Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1892-10-29
THEY FEAR FREE TRADE.
Most of the Democratic Orators Are
DOdging This Issue.

Dodging This Issue.
Hardly free trade orator has opened
his mouth to discuss the tariff question
since the Chicago convention who has
not attempted to get away from the
tariff plank Of his party's platform.
Aware that such a bold declaration of
war on American industry must bury
their candidates unless it is in some way
modified, they one and all have ad
dressed themselves to the task Of argu
ing it away. Since the platform calls
for the raising of revenue sufficient for
the needs of government from customs
duties, they argue sufficient protection
to all interests is therefore guaranteed
and free trade is an impossibility. This
was the burden of Senator Hills Brook
Ign speech and of Mr.. Cleveland's letter
of acceptance. In the manufacturing
states in particular it has come to be the
slogan of the Democratic armies. 1t is
as dishonest and deceptive as that other
Democratic cry of "Polk, Dallas and
the tariff of 1872" which once before
elected the Democratic candidates by
hoodwinking the protectionists into
voting for them. The sequel of that
victory, how Vice President Dallas, as
the presiding officer of the senate, threw
his deciding vote for the infamous tariff
law of 1916, which resulted in the sue
ceeding years of commercial stagnation,
misery and the reign of soup houses, is
well known to our readers. The same
party is trying the same game again
this year.
No intelligent man can misinterpret
the plain language of the Democratic
platform. In the words of that illustri-
Gus Democratic lawyer and scholar,
George Ticknor Curtis, it denies "that
any protection of our domestic indus
tries is within the constitutional power
of congress-" Every vestige of protec-
ton may be stripped from our statute
books and ample revenue for the needs
of government still be raised from duties
on imports. Free trade does not mean
the abolition Of all custom houses, as
Democratic orators and editors dishon-
estly assume. Hear what that high
priest of American free traders, Profess
or w. G. Sumner, of Yale, says:
ga country may collect its entire rev.
enue by duties on imports and yet be an
entirely free trade country"
England collects as much revenue per
capita from duties on imports under her
free trade system as we do under the
protective Mckinley tariff. 1t is the
manner in which duties are levied, not
their height, which distinguishes pro.
tective from a free trade tariff. The
Democratic platform demands that ours
be so levied as to exclude every SEM
blance of professionalism is, it de-
mands the full measure of British free
trade.
This is no false alarm. Already some
of the more honest Democratic journals,
yielding to the memorable logic of their
party's attitude toward the tariff, have
outlined the plan whereby abundant
revenue can be raised without an iota OF
protection. One paper in particular
points out that we might raise 1895, 00O,.
900 annually from duties on tobacco and
spirits. The protective force of these
duties would of course be offset by in.
ternal taxes on similar domestic prod
ucts SO as not to violate the great Demo.
cratic antiprotection principle. Res
toration of the sugar tariff would yield
$50, 100000, this free trade editor points
out, and so per cent. tariff on tea
coffee, cocoa and chocolate would give
Sal, 100000 additional; duties on dia
monds, works of art and the like, ali
nonprotective, would furnish $4,000,
900, making in all $423, 100000 of reve
nue. without a hint of protection to any
American industry. We raise less thar
5000 900, 900 by the present law.
This is the Democratic scheme, work
ingmen. 1t comprehends the taxing o.
your breakfast tables, while exposing
you to the merciless competition of Eu
ropean starvation wages. No amour
of partisan palaver can obscure thu
issue. If you want that sort of thinf
you can have it by electing the candi
dates pledged to bring it about. If not
vote for Harrison and Reid, whose cleo
ton will mean no free trade! no pau
per laborl-New York Press.