New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-01-15

| ARE REPUBLJCANS GOING TO BLUNDERF
| II is possible that the fate of the Tariff Dill
may he virtually decided in both houses during
the coming week. Quite loss of hope as to
| this measure has appeared since the holiday
| recess. The impression of many shrewd men
in each house is that such amendments are
| likely to be made that the pending bills Will be
abandoned by their friends. How would the
matter stand if this should turn out to be the
| result? Its seems especially important To con-
| slider this at once. for there are some members
| who say that they do not think 1t would be 10
| the interest of the Republican party to have
ANYTHING done about the matter at tins ses
| sion.
| Republican Congress, at the session OF
| 1SS1-s2. created a Commission to investigate
| the tariff and to report in hat manner and to
what extent it should be modified. This Com
mission was designed to represent the defend
ers of American industry. 1t did represent
them so completely that the opponents OF the
present system looked for no report at all
| favorable to their views. Mr.. Hayes had been
for years the spokesman of the Woollen Manu-
,acturers' Association. and Mr. Garland the
president of the Wool Growers Association.
| Mr.. Oliver was officially and in personal inter
ests the representative OF the lron and steel
| Association, and Mr.. Keuner was AN especially
good representative of the sugar growers
| The other members were supposed and actually
| showed themselves to be in harmony with
| these the Commission as n whole represented
| American industries, and was especially com
| petent TO consider their needs. 1t reported mat
| the tariff ought TO be substantially reduced and
! that such reduction would be permanently BEN
efcial to the very industries that at the outset
might seem most likely to object to it. More
over the reduction proposed was on no other
| CLASSES or Imports moro important than on
! those very articles about which the wool
| growers wool manufacturers, iron and steel
manufacturers and sugar growers were certain
| to have the strongest interest and the most
| thorough knowledge.
What good reason can the Republican party
| give, if it refuses to make reductions recon-
mended by such men7 II cannot say that it
! knows better hat would he veil for the wool
manufacturer than Mr.. Hayes, or better what
would be well for the iron manufacturer
than Mr. Oliver. That kind Of claim would
| hardly have weight with fair-minded and
| intelligent voters Neither can it pretend that
as TO the general need of protecting American
| industry as a whole it is more earnest or more
| informed than this Commission, or better able
| to Judge what measures are eApedient to tl'at
end. When opponents of protecti' n assert !
they now do, that the tariff in its present form.
is no longer upheld because it is needful or
| even useful for the protection of industry, but
| that changes are now resisted solely for the
| maintenance of oppressive mOnOpoies which
| have grown up under that system, what have
| the Republicans TO reply7 They can affirm with
| truth that the party has no such aim that it has
20 other desire than to promote, strengthen and
| build up American industry, and defend
| American labor. But how much weight will its
assertion have, in contrast with It's refusal to
make changes which the Commiss on has pro-
nounced for the permanent interests of labor
and of Industry
| This is not all. A Senate committee, led by
Mr.. Morrill,, the father of the protective tariff,
has reported bill substantially embodying in
the main the propositions of the Tariff Com
mission This bill would reduce the revenue
| from customs about $45. 049,O 00 namely on
cotton, So. GS1 900 iron and steel, So, 200 900;
silks, $3,4S7,0O0; wool and woollens,
| $4, 845, 900; mOlasses, $6,500,000; sugar,
| $15, 500, 900; inland transportation and other
charges, $5,4O0,00O; and other items,
| 1926, 900. No man living can claim to be a
| more ardent and devoted friend of the Ameri-
| can system than Mr.. Morrill,, nor has any living
man taken larger or more influential part
| in the framing and adoption of the protective
| tariff. His colleague next Oh the committee,
| Mr. Sherman, is another of those whose earn
| estness aud knowledge have been most album
dainty shown. But the modification which these
gentlemen and their associates propose, be-
| lieving that it would be beneficial to industry,
| it is supposed that the Republican party NAV
| refuse to pass. On what ground Can the party
| 20 before the country claiming that Dir. Morrill,
and Mr.. Sherman do not understand the sub
| iect or that they are not earnest and sincere
| advocates of a sound and genuine protection
| OF industry
| II the party should put itself in this position,
| it would be confronted at the next session by q
| Democratic majority. That majority might
very easily compose it's differences for time,
| and make powerful effort to alay public dis
| trust in order TO secure the Presidency by tax
| ing up and passing the bill of tue Commission
| or of the Senate committee. 1t could then cite
| for its justification such eminent protectionists
as Messrs. Hayes, Oliver and Garland or
| Messrs Morrill, and Sherman. 1t could charge
with great force that the Republicans had re-
| fused to do the same thing only because a few
monopoists objected. Would the position then
be desirable one for the Republican party7
| Thus far the Democratic party has had nearly
| a monopoly of the laundering and of the con.
| seqaent biennial and qLadrennial defeats.
Unless the Republicans want the lions share OF
| the getting beaten, they will be CAREFUL this