The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1888-08-09
TARIFF VOTES IN CONGRESS.
Partisan aud Sectional DIvision oil Plain
BnsineSs Propositions.

Turf Ledgue BaiietA.
The Democrats in the House Of Rep
resentatives who were elected upon the
understanding that they favored Protec-
ton rather than Free Trade may be
named as follows:
California, T. l.. Thompson, Marion
Briggs; Connecticut, Robert j. Vance
Illinois, Frank Lawleri Iowa, A. X. An
tlerson; Louisiana, Theodore S. Wilkin-
son, Mathew D. Logan, Edward j. Gay,
Edward W. Robertson; Michigan, Tim
othy L. Tarsney; New Jersey, James n.
Pidcock, William McAdoo; New York,
Felix Campbell, Amos J. Cummings,
Timothy j. Campbell, Francis b. Spino-
Ia, William Bourke CochraHe, William
q. Stahlneckcr; Ohio, S. S. YOder, Geo.
L. Seney, James L. Campbell, Beriah
Wilkins; Pennsylvania, Daniel Ermen-
trout, John Lynch, Norman Hall South
Carolina, George d. Tillman; Virginia,
George d. Wise, Samuel ID. Hopkins;
West Virginia, Charles p. Snyder.
And with these we might put Martin
| |. E0rau OF Ohio, who would have voted
| ii his vote could have defeated the bill.
This makes thirty Democrats, all or
nearly all OF whom were protested or
understood friends OF Protection when
they came to Washington. Their votes
united with those OF the Republicans
would have defeated the Mills bill by a
majority OF forty.seven votes. AS it was,
there were enough Democrats who voted
against the bill Archibald NJ. Bliss,
THURMAN A. Merriman and Edward w.
Greenman, New York, and William ii.
Sowden, OF Pennsylvania to balance
the Republicans (Knute Nelson, OF Min
uesota; Ashbel 2. Fitch, OF New York,
and John NJ. Brewer, OF North Carolina
who left their party line.
This marks the fact that the Protection
wing OF the Democratic party is thing
OF the past. Counting Mr.. Randall, II
now amounts to exactly six members OF
the House, whereas it WAS thirty.tive at
| the opening OF the session. The friends
OF the Protective policy can no longer
afford to cast their votes for members OF
that party on Il general profession OF
| LOYALTY to the interests OF home indus
try. When party affiliations and the in
fluences of the White House prove too
much for the principles Of tive.sixths OF
them, they are too much of risk and
too little OF certainty. Unless il be for
one Of these six who have stood firm, let
Republicans and Proteetionists vote for
nobody but Republican OF known
Loyalty. For to-day the line is drawn,
and the cleavage between Democrat and
Republican is practically that between
Free Trader and ProtectiOnist.
The vote OF the South for the Mills
bill is striking, but may be misinter.
preted. OF the lG2 votes for its pas
sage, the South cast l02 and the North
so. OF the ~ votes east against it,
tue South east lG aud the North 1873.
The North is more than two to one Tor
Protection; the South is more than six
TO one against it. The votes in previous
i Congresses on Tariff bills furnish an in
teresting comparison with this. The
Tariff OF 1889, "for the encouragement
and protection OF manufactures" was
adopted without much opposition 10
the principle or the details OF the meas
ure. Those members who, like James
Madison at that time, preferred Free
Trade, yielded their judgment on the
ground that the States which had eX-
ercised the power OF Protection and
had yielded it to the Union in the
formation OF the government were en-
titled to its continuance by Congress.
The main question was not raised until
the close Of the second war with Great
Britain, when the South generally
stood for Protection and New England
for Free Trade. Since that time there
have been fourteen test votes on the
question OF Protection in the House OF
1 Representatives, at all but two OF which
the House was fully represented.
In these fourteen votes the sectional
division was as follows: