Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1888-05-07
Pennsylyanla ana the Tariff.


fully or stupidity, is not successful in
stating the purport Of what we have said
concerning Mr.. Randail's selection as
0elegate-at-lsrge to the st. Louis conven-
ton. AS the state convention, which
win select these delegates, will meet
before the House votes on pending
revenue legislation" 1t is obvious that
the choice Of the st. Louis delegates must
b. made before Mr.. Randall's conclusion
!" to act with the Republicans or Demo-
crats'' il made known and it is further
moro probable that the st. Louis conven-
tlon viii have met and adjourned before
he will need to reach such conclusion.
We did venture to suggest that the st.
Louis convention, and rot the Demo-
cratic majority in Congress, was the
proper source Of the Democratic policy
IN this campaign. In the interim be.
tween national conventions Democratic
majority in Congress may furnish Dem
Ocrstic policy; but on the eve of ma
tional convention its action must be
awaited.
We ventured furthermore to suggest
that rs Mr.. Randall was the representa-
tive OF one distinct phase Of Democratic
Thought upon the revenue question, he
should be sent as delegate at large to
express 1t in the national convention.
We observe that Mr.. Carlisle is quoted as
declaring that the members of the COM
mittee on resolutions in the national con.
vention should be representatives of the
policy OF the states; and, inferentially
that the states should only send TO the
convention representatives of their policy.
That seems right. If the states have de.
cided views upon questions they should
ssnd representatives to maintain them.
But ID Pennsylvania thus settled on the
tariff queet'o on And how many states are2
Certainly the Pennsylvania Democrats
ere not in favor Of free trade, by very
large majority. If the proposed revenue
legislation In Congress was free trade
legislation, Pennsylvania would have
none OF it. 1t is true that number
Of Democrats ON the floor of Con.
gress are entertaining themselves
with the delivery of free trade
speeches. OF what earthly use these
Arguments are in persuading votes to
such q protective tariff measure as the
Mills bill we are unable to see. But this is
the bill the.free traders propose TO vote for,
however they argue against it. SO the
Philadespllia Record is for it, though it is
Journal OF the bloodiest free trade pro.
clivity; and it is 30 reverently fond of it
that 1t proposes to read q lifelong Demo-
crat OF distinction, like Mr.. Randall,
ont Of LIE party, If he does not
support Il. Wherefore this zeal of
free trade advocates for protection ?
Il is just because tissy think that the
Mills bill is step towards iiceee trade |;
- IL Is; albeit small one. They propose
to take very little aud be thankful. 1t
u well. The Mills bill does not ask more,
NOR as much, as we are willing to con-
cede. 1t asks for free wool +; and we think
that wool should be free. 1t does not
ask for free rice; and we do not see why
Il, also, as an article OF prime necessity,
which can be cultivated here without pro-
tsction, should not be free. 1t proposes a
reduction in the duty uponiron manufac.
lures, which rs not generally sufficient to
do them any harm. 1t provides reduc-
tion in the sugar duty which may do it
harm and in wrapper cigar leaf, which
certainly will do great injury to the
states that raise it; and as cigars are not
necessaries we do think that the nation is
Interested In lowering their taxation. 1t
doss propose free coal and ores rs We
think it should.
We represent one phase of Democratic
opinion on revenue reform if II be only
our own. Mr.. Randall represents an.
other, which is much more protective in
is sentiment. We do not think that
there is among the Pennsylvania Democ.
racy q concensus OF opinion on the
question, though there doubtless exists "A
strong disposition to sacrifice share of
opinion to reach q party agreement and
In this situation it seems well that the
different shades of opinions should be
represented in the national convention,
which proposes to make up the express
sion OF the opinion of the party upon the
question.
That opinion has never yet been stated
IN national convention with such def
mite expression, as to exclude Mr.. Ran
dali from the party, as the Record
would now exclude him, though
there has been a declaration upon
the tariff question from nearly every
national convention that has been held
during his life as Democrat, which has
been his whole life and we do not think
1t probable that any such will be declared
At st. Louis. Wesettled down long ago
upon the policy of tariff for rev.
enue, with incidental protection
and the embarrassment OF to-day,
comes from the novel situation
In which the country finds itself of want.
ing to decrease the revenue. The st.
Louis convention will have to decide
upon the party policy in reducing an e1 =
ceasive revenue. 1t will need to demand
. reduction of internal revenue and tariff
taxes. 1t cannot declare for release Of
these taxes, since we need the major part
Of what we now collect. 1t will not de-
clare for free trade 1t will declare for
lower duties. 1t is not likely that it will
define the exact measure that must be
left to the wisdom Of Congress (; but
there will be, at least, as much room for
protection Democrats as for free-traders
under the blanket.
n