Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-12-10

1
forever with q most desirable postal re-
form.
The New York Sun and Free Trade.
We said recently that no reader OF the
| New York Sun would charge US with
Intentionally incorporating the position
Of that paper when we carelessly spoke
Of II as haying advocated free trade.
This we said because the readers OF the
sun well know that our New York con-
temporary has said over and over again.
in very form in which the statement
could be made. that President Cleveland
was pledged 10 oppose unconstitutional
protection" the pledge being contained In
that plank OF the Chicago platform which
declares that Congress has no power
TO levy customs-duties except for the
purpose OF raising revenue to support the
National Government.
We agree with the Sun that
this is a declaration which does
not consist with the fact that Congress
has levied customs-duties on hundreds
| and thousands OF articles which duties
were not levied for revenue purposes
only. But this declaration was modified
| 10y Mr.. Cleveland in his letter accepting
the nomination OF the Chicago Convention,
and thus the Democratic party in sup
porting him must be credited with having
| voted for him knowing that he was not
| In favor of free trade.
The New York Sun. however. has chosen
| to hold Mr.. Cleveland up day after day
| as pledged to free trade. or, what is In
| certain sense the same thing, to levy
no customs-duties except for revenue pur-
poses. 1t happens that we some time ago
laid away one of the Suns terrific on
slaughts on the President. The article
does not profess to be an attack upon
| him, but TO be a defence of him. 1t is
| In our New York contemporary inimita-
| BILE style-a style which no other paper
| can successfully use-and stabs Mr.. Cleve-
land under the fifth rib whilst pretending
TO be defending him.
| We will let our readers see a specimen
| of the Suns article, and we shall thus
| do justice to both that paper and the
| Dispatch. A correspondent having recited
| the protection resolution adopted by the
| Democratic National Convention of 1884
as proving that the Democratic party
| could not be depended upon TO stand
\ by their free-trade or anti-protection
| plank OF 1892, and having asked what
| reason there was for supposing that one
| pledge having been repudlated. the others
would be kept" the Sun answers as fol-
| lows:
Every reason! The Democrats, having
| encountered disaster in 1883 by falling TO
| live up to the pledge made in 1884, are
| little likely to invite defeat in 1896 by
| repetition Of such an error.
| The future course Of n national adj
minstration may be fairly predicated
| upon its known performances: and IN this
respect there is no reason whatever for
suppOsing that the pledge of 1892 Will
not be scrupulOusly and faithfully kept,
as other ante-eiectiOn pledges have been
kept up TO date This is pledge-keep-
ing administration, and for the enlighten-
ment of our correspondent we recall the
following circumstances"
The Sun then proceeds TO say that Mr..
Cleveland in 1892 promised not to make
any local appointments to office offensive
TO Tammany Hall, &c. This is a charge
brought against the President in the form
of pretended defence. Anyhow. the
Sun continues as follows:
This cleared the way for Mr.. Cleve-
lands success not only in New York,
but also in other debatable States, where
In the Democracy was encouraged by this
proof of harmony in New York. Since
his Inauguration, Mr.. Cleveland, with
minute fidelity TO the termA and condi-
lions Of that compact, has made no nomi-
nations to local offices distasteful to Tam
many Hall. He has resolutely refused to
violate the spirit of the Victoria Hotel
understanding In any of its details. No
ante-election agreement was ever more
loyalty carried out after election"
Because this alleged pledge had been
kept by Mr.. Cleveland, the Sun argued
that he would keep his alleged pledge TO
favor a tariff for revenue only, which. as
everybody must concede. is nothing but
a free-trade tariff, or, in still other words,
is the most strictly anti-protection tariff
that could be framed.
Our New York contemporary next
charges that Mr. Cleveland traded for the
Indiana vote in the Democratic National
",
that State, for the vote by appointing
him Minister to Mexico. Hence. the Sun
argues. the President will be sure 10
keep his pledge to oppose a protective
tariff.
NeASt the Sun charges (but all these
charges assume, We repeat, the form OF
defensive articles) that Hoke Smith made
Of 10
vote in the Democratic National Conven-
ton OF 1852, and was paid by Cabinet
appointment. Hence, argues that paper.
the President will be sure 10 keep his
pledge to favor a tariff for revenue only.
And so on at much greater length than
that with which we have treated the sub
Ject, the Sun pours hot shot into the Presi-
dent and concludes as follows:
NO friend or supporter of Mr.. Cleve-
lands administration will pretend that
the President would redeem at their face
value promises relating 10 patronage.
while evading, disavowing, or repudlatins
outright promises involving change Of
political principle. This is a pledge
keeping administration; and the uncon-
stitutional system OF protection foisted
upon the people by the Republicans. is
checheu through Tor the upper waters
OF Salt river, with no stop over. 1t has
got TO g0!'
There are papers in Virginia which
mistook the Suns attacks upon Mr..
Cleveland for just what they were not,
and credited that paper with being OPP
posed out and out to protective tarifY.
we did not make this mistake, but we
read the Suns anti-protection articles so
OFTEN that We heterophemously spoke of
1t as an advocate o. free trade. But we
submit that the Sun is fighting with the
Mugwumps and Free Traders. and is thus
chargeable with being a practical free
trader whatever 1t may profess TO be.
--------------
Down With Dynamitards.
Yesterday an attempt was made IN dis