Rensselaer Republican, Volume 15, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 November 1882 — FREE TRADE AND FREE RUM. [ARTICLE]

FREE TRADE AND FREE RUM.

[From the New York Tribune.] The sentiment of the Democratic party seems to be slowly but surely solidifying around two great issues—free trade and free rum. We reach this conclusion after a careful study of the various platforms which have been adopted by the Democratic State Conventions of the present year. There is no more accurate revelation of the sentiment of a great party than these State platforms. They are a much-safer indication of the real. opinions of the masses of the party than a national platform ever is. The latter document is usually constructed to conceal as much as it reveals. It never deals wi h local issues, and these are often of more importance as indications of the drift of a party than broader national issues are. In short, a national platform is usually constructed to‘display the vifews which a party thinks it safe to pretend to hold rather than the views which its members actually entertain. This is very likely to be the case with the next national Democratic platform. The only issue which that party ha& been bold enough to take a ttand upon in its national platforms of recent years has been free trade. The disastrous effec s of that declaration in 1880 were so palpable that it is not likely to be repeated in 1884. Yet, as we shall presently show, the sentiment of the party is strongly in favor of free trade. Democratic Conventions have been held since June 7 last in eighteen States. We have examined the declarations of principles put forth by these various bodies for the purpose of ascertaining the position taken by each on the two leading questions of the day, free trade and free rum. Reduced to tabular form this is the result of the investigation; free trade. Openly In favor 7 In favor by straddling. 8 For tariff with incidental protection 2 No expression 5 For protection. 1 Total 18 FREE RUM. Openly in favor 5 In favor by straddling 3 Views the question “with alarm” 1 No expression 9 Squarely for temperance 0 Total 18

The most significant fact revealed by this tabulation is that contained in the final entry under each heading. In only one State has there been a declaration in favor of protection, and in none has there been any in favor of temperance. It is an old and sacred truth that those who are not for a cause are acainst it. An analysis of the tabulated statement will be sufficient to show that this truth is applicable to the Democracy. The seven States in which the Democrats are openly in favor of free trade are California, where they reaffirm the aational platform’s declarations in favor of a “tariff for revenue only;” Illinois, where they favor “tariff for revenue only;” lowa, where they call the protective tariff “an outrageous scheme of plunder,” and say that in “principle and detail it violates every Democratic principle of right and justice;” Maine, where they call for “tariff for revenue only;” Missouri, where they repeat the same call, and denounce the “iniquitous protective system;” Michigan, where they almost precisely repeat the Missouri utterance; and Kansas, where they declare that “every description of industry shall stand or fall on its own merits.” All these States, with the exception of Missouri, are Republican, and the Democrats were not afraid, therefore, to declare their real sentiments. As soon as we reach the doubtful States the clumsy operation of seeming not to favor free trade by straddling the tariff issue develops itself. The Ohio and Indiana Democrats lead in this performance with declarations which mean nothing, and those in New Hampshire follow them closely with a demand for “immediate revision” of a tariff system which they pronounce “unequal and oppressive.” It is evident enough that in these three States the Democracy is in favor of free trade but afraid to avow its sentiment. North Carolina and Vermont Democrats are united in the absurd demand for a “tariff jvitli incidental protection,” though in one the declaration is worded a little different from the regular formula. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida and Texas Democrats are silent on the question, and Pennsylvania is the only State in which the Democracy is openly committed to protection. Obviously, after this analysis, nobody can deny that the Democracy is at heart in favor of free trade.

On the question of free rum, the record of the party is scarcely less conclusive. Of the five States within the Democracy avowedly in favor of unlimited whisky, California should be placed first. The Democratic platform contains a sweeping declaration against all sumptuary and Sunday laws. An effort was made in the convention to have the denunciation of all laws designed to promote a peaceful and Christian observance of Sunday stricken out, but it was voted down by a large majority. In Illinois the platform declares, prohibition to be “contrary to fundamental principles of free government.* In Indiana, as our re iders know, the platform contains a Hendricks straddle on the question, but its gifted author has since confessed that it was constructed to deceive, and that his party is opposed to giving the people a chance even to vote on the issue. The lowa Democrats declare the recentlv-adopted prohibition amendment in tneir State an “obnoxious measure,” and pledge themselves to use all legal means for its elimination. The Ohio Democrats con-

fined themselves in their pla'form to a guarded declaration ag dnst sumptuary laws, but in their canvass they are fighting not against prohibition, for that is not an issue in Ohio, but against taxing the sale of liquor and against a law forbidding its sale on Sunday. They are, therefore, emphatically in favor of i ree rum. North Carolina, Missouri and Kansas are against temperance and manifest their opposition by various forms of straddling. The Missouri Democrats voted down a resolution against sumptuary laws because they were afraid that would commit the party too openly. They merely declared in favor of the “largest personal liberty.” The New Hampshire Democrats took the novel position of “viewing with alarm” the spread of intemperance. In Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Vermont, the Democratic platforms are silent on this groat question. We search in the platforms of all the eighteen conventions for a ringing declaration of temperance, but fail to find it. Obviously, so far as the Democracy has taken any position on this issue, it has been in favor of free rum. It is tolerably clear, therefore, that if the national Democratic platform of 1884 accurately represents the popular sentiment of the party it will be composed largely of a terse and stirring declaration of this sort: Resolved, That wo aro in favor of free trade and free rum. That would insure a very interesting campaign. Still we doubt if the party will have the courage of its convictions.