The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-06-09
NO MIDDLE GROUND,

NO MIDDLE GROUND.
eve find ourselves able to commend the
soundness of the views advanced by General
Mcclellan in an interview at Galveston. The
Democratic party, he said, should come out
squarely for tariff for revenue only; abso-
Lutte free trade was impossible; the people
would not submit to the burden of protection
fuddlement and cowardice, to hear that sort
of talk is refreshing "-Indianapolis News.
TN these days of Democratic befuddle-
ment and cowardice" is good, not only as ap-
piled to the present time, but as a general
proposition that has few redeemable excep-
quent duplicity has been the rule for more
than a score of years. 1t is no longer ex-
pected that Democracy will give an unquali-
fled Endorsement to anything. Facilitating
between right and wrong, in the hope of
catching the adherents of each, it is too cow
ardly to openly indorse either. Masked as
they may be, the power and influence of the
Democratic party are for free trade, pure
and simple. But to catch those who are
opposed to exposing American Industries to
such danger, it juggles words and makes
pretense of giving qualified support to a
revenue tariff" 1t is this disreputable at
tempt to straddle this issue that leads them
into an indefensible inconsistency.
There is no middle ground between pro-
tective tariff and free trade-not an inch.
GA tariff for revenue only" is free trade,
since all duties under it must be laid on arti-
cles not produced in America. Under its
provisions there would be no restriction
whatever, and SO far as any protection, we
might as we'll have free trade. The
very moment any Democrat seeks
to show that any tariff is sin
cidentally protective" that very moment
he is encroaching on Republican ground and
abandoning the platform of his own party.
And nobody knows this better than the men
who make such specious argument.
Neither is it an excuse to argue that a tariff
for revenue is imperative on account of our
national debt. England the pattern of free
traders, has debt much larger than our
own, and an annual expense account of $500,
900, 900 to provide for, but she does not lay
protective import duties to meet it. If the
theory of Democracy is the true one, the
idea of affording any kind of protection to
American industries ought to be abandoned.
The party would take this position
outright, but for the fact that it knows
only too well that to do so would be
to invite overwhelming defeat. 1t is for this
reason that, while thoroughly imbued with
the determination of foisting free trade upon
this country the Democratic party is dis
honest enough to multiply words in order to
convey the false impression that in some
manner, wholly inexplica BILE, it is the friend
of American manufactures.
Here is the dividing line between the two
parties. The Democratic, essentially free
trade, deceitfully lays claim to views it de.
tests and would certainly dishonor. The Re-
publican party, without mincing words, and
without any attempt to catch votes on false
pretenses, candidly and unequivocally lays
down its platform in favor of protection
TO the mills and men of America.
There is no humbug or duplicity about it.
Taking its position on this great issue, it
challenges all who do not agree with it. De-
spising hocus-pocus and political legerde-
main, it will not descend to such tricks, but
will appeal to the enlightened intelligence OF
the American people, educated on this ques
ton as never before, and better qualified than
ever to pass upon its merits If the Demo
cratic party is convinced that free trade is
impossible, then is protection imperative
and no choice is left. Such is the position OF
the Republican party, and no doubt need be
entertained on this point.