The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1883-05-30
1,uE pocrR1NE or THE FArH


N&mhNhuG &meKAIMls
The Louisville CoUrier-JOurndt is
worrying through its explanations
on past foolishness about n tariff tor |
revenue only. Our neighbor ought
to understand that many words do
not necessarily explain what before
was confusion. If the editor of the
Courfer-yournaF wanted TO explain,
instead of writing a column and q
half in one article las he does In
Yesterdays issue), in explanation OF
n @tariff for revenue emily" he would
in a sentence or two meet the ques-
ton. There is no mystery about
the matter. 1t has been presented
to him time and again with the
same unvarying result-a long,
wordy article, but no answer.
What the Democratic party want
to know of the few men who threat
en- to switch off on a "tariff for rev
enue only" is: Do you propose to
reject entirely the doctrine OF dis
elimination in levying a tariff
If the astute editor of the Courier
Journal. and the few theorists asso-
ciated with him, mean what the
words they use would imply-that
the same per cent. shall be levied
on all imports-or that such duty
} shall be levied on imports as will
produce the most revenue, regard
less of it's effect upon our industries
: If they mean either one or the other
/ Of these things, how easy it would
. be 10 say so. If they do not NEAR
either, why not tell what they are
driving at? But, if the editor o
!. the Conrier-JourRal does not wish
$ to define the meaning of his pc
phrase, can we not get at his mean
ing in another way?
q Washington, Jefferson, Madison
e jackson and Polk, all recognized
: the doctrine of discrimination.
: They all took strong ground in it
= favor. They we'll understood Tth
{ word afncidental" could be use'
/" WITHOUT meaning any thing, am
4 they squarely recognized the doc
!, trine of discrimination" Can't tn
! editor of the COUrier-JOurRdL say II
o plain terms, whether he agrees wit
If them? If he does not desire to ex
g plain away the palpable absurdlt,
v of "tariff for revenue only, sure
II ly he might say whether he agree
/" with the ''fathers" on the doctrln
!, of discrimination" r..
= We have, time again, suggeste
+ that all differences in the Democrat
lie party might be reconciIed by maH
It ing a platform ont of the WORD
used by either Washington, Jettel
: son, Madison, Jackson or Polk, re
N our part we would be content !
lie take the words of either on tn
ID tariff, and use them as the found;
\, ton of the Democratic platform
70 We doubt if any of our new do
r trine theorists know. mere aboI
rs Democratic principles than did the'
4. distinguished statesmen.
= There il, we repeat, no mysteT
le about the question that is, Il
T. question as to what is meant by I'll
70 term in question. OF course, tt
e, coquetnng that now goes on b
=. tween the Cincinnati NeCs JOWrR'
as and the Courier journal as to Il
IL purport Of the word ''incidental"
n n nothing more than a harmless, goo'
u natured swapping of compliment
e. but the Democrats who propose
= run the next race to win, desil
as to know if the advocates of the ne
J, doctrine propose to set aside that
to the fathers, which means tar
es for revenue, with discrimination #
as protection. DO they adhere to
ur abandon the doctrine of discrimin
u tion2 This is a simple quesho
n. but we have not the slightest hol
es- that it will be specifically or direC
on ly answered.
a. | = II