NOT A DEMOCRATIC PARTY VICTORY.--DEMOCRACY IS NOT THE NAME OF A PARTY,
BUT OF A PRINCIPLE.
The endeavor has been made in the preceding chapters to furnish
examples of the uprisings of the people from the time of ancient Egypt
to the present day.
The endeavor has been made to place before the thinking men of the
wealthier class parallels, in ancient history, of great political
upheavals in the past history of our own country, as well as in the
history of foreign countries and nations--exhibitions similar to the
powerful protest made by the people on November 8, 1892.
The object to be attained by such an arrangement of facts as will
impress the wealthier classes, is that a change in their methods and
manners may be brought about. No one can pretend to contradict that
the people with incomes less than $5,000 a year could, if they saw
fit, cause such legislation as would relieve them from the burden of
the expenses of the government. It is almost incredible that a journal
as preëminent in the Democratic campaign as was the New York _Sun_,
should publish an editorial, as late as the 10th day of December, as
follows:--
NOT DEMOCRATIC.
“Various propositions for an income tax come from Democratic
free-traders, who are ready for any scheme for raising revenue
that doesn’t depend upon a protective tariff. Then there are the
Populists, Nationalists, and divers miscellaneous cranks who
object to wealth on general principles. Other men’s wealth, of
course. To these powerful thinkers an income tax is a penalty
to be inflicted upon the plutocrats, a discouragement to the
acquisition of money. There is much flabby talk about plutocracy,
and a good deal of the talk in favor of an income tax is of that
nature.
“With the opinions of the Populists we are not concerned, except
as students and observers of the political curiosities of the
time. It is proper, on the other hand, to remind Democrats that an
income tax is undemocratic. Undemocratic in principles, because
it is an interference with individual business and a premium upon
perjury. Undemocratic in precedent, because the imposition of such
a tax was unanimously and strenuously opposed by the Democratic
party, and because the extension of the life of that tax from 1870
to 1872 was likewise opposed, with substantial unanimity, by the
Democratic party.
“The only excuse for the income tax was that it was a war measure.
What excuse can be given for reimposing it? Is there a war against
money or against common-sense?”
Democratic free-traders, so obnoxious to the New York _Sun_, by the
suggestion of an income tax, are merely seeking for means whereby the
expenses of the Government may be defrayed. They know that something
is the matter with the Democratic masses, who have shown their
dissatisfaction with the existing state of things. These Democratic
free-traders (and they fairly represent the doctrine proclaimed as a
principle of the Democratic party, and adopted as a platform in the
Chicago Convention) know that if they are to be consistent they must
abolish, to a great extent, the duties upon imported articles. They
also know that if they abolish duties, there will not be sufficient
money paid into the treasury of the United States to defray the current
expenses of the Government. They have realized the powerful current of
public opinion, which demands the equalization of taxes between those
who enjoy the benefits of living under the government of the Federal
Union. The tariff duties do not fall with the same proportionate weight
upon the rich and the poor. The rich derive greater benefit from the
security offered their property than the poor, as the amount of their
property is greater than that of the poor; yet a Vanderbilt consumes
no more sugar, and therefore pays no more duty, than the Homestead
striker.
The Democratic free-trader, “with his flabby talk of an income tax,” is
merely seeking for a means to furnish, upon something like an equitable
basis, the money necessary to run the Government.
The “Populist, Nationalist, and divers miscellaneous cranks” (referred
to in the editorial quoted) call to mind the Abolitionists of 1856, who
were spoken of with so much contempt, and yet who, four years after, as
the Republican party, with Abraham Lincoln as their candidate, swept
the country. If “flabby talk” means a demand made by the people upon
the wealthier class to render unto the Government in proportion to
benefits conferred by the Government, then let “flabbyism” continue to
characterize the talk of our legislators, because it would be, with all
of its “flabbiness,” a welcome doctrine to the “Common People.”
The editorial under discussion goes on to recite the fact that the
opinions of “the Populist are not worthy of concern, except to those
students and observers of the political curiosities of the times.”
Again is called to mind the studies and observations made concerning
“curiosities” that existed in the political firmament in 1856, and
resulted in the AURORA BOREALIS in 1860.
This editorial, which is worthy of great attention, emanating from the
source that it does, reminds the Democrats (meaning the Democratic
party) that an income tax is “undemocratic--undemocratic in principle,”
because the Democratic party strenuously opposed the life of that tax
from 1870 to 1872. There is _not_ a shadow of doubt that an income tax
is _not_ in accordance with the principles of that party which bears
the name of the _Democratic party_; but that _it is in accordance_
with _democracy_ and the _feelings_ that fill the breasts of the
masses who voted last November for Grover Cleveland, and no one better
understands the fact that the victory of last November was not won by
the Democratic party, as a party, than the one man most benefited and
elevated thereby; that is, the President-elect, Grover Cleveland.
The howl that one thing or another is “not according to the principles
of the Democratic party,” ought to have but little effect upon him;
and, judging from the editorial of November 21st, which appeared in
that other journalistic pillar of the Democratic party, the New York
_World_, Grover Cleveland appreciates the exact position of affairs,
and how and why he was elected.
THE FRUITS OF VICTORY.
“Mr. Cleveland’s speeches since the election are even better than
those which he made in the campaign. There is an advantage in
perfect freedom.
“No truer or more philosophical statement of the causes that
underlay the recent political revolution has been made than
was contained in Mr. Cleveland’s brief speech at the Manhattan
Club. ‘The American people,’ he said, ‘have become politically
more thoughtful and more watchful than they were ten years
ago. They are considering now vastly more than they were then
political principles and party policies, in distinction from party
manipulation and the distribution of rewards for partisan services
and activities.’
“During the campaign, it was a common remark that so quiet a
Presidential canvass had not been seen in many years before.
