The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-05-22

A singular feature OF the present po-
litical situation is that the party which
Is championing free trade should also be
advocating cheap money. II the Demo-
cratic party has any record at ali 1t Is
for revenue only. 1t has not always had
the courage Of its convictions, and many
OF its leaders, notably its great ones,
such as Jefferson, Monroe, Jackson and
others Of that class, have been oue
spoken In favor Of protection. and yet
free trade comes nearer being a dis
tinctive Democratic doctrine than any
other that can be named. One of the
stock arguments in favor Of the policy
Is that 1t is necessary to enable Ameri-
caa manufacturers to extend their trade
and control the markets Of the world.
If this were true, or If free trade had
ever operated that way it would be
very strong argument. Anything that
contributes to the extension of American
trade is good American policy. But, as
a matter OF fact. and experience, free
trade has never operated that way. On
the contrary, 1T has operated in exactly
the opposite direction. The greatest de-
velopment and extension of American
trade has always taken place under pro-
lection, while free trade has always
tended to cripple and restrict it,
If IT were true that free trade tends
to the extension OF American trade and
to enabling American manufacturers to
control the markets OF the world it's ad-
vocates ought also to be advocates of
sound money. A country that seeks to
do worldwide trade or to control the
markets Of the world should do business
in the worlds money. If it were posi-
BILE for country to exist entirely to
itself, isolated and cut off from all COM
merce or communication with the rest
OF the world. 1t might get along with
almost any kind OF money. 1t might
prosper after a fashion. perhaps, with
wampum or shells for money, or even
with barter alone If system ofNweights
and measures could be agreed upon.
But If a country expects to do business
with the rest Of the world and meet
other countries on an equality in it's own
markets or in those Of the world it must
have the worlds money or at least
money measured by the worlds stand
ard. The countries which to-day and for
fifty years past come nearest to con-
trolling the markets of the world are on
gold basis. Those which are on a sill
YER basis are not lin it" so far as worlds
Is anything In the claim that free trade
would give American manufacturers
control Of the markets Of the world the
advocates of free trade Should also be
advocates Of sound money. 1t is i'm
possible for any country to extend it's
foreign trade or gain a respectable foot
ing in the markets Of the world with
debased currency. In advocating free
trade and free-silver coinage the Demo-
cratic party Is either inconsistent or dis
honest. In one breath 1t advocates pol
icy which it claims Will enable Ameri-
can manufacturers to gain control of the
markets OF the world, and In the next it
advocates a policy which would make
the other absolutely impossible.
Only modern Democrats are guilty of
this absurdity. John C. Calhoun was
counted pretty good Democrat In his
day. He was one Of the ablest and most
unyielding advocates Of free trade. but
he was equally unyielding in his adj
vocacy Of sound money. He honestly be-
lieved that free trade would tend to the
extension of American commerce, but he
coupled sound money with it, Thus he
wrote: with a sound currency and low
duties We have nothing to fear in open
competition with other countries in the
markets OF the world" Observe. he put
a sound currency before low duties
Again, he wrote: How, then. are you
to obtain the command of the foreign
market? The first and indispensable
step is a thorough reformation of the
currency. Without a solid. stable and
uniform currency you can never sue
ceed." Again: How is the foreign
market to be commanded? BY low in
stead Of high duties and a sound cur
rency, fixed. stable and as nearly as
possible on the level with the general
currency of the world" Calhoun was
wrong on the tariff question. but right
on the money question. Modern Democ-
racy is wrong on both.
CONTEMPTIBLE POLITICS.