to protect the law-abiding friends of America in the islands from treachery, robbery and murder? Yet, to Obtain the lslunds completely, without even retaining n coaling station, would mean to abandon the position In the competition for the tmule of the Orient which we have acquired during the last six years, aud what Is fur more important, it would mean irreparable damage to those who have become the wards of the nation. To abandon all control over the Moros would amount to releasing these Moros to prey upon the Christian Filipinos, civilized or semLctvlilzedi as well as hpou the commerce of other peoples. To abandon the Moro country, as our opponents propose In their platform, would be precisely as if twenty-five years ago we hail withdrawn the army and the civil agents from within and and around the Indian reservations lu the West, at a time when the Sioux and the Apache were still the terror of our settlers. It would be a criminal absurdity, and yet our opponents have pledged themselves thereto. If successful in th*.coming election they would either have to break faith or else to do nn act which would leave an Indelible stain upon our national reputation for courage und for good sense. Policy One of Progress. The great issues which" are at stake and upon which I have touched are ipore than mere partisan Issues, for they Involve much that comes home to the individual pride and Individual well-being of our people. Under conditions as they actually are good Americans should refuse for the sake of the welfare of the nation, to change tlie notional polley. We who nre responsible for the administration and legislation under which this- country during the last seven years has grown so greatly in wellbeing at home and In honorable repute among the nations of the earth ahroud do net stand inertly upon this record, do not use this record as an excuse for failure of effort to meet new conditions, (in the contrary, we treat the record of what we have done In the past as incitement to do even better in the future. We believe that the progress that wo have made may he tukcu as a measure of the progress we shall continue to make If the people again Intrust the government of the- nation to our hands. IVe do not stand still. We press steadily forward toward the goal of moral and ma-’ terlnl well-being for our own people, of Just and fearless dealing toward all other peo pies, In the interest not merely of this country but of mankind. There Is hot a policy, foreign or domestic, which we are now carrying out which It would not be dangerous to reverse or abandon. If our opponents should come In und, should not reverse our policies then they would he branded with the brand of broken faith, of false promise, of Insincerity in word aud deed, and no man can work to the advantage of the nation with such a brand clinging to him. If, on the other hand, they should come 111 und re terse any or all of our policies by Just so much Would the nation us a whole be damaged. Alike as lawmakers and us administrators of the law we have endeavored to do our duty lu the Interest of the people as a whole. We make our appeal to no class and to no section, but to all good citizens, in whatever part of the land they dwell and whatever may be their occupation or- worldly condition. We have striven both for civic righteousness and for national greatness, and we have faith to believe tliut our bauds will be upheld by all who feel love of country and trust la the uplifting of mankind. We stand for enforcement of the luw und for obedience to the law; our government is a government of orderly liberty equally alien to tyranny and to anarchy, and Its foundation stone is the observance of the lawalike by the people and by the public servants. We hold ever before us as the alllmportant end of policy and administration the reign of; peace at home and throughout the world, of peace which comes only by doing justice.