New-York tribune., 1909-11-14
70 a,foRsL UPRISING. .

10 4CAEL TAl T.
" ss amusing TO and 'Harper's Week
y" almost gloating over the recent elee-
tion IN Massachusetts, as moral victory
for the Democratic party on tie issue of
t2-.f revision. We have not been able
te see thar the tariff issue played a large
part II the state elections Of 1909 The
Democratic party in Maryland expressly
excluded national issues" from the re-
cent campaign. The state convention
probably took that course in order TO
avoid the embarrassment Of drawing up
Q declaration which should approve the
warring voIss az Washington OF the two
Maryland Senator's, one OF them, Mr..
Rayner. being q free raw materials
Democrat and the other, Mr.. Smith. az
dently advocating the Bailey brand of
protective revenue" duties on raw mate
rials. The Democrats carried Maryland
without once mentioning the fact that
Congress had revised the tariff. They
also carried Eirg;nia-by a reduced
plurality-after a canvass in which the
tariff question was frankly ignored. In
that state. too. the Democratic party had
10 consider the attitude assumed by the
senior United States Senator. who was
a candidate for reelection. Advocating
an increase ot duty on quebracho or
some other product in which the Old
Dominion was specially interested. Mr..
Daniel declared: Il don't care whether
you call IL for revenue or for protec-
''tion; I'm for H."
fTEr Thnr,,cr..o e I,es fTafl v-aoy-
after eleciing 4 Democratic Governor
ana Democratic Presidential electors in
1905. Yet We haven't noticed that either
the Republican or the Democratic news
papers Ia Nebraska attribute that re-
versal 10 the tariff Issue. Interest in
Nebraska was confined to local ques-
uOns, just as interest ia Maryland, Viz
ginia. Pennsylvania, New York. New
Jersey. Massachusetts and Rhode Island
was. II there was a seething desire in
the breasts Of New England voters 10
rebuke the Republican party FOR its
tariff policy. how is "Ilarper's Weekly
going 10 account for the fact that in
Rhode Island. which was treated with
just a. friendly consideration a. MaSsa-
cLusetts was and should therefore have
been equally ri3e for 4 moral protest"
Republican Governor was elected 10y the
largest plurality given I'm more than q dec
aGe: Why should the moral revolt have
manifested itself in one state only. while
ia all tie other states voting the elec-
tors were absolutely Indifferent 10 its
promptings?
Even If Massachusetts had meant 10
protest against the tariff law il would
have been exceedingly puzzling from
Democratic point Of view to tell against
what features Of last summers tariff
legislation The protest was directed.
Ccul1 the alleged dissatisfaction have
been attributed, for Instance 10 The re
m0val Of certa IN duties on raw materials
OF Ia the failure Of the Payne law 10
remove more duties on raw materials?
The Bailey faction IN the Senate and in
the narr~ holds thar the Payne law com
miU,ed grievcus crime "a putting hides
on tic free list. The Bryan faction. On
the contrary. holds thar il committed
grieTous crime by not putting wool, lum-
ber, coal iron ore ana all other raw
materials on the free list. and that Mr..
Bailey aud his followers participated IN
that crime b. helping 10 retain duties
on wool, lumber. coal. etc II MaSSa-
chusetts Icy lis vote was pointing the
way 10 Democratic opportunity, which
way was II pointingE Was il responding
10 the argument Of Mr.. Bailey or the
argument Of Mr.. Bryan: Does it want
hides back on the dutiabie list or does
IL want the taxes taken of al raw mate
rials: says "lIarrer's Weekly.
The old slogan of tarift reform never
had more potency than & would have to-
day II the party would take IL up with
tAe old neaTtiness.
Old things have passed away, how
ever There are now two Democratic
tariff reform slogans. and before either
can be OF any general use its friends
viii have 10 establish its potency" over
the broken heads Of the friends Of the
other