But the result showed that the people had been thinking, and
that they knew what they wanted. What they want, and what they
have demanded, they must be given, if the Democratic party is to
remain in power. And what the people ask and expect, Mr. Cleveland
clearly indicated in this earnest and elevated passage in his
speech:--
“‘In the present mood of the people, neither the Democratic party
nor any other party can gain and keep the support of the majority
of our voters by merely promising or distributing personal
spoils and favors from partisan supremacy. They are thinking of
principles and policies, and they will be satisfied with nothing
short of the utmost good faith in the redemption of the pledges
to serve them in their collective capacity by the inauguration of
wise policies and giving to them honest government.
“‘I would not have this otherwise, for I am willing that the
Democratic party shall see that its only hope of successfully
meeting the situation is by being absolutely and patriotically
true to itself and its profession. This is a sure guarantee of
success, and I know of no other.’
“Truer words were never spoken. The fruits of Democratic victory
must be sought in lower and more just taxes, in lessened
expenditures, in a better public service, in the reform of abuses
and the remedy of evils from which the people are suffering, and,
in general, in good and honest government. This is indeed the
only vindication of the success that has been achieved, the only
guarantee of other triumphs to come.”
Grover Cleveland, better probably than any other man in the Union,
appreciates the fact that his elevation to the Presidential chair was
not secured because there are more members of what is known as the
Democratic party in the Union than members of what is known as the
Republican party. It must be apparent that many who formerly voted with
the Republican party decided, for some good and sufficient reason,
that they would vote for the nominee of the Democratic party, in the
last Presidential election, and that they did so vote on the 8th day
of November is evidenced by the fact of Grover Cleveland’s large
majorities, and the increased vote for the ticket bearing his name,
even in States whose electoral votes will be cast in the Electoral
College for the nominee of the Republican party.
It is impossible to ascribe this change to increased emigration and the
fact that recently naturalized citizens voted the Democratic ticket. In
the first place, there is no such unanimity of love for the Democratic
party, as a _party_, in the breasts of the emigrants who have been
recently naturalized, as to account for their voting unanimously the
Democratic ticket. Again, the number of foreigners who have been made,
by naturalization, citizens of the United States within the last four
years is not sufficient to account for this tremendous revolution;
and, further, the greatest gains made by the Democratic nominee were
not made in those sections wherein the greatest flood of emigration
has poured. Therefore, it seems conclusive that the nominee of the
Democratic party received the support of Americans who had formerly
voted with the Republican party.
Now, upon what ground can this general conversion rest? It was not done
by the flaring of trumpets, by oratory, or reasoning upon the issues as
set forth in the platforms of the two parties. It is hard to imagine
many voters being convinced of the advantages that would arise under a
system of State banks. It would seem that that would convince few, if
any, that the Democratic party was more desirable than the Republican
party, to have in charge of the finances of the nation. That, as an
abstract principle, “Free Trade,” or “tariff for revenue only,”
converted this large number of former Republican voters, is a statement
not justified by the vote cast in different States, nor is it possible
to find one man, in each hundred who voted the Democratic ticket, who
can intelligently discuss the subject of Protection and Free Trade and
give satisfactory reasons for preferring Free Trade. The subject is a
perplexing one, even to those who have devoted much time and study to
political economy.
To show a lack of unanimity among the high priests of Democracy on
the subject of Protection and Free Trade, one has only to refer to
the record of the late and eminent Samuel J. Randall, who was a most
pronounced Protectionist, yet a sterling member of the party known
as the Democratic party. On the other hand, we have the Hon. John G.
Carlisle, Senator from the State of Kentucky, who represents ultra
Free Tradeism. Even the same difference exists between those two great
journals, in which are supposed to be mirrored Democratic doctrines
and principles: the New York _Sun_, whose editorial is here quoted,
which is an absolute Protection organ, and the New York _World_, whose
editorial is also quoted, the last-named paper being an absolute Free
Trade organ.
It would seem perfectly apparent to even the most benighted mind
that, with such divergence of opinion among the old-line Democrats,
a doctrine not believed in unanimously by them, could make but few
converts from the ranks of the party pledged to Protection.
Free Trade and State banks were the two leading cries in the campaign
of the Democrats, joined to which was occasionally heard the cry of
fear of a Force Bill.
The worthy New York _Sun_ would, doubtless, attribute largely the
victory to its efforts in calling the attention of the public to the
Force Bill and the danger of its passage if the Republicans should gain
the control of the Federal Government. As a matter of fact, however,
the people of the Union had seen the Republicans in power, controlling
both branches of the National legislature, and also the executive
department of the Government; yet, the people have seen the Lodge Bill,
known as the Force Bill, pass the Republican House of Representatives,
and die a doleful death in the Republican Senate, killed by the votes
of Republican Senators. Therefore, that part of the Democratic policy
which indicated a strenuous objection to the passage of a Force Bill,
if put in power, could not possibly have a great deal of effect in the
missionary work done by the Democratic managers. Those Republicans who
voted for the nominee of the Democratic party, at the last election,
could not have been influenced to do so by the arguments advanced with
regard to the Force Bill.
They had seen Senators of their own, the Republican party, kill a
Force Bill in the Senate of the United States, and they had no reason
to believe but that a recurrence of murder would take place should
another Force Bill pass the House of Representatives and be sent to a
Republican Senate. These three leading features of the Democratic party
appear most prominently in the campaign. Can any fair man say that any
one or all of them influenced those Republicans who voted for Grover
Cleveland to change from the Republican party and become members of the
Democratic party? Is there anything in any one of them or all of them
jointly to make a man forsake old associates, old ideas and faiths, and
to associate himself, by reason of conviction, with things that are new?
It could not be a matter of reason. It was a matter of sentiment. And
(again repeating) no one seems to understand that to be the case better
than the President-elect. It was the sentiment of detestation upon the
part of the masses--the “Common People”--for that assumption of class
distinction, the attempted introduction of “caste” in our country
by those who are allied to, or who had forced themselves upon, the
Republican party.
