New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-10-08
NEARER THAN EYER TO FREE TRADE.

a portion Of the PrOtcctionist press both
in this country and the United States says
"The Toronto Globe" "pretends to take Mr..
Clevcands letter (of acceptance) as n retreat
from his position on the tariff. The fact Is
that the ex-president has shifted very little
froIh his first position on the question WHAT
ever movement he has made has brought him
nearer to theoretical Free Trade" Or course
Democratic editors and stump-speakers are
doing their best these days 10 convince thor
hearers that this is not true that whatever
movement Mr. Cleveland has made relating u
the tariff has not brought him " nearer to Free
Trade But in view Of the platform upon
which Mr. Cleveland is running these writers
and orators make little Roadway with rejecting
men. The Chicago platform declares that the
nolicy Of Protection is unconstitutional Mr..
Cleveland is not running independent OF that
platform neither is he running on one OF his
own construction. BY his acceptance OF the
nomination and his Endorsement OF the pat
form he is as much committed to the amazing
proposition that Protection is unconstitutional
as if he had said as much in unequivocal terms
over his own signature. To hold othcf"lse
would be to make Mr.. Cleveland out knave.
Why not? Could he honorably repudIate the
chief plank of the platform adopted by the
party whose commission he bears?
"Whatcyer movement he has made has
brought him nearer 10 theoretical Free Trade.
Thi, truth. in all that it implies ia to be kept
constantly in sight during the campaign. what
does it Imply? obviously, it implies that Grovcf
Cleveland stands to-day rs the CHIEF repre-
sentative OF heresy so pcrniclous that it, adop-
ton would be followed b. the ruin OF some Of
our industries, the impairment OF many others
and the consequent injury OF American work
incmen. If Protection is unconstitutional, 1t Is
the manifest duty OF Mr. Cleveland ana MS
fellow Democrats to cut it down and upfoot IT,
They love to exploit their devotion to the Con
s.itution. So il they mean what they say, Vi
course. il would be incumbent upon them WIN
ont loss of time in case Of Mr. Clevcland's
election 10 vndicatc themselves As imprisoned
cbampions OF the Constitution by attacking
Protection all along the line. 1nere was ii
time. and that in the near past, when thoS
could claim with show OF reason that the!
believed in "incdcntal" Protection. But not
81 now II Protection is unconstit'itionai' Incl
dental Protection is indcfcnsble.
No one could read Mr.. Clevclands letter Of
acceptance in a candid spirit without realizing
that he found the tariff painful subject 10
discuss lie failed to meet the issue IN manly
spirit. Those partisans of his who had been
boasting that he was pre-emnently man pos
scssing the courage Of his convictions must
have hung their heads as they pcrused wha'
he had to offer on that subject lie tried 10
oyplain and retreat. and produce the impression
that party which stgmatized Protection as
unconstitutional wa, not inevitably party OF
Free Tlade. But Mr.. Cleveland had his labor
for his pains. All that he accomplished was
to demonstrate that he knew only too well that
the Chicago tariff plank was dragging him down
70 sure defeat "Whatever movement he mas
made has brought him nearer to theorellcai
Free Trade" So it appears to an unpre]udiced
observer in Canada. SO it appears 10 the ma
ority of tho voters of the United states, ana
therefore, having a levcl-headed regard Tor
their own interests, they cannot be induced 10
support him.