rBf
gBPTEMBBR 30, 1$M
The Commoner.
11
mmmmmrpmm
Judge Parker's Letter of Acceptance
Judge Parker's letter of acceptance
is as follows :
To the Honorable Champ Clark and
Others, Committee, etc. Gentlemen:
In my response to your committee, at
the formal notification proceedings, I
referred to some matters not men
tioned in this letter. I desire that
these be considered as incorporated
herein "and regret that lack of space
prevents specific reference to them all.
I wish here, however, again to refer
to my views there expressed as to the
gold standard, to declare again my
unqualified belief in said standard, and
to express my appreciation of the ac
tion of the convention in reply to my
communication upon that subject.
Grave public questions are pressing
for decision. The democratic party ap
peals to the people with confidence
that its position on these questions
will be accepted and indorsed at the
polls: While the issues involved are
numerous, some stand forth-pre-emi
nent in the public mind. Among these
are tariff reform, imperialism, econ
omical administration and honesty in
the public service. I shall briefly con
sider these and some others within
the necessarily prescribed limits of
this letter.
While I presented my views at the
notification proceedings concerning
this vital issue, the overshadowing im
portance of this question impels me to
refer to it again. The issue is often
times referred to as constitutionalism
vs. imperialism.
It we would retain our liberties and
constitutional rights unimpaired, we
can not permit or tolerate, at any time
or for any purpose, the arrogation of
unconstitutional powers by the exec
utive branch of our government. We
should be ever mindful of the words of
Webster, "liberty is only to be pre
served by maintaining cons'litu'tional
restraints and a just division of politi
cal powers."
Already the national government has
become centralized beyond any point
contemplated or imagined by the
founders of the constitution. How tre
mendously all this has added to the
power of the president! It has devel
oped from year to year until it almost
equals that of many monarchs. While
the growth of our country and the
magnitude of interstate interests may
seem to furnish a plausible reason for
this centralization of power, yet these
same facts afford the most potent rea
son why the executive should not be
permitted to encroach upon the other
departments of the government, and
assume legislative, or other powers,
not expressly conferred by the consti
tution. The magnitude of the country and
its diversity of interests and popula
tion would enable a determined, am
bitious and able executive, uLtaindful
of constitutional limitations and fired
with the lust of power, to go'lar in
the usurpation of authority and the
aggrandizement of personal power be
fore the situation could be fully ap
preciated or the people be aroused.
The issue of imperialism which has
been thrust .upon the country involves
Cancer of the Lip Permanently
Cured with Soothing,
Balmy Oils.
Elllston, Mont., March 4, 1904.
Dr. D. M. Byo Co.", Indianapolis, ind.
Deah Sins I vrlie this to let you know that
the cancer Is cured and all healed up. I was nt
two doctors with it before I wroto you. They
tried It all summer and It got worse all tile time,
and after I started your treatment It was onlv six
wcekB until I was cured and well as ever. I am
very thankful to "you and I will do you all the
good I can. I am satisfied it will never break
out any more. I remain yours respectfully.
JAMES SMITH.
There is no rieed of the knife or burning plas
ter, no. need of pain or disfigurement -r the Com
bination Oil Cure for cancers is soothing and
balmy, safe and sure. Write for free book to
the Home Office, Dr. D. M. Bye Co., Drawer 505.
Dept 28, Indianapolis, Ind,
a decision whether the law of the land
or the rule of individual caprice shall
govern. The princlplo of imperialism
may give rise to brilliant, startling,
dashing results, but the principle of
democracy holds in check the brilliant
executive and subjects him to the so
ber, conservative control of the peo
ple. The people of the United States
stand at the parting of tho ways. Shall
wo follow tho footsteps of our fathers
along the paths of peaco, prosperity
and contentment, guided by the ever
living spirit of tho constitution which
they framed for us, or shall wo go
along other and untried paths, hitherto
shunned by all, following blindly new
ideals, which, though appealing with
brilliancy to tho imagination and am
bition, may prove a will o' the wisp,
leading us into difficulties from which
it may be impossible to extricate our
selves without lasting injury to our
national character and institutions?
Tariff reform is one of the cardinal
principles of the democratic faith, and
tho necessity for it was never greater
than at the present time. It should be
undertaken at once In the interest of
all people.
