would reduce the cost of their product, increase its demand at home, and open new and broader markets. Then there will be no necessity or excuse for the trust, with its burdens to the people, and especially to labor.

Mr. Blaine, in a speech at Waterville in August, 1890, declared that "the United States has reached the point where one of its highest duties is to enlarge the area of its foreign trade." He added: "Our great demand is expansion. I mean expansion of trade with countries where we can find profitable exchanges;" and "we should be unwisely content if we did not seek to engage in what the younger Pitt so well termed 'the annexation of trade.

The Democratic policy is exactly in line with this declaration, while high protection is absolutely at variance with it.

A McKinley high tariff discourages trade, raises the cost of our products, taxes their material, limits the demand, and fosters trusts. It substitutes enormous profits in a limited market for a legitimate and healthy growth. It causes over-production, but furnishes no outlet for it. It burdens the people through abuse of the power of taxation, and makes the basis of law privileges instead of rights, and its controlling influences selfish interests instead of justice, equality, and the public welfare.

SPEECH

AT LAWRENCE, OCT. 26, 1892, UPON STATE ISSUES AND UPON THE TARIFF IN ITS RELATION TO THE WOOLLEN INDUSTRY.

I

AM glad to get back to our old Commonwealth, and, may I add, glad to get back to the campaign in which the Democracy is fighting so vigorously and hopefully.

Let me to-night first consider some State matters. In many of my executive acts I have been at variance with a Republican Legislature and a Republican Council. I have requested my distinguished opponent to meet me in man fashion, face to face, to discuss these issues. When he failed to do this, I urged him and his party, who are seeking to supplant a Democratic administration, to point out wherein it has erred, and to step forth and defend their partisan opposition to its measures and its acts.

Thus far there has been only silence from any responsible source. The silence of the Republican Convention and platform and candidate and leader I have a right to construe as a most emphatic indorsement of my administration. If so, it is equally a condemnation of my opponent and his party in their partisan opposition. Is it not about time that this ominous silence was broken, and some attempt at least made by my opponent to defend or explain his position?

I remember in 1890, when I was a candidate for Governor, the "Boston Journal," late in the campaign, in an editorial said that National questions had nothing

to do with the governorship of Massachusetts, and that "the questions which should be answered by those who urge the people of Massachusetts to make Mr. Russell Governor" were, "What kind of a Governor would he make? What are his qualifications for the high office to which the Democratic party has nominated him? What knowledge has he of questions of State policy?" It said the burden of proof rested upon those who sought to make the change. I now respectfully request it to apply its own test to its own candidate, and to beseech him, with its characteristic vehemence, to address himself to some questions "which have to do with the governorship of Massachusetts." Let me call his attention to a few.

When, in 1891, the first vacancy occurred on the Savings Bank Commission in this State, I reappointed a Republican whose term had expired, though every member of the board belonged to the Republican party. When the second vacancy occurred, in 1892, I nominated for the office a man of experience and of superior qualifications, who was indorsed by the presidents of banks, by Mr. Getchell, the United States Bank Examiner, and by many men of high position in financial circles. You admitted, Mr. Haile, in answer to my demand for information to be used before the people of this Commonwealth, that there was no objection to my nominee on the ground of character, fitness, or qualifications for the office, and that you and your Republican associates in the Executive Council rejected him solely for the purpose of holding in office the member whose term had expired. And he was an active Republican politician, who, while holding the office of Bank Commissioner, had been at the head of an influential Republican organization.

I said then, as I say now, that when the power to confirm is used to reject nominees admitted to be fit, in order to compel the nomination or holding in office after the expiration of his term of some one else, I said that this was a gross usurpation of power, which proper respect for the dignity and privileges of my office demanded should be resisted.

This issue was raised and discussed before the people in the campaign of last year, and by their votes the people sustained the position of the Executive, declaring in effect that when they elected a Governor they meant he should assume full executive responsibility, and that this should not be divided and lost between him and an Executive Council.

As my administration has been faithful to the spirit and purpose of civil service reform, as it has, in contrast with Republican precedents, appointed a very large proportion of men to office who were not of its political faith, notwithstanding that there was scarcely a Democrat on a salaried commission in the State at the time of my election, the rejection, for partisan reasons only, by a Republican Council of nominees admitted to be fit, is the more unjust and inexcusable.

You, Mr. Haile, were one of the Republican Executive Council that repeatedly rejected a nominee for Savings Bank Commissioner admitted by you to be fully qualified. I ask you to discuss this question before the people. It involves an important principle of executive responsibility. Will you, if elected, submit to the dictation of nominees by the Executive Council? Will you agree that they have the right to reject a proper nomination simply because they prefer some one else?

Let me direct your attention to one other State question which is always with us, and which your party

has declared over and over again to be a most important question. I mean the control of the sale of intoxicating liquor.

I have tried for four successive years to get from the candidates of your party their views and their position on this question, but always without success. I have pointed out the shifting, contradictory, and hypocritical position which your party has constantly taken upon this question. There seems to be some clearing up necessary to make the people understand what is the position of your party. Your platform this year has only its usual perfunctory generalities. You can make it mean something. As head of your party, if elected, you must deal with this question. You are declared. publicly by a leading minister of this State to be an ardent prohibitionist, and as such he gives you his support. Is this correct? Do you, or do you not, believe in a prohibitory law? Will you, or will you not, if elected Governor, either recommend or approve of a prohibitory law? I believe that the people have a right to know from a candidate for Governor his views upon such public questions. As a candidate and an official I have given my own repeatedly upon this question. In this Commonwealth a party cannot expect the support of the people when it hides its opinion on an important question, and forces its candidate to maintain silence upon it.

All these questions that I have asked of my distinguished opponent are about official acts and public matters with which he may have to deal. I have no wish or reason to indulge in any personal criticism. I share with the people of the Commonwealth a high opinion of his character as a man and his courtesy as a gentleman, and I value the pleasant friendship which exists between us. But these considerations should