Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1883-05-26
DEMOCRATIC VIEW or THE TARIFF.

The sublime audacity of cheek
Was never better illustrated than in
the ease and assurance with which
the average country editor tackles
the tariff question. Fools will 90
where angels dare not tread. saws
an old proverb, and the country
weekly boldly sounds its views on
this intricate subject which might
we'll confound and abash the able
editor of the big city daily. The
country editor has never been re-
garded as the impersonation of
original thought and in his treatise
on the tariff question he has not
improved his reputation. In this
section he mainly reflects the views
of Mr.. Watterson or Mr.. Colyar, as
the case may be, but the reflection
is not that of the smooth mirror, il
bears a better comparison to the
distorted and imperfect image given
back by convex glass.
The CHRONICLE has not been be-
hind its esteemed contemporaries in
this particular and up to date has
done its share Of tariff talk. We
hope that tolerant public will
allow us to produce just one more
editorial on the subject and we
promise that without great provo
cation we won't say another word
in that regard until we have struck
on Il brand new idea.
What we are going to say now is
that in our humble opinion there is
a great deal OF sound and fury sig
nifying nothing in this tariff dis
cussiOn. This is especially true as
to the divergent opinions ON the
subject in the democratic party.
Able editors have been graphing
one another by the Threats and in
dulging in lengthy and excited dis
cussions all to prove that they hold
substantially the same views on the
subject discussed. The position of
the democracy on the tariff may be
stated as follows: All democrats
believe in tariff reform and reduc-
ton no democrat believes in abso-
lutte free trade as present policy.
The manifold expressions that give
form to these views mean substan-
TALLY the same thing, and are in
fact so flexible that they have no
eXactitude of meaning. 1t is hardly |
possible to form phraze that will |
signify a precise position on the
tariff question, unless it indicates
one or the other of the extremes,
free tlade or high protective tar
if. 1t may be safely said then that
the democratic party maintains
mean position on the tariff question,
and under that generalization,
which is as expressive as any at
tempt at greater Particularly, the
party is a unit.
GA revenue tariff as opposed to
"a protective tariff has grown into
favor with some politicians and
papers. y tariff that is purely for
purposes of protection would of
course produce only a small reve-
nue. or else it would be Intellectual
for the end in view. To the contra
ny a tariff that has for its main OBJ
ject revenue would encourage all
the importation possible and would
be as destructive of all protected
interest as absolute free trade. Yet
it is generally declared that nobody
but crankS favor free trade. A pure
revenue tariff, too, would impose Il
duty on coffee and all articles that
are not grown or manufactured in
this country. If the democracy
hopes to win in the next presiden-
tial election ii must stand where
it now does and demand tariff re-
form and reduction but eschew such
as tariff for revenue
only.
No one doubts that the insertion
of such a phraze in the platform
brought defeat to the party in the
last election and it is reasonable to
suppose that if again adopted it {
will have the same blighting effect. ,
The high protective tariff theory |
should be strenuously opposed, but {
we want no more tariff for revenue
only. T