Waterbury evening Democrat., 1888-09-07

l list such men as President Garfield who
 belonged to the Golden club, President'
 Grant and Arthur, Senators Sherman, To
 gan, Hale, Allison, Morrill,, Dawes ant
 Hawley, Henry Cabot Lodge, Pig Iron Kelley, Candidate Morton who vi1ted tC
 put salt on the free list in the forty-siXtI
 congress, John D. Long, Secretary Folger
 and even Congressman Mckinley anG
 James G. Blaine, besides many other good
 republicans who advised tariff reform
 when the absence of campaign exigencies
 allowed them to speak their minds. The
 republican tariff commission of 1882. which
 recommended a reduction of 20 to p pel
 cent, should be dubbed free traders pre- | ferably to men who are now urging : pe1
 cent reduction. But granting that all
 the democrats mentioned by the Journal
 are free traders, we would remind it that
 one swallow does'nt make a summer, neither does handful of free traders make free trade party.
 The Journal quotes the London Times
 and Spectator in support of its position. English opinion of American matters isn't worth much but if the Times and Spec tator are to be heard let's hear other rep resentative English journals also. The Manchester Guardian says
 Englishmen take not the slightest inter est in the tariff reform movement in America, while many far-seeing persons among us regard the adoption of anything like free trade in the United States as
 likely to make the latter much keener com petitOrs with us in neutral markets than they are now. They think the present policy of the democrats is likely to returd rather than to hasten on the progress of tariff reform. They argue that if left alone the existing tariff will, in the course of few years, bring on crisis, under pressure of which protectionism will be entirely swept away at a blow.
 And the Birmingham Daily Post says :
 English traders will learn with a good deal of amusement that ill the presidential election campaign in America the great cry which the republicans are using against MT Cleveland is that he is deliberately be traying the interests of American trade for the benefit of English manufacturers. It Is scarcely necessary to say that from an English point of view the Mills tariTf bill by no means bears that aspect On the whole, it's operation will probably be distinctly to our disadvantage.
 If all the Journals arguments, logic and atfdavits" are of piece with those it has already piled up, the pile may be as bigh as the Washington monument. but it will be crooked as the tower of Pisa. The Journal hasn't pointed out where the free trade is in the Mills bill that urges a per cent reduction of the present excessive tax ation; nor where the free trade is in the presidents message which said it is not to entirely relieve the country of this (prOtective) taxation" and that ''the reduction of taxation demanded should be so measured as not to neeessitate or justify either the loss of employment by the work lngman nor the lessrning of his wages: nor in the St Louis platform that endorsed this position. If reduced taxation on lfe's nece ssaries means free trade it is free trade that is likely to prove very popular in America, and President Cleveland will reap the benefit of being its champion
 The Journal has made ''thc greatest effort of its life; if it has proved failure 1t should be pitied for its ignorance rather han blamed for its disingenuousuess. The i Journal wants to ''close the dixcussiou"; ike the man who found rattlesnahe in he bed it thinks it well to go no farther. very well, but keep your free trade bricks It home;taritf reform is a sharp dged stone hat might injure the republican 5la 3 louse