The herald., 1895-12-13


antagonistic philosophers. II one is
right it is wholly so, and the other,
therefore, is wholly wrong.
Mr.. Bayard's specification Of the
evils of protectionism Of course hurts
our Republican brethren. 1t is all the
more CALLING because the history OF
protective legislation in the United
States furnishes such abundant proof
of the accuracy Of his specifications.
And their anger is accumulated by
their utter inability to controvert the
fundamental truths he has laid down.
Mr.. Bayard is the kind of statesman
who deals in fundamentals. He is one OF
the Democratic leaders who proclaim
their adherence freely and fesrlessly
to the belief that free trade is right be-
cause it is natural and just. When he
assails protective tariffs he does not
qualify his opposition by assaulting
merely "high protection" but he fights
the principle whether the application
of it be in great or small degree. lt
has been the misfortune Of the Demo-
cratic party that it has had too few OF
his kind as leaders and too many who
have compromised with error because
they underestimated the potency OF
truth; too many who have failed to
appreciate the power of the basic doc
trine of their party. While affirming
the righteous accuracy of the cardinal
Democratic doctrine, "equal rights for
all and special privileges for none,'
they have been fearful about I'M
fIinchingly and consistently applying it
to public issues as they have arisen.
That doctrine, in brief, constitutes the
creed of the Democratic party. 1t is
political measure, and by it every
declaration and action of the party
should be measured. And the propo-
sition that will not absolutely harmon
ize with it is undemocratic and should
be opposed by the party, no matter
how plausible or popular such propo-
sition may seem to be. II the doc
trine of ''equsl rights to all and special
privileges to none" is sound, all that is
not in accord with it is unsound, as
logical consequence.
Protective tariff legislation is IN
democratic, because it is distinctly
antegonistic to this Democratic doc
trine. 1t is class legislation, as it is
enacted for the benefit of some of the
people, necessarily at the expense of
others.
But the feature of the address which
really stimulates the ire of the Repub-
lican leaders is Mr.. Bayard's classified
tion of protection with state socialism.
The mass Of the American people are
instinctively individualists, even
though they do sometimes thought
lessly or mistakenly lend support to
measures that are contrary to the spirit
of individualism. Let the fact once
become thoroughly understood by the
major portion Of the Republican party
that protectionism is socialism pure
and simple, therefore subversive of the
political theory this Republic was
founded to perpetuate, and the ranks
of the tariffites will be 30 tremendously
depleted that the scheme to feather the
nests of the few by plucking the many,
under the guise of taxation, will be
speedily relegated to the lumber. room
of discarded decisions. Mr.. Bsyard
has indicated line of campaign that
can be most successfully pursued by
the Democratic party.
The contention that Mr.. Baysrd, be-
cause of his station as American am
bassador, has no right to discuss and
denounce protection, and for 30 do
ing should be impeached, ia not only
untenable but absolutely absurd. 1t
rests either on wanton demagogy-to
which Republican editors and politi-
clans are literally addicted-or the
twin hallucination that Mr.. Bayard
lost some of his rights as man when
he became an ambassador and that
protectionism has been formally
adopted by the American people.
MIR. Bayard has as much right to dis
cuss protectionism in Edinburgh as in
Washington. IT is not the exclusive
property of any particular party or
country. 1t has been practiced by
both ancient and modern barbarians.
Even the Republican party has not
succeeded in obtaining monopoly Of
of 1T. 1t is no more American than the
English language or the habit Of eating
with the mouth. 1t has been the ruling
policy of China from time immemorial,
and it was utilized by England for
more than four hundred years before
the United States fell into the habit of
dabbling with it.
In spite of the fervid declarations of
Republican spouters and scribblers,
protection is not the policy of the
American people, either by formal or
informal adoption. When the people
of the United States formally adopt
fiscal policy, they will SO declare by
statute enacted by congress. And
while the American congress has
performed many foolish things, it has
never yet adopted any bill either in
title or text designating itself as being
protective in character. While sched-
ules have been framed for protective
purposes, no Republican congress has
ever had the audacity to formally de-