The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-11-12
ECOyOMICs And MORALS.

One feature Of the appeal addressed
to the National Democrats of the state
by certain eminent Democrats to vote
directly for Mr.. Mckinley deserves
consideration. They based this coun-
sci on the disaster and dishonor" that
would follow the election of mis- op-
ponent and the embodiment of his pol
icy in law. To overcome the repug-
nance of Democrats to the policy
which Mr.. Mckinley most completely
typifies they said: while intelligent
Democrats are opposed to a protective
tariff such as Mr.. Mckinley advocates,
yet that is an economic question about
which honest, patriotic men may diff
fer, and the decision of which cannot
touch the honor of the country" That
ITO say, that there are economic
questions that do not involve morals,
and the tariff, in its protective form,
is one of them, but in this one of the
mG=ey they are inseparable.
Tariffs In any form and to whatever
end dSected present economic ques-
lions equally with all questions of
finance, and economics are inseparable
from morals. Political economy has to
do with the production and tlistribu-
ton of those things that tend to the
well-being of society. Morals ave to
do with those lines Of conduct that
tend to the well-being Of society. That
line of conduct that artificially
regulates the production or dis
tribution of the things that
tend to the veal of society inter-
feres with, obstructs or prevents it
and is, therefore, immoral Whether
that conduct is of individual or
corporations, combines or trusts, or
tives Of society in legislation is inna-
terial so long as the effect of their
acts is to impair the veal Of society
or of any of it's members. 1t IS i'm
proposition is to reduce the exchange
able value of the products of human
labor by tampering with the currency
or by giving to some the power 10 en-
nance the price Of their products, it
equally impairs the well-being of the
mass of men and is condemned both in
economics and morals
If these gentlemen will reflect upon
the arguments used by them when the
party was making it's grand and final
ly successful fight against protection,
they will recall that the whole force
of their argument, the convincing
force with the voters, did not rest in
the details of the question but upon
the broad proposition that protection
was wrong. The Chicago convention of
1892 went to the heart of the case when
1T denounced it as "a fraud and a rob-
berry Of the masses for the benefit of
the few" 1t put the moral feature to
the front and kept it there Had the
Democrats waged the contest on a bal
ancing of the relative merits OF pro-
tective and a revenue tariff they would
never have stirred the popular con-
science to rise to overthrow protection.
We do not recall a single effort to ex-
plain and defend a revenue tariff in
that campaign. BY common consent the
antagonistic policies Of free trade and
protection stripped off all DISCUSSES and
met in mortal combat Each side rec
ognized that the immortality of It's op-
ponents' cause must be relied on to
sustain its own. In the old slavery
contest Republicans said little about
their platform that promised immunity
for the institution where it existed, but
they pounded slavery as an immoral
wrongful, criminal thing, and the logic
OF their argument followed in the abo-
Iition of slavery. So Democrats said
little about a tariff for revenue but
denounced the tariff as a fraud and a
robbery, and the logic Of their argu-
ment ran head on against all tariffs
and ended in free trade The party
will be wise IL, in its future course, 1t
recognize the insepsra5fiity of morals
from economies and demand the RATA