Reciprocity versus Free-trade. Reciprocity means more products and manufactures at home and more sales abroad. Free-trade means less products and manufactures at home and more purchases abroad. One way lies thrift and prosperity; the other way hard times and distress. -Senator Eugene Hale, Maine.

THE TARIFF AND THE DEMOCRACY. (Continued.)

illustrious leaders of the Country, was ignorant of the Constitution, usurped powers not conferred by that instrument, trampled its limitations under his feet, and deserves nothing but execration from the Democratic party, the only competent expounder of that instrument.

3. If the five Presidents named, and adding to them the two Adams's, constitute "a long line of illustrious leaders," worthy the following of the parties of to-day; then they are the leaders of the Republican party, which continues to maintain their principles, and to follow their example, in refusing "to suppress the imposts and give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufactures," but insists that in "the revision of our commercial laws" Congress shall take care to "protect and foster the several branches of manufactures" which "have been instituted or extended by the laudable exertions of our citizens."

4. If "Republican protection is a fraud, a robbery of the great majority of the American people for the benefit of the few," then James Madison, "the father of the Constitution" was the prime author of this system of fraud and robbery, for he is also "the father of protection" in American legislation. And Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, and the others, concurred with him in establishing this fraud and robbery of the American people.

5. If it be true that "the Federal Government has no constitutional power to impose and collect duties" for "the encouragement of domestic branches of industry," then this power "must be extinct," for "the States have delegated their whole authority over imposts to the General Government," and cannot in any manner interfere. If the Chicago Democratic platform is correct, what an "Old Jack" the Hero of New Orleans must have been.

6. If the Chicago platform is true, and it is “a fundamental principle of the Democratic party that the Federal Government has no constitution, power to impose and collect duties, except for the purposes of revenue only," then there is a misprint in all the editions of the platform which ought long ago to have been corrected. Instead of "Federal" we must read "Confederate," then all is clear and consistent. Compare the two constitutions, and see:

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Article 1, section 8. "The Congress shall have power:-to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare, of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States."

CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA, Article 1, section 8. "The Congress shall have power:-to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, for the revenue necessary to

All sections of our country are parts of one
body, which can be hurt in no part without bring-
ing pain and injury to every part.
-Hon. Seth L. Milliken, Maine.

THE TARIFF AND THE DEMOCRACY. (Continued.)

pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the treasury, nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States."

The words printed in italics in the Confederate constitution are those in which it differs from that of the United States. The differences consist of three particulars: (1) The Congress of the United States has power to provide "for the general welfare"; the Congress of the Confederate States has not this power. (2) The Confederate Congress was limited in the power of taxation to, "the revenue necessary," -to pay debts,-for the common defense, and to " carry on the Government"; the Congress of the United States is not so limited. (3) The Confederate Con.. gress is expressly prohibited from granting "bounties from the treas.. ury," and laying "duties or taxes on importations" "to promote or foster' any branch of industry"; no such limitation or prohibition is placed on the Congress of the United States.

It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the "fundamental principle" of the Democratic party, concerning the unconsitutionality of protection, relates to the Confederate Constitution. And the writer of this plank of the Democratic platform must have written "Confederate," and some stupid type-setter changed it to "Federal." If this error had been detected and corrected, we need not have troubled ourselves about the opinions and practices of the "Fathers of the Republic." We should have known at once that the Democratic party was the residuary legatee of the defunct Confederacy.

291

No believer in the principle of protection could logically join in the rebellion of 1861, because that trouble was founded almost wholly upon opposition to protection. If any person holding decided views in favor of protection to American industry ever participated in that act of secession or engaged under its banner, he was enlisted under false pretenses or misunderstood the issue. -Senator S. M. Cullom, Illinois.

TARIFF. DEMOCRATS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MORRISON TARIFF

BILLS OF 1884 AND 1886.

1884.-Vote to strike out enacting clause: Yeas, 159; nays, 155.

Of the 159 yeas, 41 were Democrats, 118 Republicans.
Of the 155 nays, 151 were Democrats, 4 Republicans.

1886.-Vote consideration of bill: Yeas, 140; nays, 157.

Of the yeas, 135 were Democrats, 4 Republicans, 1 Greenbacker. Of the nays, 35 were Democrats, 121 Republicans, 1 Greenbacker. Forty-one Democrats in 1884 and 35 Democrats in 1886 voted for protection, while for the Mills bill only 3 Democrats had the courage to face the threats of a Democratic Chief Magistrate who was playing party dietator.

TARIFF ACT OF 1894.

TARIFF, CHANGES SHOWN BY THE NEW LAW.

The Democratic party has no foreign markets at its disposal. -Hon. J. T. McCleary, Minnesota.

TARIFF, ACT OF 1894.

The following is the showing of the Senate Committee as to their bill compared with the McKinley law:

NOTE. The computations of the average ad valorem rates of duty are calculated upon the dutiable value only. The value of the articles that are free of duty by either the present law, House, or Senate bills are excluded.

Under present law..... $400,069,658.48 $198,373,452.97
Under Senate bill 463,447,163.11 179,251,142.16

Per cent.
49.58

38.68 $19,122,310.81

In this table the ad valorem tariff on sugar is given as 14.55 per cent. under the McKinley law. This is not correct. It should be 17.13, that is about 17 1-10 one-hundredths of 1 per cent., not 144 per cent. Sugar was free, except a small quantity of refined sugar. But this whole process is a humbug, as the rate should be computed on the entire amount of importations, not the dutiable articles alone. Computed according to the Democratic plan free-trade England levies a duty of 67 per cent. ad valorem.

The elevation and dignity of labor should be the principal cardinal doctrine of every patriotic American. -Senator Geo. C. Perkius, California.

TARIFF, ACT OF 1894. (Continued.

This report, page 462, shows the entire facts as follows: For the year

ending June 30, 1893. Total imports entered for consumption:

In 1855 under the Walker tariff we have the following:

23.36

Under the McKinley law for 1893, the cost of the tariff per capita of population was $2.97. Under the Walker tariff for 1854, $2.46; for 1855, $1.99; and for 1856, $2.28.

TARIFF OF 1894, OBJECTIONS TO THE NEW ACT.

The objections to the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act as it finally passed, are both numerous and cogent:

1. The first is that given by Mr. Cleveland, that it is an act "of party perfidy and dishonor." But that will not weigh much with a party so accustomed to trampling its pledges under foot, as is the Democratic party. The men who denounced it for everything vile, will be lauding it to the skies before the campaign is over.

2. The next is, that it bears a willful lie in its title; because, instead of being "an act to reduce taxation," it is an act to increase taxation. By their own showing it adds $78,200,047 worth of foreign imports to the dutiable list, more than it removes; puts sugar on the dutiable list to the amount of $41,822,623 of duty; and increases the internal revenue, "war taxes," to the amount of $53,000,000. A little thing like that, of course, does not hurt a Democratic conscience.

3. The next is, that its real object is to reduce protective duties on all our domestic industries, and especially those of which iron and wool are the bases; with the avowed purpose of establishing the doctrine of "free trade" in place of that of "protection." This issue is now openly joined for the first time since the civil war.

4. The next objection is, that in carrying out this free-trade program it is essential that we largely increase our importations of foreign products, otherwise we shall fail of revenue, and $200,000,000 is named as the amount of necessary increase. Now, as "the balance of trade" has