New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-06-26
WHLCH LIRE DEMOCRaTSf

Democratic wrangles force upon the country
the question whether Mr.. Morrison, Speaker
Carlisle and their followers are true Demo-
Gratis, or the members Of the House who oppose
them. 1t is radical issue. If the Democratic
party is a party of principle at all, IL mas Il
defined purpose regarding the tarlif question:
and on that question one OF these factions OF
the other is entitled to be considered the true
Democratic party. The difference goes to the
bottom and both cannot be Democratic.
What sources of proof exist There arc
many, but especially the formal declarations of
the party in its platforms; the pledges OF the
party made in political campaigns with intent
to secure support; and the past acts OF the
party in Congress. 1t cannot be denied that
Democratic declarations in the past support Mr..
Morrison 1t is true, the party has more than
once been guilty of dishonest evasion. More
than once it has tried to hide its purpose under
tricky and deceptive phrases. But 1t has never
declared definite pull pose i'll regard to the
tariff that has not been in perfect harmony with
the free trade theories upon which Mr..
Morrison is now acting.
All its pied ges, when it has acted as party,
tend in the same direction. National conven-
tons have promised the people relief from the
burdens of a protective tariff" and have
denounced that tariff as a system Of robbery
and monopoly" Congressional conventions,
in more than four ffhs of the districts In
which Democratic candidates have been nom
mated, have promised the people not only
reduction of taxes, but particularly the removal
of taxes intended for the purpose of protecting
home industry. If in scattered districts here
and there different line of policy has been
promised, these exceptions have only been
sufficient in number to emphasize the remark
able prepondcrance of opinion and action
within the Democratic party, against the
protective system.
But the most conclusive proof is found in the
past acts of Democratic Representatives.
There have been many tests. 1t wonld take
more than an entire sheet of THE TRIBUNE to
print bare record OF the votes which have
been cast by the Democratic party against
protective tariffs within the past twenty-six
years. That party almost unitedly voted
against the first protective taIiff adopted in
1851; it almost uniJedly opposed every
addition to or improvement of the system it
has almost untedly voted to sweep away the
system, or to tear down essential parts of it, in
almost every contest during the past quarter of
a century. But it is claimed BY some that the
opinion of the party has undergone change.
Therefore it is enough to quote only the last
two votes in the House. one in 1884, and one
a week ago. The Democratic Representatives
in both instances voted four to one in favor of
free trade bills. Yet the two bills were unlike
each other in almost every respect; so unlike
that it seemed scarcely possible to explain the
proposal of them both by the same man with
ont accusing him of disrogarding his convic-
tons in order to secure temporary political
advantage. The two bills, unlike in other
things, were alike only in their hostility to the
protective system, and that hostility, which
made Mr.. Morrison's course consistent,
inspired the votes of fourffths of the Demo-
cratic members of Congress in 1884 and in
1856.
There is not much room for doubt about it.
Mr.. Morrison, in so far "a he is radical free
trader, is a genuine Democrat. resident
Cleveland, who would like to collect all the
revenue by duties on a few score articles, is a
genuine Democrat. The men who oppose that
theory may call themselves what they please,
but they are not in harmony with the tradi-
ton, the pledges or the practice of their party.