New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-04-09
THE Tariff ISSUE.

Three classes OF people THINK WIN some ia'oi
of the proposed tariff bill. The largest class
comprises Democratic rartisans, who care more
for the success of party than for any political
nr;ncples. and who have been persuaded that
the marty will be defeated II it does not take
some step to justify all its past pretensions
about the tariff A second class embraces Free
Traders of the practical sort, who care more for
the undermining and overthrow of the system
of protection. and for the breaking down of
American industry, than for any abstract
theory. The third class embraces large
number of persons who do not know enough
about the tariff to form an intelligent opinion
regardi Is any bill, hut who see that bill which
repeals some duties and reduces others is
reported by Mr.. Morrison, and conclude that
it is a measure to remove the burdens OF the
people"
The first of these classes is deceived about
the practical effect of the proposed measure in
a 10 litical sense. Those persons imagine that
the bill will help their party. They will learn
in due time that free wool, free lumber and
free fish mean ruin to many voters and will
cost the party a large support, bringing 1t
nothing at all in return. The second class
hopes to deceive great number of manufact-
urers with the promise of cheap raw material
on the one hand, and at the same time to
delude producers of iron ore and of iron and
steel products with the hope that their branches
Of industry nre never to be assailed. 1t
imagines that Pennsylvania will help to
strike down the industries that are most inn
portant in the Northwestern States, in the
stupid belief that the Northwestern States will
never vote in return to strike down the indus
tries most important to Pennsylvania. The
third class believes that wool is made too costly
for manufacture by the duties, and that the
repeal of those duties would benefit wool
growers by giving them higher prices for wool.
This is measure of its intelligence.
There are some good things in this bill. If
these could be separated in the House by
amendments, there would be a different issue.
But the vital parts of this bill, to those who
control the action of the House, are those which
every true friend of home industry Will most
earnestly oppose. 1t is certain that the House
will stick to the features which are intended to
break down the system Of protection as long as
it sticks to any part of the bill. The only way
to deal with the measure, therefore, is to
oppose it as a whole and defeat it if possible.
Already the argument is heard that it would
be well tor Republicans, in Il political point of
view, to have such q bill as this passed by n
Democratic House. 1t is an open secret that
the hopes of its supporters are largely based
upon belief that many Republicans, III this
spirit will not take care to be present and to
vote against the bill at the critical stage, but
will allow it to pass, so that the issue can be
brought home to the voters in elections next
fall. But it is always wrong and always unsafe
to do evil that good may come. This measure
is evil. Its passage by the House alone would
do great harm to industry. Any neglect of
their duties in regard to it by Republican
members would tend strongly to weaken public
confidence in the Republican party. 1t would
tend to help the Democrats in the excuse which
they are fond of making, that there Is no divid-
ing line between parties Oh this question, and
that there are free-trade Republicans as well as
protection Democrats. 50 that voters may well
hesitate which party to trust The course of
debate and of voting In the House ought to
show that the Republican party is absolutely
united in resisting this measure, and thus
strengthen the confidence of all friends of
home industry in the party by which all pro-
tectivc legislation since 1850 has been framed
and upheld.