Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1894-07-27
FRIDAY MORNING. JULY ~. 1894.

II
The letter of MI. Cleveland to Mr.. Will
son which we give in another column, re-
minds us very much Of his tariff reform
message of 1887, the difference being that
the former is addressed to his party in the
majority in both houses while the latter
was addressed to his party when
in a majority in the House alone.
We all remember the Democratic
criticism with which the message OF
1887 was received; the letter Of 1894 is IN
dergoing similar experience. 1t was said
the 's7 message would result in a Republi-
can House of Representatives, in 1888, and
50 it did, but in '92 the author of that let
ter was elected President and his party
carried both houses of Congress.
Tariff reform is a stupendous work; that
it cannot be carried in a day is probable,
bnt that it cannot be carried by demagog-
cry and the system Of every man for him
self and his neighborhood, is certain. The
Democratic platform of 1892, on which
Mr.. Cleveland was re elected, pledged the
party to make reform Sin the direction
of free raw material and cheaper manu-
featured GOODS The Democratic House
of REPRESENTATIVES elected in that year has
decided that the direction of free raw ma
teria'7 means free sugar, free lumber, free
coal. free iron and free wool, and it some
months ago passed a bill carrying that de-
cision into effect. The Democratic Senate
has changed nearly the whole OF this, and
has given about all the protection on these
articles that those interested in them asked
for. The Democratic members OF the
House were fresh from the people. the
Democratic members of the Senate, with
few exceptions, had been elected long before
1892.
AS matter Of fact it seems that few
Democratic Senators announced to their
colleagues Of the same political faith that
unless protection was given certain artl-
cles there would he no tariff reform bill
passed this session. Each of these Sena-
tors had some special product that his
State OF, as asserted by the correspondent
of the Richmond Dispatch, some firm of
influence in his State. wanted to be protec-
ted, and by an agreement among a small
number of Democratic SenatOrS-pOsslbly
eight OF ten in ala combination was made
which is strong enough to say sour bill OF 10
BILL In our own State coal and iron ore
are protected. We have already discussed
the claims OF those two for protection,
and the claims Of the consumers why they
should not be protected, al4d it Is hardly cf
any use to go over them again. A perusal
of many of the newspapers published along
the line Of the Norfolk & Western and
the Chesapeake & Ohio railways, would, ii
seems to us. convince any man that free
coal would be a blessing to the consumer.
OF some CT these papers. the AppomattoS
Times. the Lexington Neus. the Charlottes
vile Progress, several of the Stauntor
papers and several in the Southwest, there
was hardly al issue when the question was
lip for discussion, that did not produce
figures to show that the people needed somt
relief and that free coal was the only relie
that presented itself. AS to free iron Or
we suppose that there is hardly a possibii
ty of enough foreign ore being imported, t.
justify the consumers in paying the requis
tie tax to keep it out. On all hands, and a
all times-save one-We read daily OF thu
superiority Of the iron of the Souti
and the boast that it can defy al
competition, the one exception being Whel
the question of free ore is mooted and thei
we hear of the necessity for protection. |
is story as old as that Of human acquisi
tiveness, that as long as there is any hop
for aman to get protection from competition
i'll his business just so long will he Geman
it, The Senate bill seems to be almos
wholly devoted to protection for the PFC
ducer, and the consumer who outnumbeT
the producer by millions has but Il sma
share Of consideration.
1t is said that the Senatorial "cOnserva
tives'' are fixed in their determination no
to let the House WILSON, bill which is O
the side of the consumer. become law. an
that failure to pass any tariff bill thi
session is preferable to that. 1t so happen
that the Senators are not to go before til
people this year for judgment on their act
and many OF them not for several years t
come. But the members OF the House c
Representatives are not in so comfortabl
fix; they, whether Oh he, must face til
people in November. What will they sa
to the people who expected tariff reform,
they hold up the Senate bill to them an
bpt oct ba ont ano2a Gf nQOa(
cratic tariff reform? This is great coul
try and tariff reform is q great and intr
cate measure, it is not as we have said til
work of a day. Delay will not defeat il
It will be far better to reject the Senal
bill than to go before the people with il
What the interests of the country REAL
want is some certainty Of what is ahead {
them: let that certainty be given by d.
feating the Senate bill and going before til
people Oh the justice of its defeat. I'll
House Democrats we're elected in 1892 t
replace the Mckinley bill by reforl
measure radical in its character. and nc
one having such close resemblance to it q
the Senate bill presents. The Democrat
House has honestly tried to carry out til
pledges on which it was elected, and til
people will understand why it has failed
and in due time record their verdict O
the failure and the authors of it.
The semi-annual report of the Virgini
crops for 1894, by Commissioner of Ayr
culture Whitehead, gives the following #;
the general average
Prospect-Wheat 81; corn, 80; oats, 66; ha,
63; cotton, IS; tobacco 10; Irish potatoes, s
sweet-potatoes, IS; peanuts. So; pastures, s
apples, II; peaches, ); pears, 8; grapes, "a.
Acreage Wheat, So; corn, 1o2; oats, 8
hay, 81; cotton. i01: tobacco, II; Irish pot
toes, lG2; sweet potatoes. %; peanuts, ~; pa
lures, 9S.