The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-03-15
Put Yourself in His Place.

q paragraph which appeared recently In
the Dispatch. To show that we intended
merely 20 make a general proposition, we
reproduce the paragraph. changing only
the last two lines OF IL. We say, then, that
the Democrat who holds that the tariff issue
Is more important than any other before
the people Is at least bali Republican
not consciously perhaps. but neverthe-
less certainly such for II he really believes
what he says Il would be his duty to sup
port the Republican party II its national
platform should declare for protection.
Isn't that true as II stands now, Uncle
DICK? Wouldn't you say OF Mr.. RANDALL,
or any other protectionist Democrat, that
II he regarded the protection issue ;smore
important than any other before the peo-
ple, he was at least bali a Republican, IL
we regarded protection as more important
than any OF the issues raised in the Lynch
burg plaiiofm We should Of course side with
the protectionists. There cannot be two
or more 90 most important" issues. If one
is "most important" the others should be
made to give place to 1t.
Let us point out the difference between
our side and yours. Our friends are will
ing 10 support for President Of the United
States BAYARD, or RANDALL, or THURMAN,
or PAYNE, or McDONALD, or any other
Democrat. We do not ask the nominee TO
agree with us on the tariff question. We
do not demand Of him that he shall favor
protection. We Will vote for the nominee
without reference TO that question. Your
side. on the contrary, demand that the
candidate shall Re a tariff reformer. Ii Is
not an uncommon thing for reyenue-re-
form editors to say that protectionists are
such only because Of their ignorance;
whereas the worst thing that our papers
say Of your side is that it is unwise
Tor perhaps they sometimes say "fool-
ish') for the Democrats TO divide on
the tariff question now. How would
IL do for us TO charge all the edi-
tors who talk that way about our side
with denouncing as fools Messrs. EATON,
MITCHELL, and SEYMOUR, OF Connecticut;
MULLER, ROBINSON. ARNOT, WENPLE, VAN
ALsTyS, BEACH, and SPRIGGs, OF New
York; Fielder, FERRELL, and MCADoo,
OF New Jersey; RANDALL, ELLIOTT, Err
MESTRoUr, MUTCHLER, STORM, C0NNALLY,
Posi-, PATrEN, DUNCAN, CURTAIN. BOYLE,
and HOPKINS. OF Pennsylvania; FINDLEY,
TALBOT, HOBLITZELL, and CovINGT0N. OF
Maryland; HEWITT and SHELLEY, OF Ala
bama; HENLEY. RosECRANs, SUMNER, TUL-
LEY, GLAssC0CK, and BUDD, OF California;
BARBOUR and GEORGE d. WISE, Of Vir-
GINA; GIBSON, SNYDER, and WILSON, Of
West Virginia; MURRAY, SENEY, Hill,
CONVERGE, GEDDEs, WARNER, WILKINS,
PAGE, and FORAN, Of Ohio, and thousands
and tens OF thousands Of other good Demo-
Gratis? No, you would not call them fools.
We know that. Nor would we willingly
use word that would offend the other
side.
You demand Of us that we shall advo-
cate tariff reform. as you call it. You de-
mand Of the National Convention that it
shall nominate tariff reiormer for Presi-
dent. Our side make no such demands.
We are willing to stand upon the platform
adopted last year by the Democrats OF Ohio,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Virginia.
and upon which they won glorious vic
tories. Why? Because we regard other
issues as more important than the tariff
issue.
The Ledger asks:
"Wnh what party would such Demo-
Gratis align themselves il the National DEM
ocratic Convention shall again declare for
a revenue tariff, making protection Incl
dental, as 1t should be, instead OF the OBJ
ject as now contended for by Protection
Democrats?"
With the Democratic party. First, be-
cause the Ledger describes the kind OF
tariff we advocate; and. secondly, because
II the National Convention were to declare
for tariff for revenue only and against
protection Of any sort, we who say that
there are much more important issues than
the tariff issue would be chargeable with
no Inconsistency because we supported the
nominee. We would only be acting up to
our professions.
The Ledger says:
"Our own idea IS that the tariff should
be discussed in all its length and breadth.
Not in a mad spirit OF disputation, but
with q determination to evolve from its
consideration those great and important
facts upon which, to a marked degree, de-
pend the business interests OF the coun-
iry."
This question was exclusively discuss
ed by JOHN TAYLOR, OF Caroline, HENRY
CLAY, DANIEL WEBSTER, and thousands OF
the first intellects OF this and ether coun-
tries, years and years agone. This Is the
most prosperous country in the world.
Thousands OF men come hither every year
from free-trade Great Britain. And yet
this country has had high protective tariff
for twenty years. Nevertheless, what the
Ledger means is that full discussion will
enlighten the uniformed gentlemen who
believe in the doctrines Of RANDALL,
EATON, PAYNE, WISE. &c, &c.
The Ledger says that high tariff " taxes
the masses for the enrichment Of the few"
But that Is assuming the very point at issue.
Certainly II we ever favor any Law that
taxes the masses for the enrichment OF the
few, 1t win be ignorantly done. But we
do not admit that iudicious tariff is laid
for the benefit Of the few. We claim that
Il Is laid for the benefit OF the masses.
However, we do not demand OF the Ledger
that 1t shall concur In our opinion. AS TO
discussion settling anything it is idle
. expect 1t. The fullest, freest, discus
ron leaves the question just where it was.
We would not be afraid OF meeting Uncle