The cold and clammy arms of “caste,” in which the Republican party was
encircled, doomed it to defeat. All of the great virility with which it
was endowed when, as Abraham Lincoln’s Republican party, it represented
the “Common People,” was crushed out of it by this venomous python,
so that when it faced, in 1892, the arrayed resentment of the “Common
People,” it was but a shapeless, disfigured form, in which all the
beauty, purity, and strength with which it was endowed at the time of
its creation had ceased to exist. Had the Republican party retained
the vigor that marked its young manhood before it became suffocated by
this mass of putrid matter, called aristocracy, there would have been
another story to tell of the election November 8, 1892.
Had the argument been well defined, as it was in the last election,
with parties of equal merit in the eyes of the people, possessing
equally the virtues and spirit of the American people--had we arrayed
upon one side the Democratic party, with its oriflamme of “Free Trade,
State Banks, and No Force Bill,” and upon the other side marshaled the
Republican hosts under a leader like Lincoln, a man of the people, upon
whose standard should be written, “Protection for American Industries,
Sound Money Guaranteed by the Faith of the Nation, and Fair Election,”
can any one who is fair doubt as to what the issue would have been?
It was not, Novembers, 1892, a battle between the Republican party
and the Democratic party, and when journals like the New York _Sun_
would attempt to yoke the people’s will by party principles and party
traditions, they are merely preparing a harness of cobwebs, which
public opinion will tear asunder, and ring the death-knell of the
Democratic party in so doing.
The New York _World_, November 10th, publishes a remarkable editorial,
in which it recites, among other things, what this victory does _not_
mean. The editorial is given, because, if it be correct--and the New
York _World_ is certainly good authority--then it surely does not mean
a victory for the Democratic party, while it does mean a victory for
the “Common People,” the democratic masses, and such cries in future
as that of the New York _Sun_ against an income tax, because it is
contrary to the Democratic party, will be meaningless, inasmuch as the
Democratic party has not won this victory, and Grover Cleveland was not
elected President by the Democratic party.
Quoting from the New York _World_, whose editorial of November 10th
is printed herewith, these sentences occur: “This victory does not
mean Free Trade.” Then, does it mean “Tariff for revenue only”? which
is an expression in the Democratic platform, adopted in Chicago, and,
therefore, if this be a Democratic victory, it must mean what the
Democratic party pledged themselves to in their National Convention at
Chicago. “It does not mean,” says the New York _World_, “the unsettling
of industry nor the derangement of commerce.” Well, but how can we have
tariff for revenue only without unsettling industry and the derangement
of commerce? And, if it be a Democratic victory (by Democratic victory
is meant a victory of the Democratic party), we must have such laws
made and executed as will create a schedule of tariff for revenue only.
Quoting further from this editorial: “It does not mean disturbance of
what is sound in finance.” Then how can that portion of the Democratic
platform, adopted at Chicago, be made consistent with the legislation
in the future regarding the finances of the country? If the tax of
ten per cent. upon State banks be withdrawn, and thus State banks be
enabled to issue their notes, how will it be possible to prevent “a
disturbance” of whatever is sound in finance?
Now, if this be a victory of the Democratic party, such a repeal of the
ten per cent. penalty tax upon State banks must be enacted--that is, if
the Democratic party intends to keep faith with its constituents.
FOR THE GOOD OF ALL.
“If there are honest Republicans who really believe what their
party journals and speakers have told them--who fear that
Democratic success in the nation threatens danger or disturbance
to business--to them we say: Your fears are idle.
“The majority of the people of the United States, represented by
the great Democratic majority, do not mean injury to themselves.
This country is their country. Its business interests are their
interests. Its prosperity is their prosperity. Its honor and
welfare are their concern.
“This victory does not mean Free Trade. It does not mean the
unsettling of industry nor the derangement of commerce. It does
not mean disturbance of whatever is sound in finance.
“The President-elect is the very embodiment of conscientious
caution. He is preëminently conservative. His administration
will mean economy, reform, retrenchment in every branch of the
Government.
“The victory does mean putting a stop to the riot of extravagance,
profligacy, and corruption. It means the end of the reign of
Plutocracy. It means relief from the monstrous robbery of the
masses by unjust and unnecessary taxation. It means a veto
upon the looting of the Treasury and the hideous waste of
hundreds--nay, thousands--of millions of dollars in the course of
a generation by unmerited pensions. It does mean lower and juster
taxes and larger freedom of trade. It does mean good money, and
good money only.
“Our party has triumphed under the happy union of a great issue
and a great man. The Republic is stronger for this Democratic
victory. The Republicans themselves will be more prosperous, and
in the end happier because of it. Government of the people is
safe in the hands of a great majority of the people.”
In the concluding paragraph of the above editorial of the _World_, we
read (and those of us who live in New York State, with considerable
astonishment): “Our party has triumphed under the happy union of a
great issue and a great man.” To start with, the issue seems to have
been, judging from all of the preceding, Tariff on one side, Free Trade
on the other; National banks on one side, State banks on the other; and
Force Bill as a kind of “Flyer.”
With regard to these “great issues,” there was a lack of unanimity
among even the great newspapers of the Union, at the head of which,
justly and properly, we put the Free Trade New York _World_ and
the Protection New York _Sun_. With regard to the “great man” (and
there is no attempt to disparage in any manner the President-elect
of this nation), it seems somewhat peculiar to use the term “great”
to designate that citizen of the Union who has been selected as
chief magistrate of the nation, in view of the fact that he had been
dubbed the “Stuffed Prophet” by that great organ of Democracy, the
New York _Sun_, and was so heralded through the Union for more than
a year before his nomination. And when four years ago, he sought
re-election, the New York _World_ killed this “great man” by faint
praise. His popularity and greatness did not seem to be recognized
by the seventy-two members of the Democratic National Committee
who represented the State of New York, in the National Democratic
Convention at Chicago, as these representatives protested against the
nomination of their “great” fellow-citizen, declaring that he could
not be elected if nominated; and they represented the politics of the
Democratic party; and they told the truth as far as the Democratic
party was concerned.
