West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1888-06-29

SAFE, caTtiui duu ttCttSSt@SC ie1c1 -
is now Offered, and none Of US should
be unnindful OF o time when an
abused and irritated people, Needless
of those who have resisted timely
and reasonable relief may insistup-
on radical and sweeping rsctitica-
ton of their wrongs"
The Ways and Means Committee
of the House, acting upon the Pres
ident's suggestions, prepared an ex-
tremely moderate measure OF tariff
revision, reducing duties which ay-
erage AZ per cent. on imported COM
modities to about 40 per cent, and
putting upon the free Tree list few
articles which are raw materials for
our manufactures. The Democrat
ic National Convention at st. Louis
approved the Presidents policy and
sustained the Ways and Means
Committees bill. In its platform it
said: "The Democratic policy is
to enforce frugality in public ex-
pense and abolish unnecessary tax
alton. Our established domestic in
dustries and enterprises should not
and need not be endangered by the
reduction and correction of the bur
dens of taxation" The President
and his party in Congress and in
National Convention have taken the
simple ground that taxation should
be reduced to the needs Of the Gov
eminent and SO adjusted as to work
no injury to industries or to tabor,
and that it should not continue to
draw money Unfortunately from the
channels of trade to embarrass the
Treasury and promote extravaganza
or foster lnonopolies which strangle
domestic competition and control
prices.
Until the present time this has
not been the special doctrine Of any
one political party. In 1870 the
Republicans in Congress were in ia
vor of revising and reducing the
tariff. Senator Morrill, said: ut
is a mistake of the friends of a
sound tariff to insist upon the ex-
treme rates imposed during the war,
if less will raise the necessary reve-
nue." Mr.. Sherman warned the
manufacturers that ii the existing
duties were maintained after the re-
peal OF the internal taxes that gave
rise to them 1--WE shall have feel
ing of dissatisfaction among other
interests of the country that will
overthrow the whole system" Gen.
Garfield declared in the House that
unless reduction was agreed upon
the protective system was in danger
of overthrow. In 1882 President
Arthur in his annual message dwelt
at length On the necessity'of reve-
nue. reform He opposed the remov.
al of the remaining internal taxes
on the very ground that it would in
terfere with a necessary revision of
the tariff, and he said: II recon-
mend an enlargement of the free list
so as to include within it the numer-
Gus articles which yield inconsider-
able revenue, a simplification of the
complex and inconsistent schedule
Of duties upon certain manufactures,
particularly those of cotton, iron,
and steel, and a substantial reduct-
ion the duties upon those articles
and upon sugar, mOlasses, silk,
wool and wooden goods" Secretary
Folger earnestly recommended "a
careful revision of the tariff with a
view to substantial reductions" In
1884 Secretary McCnlloch advised
the removal Of duties on raw mate
rails used in our manufactures and
a reduction of duties upon "the ar
ticles used or consumed by those
least able to bear the burden of
taxation" In the same year the
Republican National Convention
made it an accusation against the
Democratic Party that it had fail
ed "to relieve the burden of unneces-
sary taxation by a wise reduction of
the suplus, and pledged the party
"to correct the inequalities of the
tariff and to reduce the surplus"
Down to the time of President
Cleveland's last message the Repub-
lican Party was by its own profess
sions and the declarations of its
leading men in favor of revising the
tariff and reducing duties. 1t was
this position which, in the absence
of anything more definite and prom
Using in the attitude of the Demo
cratic Party, held thousands of be.
levers in tariff reform to the sup
port of the Republican Party. Its
avowed policy did not differ materi-
ally in principle or method from
that announced by the President,
embodied in the Mills bill, and ap-
proved by the recent Democratic
Convention. If it is free trade now,
it was free trade then. If it was
protection then it is protection now.
1t is, in fact, simply question Of