The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-06-26
TALK OF THE POLITICIANS.
why Ex-senator Mcdonald Opposes
Protective Tariff
MIR. English Thinks Indiana Reasonably
Certain for the DemOcracy-Vigorous
Speech by Judge Foraker.
MCDONALD AND ENGLISH.
A Cautious Statement by the Former-viev

Ex-senator Mcdonald was visited at his
Office and asked for an expression Of his
views concerning the tariff, the abolition of
the internal revenue system and other cur
rent political issues. While the distln-
guished gentleman stated very pointedly
that he had nothing to conceal from those
who might for any legitimate reason desire
to know his opinion on these topics, he at
the same time expressed himself as being
very much averse to submitting to an inter-
view for the newspapers.
81 have no objection to stating my opin-
ion" said he, "but can see no special rea-
son for my obtruding myself on the public.
So far as all these questions are concerned, L
have opinions, most asSuredly-decided ones
at that; but they are the same ones that L
have entertained for some time, and have,
therefore, nothing new to offer. With ref
erence to the tariff question, / refer you to
the last public utterance made by me on the
subject 1t was in the address delivered to
the Democratic editors of Indiana, in which
/ took very decided ground against the pres
ent system. Here is copy of the address,
and suitiDg the action to the word, the Sem
ator selected pamphlet from among bum
die of similar documents carefully labeled.
You are at liberty to make such selec-
tions from this as you choose"
As the speech in question was long one
the Senator was asked if he could not in
dictate paragraph or two which embodied
the drift OF his openion, to which he replied
by marking with his pencil the following
II am opposed to a protective tariff upon
two grounds: First such a tariff is in no
just sense tax, and to the extent that 1T
excludes foreign merchandise from our
markets, 1T is no tax at all. 1t is a bounty
and the constitution does not authorize Con-
gress to impose burden of that kind upon
one class of our people for the benefit of an
other Second, it is unjust and unneces-
sary even considered from the stand point
of the protectionist. The claim for protec-
ton as | have already said, rests upon the
assumption that manufacturers of this coun-
try can not compete with the cheap capital
and cheap labor of Europe, or, to use a ia
vorte term with the advocates of protec-
ton, the pauper labor oil Europe"
at is not true that the manufacturing in
terests of this country, at this time, are in
need of protection, beyond that which a
revenue rariff would necessarily give On
the contrary 1t is susceptible of the clear
esRdemonstration, that the lowest revenue
tariff which can be laid consistent with
the wants of the government, is ample pro-
lection for any branch of our home indus
tries.
That" said he, sis what thought then,
and | have not altered my opinion since"
w nat OOyOu JHlHK OF the aDOllClOn OIL the
internal revenue system?'
81 think that it is impractcable. The cur
rent expenses of the government amount to
in the neighborhood of $3.50, 900, 900 annually.
Add to this the interest on the public debt
pensions and other necessary items, and the
annual expenditures of the government will
reach nearly $500 900 900. This of course
must be met; and the revenue derived from
the tariff, through the custom houses,
amounted last year to but SIG, 900, 600 and
1t is doubtful if this sum can ever be ex-
ceeded 1t is, therefore, inexpedient to
abolish the internal revenue system. l favor
its continuance, subject to such modifica-
tons as may be deemed advisable from time
to time.n
HON. WILLIAM H. ENGLISH
Late Democratic candidate for Vicepresi-
dent, and one of the oldest and best-inform-
ed politicians in his party in Indiana, was
next visited. Although Mr. English has re-
tired from active political life he still retains
lively interest in politics, and manifested
a willingness to answer such questions as
bore upon the condition of the two great par
ties in Indiana.
DO you consider Indiana as certain for
the Democrats in 1884?'
"Well, yes, reasonably so. The chances at
least, think, are decidedly in that direc-
ton"
But the State has not always been reliable
for them when so considered, " was suggested,
recolecting the campaign in 1880.
by no means, nor has 1t been any more
reliable for the Republicans. The truth is
that neither Republicans nor Democrats have
carried Indiana by majority at any general
election for the past ten years. Elections
have in every instance been carried by plu-
ralfties and not ma orities."
THAT fact is not generally understood"
mo, it was not generally known abroad in
1880, and | do not think it is now, but it is,
nevertheless true, as the official returns of
every election will show. Indiana voted for
Grantin 1879, but the vote at the State cleo
ton the same year was so close that por-
tion of the Democratic State ticket was
elected by small majority"
Mr.. English then stated the figures of In
diana elections for the past ten years, and
added
"These figures will give a correct idea of
the status of the parties in Indiana They
show that neither party has had a majority
at any election tor over ten years. In the
last seven elections the Democrats have car
ried 1t by pluralities five times, and the Re-
publicans twice. l should estimate the
chances in the next election to be just about
In that proportion. OF course the result will
be more or less influenced by events to oc-
cur, such as the selection of candidates, plat
form, etc. The selection of an Indiana man
as the candidate for the presidency would, to
certain extent strengthen the party choos-
ing him, as Indiana has never had a Presi-
dent. But speaking of chances, l should say
that with any satisfactory candidate and an
equally satisfactory platform, they would be
in favor of the Democracy"
"But are not the chances of Democratic
success impaired by divisions in the partyP"
80 far as l know, there are no divisions
among Indiana Democrats. There may be
some difference as to choice of candidates,
but none that will be likely to affect the re-
suit of an election. There was remarkable
unanimity among the leaders OF the party in
1882, and to that and the bold, aggressive
stand taken in the platform in favor of per-
sonal liberty, the success of the party may be
ascribed
But how about the quarrel between Hen