New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-05-29
DEMOCR1TS 1ND the TARIFE

Men who buy facts by the dozen know less
about the Democratic party, as a rule, than the
men who buy facts by the pound. Numerically,
| the facts point to q Democratic campaign
against the protective tariff. But the few
facts that have weight point the other way.
The rank and file clamor for free trade, but the
few long headed managers lay pipe in silence
for another evasion of the question, knowing
that tariff legislation means defeat. Nearly
every day some politician declares that the
party must and predicts that it will devote
itself to tariff-refOrm." But occasionally a
struggle about the appointment of Marshal,
or Collector or other official likely to have
political influence, attracts the public attention.
Next comes the announcement, /" Mr. Randall
prevails again." That is one of the facts that
have weight.
Among the shining specks of Information that
seem to fill the air but have no substance is the
declaration of Mr. Mcdonald that the Demo
cratic party is certainly going to address itself
to the task of tariff reform. The words used
imply some knowledge, but the fact is that the
free traders are only trying to force the party
and the President into a course which they very
much fear is likely to be avoided. The men
who take pains to tell the world what the party
@must and shall" do, if one reads between the
lines are the men who suspect that they have
no other way of making their influence felt.
Mr.. Mcdonald takes the trouble to demon
strate, to his own satisfaction, that the Demo
cratic party will be forced to change the tariff,
whether it will or no. Production he reasons,
has advanced so far, that it guts the home
market, and prOstration comes because surplus
products cost too much to be sold abroad ;
therefore the logic of events will enforce " n
change. This nice little argument has quite
taken the place of the old Democratic claim
that production was retarded and the develop
ment of our industries checked by the protect
i've system. The new argument, however, has
only this advantage over the Od-events have
not yet entirely knocked the bottom out OF it.
Fifteen years ago we were sOlemnly warned by
Democratic statesmen that stagnation must
prevail and the industries of the country must
die out, because protection arrested their
development. Presently the marvellous and
matchIess growth of those industries caused
that gun to burst. Now we are told that pro-
ductiOn has far OutgTown the Nations power of
consumption. The assertion is as false as the
other and will soon be proved false quite as
clearly.
The iron industry affords the best test, for it
has been more seriously Frustrated than any
other. The decline in actual consumption in
1884, compared with 1888, was 12l2 per cent
But the increase in actual consumption since
1876, nine years, has been 1872 per cent so that
the natural increase in power of consumption,
at the same rate, will in a single year more than
make up the difference between the cOnsump-
ton of the last two years, and keep all the
works occupied that were in 1888. But in the
same year the decrease in production in Great
Britain was over 961 900 tons, against
decrease of $4,000 tons in this country. If
we are to compete with Great Britain in
foreign markets. in order to sell our present
surplus, there must be reduction of more than
so per cent in wages Of labor here, and even
then our idle works can only compete on equal
terms with a greater number of idle works in
Great Britain. That plan may appear hopeful
to political lawyer; it will not to any manu-
facturer or laborer.
The truth is that the natural growth of the
home market from year to year is more i'm
portant, and offers a better support, to Ameri-
can industry than all the foreign markets it
could ever hope to reach. When the cycle of
depression passes, and business begins to
expand again, it will suddenly be seen that all
the manufacturing establishments we have in
the country are not sufficient to supply the
home demand. Within year or two, Mr..
Randall will be pointing to the marvellous
prosperity of industry under Democratic rule"
unless he fails meanwhile to bottle up the
uischief-naking free-trade agitation.