St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-08-20
AS SEEN AT THE FRONT.

Battles in which ideas and the aspira-
tons of people contend against sordid
and selfish interest, like those in which
the armies of conflicting nations are
engaged, present aspects that differ as
the relative positions of the observers
differ. To us at a distance from the great
focus at Washington. where are GEN.
tered in combat the motley forces of
selfiShness and sentiment grouped under
the banner of paternalism on tine one
hand, and the forces striving for greater
freedom and the integrity of the i'll
diviGual arraYed under the banners of
Democracy on the other, the contest pre-
SCENTS simpler conditions than to one in
the thick OF the fight and bearing part
in it.
The distant observer, seeing only the
general relation of the forces, knows
nothing or the complications which
prevent what to him seems to DE all
easy victory. The Democrat in Mime
sofa, seeing the Democratic party in
control of all the departments of gov
eminent, feels disheartsned' and dis
couraged when its representatives admit
their incapacity to fully effect the main
purpose of the party. 1t is we'll to have
the battle described, then, by one of the
representatives who we know has been
loyal to the command of his party, and
has done all that lay in his power to
carry out its behests. The letter was
written on the Sunday preceding the
acceptance of the senate bill:
''For the first time since the passage
of the senate BILL" he writes, u am
hopeful of seeing tariff bill enacted.
1t will be the senate bill, with all its i'm
PROJECTIONS on its head. 1t is the most
that can be done. To me it has been
clear for a long time that the original
house bill was dead. and that it was
very doubtful if any bill, could be put
through. It's all very we'll for you fell
lows who write editorials and draw
resolutions to say what should or shall
be done. But the doing of the thing is
much more difficult. l never before
appreciated what was meant by re-
form of the tariff. l never realized how
great and diversified were the obstacles
which lay in the way of that reform. L
never realized how shrewdly and skill
fully the protectionistS had planted
their allies in every congressional dis
trict, and how tremendous was the force
they could bring against any general
reduction bill.
Every tariff reformer was will
ing to cut every rate except his
own. Necessarily, any bill must be
compromise bill. No principle of
reduction or reform could enter into it
except the one principle of doing the
best you could. Neither the Wilson
bill nor the senate bill are tariff for
revenue bills, nor was the Mills bill.
They are all, in fact, constructed Oh the
line of McKinleytsm, and have the
single and only merit of reduced pro-
lection bills. nothing more.
II confess that | never expected the
passage of any free trade bill by the
house. l have never thought it possible
TO accomplish tariff reform by single
bill at a single session. The most
hoped for was the beginning of re-
form-enough of a free list and enough
reductions to be experimental, and
therefore educational. l have all along
advocated and expected progressive, not
instantaneous free trade. The Mills
bill seemed TO ME the most that could be
hoped for from the Fifty-thIrd congress.
The Wilson bill went far beyond the
Mills bill. We free traders would have
made it more radical still if we could.
But have never deceived myself with
the hope that it could pass the senate.
The Democrats. in fact, haven't got the
senate. The very fortunate legislative
deadlocks which have left Montana.
Washington and Wyoming represented
by one senator each have given US a
transitory majority of one vote (Hill's)
in that body as it now stands. What
reason haye we ever had to suppose
that our Eastern Democratic senators
were any of them favorable to free
trade? They have never advocated nor
promised ton the contrary, they have |
openly denounced it. 1t was self |
evident that under no circumstances
could we pass tariff bill which was
opposed by three reform senators
counting the two Populists as re.
formers).
''That the sugar trust stood in our way |
is undeniable. That trdSt owns enough |
Democrats to defeat the bill by direct |
vote if necessary: it owns enough Re- |
publicans to strangle the bill! by fiIibus- |
tering, if desirable. Our only hope of |
any kind OF bill at all was of such a |
bill as the senate might pass under the |
impression that we would reject it, |
throw it into conference, keep it held |
up till near election time, and thus give |
the senate an opportunity to kill it by |
filibuster or direct vote. Therefore l |
have from the first felt that we ought to |
catch on the fly and pass at once what. !
ever bill the senate passed. The senate |
did much better than | supposed it |
would. The bill as it came to US is the |
most drastlc-the greatest departure |
from protection. the nearest approach |
to free trade-of any bill the Democratic |!
party has ever urged in congress since /
1857 Except the Wilson bilD
sit is infinitely better than the Mills |
bill. The country does not understand |
this. The bill has been grossly misrep- |
resented. Our own papers seem to |
have been ignorant OF its contents, and |
have joined heartily with Repub-
licans i'll denouncing it as fraud |
etc. The thing which has astonished |
me is that a reform measure so radical |
and extreme could have passed the |
senate at all. l ain now satisfied that |
it would not have passed il the senate
thought we would accept 1t. The
scheme of the conservatives was to |
make show of reasonable bill |
and then hang it up or kill it on dis |
agreement between the two houses
''If we pass the bill, we must defend IT, |
1t is defensble, too, not merely as the
best that could be done. but as measure
OF genuine reform. Roger Q. Mills will
soon be heard from in its defense. I
Surely neither you nor J need hesitate I
to follow where r. @. leads the way. 1t |
took years for Golden and Peel to es- |
tablise full free trade ia England. 1t