Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1892-11-17
THE MASK THROWN OFF.


In the New York Sun of Monday there
over the signature of Matthew
Marshall, an article more than ordinari-
ly frank as the expression of a Demo-
crat who may be considered an expert
opinion on matters of American finance.
The article appeared in close connection
with the commercial report of the New
York stock exchange, and there is no
question as to Mr.. Marshalls being an
authority on monetary affairs in this
country, so the publication of his views
in the Sun is proof positive that his is
true bill. Mr.. Marshall is in a large
sized quapdary. He does not see how
the Democratic party can keep its prom
ises to the people in abolishing Republi-
can prote ction, and the reasons for his be-
lief are the same that have been used by
Republicans all through the campaign
just closed. Mr.. Marshall says:
That a Democratic congress will not re-
wise the entire list of duties in accordance with
its Chicago anti-protection declaration j main
tanned before the election. and maintain 1t still
If the declaration were honestly carried into
effect it would involve the repeal of every duty
which at present incidentally protects home in
dustry and the levying of duties exclusively
upon articles which, like Coffee tea, and silk, are
not capable of being produced in this country OF
of watch, like sugar and hides and wines, the
country does not produce enough to supply the
consumption. A measure of this nature would
lead to an indus trial catas trophe all over the
country and the magnitude of the interests op
posed to it preclude its being even considered.
great deal was said during the recent political
campaign, as it has often been said in other con-
troversies between protectonists and free trad
ers, about ga tariff for revenue, with incidental
protection" The Democratic declaration at
Chicago had the merit of distinctly renouncing
this falacious form of words, and as distinctly
enunciating the doctrine of tariff for revenue
only. There can be no such thing as "incidental
protection" consistant with a tariff for revenue
only, because the essential idea of protection is
exclusion and that of revenue is Importation
So far as duty imposed for revenue hinders
and diminishes imports it defeats it's own pur-
pose, and If it is protective at all it tends by that
very quality to stimulate the home production of
the article protected, and thus eventually to re-
duce to nothing the importation of the competing
foreign product and the revenue derived from IT,
Hence repeat that if the Democrats are going
to carry out thoroughly the principle they enun-
ciated at Chicago they must remove the customs
duty from every article of which this country
can produce enough for its own consumption,
and levy duties exclusively upon articles of
which the Importation cannot be diminished by
domestic industry. The mere statement of this
consequence carries with it its own condem-
nation, and Its practical embodiment in law is
too remote contingency to be considered.
So? Then the Chicago platform of
the Democratic party is buncom be and
its free trade plank a blooming lie and
nothing more? Then Mr.. Cleveland has
won his election upon false representa-
tion, and the people have but once more
been tricked and deceived? Then the
Republican claim that protection was
right and necessary to the prosperity of
this country, was true; and the Demo-
cratic claim that the Mckinley bill was
outrageous and unconstitutional, was
false.
1t is rtassuring to find this definite
vindication of Republican principles in
the columns of a Democratic newspaper.
We have voiced the suspicion that De-
mocracy was insincere in its free trade
promises, but only that party's organs
are privileged to enter the public con-
fessional and tear away the mask of de-
ceit which has done duty with such sig
nal success during the late campaign.
Well, Mr.. Marshall may comfort himself
with the knowledge that he is not DOOM
ed to solitary confinement in the maze
in which he is groping. We fancy there
are very many others who occupy his
position. They are men who. eight years
ago, vehemently denied the claim of their
Republican friends that prote ction was
Republican doctrine while Democracy
leaned heavily toward free trade; they
are the men who four years ago, treated
jocosely the argument that free trade
was a Democratic idea, and still denied
the essentisl tariff differences betwee0