skimmed milk, potatoes, turnips,
and a few greens that he can steal from the corners of fences? Is
he to rely for meat, on poaching, and then is he to be transported
to some far colony for the crime of catching a rabbit? Are our
workingmen to wear wooden shoes?

Now, understand me, I do not believe that the Democrats think that
free trade would result in disaster. Their minds are so constituted
that they really believe that free trade would be a great blessing.
I am not calling in question their honesty. I am simply disputing
the correctness of their theory. It makes no difference, as a
matter of fact, whether they are honest or dishonest. Free trade
established by honest people would be just as injurious as if
established by dishonest people. So there is no necessity of
raising the question of intention. Consequently, I admit that they
are doing the best they know now. This is not admitting much, but
it is something, as it tends to take from the discussion all ill
feeling.

We all know that the tariff protects special interests in particular
States. Louisiana is not for free trade. It may be for free trade
in everything except sugar. It is willing that the rest of the
country should pay an additional cent or two a pound on sugar for
its benefit, and while receiving the benefit it does not wish to
bear its part of the burden. If the other States protect the sugar
interests in Louisiana, certainly that State ought to be willing
to protect the wool interest in Ohio, the lead and hemp interest
in Missouri, the lead and wool interest in Colorado, the lumber
interest in Minnesota, the salt and lumber interest in Michigan,
the iron interest in Pennsylvania, and so I might go on with a list
of the States--because each one has something that it wishes to
have protected.

It sounds a little strange to hear a Democratic convention cry out
that the party "is in favor of the maintenance of an indissoluble
union of free and indestructible States." Only a little while ago
the Democratic party regarded it as the height of tyranny to coerce
a free State. Can it be said that a State is "free" that is
absolutely governed by the Nation? Is a State free that can make
no treaty with any other State or country--that is not permitted
to coin money or to declare war? Why should such a State be called
free? The truth is that the States are not free in that sense.
The Republican party believes that this is a Nation and tha