By reason of his greatness or his popularity, he could not have been
elected. But when he came before the people, as representing the great
mass of the “Common People,” then he became great, but only great in so
far as he represented the greatness of the people.
The politicians of New York State pronounced the verdict of all that
which is controlled by politicians in the State of New York, when
they declared it as their opinion that Grover Cleveland could not
carry the State of New York. They were simply saying what they, the
politicians, in their little political way, could do. But when Grover
Cleveland became the representative of the “Common People,” then the
“Common People” made him great--far greater than could the politician
have done--and he has sailed into office on the favorable wind of the
opinion of the “Common People.” His greatness is only the reflected
greatness of those whom he represents. Inherently, greatness in Grover
Cleveland may exist, but certainly no evidence of it has yet been
given. He is great to-day because of the great support that has been
given him by the will and pleasure of the “Common People.” He is no
more great of himself and in himself than would be the rifle in the
hands of an expert marksman. The masses, the “Common People,” represent
the marksman. Grover Cleveland is merely the weapon which they will
use to bring down the animal which has been devouring their substance,
destroying their homes and happiness. The weapon, even though it be
the rifle of Davy Crockett, would become impotent in the hands of the
weak and inexperienced. The people are powerful, and they will render
great the weapon which they wield. The people are skillful. For many
centuries, as the preceding chapters recount, in the history of all
nations, the people have become trained and skillful in the use of
their power.
The President-elect has it within his reach to achieve greatness as
the willing and trusty weapon of the masses, the “Common People,” by
whom he was elected. And wherever the “Common People,” the masses, have
found a weapon untrustworthy, they have cast it aside as readily and
quickly, and secured another, as the ordinary hunter of the wild animal
would do.
The “Common People” have been engaged in a chase after this wild
animal, this destructive beast, called “caste,” sham aristocracy, and
over-accumulation of wealth. They imagine that they have secured a good
weapon in the man of their choice, November last. And, should it become
evident that they have been mistaken, his greatness will cease to be as
soon as the great power by which he is supported falls away from him.
It is not well to call a man great until he is dead. Had Benedict
Arnold died after the Battle of Saratoga, he would have gone down in
history as one of the great heroes of the Revolution.
Grover Cleveland was elected, contrary to the expectations expressed
(and expressed honestly) by the seventy-two most influential Democratic
politicians of the State of New York. He carried the State represented
by these sagacious politicians by more than 40,000 majority. And it was
all done, independently of the politicians, by the will of the “Common
People”--not by the Democratic party. For upon what issue, possibly,
could converts have been made by the politicians?
From the standpoint of politicians, and from past experience, that
eminent Democratic orator, the Hon. Bourke Cockran, was perfectly
correct when he stated in Chicago, in his famous speech before the
National Democratic Convention, that Grover Cleveland was the most
popular man in the country on every day in the year, except election
day. This was said, honestly and sincerely, by a leading light of the
political world of the Democratic party. Mr. Cockran could not foretell
that the great Democratic masses, the “Common People,” would utilize
any one who might happen to be chosen as the weapon of destruction
which the “Common People” would use in the chase after the object of
their resentment, that brute, represented by “Chappie” on Broadway, the
Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, and Goulds--the sham aristocracy.
Mr. Cockran has, since the election, doubtless realized that, as a
politician of the State of New York, he is justly eminent for his
sagacity and wisdom, as well as his eloquence; but, as a judge of what
the PEOPLE will do, he is as unreliable in his judgment as the veriest
babe in swaddling clothes.
He was talking in Chicago, as was the honorable Governor of the State
of New York, and others, for the Democratic party, which COULD NOT and
DID NOT elect Grover Cleveland. When, therefore, after the election
of Grover Cleveland, that Democratic party, as represented by the
New York _Sun_, assumes to dictate to the party of the people, who,
independently of the Democratic party as a political organization, but
acting only as “Common People,” have elected a chief magistrate and
representatives to represent them, the “Common People,” it is simply
bidding for the extinction of the power of that political party known
as the Democratic party, with whom, on this occasion, the “Common
People” have acted, for purposes of their own, and to achieve ends
which they consider desirable.
Should it be assumed by those elected November 8, 1892, to represent
the people in the government of the nation, that they were elected
because they were Democrats--or, rather, members of the Democratic
political party--then it would become their duty, as honest men,
pledged to support the views entertained and expressed by the makers
of the platform of the Democratic National Convention at Chicago, to
repeal all existing tariff laws, until the amount received from duties
would only be sufficient to defray the expenses of the Government. In
other words, having a tariff for revenue only, and not for protection;
but, inasmuch as the expenses of the Government are as great or greater
to-day than its income, it would mean that the “Common People,” who
voted for the nominee of the Democratic party, have simply swapped
horses in crossing a stream, without benefiting themselves in any
particular. The Government must have money to defray its expenses, and
if, practically, the present tariff is only furnishing a sufficient
revenue to defray the expenses of the Government, where is it possible
to reform it, so as to lighten the burden of taxation now imposed
upon the “Common People”? This is all upon the assumption that the
Democratic party claim that it was that peculiar plank in their
platform, “Tariff for Revenue Only,” that gave them the victory last
November. Then the tariff would remain as it is, as we need every
dollar of the income of the nation to defray its expenses.
Should the Democratic party assume that it was that peculiar part of
their platform which demanded a repeal of the ten per cent. penalty
tax for the State banks, then, by the repeal (to which they are
pledged) of the said penalty tax of ten per cent., State banks would
spring into existence, issuing their own notes, as was the practice
before the National Banking Act was enacted. What great good to the
“Common People” could grow out of this change in the currency of the
nation (that would apparently be the only thing, if the Democratic
party is convinced that its nominees were elected because of the
virtues contained in their platform), that can possibly be carried
into execution by the incoming Government? The suggestion of an
increase in the internal revenue tax levied upon alcohol would not be
productive of an increase in the revenue derived from this source, as
past experience, both in this country and in Europe, has demonstrated
that increased taxes upon any article decrease the consumption of said
article, and, therefore, decrease the revenue.
