Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1885-07-04
WIN. R. MORRISON AND THE TARIFF,

| Post, Is, as ArtclnuS ara WOulu say
..pecooliar." In its issue of last week
| il avers:-"William Il. Morrison, 'Hor'
izontal Bill is said to be ready with
another scheme for lowering the tariff
There is no mo IN This country Who Is
opposed to lowering the tariff. The diff
| iculty is as to the method and the
amount. Mr.. Morrison is likely to live
a long time and die of old age before
he succeeds in getting any party to
adopt his hair Drained schemes for re-
duction." The italics above are ours.
The Post then prints, approvingly, in
the same column, two paragraphs be-
low, this language, quoted from a re
publican newspaper: - "The wool
growers of the country have resolved
not to support any political party which
favors a reduction of the tariff. The
iron men will probably take the same
stand, and other manufacturing inter-
ests will naturally be more or less in
fluenced."
If the latter statements are true, how
can it be also true that, "there is no
man in this country who is opposed to
lowering the tariff ?"
The truth s,we think that the whole
some, common-sense influences that
surround the Post here in Lafayette
county have led it to make a declara-
ton which is foreign to the real feel
ings of the monopolists that control the
republican party.
No matter what platforms may say,
the Reaches, the Joneses, the Sabins,
the Kelleys. the Millers, the Morrills,
the Hiscocks, the Kassons, the Gamer
ons, and other manufacturing lords,
who are the real and the accredited
leaders of the republican party, are
opposed to any reduction in the tariff.
Mr.. Kelley has not hesitated to say that
the proper way to reduce the customs
revenue is by increasing the tariff,
thereby making it prohibitory. 1t is
only necessary to read the speeches
and paper of the gentlemen whom we
have mentioned to know that what we
have said of their views is correct.
They do not want and have not want
ed a reduction of the tariff. If they
did why did they stand in the way OF
reduction at the last session of con-
gress? Every concession to secure rea-
sonable reduction was made by the
democratic majority in the preparation
of the bill, but the republicans, aided
by MI. Randall, would none of it.
They aver whipped in the few republic
cans who favored tariff reform. I'm
less they were opposed to tariff reduc-
ton they acted the part of the dog in
the manager.
1t is puerile to pretend that the Choir
izontal' reduction was unreasonable
as to the amount, and when they laugh
at Mr.. Morrison for the horizontal idea
they indict themselves for stupidity on
two counts-first, because if that kind
of reduction is u%nscientiic it is for the
reason that their party laid the tax to
be reduced unequally and unscientifi-
cally; and, second, because the repub.
licans themselves set the example of
horizontal reduction. In 1872 they re-
duced the tariff, horizontally, ten per
cent. but at the following session of
congress, and only at the behest of the
manufacturers, there being no popular
demand for the restoration, and no
public discussion of it at all, they re-
stored it again to the former rate. If
it was stupid in Mr.. Morrison to seek
to make a horizontal reduction, was it
not just as stupid for a republican con
gress to do the same thing?
AS to the timeliness of lowering the
tariff, e the manufacturers, while
they did not desire reduction, were
compelled to admit that; and the re-
publican tariff commission was forced
to concede it. The commission recon-
mended a reduction wen greater than
Mr.. Morrison made, but the republican
house refused to grant it,. Mr.. Nor
rison and the democracy did not re-
commend horizontal reduction as the
best plan. They only presented it as
the one which under the circum stances
the republicans could the least object
to, as it followed a precedent set by
themselves; and as it was not greateri in
amount than the manufacturers and the
commission had agreed was practical
BILE, and even just.
Two influences defeated Mr.. Morri-
son, who stood for the democratic a
ty-republican opposition to any re-
duction at all, reinforced by a determi-
nation not to permit democrats to make
the reduction even if it was insisted on
by the people; and the obstinacy of
Mr.. Randall, who set himself up as a
dictator to the democratic party against
its organized voice in caucus.
1t is easy to speak of Mr.. Morrison
as a man who advanced a hair br aimed
scheme. Just judgment will concede
that personally he advanced no scheme
at all, and that he was willing to &C
cept any plan that would reduce taxa.
ton that was admittedly unnecessarily
heavy, and that he was only defeated
by malign and selfishly partisan rea-
sons Any other statesman who at
tempts the same task will meet with
the same obstacles. Great monopolies
do not hesitate to attack those who at
tack their profits, eve to the extent of
defaming their personal character.
How very few public men there are
who could come out of such a contest
with so few scars as did William r.
Morrison. The noblest speech that
John A. Logan ever made was, when
upon his election he paid a glowing
tribute to the ability and purity of his
opponent.
The excerpt taken from our contem-