Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1881-01-08
THE POLITaCAL FUTURE.

time be speculative rather than
practical. The republican party
will shortly be in possession, not |
only Of the executive, but of con-
trolling majority in the house of
Representatives, and the senate will
be so nearly balanced that it is quite
problematical whether the demo-
cratic party will hold the means of
efficient opposition even there.
Under these circumstances the
republican party must inevitably
take the initiative in legislative
matters, and the program of the
democratic party must necessarily
be dependent upon the republican
position, which is not likely to be
developed for some months to come.
In the interval the parties will look
upon one another in silent scrutiny.
1t is not much worth while specu-
lating on the work remaining for
the present congress. The demo-
Gratis are trying to push through
several salutary measures, which
the republicans are impeding by
every dilatory expedient now in the
power of practiced parliamentary
ans, and which even if carried they
will try to reverse if they should
gain the power to do so in the forty
seventh congress.
Must the democratic party stand
still, then, and wait for the demon
strations of its antagonists before it
attirms or contests anything? This
is only to ask in other terms the
question which our antagonists
tauntingIy put to us: Has the dem
ocratie party any principles? 1t is
time that we were putting it to our
selves and considering our answer
very seriously; for if as body the
party has no distinctive principles
to contend for, it had better retire
from the arena before it is resolved
into mere inanity by disintegration.
1t Is true that there are some inn
pOrtant principles for which the
democracy has cOntended, but either
it's adhesion to them has been fiuc-
tuating and vacillating or they have
been put forward when some tenn
porary necessity rendered them ur-
gent and dropped when the pressure
has been removed. Civil service
reform, anti-centralism, reduction
of the tariff, prohibition of federal
intervention in elections all have
been put forward as government
measures, but how many of them
have been consistently maintained
as a principle to stand or fall by?
1t is OBVIOUS that in single arti-
Gle the answer to this question can
not be considered in reference to all
the measures we have mentioned,
but one of them may be selected as
an instance of what we consider a
trifiing with great questions, which
has both produced and merited the
defeat we have recently met with.
What have we done about the re-
ductiOn of the tariff? No question
can be stated which is more distinct
lively a democratic idea than this:
that our impOsts on the importation
of foreign merchandise shall be linn
tied by the necessity of revenue and
shall be such as to promote rather
than prohibit foreign commerce, has
been a democratic doctrine as long
as there has been a democratic party.
The principle was asserted in the
platforms of the democratic party
constructed for both the last two
presidential elections. 1t was af-
firmed at the Hayes-Tilden contest,
and how did the democratic con-
gress elected thereat treat the ques-
ton? They elected as speaker
known extreme protectionist, Mr..
Randall, and he, for the express pur-
pose of preventing the tariff being
even discussed In congress, appoint
ed Mr.. Fernando Wood, also known
as an extreme prOtectiOnist, chair
man of the committee on ways and
means, with a majority of protec-
tionists on the same committee the
result of which was that through an
INSCRIPTIONS exercise Of the inordi-
nate power we have conferred upon
our standing committees, the ques-
ton of tariff reform could not even
be brought under discussion in the
house of representatives.
But the principle of tariff reform,
Of duties for revenue only, was again
affirmed at the democratic cOnven-
ton which heralded in the Garfield
Hancock contest. We had nOmi-
mated a Pennsylvania, and it was
soon found that our free-trade plank
would disable him from carrying
his own state. (In plain truth there
was never any possibility of his car
rying it, So he was called upon to
write a letter, in which it was ex-
planned that the plank in question
meant as near as possible nothing at
all. Our hopes of success tagged
from the time this letter was writ
ten. We knew that our free-trade
plank had already precluded us
from the support of protectionists,
and we were satisfied that our gen.
erals disclaimer would not bring
them back, while it would chill and
discourage our free-trade supporters.
Now for the question, why have
we made these statements, so dis
creditable to our own party? 1t is
because we are satisfied that the
time has come when we have either
to declare our principles and stick
to them, whether they lead to defeat
or victory, or to disband. We can
no longer fight for an organization
which does not know what it was
organized for. Let us say that we
are free-traders or prohibitionists,