The Dingley tariff is excessive in
many of its rates, and, as to them at
least, unjustly and oppressively bur
dens the people. It secures to domes
tic manufacturers, singly or in com
bination, the privilege of exacting ex
cessive prices at homo and pi ices far
above the level of sales made regu
larly by them abroad with profit, thus
giving a bounty to foreigners at the
expense of our own people. It levies
oppressive and unjust taxes upon
many articles forming, in whole or
part, the so-called raw material of
many of our manufactured products,
not only burdening tho consumer, but
also closing to the manufacture: the
market he needs and seeks abroad. Its
unjust taxation burdens the people
generally, forcing them to pay exces
sive prices for food, fuel, clothing and
other necessaries of life. It levies du
ties on many articles not normally im
ported in any considerable amount,
which are made extensively at homo,
for which the most extreme protection
ist would hardly justify protective
taxes, and which in large amount are
exported. Such duties have Dcen and
will continue to be a direct Incentive
to the formation of huge industrial
combinations, which, secure from for
eign competition, are enabled to stifle
domestic competition and practically to
monopolize the home market.
It contains many duties imposed for
the express purpose only, as was open
ly avowed, of furnishing a basis for re
duction by means of reciprocal trade
treaties, which the republican adminis
tration, Impliedly at least, promised to
negotiate. Having, on this rromlso,
secured the increased duties, the re
publican party leaders, spurred on by
protected interests, defeated the trea
ties negotiated by the executive, and
now these same interests cling to the
benefit of these duties which the peo
ple never intended they should have,
and to which they have no moral right.
Even now the argument more fre
quently urged in behalf of tho Dingley
.tariff, and against tariff reform gen
erally, is the necessity of caring for our
infant industries. Many of these in
dustries, after a hundred years of lus
ty growth, are looming up as industrial
giants. In their case, at least, the
Dingley tariff invites combination and
monopoly, and gives justification to
the expression that the tariff Is the
mother of trusts.
For the above mentioned reasons,
among many others, the people de
mand reform of these abuses, and such
reform demands and should receive im
mediate attention.
The two leading parties have al
ways differed as to tho princlplo of
custom taxation. Our party has al
ways advanced tho theory that tno ob
ject Is the raising of revenue for sup
port of the government whatovcr oth
er results may incidentally How tnere
froin. Tho republican party, on tho
other hand, contends that customs du
ties should be levied primarily for pio
tectlon, so-called, with revenue as the
subordinate purpose, thus utiug tho
power of taxation to build up tho busi
ness and property of tho few at tho
expense of tho many.
This difference of principle still sub
sists, but our party appreciates that
tho iong-contlnued policy of the coun
try, ns manifested in its statutes,
makes it necessary that tarhi reform
should be prudently and sagaciously
unuertaken, on scientific prinuplcB, to
the end that there should not bo an
immediate revolution in oxlainirr con
ditions.
In the words of our platform wo de
mand "a revision and a giauual re
duction of tho tariff by the friends of
tho masses, and for tho common weal,
and not by the friends of its abuses, its
cxtortatlons and discriminations.'
It is true that the ronuhllcnnH wim
do not admit in their platform that
tno Dingley tariff needs tho slightest
alteration, are likely to retain a major
ity of the federal senate throughout tho
next presidential term, and could,
therefore, If they chose, block every
attempt at legislative relief. But it
should bo remembered that tho repub
lican party includes many revisionists,
and I believe it will shrink from defy
ing the popular will expressed unmis
takably and peremptorily at the ballot
box.
The peoplo demand reform of exist
ing conditions. Sinco the last demo
cratic administration tho coBt of living
has grievously increasod. Those hav
ing fixed incomes have suffered keenly;
those living on wages, if there has been
any increase, know that such increase
has not kept pace with tho advance in
the cost of living, including rent and
the necessaries of life. Many today,
are out of work, unable to secure any
wages at all. To alleviate those con
ditions, in so far as is in oui power,
should be our earnest endeavor.
I pointed out in my earlier response
the remedy, which, in my Judgment,
can effectually bo applied against mo
nopolies, and tho assurance waa then
given that if existing laws, including
both statute and common law, proved
inadequate, contrary to my expecta
tions, I favor such further legislation,
within constitutional limitations, as
will best promote and safe guard the
interests of all the people.
