Evening star., 1909-04-15
The Tariff and the Parties.
avs the San Francisco Chronicle:

says the san francisco AnIOHlCIe..
"The debate makes it clearer every day
that the mass of democrats are as sound
protectionists as the mass Of the rcpub
licans. The main difference between re-
publican and democratic congressman is
that party discipline causes republicans
to vote to protect all interests which do
not evidently conflict with the interests
Of their constituents. while a democrat
will not vote to protect anybody who
does not live in his district"
The House debate revealed little that
was new. There have been low tariff
republicans and high tariff democrats for
many years. Every tariff debate in Con-
gress since 1880 has brought them to the
front They have always made their
wants known. and when strong enough
numerically in House or Senate. or in
both. have secured something for their
activity.
We have all been misled by the ex-
travagances of party platforms and the
declarations of half-baked spellbinders.
Especially is this true as respects the
democratic party. 1t has figured as the
party of free trade, committed In its plat
forms and Its stump utterances to the
proposition that protection is robbery and
should be eliminated at once The idea
conveyed was that in one, bill, properly
drawn, the whole matter. could be set
right, and protection. incidental and
otherwise, sent to grass. .
. Now, as, matter Of fact, protection.
except by platform writer's and stump
orators. has never been challenged to
battle to the death. No tariff measure
ever proposed in Congress has gone that
far. The Mills bill. which passed the
House in 1883. was mere demonstration
for campaign purposes. It was bound to
die in the republican Senate. But even
the Mills bill was full Of protection. No
attempt had been made to fashion the
measure on strictly revenue lines. ''+.''
In 1894 the democrats. had they been OF
one mind. and that an honest anti-pro-
lection mind, possessed the power to put
the knife to protection. They controlled
both the presidency and Congress, and
the tariff promises they had made in the
campaign of 1892 called for extreme ac-
tion. But when the time came for action
II was seen that they were not united.
The anti-protection talk of the campaign
had been only bluff Men like Mr.. Cor
man. Mr.. Whitney. Mr.. Brice Of Ohio, Mr..
Smith of New Jersey and others, who had
accepted the platform upon which Mr..
Cleveland had been elected, never intend
ed that it: should be redeemed in lesis-
lation. Even Mr.. Wilson. who stood for
the tariff bill the House passed. could
not shape It SO as to eliminate protection.
1t was full Of protection. and for that
reason was denounced by Henry Waiter
son.
TITS an absolute certainty that had Mr..
Clark and his friends In the House been
charged with the responsibility this time
they would not have left protection out of
the account. They could not possibly
have done so and commanded the support
Of a corporals guard for their work It
was easy. for campaign purposes. to en-
ter into denunciaticn of the Payne bill
and the bill had its vulnerable features
hut no minority bill was forthcoming,
and that showed that as between cam
paign talk and legislation there still ex-
listed wide gulf. Mr.. Underwood of
Alabama spoke truly in declaring that
the rank and file Of the democratic party
are not free traders. And that carries
with 1t the admission that they are pro-
tectioniets.