New-York tribune., 1870-08-12
NOIY and THEN.

TIL. E,epiua Post persists IN lts uemanu that
tho Republican party shall discard and repudi-
ato tha protection of Home Industry or be
divided and overthrow. 1t is willing that
-pnotoo,;on;sts shall continue to vote, provided
tbov will vote for none but Free-Iraders.
Here is the summing up OF ITS last ihahiies.o'
"I, because We think the continued success OF the
Renubean party desirable that we have ursed ,e
raders and Revenue Reformcrs every rywhere W iSi''
upon their right control the Republican orgai|aion
Tho oonopoliss tho subsdizers the landgraDoerS the
80, q, seIfseekers have no right to control tho
,. tbev are not entitled to voice in its councils
baever mower they have they have usurpcd; ana -
time that the lovers Of equal justice OF imP'rt'Hi %
the oppopents Of robbery and corruption sho" 'Ao o
control which belongs 10 then-eise thc parry WI" i'i
defeat . -.. .hot IN
or penublicap Congressional Convention the Revenue
po,ornors oueht to insist boldly and pertlnaclousy
unon the nomination of Revenue Reform candidates.
Comments by The Tribune
Afto- the close of our last war with Great Brit
oin our country was divided upon substan-
taIv new issues, the most pervasive and en-
during of which was that of Protection rs.
FREQ Trade. That issue was discussed In
Presidents Messages, Treasury Reports UoV-
ernors' Messages, reports to and debates III
Congress, as well as in State Legislatures IN
hundreds of stump speeches, and In the pup
lie journals. The people were thoroughly edu-
Gated on the subject and the result was a
very decided majority for Protection, especially
throughout the Free States. BY thatmajorlty, the
Tariff was recast in 1924 distinctly and ayOw-
edly in the interest of Protection; ana inc
duties so established were revised and aug
mented in 1928 to the same end. If ever YER
dict was given by the American People on the
merits of question, without regard to politics
or parties. and after hearing both sides, 1T was
that which they thus gave for Protection against
Free Trade. And the men who debated it on
either side-MadisOn, Clay, Webster, Calhoun,
McDufiie, John Randolph, A. j. Dallas, VIII
liam Lowndes, II. G. Mallary, Walter Forward,
Henry r. Storrs, &c.-were at least as able as
any who have succeeded them.
The EUeniag Post was then as thoroughly, Dlt-
terly hostile to Protection as 1t Is to-day, whlle
it sided LtterIy with the old Republican, after
ward with the Jackson party. 1t denounced
" the Black Tariff" of 1928 as swcepingly, and
with quite as good reason, as it now does the
present. BUTT did not say to Its then polltl-
cal associates, You, Messrs. Martin Van Bu-
rem [who voted for both the Tariffs OF 1924
and 1881, Michael Hoffman, Jonas Earll, jr.,
Silas Wright [who all voted for that of 1921,
&C., Z" if you sustain the policy of Protection,
"we will denounce you and try to break
cup the partyn On the contrary, though
it was plain that the Tariff of 2i was
passed mainly by Republican votes
Mcssrs. Rufus King Webster, and most of
the Federalsts then in Congress, voting No
vet The Post let them off without rebuke,
| and allowed the Jacksonites of 1923 to frame
and pass tho Protective Tariff of that year
(by the help of the Adams men voting of
course) when they might have defeated it had
they choser 70 do so, and thus made square
issue on lection rs. Free-Trade. This they
chose no. to do; and The Post tamely acqui-
| esccd.
WHY did it not then, as now, threaten its
party with disruption and defeat if it did not
show an unbroken front for Free Trade
! Why but because it desired that partys sue
cess, and now desires and works for the Re-
| puDllcans' defeatl