Whether there is any common law
which can bo applied and enforced by
the federal courts, can not be deter
mined by the president, or by a can
didate for the presidency.
The determination of this question
was left by the people in framing the
ponstitution, to the judiciary and not
to the executive. The supreme court of
the United States has recently consid
ered this question, and in the case of
the Western Union Telegraph company
against Tho Call Publishing company,
to be found in the 181st volume of the
United States supreme court reports,
at page 92, it decided that common
law principles could be applied by
United States courts in cases involv
ing interstate commerce, in the ab
sence of United States statutes specif
ically covering the case. Such is the
law of the land.
In my address to tho notification
committee I said that tariff reform "is
demanded by the best interests of both
manufacturer and consumer." With
equal truth it can be said that the
benefits of reciprocal trade treaties
would inure to both. That the cori
sumer would be helped is unqucatlon
able. That the manufacturer would
receive great benefit by extending his
markets abroad hardly needs demon;
slration. His productive capacity has
outgrown tho home market. Tho very
term "Homo Market" has changed in
lis significance. Once, from tho man
ufacturers' point of view, It meant ex
pansion; today tho marvelous growth
of our manufacturing Industries has
far exceeded tho consumptive capacity
of our domestic markets, and tho term
"Home Mnrket" implies contraction,
rather than expansion. If wc would
run our mills to thoir full capacity,
thus giving steady employment to our
workmen and securing to them Mid to
the manufacturer tho profits accruing
irom increased production, other mar
kets must bo found, Furthcrnioie, when
our manufacturers are depomlont on
raw matorlals in wholo or patt im
ported, it Is vital to the exton&Ion o
their markets abroad that they secure
their materials on the most iavorablo
terms.
Our martyred president, William Mc
Kinloy, appreciated this situation. Ho
pointed out in his last address to
tho peoplo that wo must make sensi
ble trade arrangements if "we shall ex
tend tho outlets for our increasing fcur
plus." Ho said, "a system which pro
vides u mutual exchange of commod
ities is manifestly essential to ihc con
tinued and healthful growth of our ex
port trudc. The period of cx
cluslvencss Is past. The expansion of
our trade and commerce is the pressing
problem, Commercial wars aro un
profitable. A policy of good will and
friendly relations will prevent icpri
sals. Itcclproclty treaties are in har
mony with the spirit of the times;
measures of retaliation are not."
This argument was mado in the In
terest of our manufacturers, whose
products, ho urged, "have so multi
plied, that tho problem of moro mar
kets requires our urgent and Imme
diate attention." Ho had come to real
ize that the so-called "stand pat" pol
icy must give way that thero must be
a reduction of duties to enable our
manufacturers to cultivate foreign
markets. Tho last words of this presi
dent who had won tho affection of his
countrymenought to bo studied by
every man who has any doubt of tho
necessity of a reduction in tariff rates
in tho interest of tho manufacturer.
They present with ntaarness a situation
and a proposed remedy that prompted
tho provision in our platform which
declares that, "Wc favor liberal trade
arrangements with Canada and with
peoples pf other countries, where they
can be entered Into with benefit to
American agriculture, manufactures,
mining or commerce."
The persistent refusal of the re
publican majority in tho federal gen
ate to ratify the reciprocity treaties ne
gotiated In pursuance of the policy ad
vocated alike by Mr. Blaine and Mr.
McKinley, and expressly sancfioned in
the Dingley act Itself, is a discourag
ing exhibition of bad faith. As al
ready mentioned by me, the exorbitant
duty Imposed "on many an imported ar
ticle by the Dingley tariff was avowedly
Intended by its author not to be per
manent, but to serve temporarily as a
maximum, from which the federal gov
ernment was empowered to offer a re
duction, in return for an equivalent
concession on the part of a foreign
country. President McKinley under
took honestly to carry out the purpose
of the act. A number of reciprocity
agreements were negotiated, which, if
ratified, would have had the two-fold
result of cheapening many imported
products for American consumers, and
of opening and enlarging foreign mar
kets to American producers. Not one
of those agreements has met with the
approval of the republican masters of
the senate. Indeed they did not even
permit their consideration. In view of
the attitude of. the present executive,
no new agreement need be expected
from him. Nor does the republican
platform contain a favorable reference
to one of the suspended treaties. The
reciprocity clauses of the Dingley act
seem destined to remain a monument
r