The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-07-22
MR. HENDRIcKs ON THE TARIFF.

sumed that he wrote dispassionately, and
that he fully considered his words. The
article is remarkable, coming from Mr.. Hen
bricks, in that it commits the writer to nearly
or quite unqualified views on the great ques-
ton, a thing that be seldom does at any time
on any question. The title of the
article, teShall Two States Rule the
Union?" is misleading, since the ruling
meant to be complained of comes from
the expressed consent of the entire country.
The protection demanded, as he represents it,
by the industries of Pennsylvania and Massa-
chusetts, yields, as he himself admits, an i'm
mense influence in other States, the voters of
which seem disposed to stand by that kind of
public polity that has done so much to build
up American industries. In consonance with
his nature, Mr.. Hendricks, in this instance, as
in others in which he pretends to define his
views, attempts to run two lines as nearly
parallel as possible, so that, as occasion might
require, it would be no difficult thing for him
to switch from either to the other. But it is
plain to be seen that he was still sore over the
defeat of Hancock following the latter's in
genuous utterances on the tariff, a question of
which he was wholly innocent of anything
like even the rudiments of comprehension.
Mr.. Hendricks, in his opening paragraph,
admits that the collection of import duties
win be kept up tfor many years to come.
It will certainly continue in force until after
the payment of the public debt, "and proba-
bly, for a period in the future much more re-
mote" He then refers, with considerable
bitterness, to the sudden change in the aspect
of the last national campaign, when the issue
was made squarely between the Republican
cratic declaration of a tariff 'for revenue only,
a phrase conceded to mean ultimate free
trade. '"rhe force of the declaration" he
says, twas probably not considered at Cincin-
natl by the Democratic platform-makers of
1880. He confesses that "it was not immedi
ately appreciated by the people. But" he
continues, sft came to be understood what it
was to signify when, everywhere and at the
same time; it was assailed as a free
trade sentiment and opposed to
American capital and labor" Chagrined
at the inevitable defeat that followed such
threat against the labor interests of the coun-
try, Mr.. Hendricks uttered this solemn admo-
milton to his party:
ftIn future declarations of principles and
purposes, political parties will need to be so
distinct and clear, in relation to the tariff,
that they cannot be misunderstood or misrep-
resented"
And then, to emphasize this warning. he
continues:
1.-THE adjustment of the tariff has now SO
p~rodigious an influence upon the great bust
ness interests of the country that uncertainty
In respect to it viii not be tolerated.
It was not unreasonable that the
country should understand the ex-
PRESTON "a tariff for revenue only as exclud-
ing all consideration of the wants and inter-
ests of business in the arrangement of the
rates of duty. 1t was so understood, and was
very damaging to the party that made it"
According to the calm judgment Of Thomas
A. Hendricks, in 1881, with no political cam
paign on hand, and little or no thought of
again becoming a national candidate, the
Democratic party has doubly blundered again
this year. It has failed to be sincerely ex-
plicit on this question, and has become COM
paratiyely emphatic only in declaring in favor
of "a tariff. for revenue exclusively, . as if the
substitution Of a synonymous adverb werg
enough to deceive an intelligent people. Mr..
Hendricks, in this paragraph, evidently forgets
his text, and confesses that in 1880 the Demo
cratic menace against protection twas very
damaging What, then, has Massachusetts,
and Pennsylvania to do with 'ruling'' the
Nationf Certainly he had no hope of carrying
either Of those States for the Democratic
party had the tariff question not been sprung.
The damage, then, must have come from
other States; possibly from Indiana for one.
Indeed, he admits as much in a paragraph
near the end of his article, in which he says:
'NWhen almost exclusively agricultural, In
diana was easily influenced against protection;
now, in all her important towns and cities,
valuable manufactures have become estab-
lished, giving useful employment to- labor,
and sending a large and intelligent vote to
the polls; and he who aspires to partisan
leadership finds the present contest very
different from that which gave the State to
Polk in 1874"
In this view Mr. Hendricks can hardly be
expected to rejoice over the situation in
Indiana, with a prominent Democratic
paper just over the border chuckling over
the way its editor inyeigled the Democratic
convention into adopting, in new form, the
Democratic free-trade sentiment that .twas
very DAMAGING In 1890