The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-13
TOTE FAIR. NEIGHROR.

merely having little fun?" 1t then,
in solving its conundrum, recites the
enactment Of the Wilson-Gorman act,
and how, within a few months, Re-
publicans all over the country were
accusing this luckless tariff with being
deficit producer. The chorus was
loud, 1T was long continued, 1t was
noise was made to convince the deafest
resident Of the remotest district that
the Republican party could not tolerate
a deficit producing tariff and would
certainly, If the voters gave it chance,
sweep the offending measure off the
face Of the earth and would straight
way proceed to make the government
income as large as the government ex-
penditure." Which is very accurate
statement of what happened.
Then 1t says that the Democrats met
this talk with a plea for suspension of
judgment until the measure had it's
opportunity to show what it could do
as a revenue producer, asserting that,
given time enough, it would provide
ample revenue. 1t quotes President
Cleveland's statement that the law did
not merit condemnation simply because
it produced a deficit; none having "oc-
CURED or that may occur need disturb
or excite US" Now the positions are
reversed. 1T Is the Republican tariff
that is producing deficit, and which
will produce, for the fiscal year 1898
according to the guess Of the secretary
Of the treasury, a deficit of $21, 000, 900.
1t is the Democrats who are shocked
and alarmed at the prospect of a deficit.
1t is the Republicans who behold with
calm the prospect of $2S OOO, 900 deficit
at the end of next June and a $21, O0O, 900
deficit at the end of the year there
after. Wonderful change! Striking tes-
timony to the force of a party namer'
From all of which it reaches the sane
conclusion that either expenditures
must be diminished or revenue increas-
ed, and that much of what Republicans
said two years ago is equally true
now.
But there are differences in situa-
lions which have escaped the Sentinels
memory, or at least it's statement These
should be given to make the compari-
son a fair one. First is the difference
in the attitude of the two executives
towards the two measures Of their ad-
ministrations. Mr.. Cleveland was hear
tily in favor of the house bill and quite
as bitterly opposed to the form the
senate gave it, but his influence in the
latter body was insufficient to defeat
the "perfidy and dishonor" that chang
ed the house bill from a purposely rev.
enue measure into the purposely pro-
tective measure of the senate. He en-
phasized this by refusing to sign it.
The Dingley bill also had the favor
Of the president. That measure was
modified by the senate finance commit
tee in the direction of revenue produce
ton as greatly as the Wilson bill had
been changed in the direction Of pro-
lection. But the influence of the ad
ministration was strong enough in the
senate this time to have rejected all
the notifications made by the finance
committee.
Thus the former administration, with
the house Of representatives, cannot
be charged with the results of the Cor
manized house measure, while the
present administration stands willing
sponsor for the Dingley act Again,
there is the striking difference in the
attitude of the parties as indicated by
expressions Of their members and press.
With but few exceptions the Demo-
cratic papers Of the country were bit
ter in their criticism of the German
act They denounced it as a base sur
render of all that had been fought for
since 1887. In the Catchirgs letter Mr..
Cleveland expressed the opinion Of the
rank mass of the party in saying: 81
take my place with the rank and file
Of the party who believe in tariff re-
form and who know what it is; who
refuse to accept the result embodied
in this bill as the close of the war; who
are not blinded to the fact that the
livery of Democratic tariff reform has
been stolen and worn in the service of
Republican protection and who have
marked the place where the deadly
blight Of treason has blasted the coun-
ellis of the brave in their hour of
might"
Opposed to this Is the reception ac-
corded the passage Of the Dingley bill
it's spectacular approval by the presi-
dent, who affixed his signature with
a mother f-pearl pen,' the wave of
editorial prosperity let loose from Han
mas bureau, and the universal APPROX
al given the measure by the party
press, the persistent defense of it in
the face of its monthly exhibits of def
cts. The farthest Democrats went in
extenuation Of the German act was to
show that it was increasing the reve-
nue. produced from customs and to
hope that under normal trade condi-
tons 1t might even up the accounts
but they rejected it's principle of con-
lstruction. 1t is this difference in the
reception Of the two measures that our
contemporary ignores and which Is