The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-02-12
A TARIFF SYMPOSIUM.


New York City, recently addressed letters to
all the new members of the next Congress,
making inquiries as to their views on the
tariff. The editor received replies from
ninety one. OF the sixty-fve new Republi.
can Representatives. replies have been re-
ceived and are published from tfty-three, Gil
OF whom declare for a protective tariff, ex-
cept two, who only mention adherence to
the Chicago platform. OF the seventy-three
Dew Democratic Representatives, replies
have been received and are published from
thirty-eight, or a majority of the number.
Twelve OF them are for protection or for the
Randall view as opposed TO the Morrison
view of the tariff.
The replies of some OF them are interest
ing and perhaps instructive. We note few
OF each party. From the Democrats we
have the following;
]. e. Catchines Miehigan-Excuse me.
William G. p Breckenridge. Kentucky-And me,
too.
J. H. Ward, Illinois-wben the proper time
comes III define my position.
I. L. TONney INSTRUMENTATION the object
protection the incident. Reduction 10 the rsge-
C. NJ. Anderson, OhiO-Ta1T for revenue, with
incidental protection thorough revision neces-
John S. Henderson, North Carolina-OppOsed to
horizontal reduction. Favors tariff for revenue,
with incidental projection.
Joseph Pulitzer, New YoTk-A protectionist.
Edward 5. Bragg. Wisconsin-OppOsed 10 the
Randall idea. No protection. Revision and re-
John T. Heard Missouri-Favors a tariff for
revenue and big reduction.
+. G. Barry, MississipDi-Eo protection and
prompt reform.
William d. Bynum, Ind.-Opposed to a protec-
tive tariff
J. B. Weaver, Iows.-Fayors the Morrison view
Abraham Dowdney, y. Y.-More inclined 10 the
Randall view, but avOrs reduction.
Egbert l.. Nele. y Y.-Believes careful rev.
sion necessary but iavors no measures that would
disturb our industries
Thomas Croxton. Va.-Revenue should be the
object of tariff, and protection the incident.
All duties protect when imposed on articles SINH
lar to those ma pufactured here.
John b. Hale, Mono protection, but a revenue
tariff that will protect labor first and capital after
ward. Is half way between Randall and MOrri-
son.
George Ford, lnd.-sisnds on the Democratic
A. c. Davidson. Ala.-with Ford.
". d. Perry, 8. C.-With both Ford and David
son.
P. T. Glass. fenn.-Favors the Morrison view
and general and substantial reduction, but
Barnes Compton, Md.-Against any tariff which
makes protection primary object. Favors a regi-
sion and decided reduction.
We have not space for all the replies. The
above indicates the general drift OF Demo
cratic sentiment. The opinions of Mr.
Bynum and Mr.. Ford are all that we find
from Indiana Democrats. Now let US
sample 'our friends" the enemy, as follows:
Walter L. Sessions, New York; am in favor OF
higher protective tariff than we have
John r. Buck Connecticut have always been
in favor OF protective tariff.
c. Il Grosvener, Ohio am in favor of main
tanning upon the statute books OF the country
John B. Weber, New York-There are some in
constituencies aud inequalities in the existing
posed to general reduction of the present tariff.
James d. Brady. VAL favor protective tariff
W. ID. Owen, Ind.-A protective tariff. No re-
A. c. Thompson, OIL am protectionist
Fred D. Ely, Msss.-ProiectlOn, and no reduc-
Ralph Plumb, Ill Protection. No dpctiou
L ii. Cooper. lowa-favor protection, but want
William W. Grant, Vt.-Protection, but present
tariff might probably be modified upon some
articles.
F. c. Bunnell. Pa.-Favors protection. Thinks
present tariff needs revision.
J. Lyman, iOwa.-ProtctOn. No reduction
that would prejudice American industries or
W H. Wade, Mo Protection. No reduction
Ira Davenport, y. N.-ProtectiOn. No reduc
]. ROmeis, o.-PrOtection. No reduction. No
mopopolist
q any reduction that will reduce the wages OF
lsboring men.
Herman Lehlbach y. J.-Protectlon. and no re-
j. c Burrows, ENTHUSIASTICALLY for protec-
ton. No modification which will cripple our in
dustries or tend TO pauperize our labor.
Mr.. Johnston's is the only opinion ex
pressed from this State. He was Mr.. Lambs
opponent, and in his reply works in the old
campaign gag that he is opposed to any
reduction that will reduce the wages of
laboring men" Every body is opposed to
any system that will reduce the wages of la
bor They are surely low enough now, and
if the high protective theories of the Rspub-
lican party are not responsible for it we
would like to know from Mr.. Johnston who
or what is responsible. The New
York Herald, few weeks ago,
brought to light the disgraceful fact
that poor sewing women in that
city were making shirts for wealthy manu-
facturers for thirty cents per dozen think
of 1.-TWO cents and half for a shirt II
protection is good thing, why BOT give
these sewing women little of 1t? II they
received Thirty cents per shirt they could
hardly make more than adecent living.
The opinion OF Mr. Sessions, Republican
Of New York, is worth noting. He boldly
declares for higher rate. Note his exact
language 81 am in favor of a higher pro-
tective tariff than we have" We like bold
ness. This opinion of Sessions is in marked
contrast with that of Johnston's balder-
dash, which takes refuge behind the labor
ing man.
If protection is a good thing, why not have
plenty OF it
Perhaps the mills that are barely running
may be closed altogether and the few work
iDgmeR who are receiving good wages or
any wages at all may be driven into idleness,
want and misery-the present lot of thous-
sn6s uIon thousands of others.
run INTERFERENCE