Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-11-15
Aanraster !9mtelligencer.
EVENING NOV. Is. 1852,
A Sensible Platform.

is best Tor the country, but that at pres
ent it is impracticable. In other words
the theory is excellent but the practice
impossible. 1t is very good platform
for q national politician to adopt and fol
national party to proclaim. 1t happens
to suit this case very well. It is about
the only platform upon the question OF
tariff and free trade upon which a ma
tional party can be harmonized. A free
trade party and a tariff party must both
lie sectional, because people are guided
in their decision as to which policy is
best for the country by their determine
tion as to which is best for themselves !;
and we find that manufacturing districts
always favor a protective tariff, while
commercial sections clamor for free
trade. It will always be 80, and any
party that undertakes to plant itsadher,
ents upon one side or the other will find
itself localized in it's strength.>
The great parties have not been treat
ing this question very honestly. They
have not said that it is one upon which
they refuse to take a position on either
side, but they have essayed to put their
party in sympathy with the strength of
sentiment in the district i'm which they
were working. In the last national
convention, it is true, that Watterson,
of Kentucky, who happened to be chair
man Of the committee on resolutions and
who has free trade as one of the ques-
tions on which he is more or less crazy.
succeeded in putting a call in the ma
tional platform for tariff for revenue
only. It did the party a great deal Of
harm, because it was false declaration.
The party as national party does not
believe in that doctrine. The party
in Kentucky does in Pennsyl-
vania it does not. The declara
tion of the national platform
has been freely repuliated since
wherever it is not in accord with
democratic sentiment. 1t will always
be thus repudiated. So would decla-
tion in favor of a protective tariff be re-
jected by the Democrats in the states
where the people think that their inter.
ests demand a tariff for revenue only.
1t is sheer folly to pretend that the
Democratic party in the nation can at
present be harmoEiZed On a declaration
for either free trade or protection. Some
time in the future we believe it may be.
The interests of the country are steadily
advancing towards the free trade point.
Whenever the manufacturing industry
becomes such that it needs to seek to sup
ply other nations to keep it busy, the
hour of free trade will have struck,
for it will he the hour when the interests
of the whole country demand it.
Meanwhile Democrats must agree to
disagree. The party lines cannot be
drawn on this question, because
the party members are not agreed
upon it. Free trade or tariff is not a
test of Democracy. The party is based
upon other and more Vital issues, which
must be subor!inated TO our purpose to
preserve the integrity of the Democratic
party.
We observe, with regret, that there is
an idea to force it obnOXiOuSly upon the
party, as the test upon which its candl-
date for speaker of the next House will
be chosen. Already year in advanc ce
of the selection, Mr.. Randall of Penn.
sylvania, and Mr.. Carlisle, of Kentucky,
are announced as the opposing candi-
dates for the speakership. One repre-
sents a state in which the Democratic
sentiment is for free trade, and the other
one in which that sentiment demands a
fair protection for its great industries.
1t is right for these states to differ, as
their interests differ but it is not right
for their representatives to decide their
vote for 6 Democratic candidate for
speaker Of the House upon this difference,
unless it is right to make the differ
ence test of Democracy. II is no such
test now, and it will never do to make
it one. The party should not be arrayed
against itself upon the question in the
selection of speaker. Both Mr.. Ran
dali and Mr.. Carlisle are undoubtedly
fit for the Office and the representatives
should decide between them according
to their ideas Of their superior fitness Or
according to their personal predictions;
not safely according to their views upon
question of political economy, which is
not one upon which Democrats are
united.
There is no difficulty at all in pro-
claiming this division there is none in
admitting it to exist in a political party
which is built upon other and greater
political foundations. The question
of tariff is a great economical one
undoubtedly, but its decision is not
vital to the existence of free and
prosperous Democracy. We can safely
agree to disagree upon it. Nature de-
mands that We shall disagree, because
nature has made the interests of Ken
lucky and Pennsylvania to differ.
Yet we are in common country,
which must be kept united and harmo-
NOUS, and which must have united
and harmonious party governing it that
is to be found in its strength in every
section of it. It is far more essential to
our national prosperity that its political
parties should not be sectional than il is
that they should lie in accord upon the
question of free trade. Let us agree
upon this to disagree ; or to embrace it