Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1888-04-05

AAgs aNot1 W ~ tAAG AthA tFtAANN VII NtbhNl
side, the contest turning on certain
phases OF the slavery question. In 1855
the young Republican party ignored
the tariff question and almost elected
their candidate, Gen. Fremont, low
tariff man. on the free s0il issue and did
elect majority Of the House of Repre-
sentatives, who promptly passed the
low revenue tariff bill of 1857 in OrdeI
to get rid Of the unnecessary surplus
revenue OF twenty or twenty-five mil
lions year.
IN 1860 THE REPUBLICANS TENDEREI
no issue 10 the Democrats on the pro.
lection question and made no pledges
to increase the then low tariff duties
but fought the campaign against slav.
cry extension, electing Lincoln on that
issue.
They carried the three Presidential
campaigns, those in 1864, 1858 and 1872,
on platforms in which the protection
question cut no figure, and the Repub-
licans, in its absence, were Overwhelm-
ingly successful in alIthese.
In 1876 many Republicans had arrived
at the conclusion that the time had
come for revision and reduction of
the high war duties, and the Demo-
Gratis boldly threw down the glove of
| tariff reform under the leadership of
Samuel J. Tilden, who fought that
campaign against the Republicans on
the issue of a radical reduction of war
tariff, and the Democrats strenously
claim to this day that they elected Mr.
1ilden upon that issue. They swept
New York upon 1t by $4,000 majority,
carried New Jersey, Connecticut and
Indiana and cut down the Republican
majority in Illinois from $4,000 to less
than 10000, in Wisconsin from $4,000
down to 5000,
AND IN OHIO FROM 1000 TO 1000,
and they rolled up a popular majority
for Tilden and tariff reductions in the
whole United States exceeding 200, 900
votes, which shows that the demand
by one of the great parties for reduce
tion of war duties is not losing posi-
tion to assume before the people when
boldly argued out. In 1880 the pro-
lection issue was not sharply fought
before the people. Hancock the Demo-
cratic candidate, treated it as a merely
'local issue,n while Garfield, the Re-
publican candidate, had an established
reputation as a moderate tariff man,
though not "free trader" and he was
voted for and elected with such knowl-
edge of his views. He polled the full
vote of every element and fraction of
his party, including the Prohibition.
Republicans and the Conkling and
mugWump factions, and he received be-
oj6aS a 1arno r. 70 81
port. He was of course, triumphantly
elected in spite of the "Solid South,n
which on the color line voted for Han
cock.
In 1884 the Republican platform
PLEDGED THE PARTY TO TARIFF RE-
FORMS
to the reduction of duties that would
remove the surplus revenue which the
tariff was producing unnecessarily and
1t also censured the Democratic party
for not reforming the tariff so as to
leave the surplus revenue in the pock-
cts of the people. The Republican
platform held the Democratic party
then and for several years in control
of the House of Representatives. to the |
full measure ofrespUnsibility for its fail |
ure to reform the tariff, denouncing its |
conduct as a perfidious of it's party |
pledges and sacrifice of the taxpayers |
interests.
But Mr.. Blaine, believing in the popu-
larity of high protective duties, strenu-
Ously sought to make that the chief
issue of the campaign. Pretty much
Ignoring the party's platform on that
subject, he advocated his protective
policy everywhere, on. the stump as
well as in his letter of acceptance. He
urged it upon his supporters as the chieft
ssue to be made with the Democrats.
But the country failed to respond to his
views. He lost the Empire State.
which had given Garfield $4,000 ma
ority, many moderate tariff Republic
'ans of the agricultural class who would
lot vote for Cleveland voting the Pro-
libition ticket rather than support
3laine's high protective policy, as they
ould not see how that policy could be
o the interest of farmers. Mr.. Blaine
.lso lost Connecticut, which Garfield
lad easily carried. He lost New Jer-
ey by nearly three times the
MAJORITY AGAINST
. a~ .a- GARFIELD. ID. 4 4
1e also lost Indiana by 1000 votes
While Garfield, the tariff reformer, +
arried it by 1000 majority. Mr.. Blaine
My carried Michigan by o mere
cratch, because the labor classes voted
or Cleveland, who was alleged to be a
free trader" or at least a low tariff
nan, while Garfield, the low tariff man {
arried that State over Hancock by ,
3, 1000 majority, and also carried Iowa
y $4,000, while Mr.. Blaine received ,
My 10000, the trade unionists voting
gainst him and for the alleged free
RAIDER, Cleveland. .
If high protection were a popular .
ssue with the masses, surely the trade :
nionists of Michigan and Iowa would
ave supported Blaine against Cleve- !
and to the last man. The way they !
oted under the circumstances proves ,
hat they had little confidence in the ,
alue of high-protective duties to
RoMoTE THE INTEREST OF wAGEwoK-
Do not these several precedents of ,
asst Presidential contests prove con-
lusively that the policy of maintain
ng ultra-protection, especially when
here is an enormous surplus revenue
curing In the Treasury aud high du-
les are not required for the needs of the
is not winning card in q
residential election? Even In the So
allied protection States like COnnecti-
ut, New Jersey and Michigan the vote /