The perplexing question, therefore, that will confront those who
believe that the DEMOCRATIC PARTY was elected to power, is: How can we
adhere to the platform of the Democratic party, and at the same time
benefit, in the slightest degree, the people of the nation? For even
the most egotistical Democrat will understand, and does understand,
that the people of the nation, having placed in the hands of those men
whom they have chosen, the entire control of the affairs of the nation;
that they, the “Common People” of the nation, will not be satisfied
with merely holding things as they are. That would be merely a shifting
of scenes without changing the play on the stage of public affairs.
Something must be done, in addition to the mere putting out of one set
of office-holders of the Republican party and putting in another set of
office-holders of the Democratic party. The “Common People” of America,
the masses, are not office-seekers. They desire something more than
the mere changing of the political faith of their Postmasters, United
States Marshals, and other Federal office-holders.
If the Democratic party, now in power, fails to do anything except
shift the scene and change office-holders, then the Democratic party
will be relegated to that dismal slough of despondency, at the next
election, in which the Republican party is now submerged. The people
will elect, by some political name, a party who will perform something
for the people’s benefit.
It is almost impossible to reduce the tariff without running the
government into debt. It is impossible to increase the internal revenue
tax to supply the deficiency. Then, if the Democratic party believes
in lower duties and decreased tariff, what other course is open for
it? What other course is fair to the poor “Common People” of America
than to pass an income tax to supply the needs of the nation? It is
perfectly useless to talk about abolishing the pensions to any amount
sufficient to create any perceptible impression upon the decrease in
the income of the nation, should the tariff be materially reduced. It
is utterly worthless to argue the subject. The time is wasted. Pension
frauds--if any exist--should be at once abolished. But any attempt to
repeal any existing legislation with regard to the pensions of the old
soldiers of the Union would simply be met by such a howl of indignation
as to make a step of that nature impracticable. Whatever sums have
been given, and whatever obligations have been incurred, by the Federal
Government in the last four years (except frauds which may possibly
have been perpetrated), must continue to exist until time shall have
relieved the Federal Government from its obligations to the old
veterans of the Civil War.
We must have money for internal improvements, for our navy, and for
our pensions. We cannot procure the money if we materially reduce
the tariff, except in one way, and that is by an income tax, which
necessarily must be a graded one. The people of America will not stand
a general income tax, wherein one man with an income of a million
dollars per annum can pay two per cent., and the man whose income is
only two thousand dollars per annum shall pay also the same percentage
upon his small income. That would be obviously unfair to the poor
man, to whom two per cent. from his small income would represent an
inconvenience to him greater than fifty per cent. would to the man with
an income of a million.
If the Democratic party assume to have won this victory, then let
them proceed, upon the platform adopted at Chicago, which will result
practically in nothing being accomplished. If Grover Cleveland has
been elected solely for his “greatness,” and by reason of his immense
personal popularity, then let him gather the Reform Club with one arm
and Tammany Hall with the other. This trinity of greatness, purity, and
brightness will be sufficient for his administration, but nothing will
be done.
If, as the facts are, or seem to be--and the vote indicates the
correctness of the position--Grover Cleveland and the Democratic
party have been put into power by the “Common People” because they
represented to the minds of the “Common People” the opposition to
“caste,” sham aristocracy, and great accumulation of wealth, and not
by the mugwumps and the kid-gloved gentlemen of the Reformed Club or
the Tammany Heelers, then, if Grover Cleveland and the Democratic party
recognize their election to be the result of the votes, not alone of
the faithful of the Democratic faith, but of the “Common People,” let
something be done that may enable the “Common People” to realize their
hopes and expectations--then, at the end of Grover Cleveland’s four
years of administration, he having performed the wishes of the “Common
People,” let us pronounce him GREAT.
If the Democratic party, with the President at its head, will now
utterly throw to the wind old traditions and principles of the
Democratic party, and give no heed to the howling of the Democratic
press, but comply with the mandates of the people, that they should be
relieved from this incubus which is crushing them--over-accumulation
of wealth, centralization of capital, and sham aristocracy; the only
possible way, without resorting to measures obnoxious to the American
mind--confiscation and like enactments--is by a graded income tax,
which will throw the burden of the Government where it belongs,--_i.
e._, upon the shoulders of those who have become fat and lusty by
feeding upon the blood of the nation. And, in proportion as the burden
of taxation is laid upon those ample shoulders, it may be lifted from
the crushed and suffering poor of the body politic.
The mere utterance and repetition of the word “reform” is meaningless.
_Saying_ the word does not make any reformation. When Grover Cleveland
was elected eight years ago, he was elected upon the “Reform” cry.
The people were then suffering from this “class” infliction, and they
gave vent to their feelings by the election of Cleveland. It had been
so often repeated that there was great corruption in the Republican
party, that the people expected a wonderful exposure of corruption and
a great reformation in the affairs of the nation. Nothing was done. No
corruption was exposed. The ledgers of the nation seemed to have been
accurately kept. No crime was unearthed, and nothing was accomplished.
The very plausible excuse was offered that the Republican party still
controlled the Senate of the United States, and made abortive any
attempt at reformation, or the accomplishment of any relief for the
“Common People.”
Now, upon this occasion, Grover Cleveland, after a vacation of four
years, has been called once again by the “Common People” to command the
Ship of State. Both mates and the whole crew have been placed under his
command. They believe of him what the New York _World_, November 13th,
here gives us:--
THE “STUFFED PROPHET.”
“The ‘Stuffed Prophet’--that is the nickname bestowed upon Mr.
Cleveland by the newspaper organ of plutocracy, which has for
years professed Democracy for the purpose of betraying it.
