Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-07-11
SUNDAY......".....JULY IL. 1886.
Justice TO Mr.. Randall.

No good southern Democrat ought to
allow himself to be influenced by his
tariff theories to do injustice to Mr..
RANDALL.
Ii is minated that although Mr..
RANDALL recently introduced bill
.proyiding for the abolition Of the tax on
tobacco he did SO with full knowledge
that il could not be passed, and there
fore was not acting in good faith. The
same charge would apply to Mr.. NOR
RIsoN, who knew that the Senate would
never pass his bill. If it was Mr.. Nor
RIsoN's duty to report his bill knowing
that it would be defeated in the Senate,
twas Mr.. RANDALL's duty to submit
his bill though knowing that it would be
defeated.
Let us look at Mr.. RANDALL's his
tory. lie induced the Democratic State
Convention of Pennsylvania two years
ago to put into its platform plank in
favor Of the abolition Of the tax on
tobacco. lie advocated that platform
everywhere and on all proper occasions.
He was invited to New York, and, it is
said, saved the vote Of that State to Mr..
CLEVELAND. Eleven out Of the eigh-
teen Democratic congressman from New
York voted the other day with Mr..
RANDALL upon the proposition to
take up the MORRISON bill. This fact
ought to be sufficient to satisfy any
body that New York cannot be car
ried by the Democrats unless upon
the RANDALL platform, or rather
upon that plank of the platform
of the last Democratic National Con-
vention which declares that the rates
Of duty must be high enough in this
country 70 cover the difference be-
tween the prices Of labor in the United
States and the prices Of labor in other
countrieG-a plain declaration in favor
Of protecting American workmen
against undue and foreign COMPETE
ton. Mr.. RANDALL said in debate
in the House of Representatives few
days ago that whilst his services were
in such great demand in New York in
1884 to save that State to Mr.. CLEvE-
LAND, there was no demand for
speeches from anybody who held Mr..
MoRRIsON's opinions on the tariff
question. Not q New Yorker rose to
question the accuracy of Mr.. RAN
DALL's statement.
The old Wings of Virginia, led by
HENRY CLAY, were always advocates
OF o protective tariff, and This city
almost always supported the Wh'g
party In ante-bellum days. 1t is I'M
Just to them and their children to talk
about the mon who agree with MIR
RANDALL as If they were acting II
bad faith because they decline to pro
Tess doctrines in which they do not be
lieye, and never believed, and neve
pretended to believe.
BY largo majority the Legislature
of Virginia a. its recent session passed
Q resolution against removing the taril
upon raw materials--one OF HEWITT!
and MoRRIsoN's fayorite measures.
A year or two ago we caused to b
interviewed on the tariff question tn
Democratic members of the then Legis
lature, and found large proportion O
them to be in favor of protecting tn
products Of Virginia mines, &c.
Who in Virginia would propose
abolish the protective tariff on manu-
factured tobacco? --or on sumac 20
wools--or iron?
We ask for simple, eyen-handed jus
tics to a hiehly-respectable number g
the members Of the Democratic party
We will not cay, "a majority; fC
whether they be few or many they al
entitled 10 be treated with as muc
consideration as the other members
that party.