New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-11-29

ono questioned its fitness or propriety. Indeed,
il would have seemed rank treason to have left
it out If the party had any defined and fixed
principles, that was one; and in fact, in the
shaking up of old questions and wiping out of
dead issues in the past twenty years, 1T seemed
to be about the only one left. 1t had done
good service in the old times in keeping the
Cotton States, whose interests were supposed
to be favored by Free Trade, in the Democratic
line and of late years it had at least done no
harm. But in the last campaign the Cotton
States and all the South were counted sure
without any such bid for favor. What the
party wanted was the votes of some of the
Northern States, as Pennsylvania, New-York,
Indiana and Connecticut, and to gain these it
was necessary that it should seem to favor Pro-
lection. The tariff -for-revenue plank that had
fitted into other times and done good service
was out of place now. SO soon as the discus
sion struck out under Mr. Blaine's lead in this
direction, the old 5tcreotypcd phrase began to
play the mischief with Democratic hopes and
prospects. Democrats on The stump anG in the
press began to crawfish and explain, but it was
of no avail. They lost the Northern States
they hoped to win, and it was the general be-
lief that the tariff plank was chiefly instru-
mental in their defeat.
The Free Traders were blamed on every side
for forcing their obnoxious dogma upon the
party. and the fault-hndcrs talked very much
as though 1t was an entirely new notion that
had only been adopted at the demand of the
mischief makers after long and violent discus
sion. Naturally enough the Free Traders were
ncttled at this treatment. They answered that
the much-a1uscd plank went into the platform
unopposcd that it was in the precise terms Of
previous platforms, that the Democratic was
actually Free Trade party, and that the omis-
sion of a declaration to that effect would have
been a shameful abandonment of principle
And now that the Issue has been raised within
the party, they are not content to let it go by
without some effort On their part for definite
and final settlement of it. They do not propose
10 let the question remain in allegiance until an
other National Convention, and then have the
same old dispute arise with the same calanitous
results. They say that ,his is the most i'm
portaut question that now presses upon public
attention for solution, and that the next Prcsi-
dental battle VIII be fought upon it. TEey
mean 10 make an occasion during the coming
Congress to draw the lines and ind out def
nitcly "vho is ON the Lords side so that
when they come into the next National Con-
vcntion they con act injclligcnNy and with
some knowledge Of what the party thinks, il it
think, at all, upon this question. In this en-
deayor they Will have tht best wishes of all
good citizens Nothing would give greater
satisfaction to honest men than to see the
Democratic party for once adopting platform
on this subject which bears no double meaning
or doubtful construction, but which i, under
stood the same in Pcun- ~lvauia and Kentucky.
The advocates OF Protection ask nothing but
fair fight with no quibbling or evasion. The
Democratic is a Free Trade party 10y 1t, history
and traditions, its autcccdout, and its present
professions. We only hope that the genuine
Free Traders will compel it to say so boldly
and uucquyocilly, and stick to ii.