The Milan exchange. (Milan, Gibson County, Tenn.) 1874-1978, 1884-05-17
THE SAFE MIDDLE GROUND.

democratic leaders, concludes that af-
ter all the heated and sometimes i'll
natured discussions, the cha rges and |
counter charges, the platforms, dec
laration of principle, ETC., it is not
apparent to the rank and file that any
substantial good has been effected,
and if there be any real difference
between the ideas in conflict, the or
binary reader is not able to appreci-
ate it. For instance, speaking of the
past differences between the Courier
Journal, of Louisville, and the Amer
lean, he writes:
The Americans idea, if | under
stand it, is this; There should be lev
led tariff upon imported m erchan-
disc; and in laying this tariff, regard
should be had to the interest of our
domestic industries and to the protec-
ton of American labor; that monop-
olies shall not be encouraged or fos-
tered.
1.-The American is not understood
to favor protection for projections
sake. With all idea of revenue elm
mated, We do not understand that it
would favor the levy of custom du.
ties at all. But, as in the necessity
of the case we are compelled to have
these duties for the proper adminis>
tration Of the government, the Amer.
lean can see no reason why they
should not be so adjusted as to give
whatever protection that may inci>
dentally arise to our interest. l do
not believe the American advocates u
tariff that would produce surplus,
or that would bring into the Treasu.
ry one dollar moro than the absolute
revenue necessities of the Governs
ment, economically administered,
would require.
This is certainly fair statement of
the American, which has so far ex.
pressed its antagonism to the accumu,
lation of a surplus in the Treasury
that it advocated the abolition of the
excise tax, mainly creating it, Now,
ON the other hand, as to the Courier
Journals position, our correspondent
says
"Ths Courier-Journsl emphatical.
| ly disavows the doctrine of free trade.
1t declares that "a tariff for revenue
Only docs not teach il; and in this il
certainly right; for any sort of tar
id, whether for revenue, protection OF
what not, is Numerically opposed to
free trade. Free trade means unre'
stricted traffic. trade uninfuenced
by any extraneous or supervising
agency; and any duty upon foreign
article of commerce brought to this
country for sale extinguishes the idea
/ of free trade and protects the cores
pending article here just to the extent
that it enhances what would other
wise be the selling price of the foreign
article. Then, as the Courier.J Jour
nal does not want free trade, and as il
admits We must have tariff, and al
any kind of tariff necessarily implies
some kind of protection, woulc
it OF does it object to SO adjusting tn,
! duties as to give the greatest possibl,
= advantage to our own Industries ano
our own lshorP
Certainly not. Then what is tn,
difference between the American anC
the Courier Journal? Arc they not
after all, advocating stfectually thu
y same policy? Could they not boil
stand together upon this declaration
/ a tariff tuih revenue as the principal OBJ
.ject, but so adjusted as to give ,shateve
protection may incidentally and necessa
, rily arise to American Industries an,
American labor The term tariff TO
revenue only is rather difficult t.
understand, if it is meant by that t.
exclude all idea of protection.
may be possible, in the fullness o
! economic science, to devise a tarii
, free from the principl. of protection
but We confess our inability to Sc
how. 1t is unfortunate, indeed, TO
the Democratic party that this con
| troversy has arisen; for if there is no
t speedy adjustment of difficulties tn
convention at Chicago might as wei
act as well as declare for 'reveau
only by staying at home and savipj
t expenses.
The American can certainly stan,
e upon the declaration enunciated b.
our correspondent, and the Courier
Journal has already stated that i