The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-09-05
BOTH WINGS FOR FREE TRADE.

The platform of the Indianapolis conven-
ton practically declares that the Chicago
convention did not affirm the Democratic
contention for tariff reform along the lines
of free trade. This is not the exact fact.
Thursday did not affirm the unconstitu-
tionality of protection. as did that of 1892
In a less positive manner the Chicago plat
form declared for revenue tariff and de-
nounced protection, as this extract there
from shows:
We hold that the tariff duties should be
levied for purposes of revenue, such duties
to be 50 adjusted as TO operate equally
throughout the country, and not discrimi-
nate between class or section; and that tax
alton should be limited by the needs of the
government, honestly and economically adj
n1inistered. We denounce as disturbing to
business the Republican threat to restore
the Mckinley law, which has been twice
condemned by the people in national cleo
lions. and which. enacted under the false
plea of protection to home industry. proved
prolific breeder of trusts and monopolies,
enriched the few at the expense of the
producers of the great American staples of
access to their natural markets. Until the
money question is settled We are opposed
to any agitation for further changes in our
tariff laws except such necessary
to make UP the deficit in revenue caused by
the adverse decision of the Supreme Court
on the income tax.
If declaration for tariff duties should
be for the purpose of revenue, and as bitter
an assault upon the theory of protection as
could well be made, is not standing up for
the tariff policy of the Democratic party
it will be difficult to define that term. Both
such are found in the foregoing extract
Moreover, the assault upon the theory of
protection is followed by declaration that
further changes in the present tariff laws
will be opposed by the Bryan party until the
scheme of the silver mine owners shall have
been given the force of law. As for Mr.
Bryan himself, he was of the wild
eyed free-traders for whom the Wilson bill
was too moderate, and who voted for the
German bill under protest. Mr.. Bryan is
a free-trader to-day much he was
when he declared for free wool, free coal
and free ores, and put himself on record
during the debate on the tariff bill in Feb
ruary, 1884, as follows:
/ am not in favor of the reciprocity which
you had last year. but / am in favor of
commercial freedom. And / am willing to
say to Canada. We will treat your products
as you treat ours. We will open our gates
to you if open your gates to us and that
is what we have provided for in that clause.
1t may possibly do some good although it
is not aDSoiuteIy necessary, Tor Canada mas,
L informed a standing offer to admit
our grains free whenever We remove the
duty from Canadian grains. Trade between
the two countries will be profitable to both.
But. sir, if that clause is left out and wheat
is admitted absolutely free and corn free.
and these other great products of agricul-
ture free it will not harm the farmers of
the United States a single dollar, and the
gentleman ought to know it.
Thus it appears that Mr.. Bryan, if he
could have had his way when the Wilson
bill was under consideration. would have
free list. He has not given any sign of a
change of mind since February, 1894, and
he is pledged in the platform to stand by
a revenue tariff. 1t is, therefore, probably
true that Mr.. Bryan is more of free
trader than many of the business men who
were in the Indianapolis convention.