New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-03-26
results terrible decentralization of public
CHANGE OLE FRONT.


The free-traders are discovering what The
TRIBUNE long ago told them, that MI Randall
was not one Of them. An article in Pennsyl-
vania paper they have chosen to consider a
declaration OF war by Mr.. Randall against the
Morrison bill. Consequently a conference was
suddenly summoned on Monday night Mt the
house of Mr.. Mills, the results or when are
stated by free-traae journals Naturally they
alone have full Information. They state that II
was believed that Mr.. Randall was opposed,
not 20 special features OF the bill, but TO any
reduction of duties. 1t was asserted thot he
had already gained a number OF Southern
members to resist any reduction of the tarlli,
unless in connection with a reduction OF IN
tcrnal revenue. He also insisted they said,
that there should be no revision unless specific
duties should be adopted wherever posi-
ble and that there should be a thorough
revision of the administrative sections, and on
several articles advances in the rates OF duty.
But it does not make any difference what par
ticular demands Mr.. Randall makes or is
thought to have made. Was it not certain from
the first that any bill which Mr.. Morrison could
afford to propose Mr.. Randall could not afford
to support? The two represent absolutely
hostile and irrecOncabe forces. 1t has been
from the beginning 4 fraud to pretend that
these two forces constituted party, one IN Its
aims, and able to govern the country upon some
policy which it could frame. The conference
is said to have agreed to important changes i'll
the pending bill. 1t is said to have determined
to drop entirely the free-ore feature, and the
metals schedule and the changes OF duty on
glass and pottery, but instead of these to put
4 Il, e,o. 1t.t 70 a,fpa tha Int
on woOlcn goods to 50 per cent and on linens to
80 per cent This report can hardly be correct.
1t does not seem possible that man like Mr..
Morrison, or men like his associates, can con-
sent to such disqualification as to submit a
measure of this kind for the ore they have been
supporting. Either there was reason in the
free-ore proposition, or there was not. Either
there was rcasOL in retaining the duties on
wool, or there was not. To make such a
change would be a naked confession that
neither principle, nor regard for the condition
of a business, nor care for the public welfare
governed the action of the committee, but de-
sire to get an advantage In political game.
In other respects the bill upon which the
conference is said to have determined has the
characteristics of a political trick. The re-
ducton on sugar. it is said, is to be 10 per cent
instead of 90 Either there was justification
for reducing the revenue to the extent at first
proposed or there was not. The object OF the
change Is to mOllify Louisiana members But
it is a question whether it would lessen in the
least degree the opposition in that State. As if
in reply to the obvious criticism that such
changes would be brainleSs and destitute of
principle, the free-traders say: - The COM
"mittee, while disposed to regard reasonable
criticism, had to have some sort of bill to
"fght for" Exactly; it is not a question what
the country wants; it Is not n question what
the industries of the county need it is not Il
question whether the Government wants more
or less revenue, or whether its surplus is
$1O,OCO,0DO or 500, 100000; the only point is
that political faction "must have some sort of
bill to fight for And with no better reason
than this to give, the industries of the country
are to be disturbed for months while the fight |
goes on. There is one way, and one only. to
put an end to this annual rad upon industries.
That is to vote Democrats out Of place and |
power