The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-09-30

The New York Sun, DEM. prints letter
from California reader who asks whether
the tariff plank of the Chicago platform is
to be understood as declaring that all pro-
tective duties are unconstitutional. and
further says: "There are eleven Demo-
Gratis here in Pomona who VOW that if you
decide the construction Of the clause as in
favor Of abolition of all tariffs, whether
high or low, we shall not only vote the
Republican electoral ticket next Novem-
Der. but will contribute our services and
money to the election OF the Republican
national ticket"
The Sun replies as follows:
There is no question that the tariff plank
adopted at Chicago was meant to be the squar-
est possible declaration against protection and
in favor Of free trade. II ssys fatty that all
protection is unconstitutional: and If that is
30, every intelligent man must be against pro-
lection until the time, which is very far of,
when the constitution can be altered.
The Sun adds that this feature of. the
Chicago platform has been renounced by
Mr.. Cleveland in his address of acceptance;
that it has been given an ''ingenious pro-
tectionist explanation" by ex-Gov. Hill. Of
New York, while the Democratic state
convention of Connecticut has repudi-
ated it outright by adopting declarations
squarely in favor of protection.
This is true; the Democratic national
convention at Chicago did pronounce
without qualification in favor of free trade
and denounced protection as unconstitu-
tional, and Cleveland and Hill both con-
tinue to maintain that protection is nm
constitutional. Gov. Hill. in his Gin
genious explanation, said: II am not
here to apologize for that plank. I am
here to advocate and defend it," Again
he said: 1.-THE party platform must be
deemed to be the iniallible party guide"
Still again: Republican protection does
not constitutionally exist" And then he
all protective duties are violation of the
constitution, and to insist that the Chi
cago platform as it stands is the position
and the creed of the nocratic party.
In other words, both Cleveland and Hill
appear to be in that eccentric state Of
gelist who accompanied the declaration of
his solemn and fervent faith in the pro-
hibitory liquor law with the announce
ment that he was "agin its enforcement"
Both Cleveland and Hill leave the Demo-
cratic party still standing on the ground
that the government has no constitutional
power to levy protective duties. Gov.
Hills approval of Incidental protection"
does not help his party out of their Diff
Guilty, because any duty imposed upon for
eign products which come into COMPETE
ton With domestic products is more or less
protective. If a protective duty is uncon-
stitutional it makes no difference as to the
amount of the duty: it is q violation of the
constitution. Cleveland and Hill both
agree that all protection is unconstitu-
tional under the Chicago platform, and
having admitted that they have admitted
the whole Republican charge that the is
sue is squarely between protection and
free trade.
The Democratic st. Louis Republic, an
ardent advocate of free trade, places the
same Interpretation on the Chicago tariff
plank as that quoted from the New York
Sun. The Republic said just before the
appearance Of Cleveland's letter of ac-
ceptance:
The Democratic party has declared. and every
Democrat believes that tariff taxes and all other
taxes should be levied for no other purpose than
government revenue.
The assertion that Mr. Cleveland will attem ut
90 'straedle" this platform, or that he will de-
part hairs breadth from its plain Democratic
principle of right and justice, is preposteroas.
Those who do not cudoTse the tariff plank and
those who uphold 10 agree in saying that it
means free trade. pure aud simple.
let Us hear no more nonsense about .'incI.
dental protection" such gibberish will catch
no votes this year.
Watterson, in the Louisville Courier
Journal, said:
Protection is robbery. Protection Is feudal.
lem. Protection is slavery. Ii is az war with
the spirit of American institutions, and is an
outrage on the natural rights of man.
Protection and the American republic cannot
endure
onc or the other will be destroyed. II We are
20 have a free country We must have freedom OF
trade. as surely IS freedom of Conscience OF
freedom Of speech.
To save ths republic we would destroy pro-
lection.