General Harrison's visitors to-day comprised six hundred G. A. R. veterans and their wives from Northwestern Kansas—en route to the Grand Encampment—under the lead of General W. H. Caldwell, Frank McGrath, C. E. Monell, W. S. Search, Dr. A. Patten, J. W. Garner, and Dr. J. R. King, of Beloit, Kan. Colonel W. C. Whitney, Commander of the First Division, was orator, and assured General Harrison that "Kansas grew more corn and more babies than any other State in the Union." In response the General said:
My Comrades—I have a choice to make and you have one. I can occupy the few moments I have to spare either in public address or in private, personal greeting. I think you would prefer, as I shall prefer, to omit the public speech that I may be presented to each of you. [Cries of "Good! Good!">[ I beg you, therefore, to permit me only to say that I very heartily appreciate this greeting from my comrades of Kansas.
The bond that binds us together as soldiers of the late war is one that is enduring and close. No party considerations can break it; it is stronger than political ties, and we are able thus in our Grand Army associations to come together upon that broad and high plane of fraternity, loyalty, and charity. [Applause and cries of "Good! Good!">[ Let me now, if it be your pleasure, extend a comrade's hand to each of you. [Applause.]
[GENERAL HARRISON'S LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE.]
Indianapolis, Ind., September 11, 1888.
Hon. M. M. Estee and others, Committee, etc.:
Gentlemen—When your committee visited me, on the Fourth of July last, and presented the official announcement of my nomination for the presidency of the United States by the Republican convention, I promised as soon as practicable to communicate to you a more formal acceptance of the nomination. Since that time the work of receiving and addressing, almost daily, large delegations of my fellow-citizens has not only occupied all of my time, but has in some measure rendered it unnecessary for me to use this letter as a medium of communicating to the public my views upon the questions involved in the campaign. I appreciate very highly the confidence and respect manifested by the convention, and accept the nomination with a feeling of gratitude and a full sense of the responsibilities which accompany it.
It is a matter of congratulation that the declarations of the Chicago convention upon the questions that now attract the interest of our people are so clear and emphatic. There is further cause of congratulation in the fact that the convention utterances of the Democratic party, if in any degree uncertain or contradictory, can now be judged and interpreted by executive acts and messages, and by definite propositions in legislation. This is especially true of what is popularly known as the Tariff question. The issue cannot now be obscured. It is not a contest between schedules, but between wide-apart principles. The foreign competitors for our market have, with quick instinct, seen how one issue of this contest may bring them advantage, and our own people are not so dull as to miss or neglect the grave interests that are involved for them. The assault upon our protective system is open and defiant. Protection is assailed as unconstitutional in law, or as vicious in principle, and those who hold such views sincerely cannot stop short of an absolute elimination from our tariff laws of the principle of protection. The Mills bill is only a step, but it is toward an object that the leaders of Democratic thought and legislation have clearly in mind. The important question is not so much the length of the step as the direction of it. Judged by the executive message of December last, by the Mills bill, by the debates in Congress, and by the St. Louis platform, the Democratic party will, if supported by the country, place the tariff laws upon a purely revenue basis. This is practical free trade—free trade in the English sense. The legend upon the banner may not be "Free Trade"—it may be the more obscure motto, "Tariff Reform;" but neither the banner nor the inscription is conclusive, or, indeed, very important. The assault itself is the important fact.
Those who teach that the import duty upon foreign goods sold in our market is paid by the consumer, and that the price of the domestic competing article is enhanced to the amount of the duty on the imported article—that every million of dollars collected for customs duties represents many millions more which do not reach the treasury, but are paid by our citizens as the increased cost of domestic productions resulting from the tariff laws—may not intend to discredit in the minds of others our system of levying duties on competing foreign products, but it is clearly already discredited in their own. We cannot doubt, without impugning their integrity, that if free to act upon their convictions they would so revise our laws as to lay the burden of the customs revenue upon articles that are not produced in this country, and to place upon the free list all competing foreign products. I do not stop to refute this theory as to the effect of our tariff duties. Those who advance it are students of maxims and not of the markets. They may be safely allowed to call their project "Tariff Reform," if the people understand that in the end the argument compels free trade in all competing products. This end may not be reached abruptly, and its approach may be accompanied with some expressions of sympathy for our protected industries and our working people, but it will certainly come if these early steps do not arouse the people to effective resistance.