Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1884-04-11
fnllnWing States

Mdfylduu,
Mississippi, Total, 100
Missouri, 10
By the new apportionment additional
votes we're given to the above mentioned
States as follows:
Arkansas / South Carolina, 2
California, Texas, D
Georgia, l Virginia. L
Kentucky, l West Virginia, l
Missouri, -
Mississippi, Total, IL
North Carolina,
Adding this increased vote to that cast
in 1880 gives the strength Of the Democrats
in the electoral college at 172, which, with
the thirty-six votes of New York State,
would make 20S, a clear majority Of seven
in the 401 votes cast.
This will make it very important to car
~ New York and the question is, bow ?
No tariff-reform-free MISUNDERSTANDING
form, or candidate can carry it. On
square party issue it was carried in 1868
by Horatio Seymour, an advocate of ''pro-
lection to domestic manufactures" in
1876 by Samuel J. Tilden on reform in
government, and in 1880 it was lost by
Gen. Hancock on tariff for revenue on
ly.' 1t would be equal to giving New
York up in advance, to flavor the Nation
al Democratic platform with the theories
that have lately been promulgated by Mr..
Morrison. Indeed. after seeing the In
tense dissatisfaction with which one-third
Of the Democratic party received them,
and the doubt and distrust with which
the other two-thirds tdoctrinaire leaders
excepted) looked at them. it would be
equivalent to giving up all hope CT success
in every section of the country. With
the right sort of platform and candidate,
New York may be set down as almost GER
tain for the Democratic nominee. 1t is
oftener Democratic State than Repub-
lican one, and with New Jersey and Con-
necticut can be carried by that party if the
platform promises protection to American
interests.
There could be no more inexcusable
oversight than to permit the possibility at
Chicago of the repetition of the mistake OF
1880 at Cincinnati. 1t is doubtless true
that In the Western States some changes
in the tariff would be popular, but if the
Democrats attempted to carry such States
as Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin. Kansas,
Nebraska, and other States of the North
west from which Mr.. Carlisle got strong
support for the speakership, they would
find themselves woefully disappointed. No
better illustration of this can be given
than by taking Iowa for an example. The
people of that State are as much interest
ed in doing away with war taxes as any in
the West AS they are not in favor of the
abolition of the Internal Revenue tax, the
burden of which las compared with Vir-
ginia) they hardly feel, they are to be sup
posed as thoroughly favorable to lower
tariff. With this Impression, and to test
how far they were favorable, the Demo-
cratic party of Iowa raised the tariff issue
last fall and put their ablest speakers for
ward to discuss it. Their Republican op-
ponents appeared in the field as the advo-
Gates of high protective tariff and were
also handicapped with prohibition. The
result was that the Democrats polled a
higher vote than usual, but the general
result was pretty much the old story-the
Republicans carried everything. Now If
IN an off year, when all things were favor
able to making an issue on an economic
question and giving it full discussion, the
Democrats were defeated on tariff re-
FORM how much are we to expect OF the
Presidential year when party allegianceis
always at fever heat. The only result that
has ever attended Democratic efforts to
break the Republican Northwest has been
defeat, and the only result that the intro
duction of tariff reform by the Democrats
into the coming Presidential campaign
there, would be that they would lose
certain number of voters interested by &C.
cupatIon in protection, and would gain
none from the Republicans in compensa-
ton.
If then, it is clearly not the policy of
the Democratic party, by new and radi-
cal departure on economic issues to make
"a campaign in the west. it follows that its
best interest is to adopt policy by which
New York, New Jersey and Connecticut
may be secured; for without those States
we may count the battle of November as
lost. This policy is that outlined as long
ago as last j uly by the Virginia Democracy
1t is plain and unmistakable. 1t mesn ms the
abolition of the Internal Revenue system
and giving protection to the American Wor-
kingman and the American land holder.
1t is not mealy mouthed or temporiZing.
It does not propose to concede this part OF
the Internal Revenue system in order to
maintain that part; 1t does not propose to
tinker up this, leak on condition that some
other is allowed to run; it makes no
special bid to whiskey men, tobacco men
makers of fruit (cross roads, brandy or to
any other class affected by the revenue
tax-it prop oses to abolish oil of the tax,
and, with 1t, all of the political managers
who collect it, as far as the National
government is concerned. If States want
to lay tax, and they will want to, they
can do it, but there shall be no more
gigantic surplusage in the National Treas
ury to tempt to extravaganza and corrup-
ton. 1t is platform which will buildup
the country places, the farms, the great
and small landholdings, and not merely
make few large cities and busy sea-
ports.
To carry out this benefcent platform
needs some attention to those nurseries of
government. the primaries. They are the
|riyuIets that make up that great lake the
National Democratic convention. In the
primaries held in Virginia to send dele
bates to the State Convention at Rich
nopd in May, the Democrats who are in