The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1885-02-18
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-ive new Republi.
can Representatives. replies have been re-
ceived and are published from ffty-three, all
of whom declare for protective tariff, ex-
cept two, who only mention adherence to
the Chicago platform. OF the seventy-thres
new 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 IS opposed TO the Morrison
view of the tariff.
The replies of some of them are interest
ing and perhaps instructive. We note few
have the following:
7. C. Oatchings Michigan-Excuse me.
william &. +. Breck1nr1dge, hentucky-And me,
| too.
J. II. Ward, Ilinols--When the proper time
T. e. Torsney, MichiganNTaxation the object,
| protection the incident. Reduction to the reve
| nue. line
Incidental protection. n thorough revision neces-
sary.
%
| horizontal reduction. Favors tariff for revenue,
with incidental projection.
Joseph Pulitzer, New York-A protectionist.
Edward S. Bragg Wisconsin-0pposed to the
| Randall idea. No protection. Revision and re-
John T. Heard, Missouri-Favors a tariff for
revenue and big reduction.
f. G. Barry, Mississippi-No protection and
| prompt reform.
William D. Bynum, Ind.-opposed to a protec-
| tive tariff.
J. B. Weaver, Iowa.-Favors the Morrison view.
Abraham Dowdney. a. Y.-More inclined to the
| Randall view, but iayors reduction.
| Egbert 1. Viele. n. Y.-Believes a careful reyl-
sion necessary. but favors 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 manufactured here.
John B. Hale, Mono protection. but a revenue
tsrf that viii protect labor first and capital after
ward. Is half way between Randall and Moni
son.
George Ford, lnd.-stands on the Democratic
| national platform.
W. h. Perry, s. C.-With both Ford and David
p 7. Glass, Tenn.-Favors the Morrison view
| and a general and substantial reduction, but
partly protective.
Barnes Compton, Md.-Against any tariff which
makes protection primary object. Favors a reVi-
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 fin
| from Indiana Democrats. Now let rs
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, Connectlcut-I have always been
4 in favor OF protective tariff.
c. H. Grosvener, Ohio-I am in favor OF main
taining upon the statute books of the country
| protective tariff especially wool.
John B. Weber, New York-There are some in
| consisteneies and inequalities in the existing
posed to general reduction of the present tariff.
James D. Brady, Val favor a protective tariff.
w. d. Owen, Ind.-A protective tariff. No re-
| A. G. Thompson, OIL anu a protectionist
| Fred ID. Ely, MssS-PrOieetlon, and no reduc-
Ralph Plumb, nl-Protection. No d1ction.
E. II. Cooper, Iowa.-Fayor protection, but want
substantial reduction.
William W. Grant, Vt-Protecton but present
tariff might probably be modified upon some
F. c. Bunnell, Ps.-Favors protection Thinks
present tariff needs revision.
y Lyman, Iows.Protection. No reduction
| labor.
VIII. Wade, Mo-Protection. No reduction.
| Ira Davenport, y. Y.-Protection. No redue-
J. Romeis o.-Protection. No reduction. No
mOn0pOlist
| James r. Johnston, Ind-Protection. Opposed
| to any reduction that will reduce the wages OF
Herman Lehlbach, n. J.-Protection, and no re-
duction.
| j. C. Burrows, Mich.-Unalterably for protec-
4 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 Twill reduce the wages of
laboring men," Everybody is opposed to
| any system that will reduce the wages of Ia
Dor. They are surely low enough now, and
il the high protective theories of the Repub-
Iican 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 a half for a shirt II
protection is a good thing, why not give
these sewing women little of it? If 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 q higher rate. Note his exact
language: ST am in favor of a higher pro-
tectiye tariff than we have" We like bold
ness. This opinion of Sessions is in marked
contrast with that of Johnstons balder
dasb, which takes refuge behind the labor
ing man.
| II protection is q good thing why not have
plenty of 1t?
Perhaps the mills that are barely running
may bs closed altogether and the few work