The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-12-13
Tho Tariff Question.

The New York Sun proposes to shave
n outv on the tariff question. It's sug'
gestion Is as follows:
"I,et the question he taken up earnestly
and let II be thoroughly settled; shall
there be any kind Of protection, or shaIi
we have tariff for revenue only! In
other words. shall uncompromising iree~
traders like Henry Watterson ana Wiha',,
r.. Morrison rule the Democracy or snall
IL be governed as OF old, by protection'ss
like Samuel J. Randall and-as some on ms
friends now assure us--John u. Caf'ise!
Attempts 10 postpone the decision Tor rea-
sons Of party advantage now come 100 h'te'
let The question OF tariff strictly and ex-
cl,siycIy for revenue or tariff with Incl
dental protection be fully debated before
the country and let us have vote. Let us
have vote first i'm Congress, and then
vote in the Democratic party In the choice
Of DELEGATES 10 the National Convention.
And then, II the policy Of tariff for reve-
me only prevails in the House OF Repre-
sentatiyes, aud II il next prevails in the
election OF delegates 10 the National Con-
yentiou. let us have final vote at the presi-
Dental election"
The result Of carrying out the Suns
suggestion, az far as II could he carried out,
would be TO develop clearly the fact that
the Democratic party Is not only IN no
condition 10 draw the line as against either
sree-traders or the protectionis;s, as the
two sides call each the other, but that there
Is no excuse for SO drawing 1t. The Sun
makes its suggestion as challenge 10 Tue
Democrats OF the WATTERsoN stripe, ana
not because Il supposes that 1t Is advo-
eating a proposition in the interest OF the
Democratic party. IL Is the way that MT.
DANA has selected 10 let the free-traders
know that there il chip on his hat that
they will not dare to knock OIL. But Mr..
WATTERSoN,'o course, explains away all
that was supposed to, be Objectionable
either i'm his tariff creed or Mr.. CARLIsIE's.
He says he isn't foolish enough TO fight in
favor OF a tariff for revenue only, as Mr..
DANA proposes. II may, and doubles will,
surprise a good many people to hear Mr..
WATTERsoN talking in that manner on the
tariff question, but 1t is even so. The st.
Louis and Cincinnati platforms OF the Demo-
cratic party, he has always contended, de-
clared for what he was supposed to favor
ga tariff for revenue only" Most persons
would suppose that ga tariff for revenue
only" must be tariffso framed as to pro-
duce the largest possible amount OF revenue
without reference TO what might be the
effect OF the customs-duties, or the absence
OF customs-duties, on the manufacturing
interests OF the country. But not so. Mr..
WATTERscN tells us what bis present creed
on that subject is; and il we hadn't from
bis own paper we should doubt that 1t tods
his creed. We let him speak for himself.
He says:
"Mr. Carlisle is i'm thorough accord with
those who elected him. But neither he
nor they are willing 10 have their aims and
ideas stated at second hand. They are
abundantly able TO speak for themselves
1t would, indeed, be a fine thing for the
Republicans to be permitted to lay down
line Of battle like that proposed by Mr..
Dana. But no such alignment exists, and
none such will be permitted. The tariff
is full OF abuses. They shall be corrected.
Ii Yields too much revenue. The excess
shall be reduced. The expenses OF Gov
eminent and the proceeds OF taxation shall
be kept as nearly together rs possible. In
the end it may be that the debt and the
tariff will 90 out together. At present
two hundred millions Of tariff duties cam
not be laid without protecting somebody.
and those who get il are welcome to 1t TO
that extent.
"The Democratic shibboleth is tax re-
form, not free trade"
Now that means q tariff not for revenue
only. but Just such a tariff as is advocated
in the Virginia and Pennsylvania platforms
OF the Democratic party, and just such
tariff as Mr.. RANDALL has always favored.
And vet MIR. RANDALL was beaten because
he everywhere openly advocated the doc
trine OF his state, and Of Virginia, and OF
Ohio.
Mr.. WATTERsON tells Ills too, in plain
language, that he Is not in favor OF re-
ducing the revenues OF the Government by
abolishing the internal taxes, but by
changing the tariff. This policy the Nir'
GINA Democrats will not consent TO-
They would greatly prefer to reduce The
revenues by abolishing, root and branch
the internal-reyenue department.
But whilst the course of Mr.. WAITER
SON shows how unjust it was to Mr.. Ran
DALI to defeat him because he did no
style himself "a tariff reformcr," it fortu
nately goes also to show that there i
among Democrats on the tariff question
no difference that would justify them il
dividing into two factions.