Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-01-26

n UonocRat,s Views OF Clevelanas
EDrToRs HERALD-In your issue OF JAM
nary 18th is an editorial entitled The
Democratic Future" and in that OF the
23d inst. another entitled "Who Was
Responsible ?" Both have been the sub
ject Of comr.ent among Democrats.
Relying upon the fairness OF the HER
AID l desire to say few words IN irienoly
criticism of the views expressed IN these
outgivings OF Democratic newspaper
views with which, l venture to think, a
large number Of Democrats emphatically
disagree. :.
In the first editorial mentioned you
say that in 1876 there was strong lean
ing towards "free trade" in the platform
on which Mr.. Tlden was nominated,
but that Mr.. Tilden carefully refrained
from commenting upon this feature, and
that his election was largely due to the
fact that he did 80 refrain.
This statement, it seems to me, is re-
markably erroneous in every particular.
deny that there was any leaning to-
wards ''free trade" in that platform or
any other Democratic platform. If am
not much mistaken the platform of 1875
in effect declared simply the old Demo-
cratic doctrine that no more taxes should
be collected by the Government through
the tariff laws than were required for the
uses of an honestly and economically ad-
ministered government, and that such a
tariff law would incidentally afford all
the protection required by any legitimate
s'infant industry"
I am also unable to see how M. Tilden
can be said to have failed to approve this
plank, when he certainly endorsed the
whole platform and was elected upon it.
In the same article you say that Mr..
Randall-a professed Protectionist-is
supposed to have written the tariff plank
in the platform of 1884, upon which Mr..
Cleveland was elected, and you broadly
insinuate, at least, that Gle veland's recent
defeat was in q measure due to the fact
that Mr.. Watterson got in his work in
fine stvle on the tariff plank of 1888. Is
it not a fact that the tariff plank of 1888
was a substantial re-enactment OF that OF
1884, except that it declared that the
meaning of it had been poorly illustrated
and defined by the Presidents tariff mes
sage and the Mills bill, and neither of
which can be said to have contained any
thing new or startling to Democrats, but
on the contrary breathe in every line and
word the spirit of the best days of the
party, and recall the glorious era of
Robert J. Walker and the tariff of 1S46.
In the second editorial mentioned you
quote, in extenso, and with apparent ap-
proval, the recent remarks of the New
York World, a paper notoriously un-
friendly to the President, and which
remarks, if they mean anything, seem to
charge that the Democratic defeat was
due to the blunders of the President
first ''for the injury his vacillating course
had done to the cause of civil service re-
form :" second, "for doing the right thing
ct the wrong time in precipitating the
tariff issue on the perilous edge of Pres
idential campaign" and third "for his
obnoxious personal acts and character
istics."
Now, Mr.. Editor, in all candor and
kindness, it does seem to me that even
the slightest approval of such TRADE as
this by loyal Democratic newspaper is,
to say the least, startling. In the first
place it hardly becomes the World to
complain of any injury to the cause OF
civil service reform. And how MIR.
Cleveland injured it by honestly endeav-
oring to give it effect is difficult to per-
ceive. As to his having done the right
thing at the wrong time, in pointing out
TO Congress the stupendous infamy of
continuing to collect from people enjoy
ing the blessings of profound peace the
high taxes levied in time of war, and in
calling on the representatives of the peo-
pie to right this wrong, the best answer
Is that in the last election more than
100, 900 majority of the people of the
rY-:<.1 Cto<oc n -, bot t,oo 1lu oynrovod fhia
act of the President by their ballots, and
post-election developments from every
quarter warrant the assertion that had it
not been for the fat so freely fried from
the adipose Tissue of the protected bar
ons" by that honest statesman, Mr.. M. F.
Quay, assisted by the pious efforts
of Colonel Dudley and Brother" Wan.
amaker, Mr.. Cleveland would have been
reelected by the greatest majority ever
cast for an American President; and by
the further fact that if the thing was
right and ought to have been done at all,
it would have been most decidedly
wrong to have postponed doing it. Had
the World said "inexpedient," instead of
wrong" it might pass; but, as for my
self, I believe that every sacrifice of
''right" to expediency is not only wrong,
but inexpedient.
The last charge-"obnoxious personal
acts and characteristics s"-would come
more appropriately from the lips of Hy-
ena Ingalls,, or atrabilious and treacher-
GUS Dana, than from those OF one Of
the 100000 and more of Democrats
who enthusiastically rallied last Novem-
ber to the support of one OF the very
bravest and best Presidents the country
ever had. The obnoxious" character
of Mr.. Cleveland's personality and
characteristics would seem to me to de-
pend largely upon the personality and
characteristics of the person offended by
them; and I have no doubt that Mr..
Cleveland is in every respect "obnox-
ious" in high degree to the protected
monopolists and privileged few who
faunt their dishonesty acquired wealth
in the faces of the meek and humble
majority who are plundered by them,
and seem to rather enjoy it.
In both editorials you inveigh against
anything looking like an attempt to read
such men as Samuel G. Randall out Of
the party. It seems to a good many
Democrats that Mr.. Randall saved the
party that trouble and read himself out
of it when he voted on every clause of a
bill intended to protect the toiling many
from the rapacity of the already gorged
and surfeited few, made rich, beyond the
dreams of avarice, by monstrous per-
version of all justice and fagrant vio-
Iation Of the spirit and letter of the
Il