The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1891-04-15
The Democracy and Free Trade.

The Democracy and Free Trade.
Mr.. n. r. ELLIOTT, a worthy democrat
of Merchandising, writes THE SENTINEL a
letter, which We publish elsewhere, in
which he protests against our statement
of the tariff position of the democratic
Iparty. He objects to our use OF the words
''free trade" in defining the democratic
policy. Mr. ELLIOTT insists that while the
democratic party is opposed to high pro-
tective duties. it is not opposed TO little
protection, or what he calls incidental
protection" and he appeals to the national
and state platforms of the party in sup
port of his statements.
We are afraid Mr.. ELLIOTT is a little be-
hind the times. In current political
phraseology the term 'iree trade" signi-
fies the opposite of protection, and means,
in it's broad sense, the levy of taxation
purely for purposes of public revenue.
England is universally called a free
trade country, and yet England raises
a vast revenue by customs duties.
In the sense that the democratic
party is in favor of raising revenue,
whether by customs duties or other meth
DDS, without regard to the interests OF any
particular class, it is tree trade party and
il is high time that all democrats ceased,
rs a vast majority of them have already,
TO be afraid of this term. 1t is very in
nocent term and means simply that lib
erty to buy and sell in the worlds mar
kets which JEFFERSON and MADISON advo-
Gated without being subjected to any other
restrictions than are necessary to secure
revenue to the government.
Speaking of democratic platforms, the
national platform of 1856 declared that
The time has come for the people of the
United States to declare themselves in
favor of free seas and progressive free
trade throughout the world.
This resolution was reaffirmed by the
two democratic national platforms of 1860.
In 1864 the platform was silent upon
this question.
In 1868 the platform declared for a
tariff for rerenue upon foreign imports
and such equal taxation under the in
ternal revenue laws as will afford Incl
dental protection to American manufact-
urers.
In 1872 the democrats accepted the plat
form of the liberal republicans, which
relegated the question to the congress
sional districts.
In 1876 the democratic platform de-
nounced the protective tariff as "a mas
terpiece of injustice, inequality and false
pretense," and demanded that 'all custom
house taxation shall be only for rererltle."
The platform of 1880 declared for a
tariff for reUe1a,te only.
The platform OF 1884 demanded that
federal taxation shall be exclusively for pu0-
Tic purposes.
The democratic platform OF 1888 reaf.
frmed the tariff plank of 1884 and in
dorsed Mr.. CLEvELAND's great message as
the correct Interpretation thereof.
Ii our friend will look over the demo-
cratic state platforms adopted last year, he
will find that nearly all of them declared
for a tariff for revenue only, and not one
of them for incidental protection"
The Indiana platform said:
So long as the government depends for
support in any degree upon tariff we de-
mand that 1t be levied for revenue only.
The Illinois platform said
Realizing that tariff is tax. we insist
now, as heretofore, that such revenue as
is required to honestly and economically
administer the government should be
raised from internal revenue and duties
on articles of luxury, thus erempting and
making cheaper all articles used by the
masses of the people.
The Iowa platform said:
We are in favor of a tariff for rerenu,
only.
The Michigan platform denounced tax
alton for other than public purposes as "a
radical perversion of the power to tax con
ferred upon congress by the people"
The Minnesota platform said:
We declare our incorporating oppo
stion TO the policy OF protective tariff
and we deny that the federal government
has any right, legal or moral, to use it,
taxing power for any other purpose than
to provide a revenue for the actual need:
OF the government when administered
with strict economy.
The Ohio platform said:
All money taken by law from the people
should go into the public treasury. Tariff
taxes should be for reuenue only. ALL So
called protective taxes are dishonest,
wasteful and corrupting.
We might fill a column more with ex
tracts from the democratic state plat
forms of 1889 and 1890 similar to the
above. We can find nothing in any Of
these platforms about incidental protec'
ton" The democratic party has always
been opposed to the protective policy. but