“The name was bestowed in derision. It was the favorite invention
of a malice which mistakes insolence for wit. It was intended for
ridicule, but, rightly viewed, it is a title to be worn as an
honor.
“It is an honor to Mr. Cleveland that he has never had or merited
the approval of the New York _Sun_. It is a credit to him that
that journal is chief among those to whom General Bragg referred
when he said, ‘We love him for the enemies he has made.’
“And there is fitness in the nickname, too.
“Mr. Cleveland was a true prophet when he set the face of
Democracy towards reform, foreseeing that the country would
in due time demand it. He had the gift of the seer, when at
the Washington Centennial banquet, he avowed his unfaltering
confidence in the wisdom of the people who had so recently
overthrown his cause, and his assurance that they would soon come
to a juster view, and vote down the policy of monopoly and class
privilege and oppressive taxation. They have done it this year.
“And this prophet is stuffed.
“He is stuffed with the virtue which accepts public office only as
a public trust;
“Stuffed with the honor which refuses to ‘palter in a double
sense’ with words, or even to keep silence when--as at the time
of the silver craze--frank utterance seems to promise only
destruction for his own and his party’s ambitions;
“Stuffed with sturdy common-sense which ‘sees clear and thinks
straight,’ and so commends itself to the ‘plain people’ who love
the right and seek justice;
“Stuffed with a foresight unsurpassed by that of any statesman of
our time;
“Stuffed with a purity of patriotism which views place and power
merely as opportunities to render service to the country;
“Stuffed with unprecedented majorities, the eager tributes of the
people in testimony of their approval;
“Stuffed with the confidence of his countrymen, who have called
him again into their service in order that wrongs may be righted,
oppressions overthrown, errant tendencies checked, and that
government of the people, by the people, and for the people may
not perish from the land;
“Stuffed with the Democracy that means all this, for truly--
“The next President _is_ a Democrat.”
If, as we hope, “Grover Cleveland is stuffed with the virtue which
accepts public office only as a public trust,” then he will accept his
office as President of the United States as a trust from the “Common
People” of our country, and not from the political party who nominated
him,--_i. e._, the Democratic party; he will accept the trust confided
in him by the Democracy in its broadest sense--the “Common People” of
the land.
If he be “stuffed with honor,” in accepting that trust, he will do so
with full cognizance of the fact that in honor bound he is to acquit
himself in his high office to which he has been called by the “Common
People” of America, as will best satisfy them, and remove those crying
evils which call aloud from the hearthstone of every Common Man in
America. The most objectionable of all the evils, and the one most
prominently considered by the voter last November, was the existence of
an attempted class distinction in our country.
If he is “stuffed,” as God grant he is, “with sturdy common-sense,
which sees clearly and thinks straight, and so commends itself to
the plain people who love the right and seek justice,” his sturdy
common-sense will teach him that he has been elected by the “plain
people,” and he will “think straight,” that the “plain people” want
such legislation and the execution of such legislation as may relieve
them--not in pocketbook, but in feeling--from the assumption of a
superiority upon the part of the wealthy worshipers at the throne of
“caste,” and to that end a graded income tax will be productive of more
good and be more efficacious in the accomplishment of an object so near
to the “plain people who love right and seek justice,” that it made the
plain “Common People” forget old affiliations last November--old ties
and associations--and vote for the President-elect and the political
party by which he was nominated.
If he be “stuffed with a purity of patriotism which views place and
power merely as opportunities to render service to the country,” then
when his term of office shall have expired, having rendered that
service to the country, and the “Common People” of the country, to do
which he was elected President by the “plain people,” he will have
endeared himself so to the patriotic “plain people” of the land, having
faithfully kept the trust reposed in him by the people, that his name
shall go down in the records of the nation associated with the names
of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln.
Grover Cleveland is certainly “stuffed” with the confidence of his
countrymen, who have called him again into their service, in order
that wrongs may be righted, oppression overthrown, arrant tendencies
checked, and that “the government of the people, by the people, and
for the people, may not perish from the land.” Let us hope that
this confidence is well placed, and that now, when he may call to
his assistance both branches of the national legislature, he will
right those wrongs, and overthrow the oppression of which the people
complain; and the chiefest of these is the accumulation of vast sums of
money in the hands of families and persons, which creates a danger to
“the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
The people do believe that he is “stuffed with true democracy, in
its broadest sense,” else they never would have elected him. And how
can that true democracy be exhibited better than by suggesting such
legislation as will cast the burden of taxation upon that class who
can so easily bear it--that class which have rendered themselves so
entirely obnoxious to the “Common People” of America, those “plain
people, who love the right and seek justice,” and who, loving the
right, have sought justice by calling him to the position of Executive
of the nation? How can Grover Cleveland better right the wrongs of the
“Common People” than by urging, as chief of the party in power, the
passage of a graded income tax, which would certainly meet with the
approval of the “Common People,” by whom he was elected, that thereby
funds might be furnished for defraying the expenses of the nation, and
thus relieving the burden cast upon the “Common People,” at the same
time preventing a continuation of this much-to-be-feared accumulation
of wealth in the hands of a few in our country.
A double object would be thus accomplished: First, the primary
consideration for which they voted, the abolition of “caste,” sham
aristocracy, would be brought about by preventing vast incomes being
enjoyed by individuals or families, and the consequent idleness,
luxury, selfishness, sensuality, and snobbishness attendant upon the
enjoyment of vast incomes, where the recipient remains in idleness.
Second, it would afford a cure and relief for the present excessive
system of taxation which falls so heavily upon the general mass of the
people. Thus, at one time, and by one measure (perfectly consistent
with the will of the people by whom he was elected), Grover Cleveland
could right most of the wrongs, and give relief to the “Common People,”
the “plain people” (so called by the New York _World_), by whom he has
been chosen as chief.
