New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-03-29
WHISKEY DTSC0RD.

"
makes some change in the political situation
1t was not quite without reason that a Demo-
cratic member said of those Democrats VINO
voted to kill the BILL These men want to come
@back. Their vote on the Whiskey bill mas hurt
gthemD There Is this truth in the remark; q
body of men who are influential in the Demo-
cratic party, and who have turned the scale In
favor of that party in several great States, were
passionately anxious to have this measure OF re-
lief adopted without delay. In consideration
of their valuable aid in Ohio and elsewhere,
some Democratic leaders who supposed they
could speak for the party had promised that the
payment of tax on vast quantity OF whiskey
held should be deferred, and that the tax on tu-
ture production should be removed.
Then came in the Tariff controversy. Demo
Gratis who want great reduction of duties see
that they are sure to be defeated, if the revenue
from whiskey is first cut off. Democrats who
are anxious to prevent revision of the tariff
hope to avoid it, without breaking completely
from their party, by means of the repeal OF the
whiskey tax. But the Morrison Democrats
being bound to do something for the whiskey
interest, and finding that interest determined to
defeat tariff revision unless first relieved from
pressing burdens, sought to appease 1t by post
poning payment of the tax on whiskey. The
Randall Democrats insist on the repeal OF the
tax. The Republicans almost unanimously OPP
pose both, holding that the whiskey interest
ought to pay good share of the expenses OF the
Government, and that the alliance between the
Democracy and the whiskey interest merits ho
favor from them.
Thus we have three parties on the whiskey
question The Republican position is clear and
just, and a large majority of the people will sus-
tain it. The position of Mr.. Randall and his
followers Is ineligible, logical, and in honor
able agreement with Democratic pledges. But
the Morrison Democrats, as usual, are trying to
trick some body. They either mean to repeal
the tax on whiskey in the end, according to
Democratic promises, OF they do not. IL they
do, they are trying to deceive the people by
DIFFERING that step until after the Presidential
election. II they do not they have been trying
to deceive the whskey interest by a show OF
effort to give temporary relief from taxation,
when they knew that the postponement ought
not to pass, that it was inconsistent with the
scheme of tariff reduction, and that in all
probability it would be beaten either by Ran
dali Democrats in the House or by Republicans
in the Senate. To suppose that the Morrison
wing really meant to postpone payment Of
whiskey taxes now due, and also to repeal the
tax after the Presidential election, is to suppose
that it meant to leave the Government without
adequate revenue to meet its obligations. For
the proposed reduction of tariff and the partial
repeal of the tax on tobacco, and the eventual
repeal of the tax on whiskey, would end in
reputation of solemn pledges of the Govern
ment.
Of the strength of the three parties in the
House, the recent vote gives some idea. The
Republicans who voted to kill the whiskey bill
numbered 81. The Democrats who voted on
the same side, presumably because they mean
to abolish the whiskey tax altogether if they
can, numbered %. The Democrats who voted
with Mr.. Morrison to placate the whiskeY in
terest by temporary relief, without keeping
Democratic pledges, were II in number.
Doubtless the three forces will not have quite
the same strength on other phases of the ques-
ton. But it is sufficiently clear that the Re-
publicans and the Democrats who oppose re-
peal of the whiskey tax ought to be majority.
AS for the tariff bill, the caucus proved the i'm
possibility Of any agreement by the Democrats
on that question. There is one thing and only
one, on which they agree--they want Office.
~