Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-06-10


They swept New York upon it by s., 600
majority, carried New Jersey, Connecti-
Ont and Indiana aud cut down the Re-
publican majority in Illinois from so 900
to less than 10000, in WISCONSIN
from 24,00) down to 5000. and
In Ohio from 80 200 to 1000, and
they rolled up e popular majority for
lilden and tariff reductions in the whole
Omitted States exceeding 200 900 votes.
which shows that the demand by one OF
The great parties for reduction Of war
dnties is not a losing position to assume
before the people when boldly argued out.
In 1880 the protection issue was not
sharply fought before the people.
Hancock, the Democratic candidate,
treated ii as a merely "local ISSUE"
while Garfield, the Republican candidate.
had an established reputation as moder-
ate tariff man. though not free
trader" and he was voted for and
elected with such knowledge OF his
views. He polled the full vote OF every
element and fraction Of his party, includ-
ing the Prohibition, Republicans and the
Conkling and mugwump factions, and he
received besides a large German tariff
reform support. He was, OF course, tri-
unphantly elected in spite OF the "Solid
South" which on the color line voted
for Hancock.
In 1884 the Republican platform
PLEDGED THE rARTy TO TARIFF REFORMS,
To the reduction Of duties that would
remove the surplus revenue which the
tariff was producing unnecessarily, and
it also censured the Democratic party for
not reforming the tariff so as to leave
the surplus revenue in the pockets of the
people. The Republican platform held
the Democratic party (then and for sew
eral years in control OF the House Of Rep
resentatives) to the full measure OF re-
sponsibility for its failure to reform
the tariff, denouncing its conduct as
perhdious OF its party pledges and
a sacrifice Of the taxpayers interests.
But Mr.. Blaine, believing in the pop
ularity 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 every
where, on the stump rs well as in his let
ter of acceptance. He urged it upon bis
supporters as the chief issue to be made
with the Democrats But the coun-
try failed to respond to his views.
He lost the Empire State, which had
given Garfield $4,000 majority, many
moderate tariff Republicans of the agri-
cultural class who would not vote for
Cleveland voting the Prohibition ticket
rather than support Blaine's high pro-
tective policy, as they could not see how
that policy could be to the interest Of
farmers. Mr.. Blaine also lost Connecti-
cut, which Garfield had easily carried.
Ha hxrr raor1x, fkraa
times the
INTERRUPTIONS MAJORITY AGAINST GAR
He also lost Indiana by 1000 votes, while
Garfield the tariff reformer, carried it by
1000 majority. Mr.. Blaine only carried
Michigan by mere scratch, because the
labor classes voted for Cleveland, who
was alleged to be "free trader" or at
least low tariff man, while Garfield, the
low tariff man, carried that State over
Hancock by $4,000 majority, and also
carried Iowa by $4,000, while Mr.. Blaine
received only 10000, the Trade Unionists
voting against him, and for the alleged
free trader, Cleveland.
If high protection we're popular issue
with the masses, surely the Trade Union
ists of Michigan and Iowa would have
supported Blaine against Cleveland to
the last man. The way they voted under
the circumstances proves that they had
little confidence in the value of high pro-
tective duties to
PROMOTE THE INTEREST OF wAGE-woRKERs.
Do not these several precedents OF
past Presidential contests prove conclu
sively that the policy of maintaining
ultra protection, especially when there is
an enormous surplus revenue pouring in
the Treasury and high duties are not re-
quired for the needs of the Government
is not a winning card in Presidential
election? Even in the so-called protec-
ton States like Connecticut, New Jersey
and Michigan the vote of 1884 shows
that ultra-protection is the weakest pol
itical issue which can be rendered by
the Republicans to the Democrats in a
Presidential campaign.
The road to victory next fall is not via
the endorsement of the present system Of
ultra-tariff bounties, which are draining
the
HEARTS BLOOD OF THE WESTERN FARMERS,
Mortgaging their farms to the protected
classes of the East, keeping them in
condition of quasi-savery on their own
homesteads, compelling them to pay
out of the low free-trade receipts
for their produce two prices for their
merchandise, reducing them to helpless
penury and forcing them to go through
life with empty pockets. This system is
protection to them with a vengeance,
and had better not be submitted to their
suffrage for Endorsement next November,
as the candidate depending upon it to
seat him in the White House we fear
will be disappointed in the result on the
count Of votes.