There is no need to mince matters upon this subject. It is plainly
and obviously the duty of Grover Cleveland to give some outward and
visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace which is in him. There
is no time to waste in this matter. Grover Cleveland understands too
well that he was not elected by the Democratic party; that he will have
the support of the party of the people, call it by what name you will.
The Populists, representing, as they do, some of the grievances of the
“plain” “Common People,” will act with Grover Cleveland’s party, the
party of the “Common People.”
The New York _World_ furnishes an admirable article upon the subject,
“Why Are They Natural Allies?” speaking of the Populists. Because
they are the party of the plain “Common People,” who, along with
the Democratic party, will control the legislation of the nation,
Grover Cleveland represents this army of “Allies,” as surely as did
Wellington, at the Battle of Waterloo, and the “Common People” will
expect him to defeat, “horse, foot, and dragon,” the enemy--the sham
aristocracy, the representatives of “caste,” and the monopoly of money,
who have, like Napoleon, carried devastation and destruction into our
country; just as Napoleon did into every country of Europe. Grover
Cleveland will have the assistance of these “Natural Allies,” the
Populists, which is indicated in the timely article below, from the New
York _World_, of December 15, 1892:--
“The Populists in the next Senate will be the natural allies of
the Democrats on the most important matters that will come before
Congress.
“The Democrats and the Populists fused in several of the Western
States. They will together control several of the legislatures.
The third party has no affiliation with the Republicans. It is
composed in the main of voters who have become disgusted with
Republican rule.
“The Republicans cannot rely upon retaining their grip on the
Senate by the votes of the men who have overthrown them at the
West.”
If Grover Cleveland and the party which nominated him will but once
recognize, _and at once_, that they did not triumph by reason of
the conversion of old Republicans to the doctrines enunciated in
the Democratic platform, at Chicago, but will now promptly come to
the conclusion, which is so obvious, that they were elected by the
“Common People,” for the plain purpose of righting those wrongs which
the people have endured in silence, then it will be impossible for
Republican newspapers to claim that they are “at sea without a chart.”
They are “at sea without a chart” at present, because the Democratic
party, under the whip and spur of Democratic newspapers, driving
them to cling on to Democratic principles, and to hold to Democratic
doctrine, will prevent Grover Cleveland and the Democratic party from
taking any action which would furnish relief to the people. The New
York _Sun_, under the able and magnificent management of Hon. Charles
A. Dana, cries for Protection and against the Income Tax; while that
most potential newspaper, the New York _World_, also Democratic, under
the control of the Hon. Joseph Pulitzer, inveighs against Protection
and in favor of an Income Tax. Torn by the dissensions in its own
ranks, the Democratic party, if it attempts to cling on to the old
ideas, will simply do nothing; _and that is what the people fear_.
Now is the occasion for Grover Cleveland to prove himself to be a
“great” man. Now is the time for those representatives, elected by
the will of the people, to demonstrate to the people that they are
willing servants, and that “public office is a public trust”; that, as
trustees of the will of the people, they will comply with the request
of the people. And the request has gone forth to give relief to the
people from this tumor which has grown upon the body politic--“caste,”
snobbery, and sham aristocracy, and the attendant evil which was the
cause of the tumor--excessive taxation and class legislation. Throw
old doctrines and principles of the Democratic party to the winds.
Cleveland, the next House of Representatives, and the Senate of the
United States were not elected and selected upon old principles,
which were part of the constitution of the Democratic party. They
were elected upon a broad democracy, and if they will adopt the will
of the people, their wants and needs, and apply such remedies as the
people may demand, then will it be impossible for Republican writers,
who wield a trenchant pen like that of the Hon. John A. Cockerill, to
truthfully say: “The incoming party is at sea without a chart.”
The New York _World_, of December 11th, says of Grover Cleveland’s
speech, that its generalities are eminently sound and patriotic, and
that he asserts that the people can be trusted and that they know what
they want, which is here given:--
“Those who looked for any definite statement of his policy from
the President-elect in his speech at the Reform Club banquet last
night will be disappointed. Mr. Cleveland evidently thinks, and
probably correctly, that the time for this has not yet come.
“But Mr. Cleveland’s generalities are eminently sound and
patriotic. Especially excellent is his sturdy assertion of the
good Democratic doctrine that the people can be trusted, that
they know what they want, and are entitled to have their will
respected. Contrasted with the current Republican talk that the
voters have been befooled for three years and are bent on turning
the progress of their country backward, Mr. Cleveland’s robust
patriotism and faith are eminently refreshing.
“The spirit in which he contemplates the responsibility soon to
be placed upon him and his party is equally admirable. There
is neither shrinking nor boastfulness, but a calm courage
characteristic of the man and befitting the occasion. It is
to be hoped that Mr. Cleveland’s admonition to and defence of
economy, as something about which ‘there is nothing shabby or
discreditable,’ will not be lost upon the present Congress.”
This fills us with hope, we “Common People,” who regard the _World_ as
a leading light in the Democratic firmament of journalism. It is like a
bow of promise set in the heavens of the future, and especially when,
upon the succeeding day, the _World_, which voices the sentiments of
the Democratic party, publishes the following:--
“A monopoly organ declares that an income tax is ‘undemocratic.’
It says that ‘the only excuse for the income tax was that it was a
war measure,’ and asks: ‘What excuse can be given for reimposing
it?’
“The excuse of necessity. The government is confronted with the
condition of an empty treasury and a demand for tariff reduction
twice made by the people. Either one of these things may make new
taxes necessary. Combined, they are almost certain to do so.
“With an annual expenditure of over $220,000,000 due to the war
(for pensions and interest upon the public debt) a choice in war
taxes would fall on a graded income tax upon every principle of
economy and justice.
“It is surely Democratic to tax luxuries rather than necessaries,
superfluities rather than essentials. As one of the speakers at
the Reform Club said: ‘Any tax on what men have is better than a
tax on what men need.’ It cannot be undemocratic to tax those who
are best able to pay, to apportion public burdens in a manner to
cause the least hardship to the greatest number.
