The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-11-27
THE HEDGING d

The Mills-Crisp controversy over the
speakership is instructive. Mr.. Crisp's
supporters accuse Mills of being a free
trader, and make his advanced position
on that ground a reason why he should
not BIO made Speaker. The Mills men
retort that Crisp is practically a protec-
ZIONIST, and that his elevation to the
speakership will be a virtual abandon
ment of the leading issue upon which
the Democracy has appealed to the
country. Mr.. Crisp is very angry at be-
ing stigmatized as a protectionist by Mr..
Mills. At the same time he would prob
ably object to being classed as a free
trader. Indeed, Mr.. Mills, after declar-
ing himself n free-trader in half the
States of the Union. is reported to have
asserted in Brooklyn a few days since
that he is not in favor of free trade.
What doesthis meant Simply that the
foes of protection, when they are being
put to the test, shrink from the doctrine
which they proclaim. Why is this? If
the present tariff law had proved what
every Democrat from Mills to Crisp, and
even from Cleveland to Hill and Cor
man predicted. every one of them would
be tumbling over each other to get into
the front rank of ultra fr~ee-tradeism.
Mills and Crisp, who have voted for
every measure aimed at the protective
principle in Congress for a dozen years,
would be each declaring that he was a
more out-and-out, dyed-in-the-wool,
saturated free-trader than the other.
just the opposite is the result of the
Mckinley law. 1t has added thousands
of new industries to the country; it has
opened new avenues for labor; it has
opened new markets for the farmer and
the manufacturer; it has reduced the
price of O great necessary of life one
third; it has not increased the price of a
necessary of life; lit has been followed
by an era of general prosperity such as
the country has rarely seen. The free
trade and Democratic leaders are begin
ming to realize that the people under
stand the advantages which the McKin-
ley law has brought. AS leaders, very
naturally they recoil from an avowal of
a policy which is opposed to that which
has been the means of bringing the
country SO general prosperity. They do
not wish to be called free-traders now
that they are coming into power in the
House. Even to them such antagonism
to the protective policy, which is work
ing marvels for the Nation, would be to
bid for defeat. Consequently they are
hedging. They are no longer free
traders, but revenue reformers, who DO
not desire to adopt an out-and-out free
trade policy now.
These gentlemen will deceive no body
just now. The American people are be-
ing educated. They know that there
are but two policies, protection and free
trade; that there is no halfway house
no policy of tariff for protection in part
and for revenue only in part. The av-
erage American knows that this cow
ardly lodging behind the phrase "reve-
nue. reform" means the adoption of a
tariff for revenue only, like that of Great
Britain, and that is free trade. He well
knows that these Democratic Congress
men are hedging behind an old blind,
and that in 80 doing they confess the
weakness of their proclaimed free-trade
policy.