New-York tribune., 1871-03-25
THE NEW PARTY IN CINCINNATI


Cincinnati have organized what they call n
Central Republican Association" and put
forth manifesto, advocating Universal Am
the Specie Basis for Currency. SO far, we
agree with them. On the subject OF the
Tariff, they demonstrate as follows:
80 We believe that TO defray the expenses OF the Gov
ernmen TO pay the interest the national debt and
the principal a. it shall from time due.
considerable portion Of the public revenues should be
derived from duties imports but that such duties
shold be imposed for and for other purpose
owe are opposed to the present system Of Protective
Duties. unjust and wrong in principle, and defeats
its ends in practice. IL is at with every prnc
pie of equality and justice on which the Republican
party was founded II promotes corruption in legisla
ton and plumber in high places. 1t has needessy and
heavily increased the cost of living crippled export
trade, destroyed sipbuildng. and parayzed our
industry 1t has created onerous monopoics, augmented
the expenses of collecting the revenue, encouraged
smuggling, stimulated frauds and dishonesty In custom
houses increased the cost OF production rs TO en-
able foreign manufacturers TO underse in our own
markets. We willing be taxed for the support OF
the Government protest against being taxed for
tie benefit OF private individuals and corporatons ana
we further protest against making the shroud of the old
Whig party the mantle OF Republicansm. We, there
fore demand that tariff duties be adjusted as to do
rive the requisite revenue from the smallest possible
number OF taxable articles"
Comments by The Tribune.
In so far as these gentlemen see fit to an
nounce themselves hostile to the policy of Pro-
lection to Home Industry, we have only to
say that they have just the same right to op-
pose it that we have to uphold it-no less no
more. THIS right they have always enjoyed
without question since they belonged to the
Republican party. But they either mean that
they will vote against the regular candidates
of the Republican party who are or shall b.
Protectonists or they do not. viii they
frankly say just what they do meant In 1858,
an Editor of The EUening Post was
candidate for Congress from this CITY,
and no man suggested that Pfotec-
tionists should vote against him because
he was an ayowed, extreme FreeTrader. Bnt
in 1870, when an Editor of THE TRIBUNE was
likewise a candidate for Congress, the Editors
of The Post were conspicuous signers OF
manifesto, urging Republicans to vote against
him because (and only because) he was a Pro-
tectionist Do Messrs. Stanly Matthews, Fred.
Hassaurek & Co. propose to run their machine
on this track, and beat Republican candidates
who are Protectionists as Gen. Schenck was
beaten last Fan7 They certainly cannot doubt
destruction of the Republican party. If they
intend this, they are dishonest II they refuse
TO say so.
These gentlemen see fit to speak OF Protec-
tion as " the shroud of the old Wing party"
That "shroudr was proudly worn through
quarter of a century by two-thirds of all the
voters who could read in the entire Union
Such men as Henry Clay, Daniel Webster,
William II. Harrison, George Evans, John
Davis. Francis Granger, Thomas Ewing
Thomas Corwin, Walter Forward, Joseph
Vance, and Elisha Whittlesey, were proud OF It,
They were sometimes i'll power, at others IN
opposition; bW they tcere neUer beaten when the
issue of Protection rs. Free Trade WdS plainly
and squdrelu made. The country was carried
against them in 1923 by the votes which Jack
son, Benton, II. NJ. Johnson, &c, had given
for the Protective Tariff of 1924, and those
which some of these with Martin Van Buren,
Silas Wright James Buchanan, John ii. Eaton,
&c. &C., had just given for the still more
Protective Tariff of 1923. Pennsylvania-al-
WAYS overwhelmingly for Protectlon-gaye
Jackson his heaviest majority both In "a and
'2S. And Polk triumphed over Clay IN AZ on
the strength of assurances which induced her
Democratic Protectionists to go for "Polk,
Dallas, and the Tariff of AZ"
Messrs. Matthews & Co. cannot well be ig-
norant that the first Tariff ever passed by
Federal Congress declared that it was i'm
posed " for the Protection of Domestic Manu-
factures," as well as for that to which they
would restrict it. And they are doubtless
aware that the railing accusations" which
they hurl against Protection have been trav-
ersed by statesmen not less honest and able
than themselves who pronounce them utterly
groundless. And they cannot well be una
ware that at least three -fourths of all who
vote the Republican ticket were either per-
sonally members Of that ." old Wing party"
which they treat so cOntemptuously, or are
| the sons of those who were. What can they
hope to gain by insulting its memory
These gentlemen object to Protective Duties
that they promote corruption in legislation !"
yet they proceed to declare that they " de-
mand that tariff duties shall be 80 adjusted
/" as to derive the requisite revenue from the
smallest possible number Of tarable articles"
! That is to say: They propose that the large sum
we must annually raise by Duties on Imports
shall not be assessed upon all alike, but that
some shall be taxed and Others admitted free.
This accords with our principles; but how
with theirs? OF course, those who mainly
purchase and consume any article-Pig Iron,
Wool, Salt, or whatever you please-will urge
that this ought to be on the free-list. But all
cannot be placed there; 80 there will be a
constant struggle to exempt this and tax that,
under their sort of Free Trade, exactly as
under Protection. VIII not that promote
" corruption in legislation 2" If not, why
not Who fails to see that particular in