“A graded income tax is the coming tax if the expenditures of the
government are to continue anywhere near the present mark.”
It is with hope and trustfulness that we regard the future.
Here is a spectacle presented before us by two of the Democratic
newspapers of New York City--the stronghold of Democracy in the Union
is New York City--one arrayed on the side of Protection and against a
graded income tax, the other, of equal prominence and position, arrayed
on the side of Free Trade and a graded income tax. Now, let the members
of the Democratic party view this picture presented to the “Common
People” of America, and ask themselves: For what did the people vote
November 8, 1892? Did they vote with the New York _Sun_ when they voted
for Grover Cleveland, or did they vote with the New York _World_ when
they cast their ballots for the President-elect? Common-sense, common
reason, would indicate to the most superficial that they voted neither
with the New York _Sun_ nor the New York _World_, nor the Democratic
party.
This is not a victory of the Democratic party! And it cannot be said
too forcefully that this victory _does not belong_ to the Democratic
party! It is a VICTORY OF THE PEOPLE, who demanded a suppression and
an extinguishing of the wrongs that had been inflicted upon them. They
voted out West with the Populist party on the same basis as they voted
with the Democratic party in the East and South. It was anything--call
it by what name you please--so that that thing, when elected, should be
a party of the people.
Don’t insist upon a revivification of the doctrines of the Democratic
party. The people have spoken for themselves, and their voices must
be heard through the representatives selected by them in the halls of
Congress. During the next four years, Grover Cleveland must execute
the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. He has been elected by no party. The Populists
will be his “natural allies,” because they represent the People, as
he does. He need not remain “at sea without a chart” one day or hour,
only follow the will of the people! They have placed their heels of
disapprobation upon “caste” and sham aristocracy and the attempt to
engraft it upon American society. They have placed the nail erect and
have given Grover Cleveland the hammer. Now let him drive it home!
And we will stud the coffin of dead “caste” so full of nails that the
shaking skeleton, borrowed from Europe, will never have a resurrection
in our country. There is only one effectual way to accomplish the end
desired--the eternal entombment of this multi-lived creature--and
that is by the infliction of such an income tax as will prevent the
possibility of the existence of a thing like “Chappie” on Broadway,
and make America an undesirable field for the coroneted sportsmen of
Europe to hunt in for matrimonial game, and prevent the accumulation of
fortunes that would arouse a feeling of cupidity in the weazen chests
of the puppified lords and degenerate descendants of Europe’s nobility,
whose greatest pride is in the “Bar Sinister” in their armorial
bearings.
Why is delay in the execution of the will of the people necessary?
Grover Cleveland is thoroughly convinced that he was elected, not by
the Democratic party, but by the people at large. The first step in
the right direction would be this--as soon as Grover Cleveland assumes
the office of President of the United States--(that is, President
of the nation, by the will of the “Common People”), to then and at
once take such steps as would quickly afford the relief the “Common
People” expect of him and his administration. Will the cry of the
Republican newspapers, that “the Democratic party will do nothing,”
prove correct? It is only for four years that this man of the people,
Grover Cleveland, can occupy the position to which he has been called
by the “plain” people of America. After his induction into office, the
“Common People” will expect that not one single day will be wasted
in the execution of their wishes. “Twice in the election of Congress
the people have decreed a reform in taxation and other changes in the
policy of the government.” And the people will not permit any further
delay in the matter. The people, in the most pronounced manner, have
exhibited their determination to bring about certain changes and a
certain kind of reformation. Every hour that it is delayed is pregnant
with danger to the Democratic party.
The closing sentence taken from the New York _World_, of December
10th, seems full of meat--“The way to reform is to reform.” All the
platitudes and promises ever uttered would not be a reformation. The
people, by an overwhelming majority, have decreed that there shall be
a reformation in taxation, and with regard to the social life of the
American people, which has been made unhappy by the introduction of
foreign mannerisms. The way to begin is to _begin_, and the sooner the
better.
The calling of an extra session of Congress is but a minor detail
where the will of sixty-five million people has been expressed in
the positive manner that it was on November 8th, 1892. The great
Democratic dailies of the Union, like Kilkenny cats, are fighting over
little matters, seemingly losing sight entirely of the truth of the
case, _i. e._, that this is not a Democratic victory, but a victory
of the people. And the sooner the wrongs of which the people complain
are righted, so much sooner will end the sorrow, sufferings and the
oppression of the people. Whether there should be an extra session or
not, it is hardly worth while for two great dailies like the New York
_World_ and New York _Herald_ to quarrel over. The people have said: It
is well that certain things be done. “Then, if it be well that it be
done, it is well that it be done quickly.”
In concluding this chapter, it is desirable to have it distinctly
understood that this volume was not written or intended as a Democratic
aftermath campaign argument. If it be incomprehensible with the mass
of the people who may read this book, that it was written from a broad
democratic standpoint, and not from a Democratic party standpoint, that
it is to be regretted. It has not been the aim of the author to fall
prostrate at the feet of the Hon. Grover Cleveland, the President-elect
of the nation, further than to believe and trust in his promises and
integrity, and his manliness of character, and to await the result
of his actions, with regard to the will of the people, pronounced
the 8th day of November, 1892, in their selection of him as their
representative. Should the Hon. Grover Cleveland, President-elect of
the Union, by the will of the “Common, ‘plain’ People” of America,
prove himself to be all that the people believe, should he fulfill
the trust reposed in him, as did Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson,
and Abraham Lincoln, then with earnestness and sincerity would the
author lend his voice to the anthem that would go up in his praise from
the mouths of the “Common People,” saying: “Well done, thou good and
faithful servant; great hast been thy trust, and in such manner hast
thou executed the trust that thy name shall be handed down, in the
records of history, to be read by future generations of Americans as
THE GREAT GROVER CLEVELAND.”