Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1882-06-24
HAVE We A PRINCIPLE?

tiOnS OccasiOned by the results OF the
war in the suppression of negro
slavery. These questions are no
longer the subject of dispute, and it
has already become subject of anx-
ious speculation with men who
look thoughtfully to the future,
what are the issues which are to
survive the dissolution of parties
which, originating in temporary
circumstances, can have only tenn
porary existence.
That there are mOmeHtous inter
ests underlying our present party
conflicts there is, no doubt, and il
is equally manifest that existing
party organizations prevent their
practical advancement in the Ma
tiOnal Legislature. We will men,
ton two of them.
Tariff reform and civil service re-
form. The treatment the former
of these has received from the two
existing parties forcibly illustrates
the obstacles which our present
party tactics oppose to the entertain
ment of new questions.
Tariff reform a new question ?
Well, it is certainly as old as the
adoption of the constitution, but as
forced upon the attention of our
present politicians it is new, and its
novelty is found very incOnvenient.
1t is not one of the questions on
which have been established the
existing Republican and Democrat
ic parties, and cannot be made con.
veniently TO fit party lines as now
understood. 1t is true that the ma
jority of Democrats are free traders,
and the majority of Republicans
protectionists, but when it is pro-
posed to bring up the question for
practical treatment both parties are
very shy of it; for many Democrats
are Pennsylvanians and therefore
protectiOnists, and many Republic
cans are Western men and therefore
free traders; and the dread of both
sides is eli ioW diricIe the pdrtV."
This apprehension readily accounts
for the treatment which the ques-
ton has received from Democrats
and Republicans respectively.
The Democratic party, prior to
the last Presidential election, put
strong free trade plank into its plat
form; considering the vigor with
which the opinions of the party
were there expressed, the mildness
with which they were advocated
i'll the canvass was conspicuous, and
when, towards the close of the cam
paign, the opposite party were sue
ceSSfully urging on the operatives
the stale fallacy that protection
meant high wages and free trade
low wages, Democratic stump
speakers ruefully explained that,
when they said free trade they did
not mean very free, that they were
in favor of moderate protection,
that, in short, the necessary taxes
for revenue would for long time
be abundantly protective and-and,
well, platforms didn't mean much
anyhow, and there was no danger
of trade becoming at all unreasOn-
ably free, and surely you are not
going to vote against the grand Old
party
Well, as might be expected, they
lost the Presidency. They first re-
PEELED protectionists by adopting a
free trade platform, and then the
free traders by not standing up to
it; but, for a while, they had ma
jority in Congress. What did they
10 there towards carrying out their
free trade platform Nothing
whatever. On the contrary, they
were so little satisfied with its effect
upon the campaign that they took
care to bottle ii up, tie down the
cork and seal it Theoretically. First
they elected as speaker an extreme
Pennsylvania protectionist, and he
appointed committee on ways and
means, consisting partly of Repub-
licans and partly of so-called pro-
tcctiOnist Democrats, with Fer
nando Wood, the hardest old pro-
tectiOnist i'll Congress-, as its chair
man. Without the action of this
committee, no bill affecting the
tariff can be introduced in the
House, and ii was easy to see that
such Il committee would introduce
no such bill. SO was free trade
crushed i'll Democratic Congress.
But how did the question fare in
Republican Congress? One
would have thought that the course
of that party was clear as soon as
they gained Il majority, as they did
two years afterwards. The great
body OF that party are protection
lists. Did they meet the demands
of the tariff refOrmers on the merits
of the question? No; there too
was danger of "diUHjiHg tie par
IT," Many Republicans came from
States where protection was looked
upon rs an intolerablc burden ON
the agricultural classes, and these
members would be sorely embar-
raised between their allegiance to
the party and their pledges to their
constituents, If they were compelled
To give straight vote for or against
the present tariff. So a scheme was
devised for their special behalf by
which the question could he shelvcd
for two years at least, and yet such
Il scheme rs Il man could vote for
and pretend to be tariff reformer.
The device was to place the whole
subject in the hands of committee
ri experts, not members of Congress.
who were to have two years for
their Investigations and were then
to report, till which time Congress
was to let the question alone. We
do not scruple to avOw our conVic-
3lN..k aN.nrxy tnnpnhnr .Nf Tn,aorrne~