Rensselaer Republican, Volume 20, Number 20, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 January 1888 — IT IS ENGLISH, YOU KNOW. [ARTICLE]

IT IS ENGLISH, YOU KNOW.

E.njglish Praise of the Democratic Free Trade Policy. Cleveland’* Henaf* Receive* the Warm Endorsement of British Free Traders— Young Voter*’ Attention—Concise Statement of the Position Each Party Sustains Toward the Government.

ENGLISH PRAISE OF CLEVELAND. London Saturday Review. The messages or speeches of the President of the United States have not, as a rule, been of considerable interest to Englishmen. President Cleveland’s message will be a very important exception. It deals with a question which is as interesting to Englishmen as Americans, and it must needs put more.. life and Spirit into the politics of the United States than they have possessed at any period since the conclusion of the great Civil War twenty-five years ago. Breaking through the custom which required that his message should be a, discussive essay on things in general President Cleveland has devoted himself entirely to the tariff. It is impossible to recast this without touching directly the pockets of every citizen in the United States, and indirectly influencing the commercial interests of the world. The President is careful to state that he has no wish to court the American workman, but he frankly declares his indiffeience to the charge of favoring Free trade. His policy, he says may be called by that or any other name, but it is the policy he recommends to Congress, and which, he does not effect to deny, must alter the terms on which foreigners have access to the American market, and on which Americans compete with foreigners abroad. A change of this magnitude could not be indifferent to other nations, even if it were made by a much less active and wealthy country than the United Btates.. At tome the President’s message must, whether his policy is adopted or not, have a profound influence on American politics, if only by bringing forward a great question of administration to be fought over between the two parties which divide the bulk of the nation. With the election of General Cleveland the question of Civil Service Reform came to the front,and now Free Tradeunder certain limitations, mainly of a nominal kind—has followed. It may be taken for granted that the President has not acted without previously consulting the leaders of the Democratic party and securing their approval. He and they have taken up again the old Free Trade policy of the South Carolina politicians, unconnected with what, in the jargon of American politics, was called the sectional question. Whatever the ultimate result of the President’s action may be, he has at least ■ done much to give dignity and interest to American politics. There must now be a struggle of parties on a great question.

The President dismisses almost with contempt the contention that any industry in America is so feeble as to need the “favor and fostering care” of the Federal government, and he, explicitly accuses the manufacturers of banding together to influence the legislation in their own personal interest. This, however politely it may be worded, is not conciliatory language. It must be taken to nrove that the President and the Democratic leaders have finally decided that they have nothing to gain by keeping measure any longer with the Protectionists. They have, from whatever motive, adopted a free trade policy. Nothing can be more explicit than the President’s language: “The simple and plain duty which we owe the people is to reduce taxation to the amount requisite to meet the necessary expenses of the government, and to restore to business and to the country the money accumulated in the Treasury.” In America this means free trade.

London Spectator. President Cleveland has taken the little wind there was out of Mr. Howard Vincent’s sails. Hia terse and telling message has struck a blow at American protection such as could never have been struck by any fair trade league—such, indeed, as would have been greatly weakened by the operations of any fair trade league. * * * He has fired a shot at the protectionists which will be all the more effective for his refusal to discuss the theoretic issue. In a democracy you cannot play the patron to one great class, and refuse your help entirely to another great class which feels the pinch of an inelastic trade even more severely. Mr. Howard Vincent knows very well that all his fair trade notions will be wrecked on the dilemma whether yon are to tax the food of the people in order to benefit the agriculturalists who are in such distress or to give up the project of a tax on foreign manufactures for which Coventry wearers and other manufacturers cry out. The difficulty in the United States most be precisely the same if the protectionists of Congress should propose to ab'lish all the takes on raw materials, and to retain them on manufactured products. The producers of the raw materials will at once reject that proposal. They will say, “No; if we are to pay more than is needful for what we want, we demand that the manufacturing classes shall pay more than is needful for what they want, and what we have to sell.” And we shall be much 4arpri»d U «ny aettonof Oaugmiilfiw shall ignore this very just demand, will not bring down the people in wrath at

the next election, on the party that contrives this evasion of the plain justice of the case. This is a situation in which straightforward compliance with the President’a suggestion would be the best policy even for the protectionists.' If they are foolish enough to wish to retain as much protection as possible, let them reduce the tares on necessaries all round, not distinguishing between raw products and manufactures, and then make what fight they can for the diminished tariff. But if they are blind enough to risk kindling the wrath of the much the better for free trade; so much the sooner will the United Btates be rid of the miserable attempt which has now endured for so many years to recast the order of nature, and hedge about unfavorable conditions for agriculture or manufactures with artifi cial arrangements which make them relatively and temporarily— to the great loss of the whole community—the most favorable that can be attained. We trast that President Cleveland’s message will make its due impression on those wiseacres who are now discussing the free trade question in England. Here is a great country, whose treasury is overflowing with wealth, compelled, not by retaliatory tariffs, not by the diplomacy of strategists who think it wise to hurt themselves much in order that they may hurt themrfelves a little, to reconsider for its own gc/od the protectionist principles on whi jh it has so long been acting, and in all probability greatly to modify them in the direction of free trade.

DIFFBERBNOE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. New fork Tribune. Thousands of young men are asking the question put by a correspondent in the following letter: Will you please inform me what is the differense between a Republican and a Demooratt Next year I shall be of age, and shall east my first vote. It is the same difference essentially wmch has existed in the past between a Democrat and a Federalist, or between a Democrat and a Whig. From the foundation of the government there have been two parties, ODe of which'has desired less and the other more legislation on constructive issues of national reform and progress. The Federalists desired to arm the National government with requisite authority over the States so as to insure its preservation. The Democrats opposed such legislation as involving a dangerous degree of centralization. The Federalist Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed in one of his earliest reports a comprehensive scheme for the development of home industries,, and the Whigs in later times under Henry Clay became the champions of tariff legislation. Albert Gallatin, the first great Democratic financier, was a Free Trader, and his party at every stage of its history has shown hostility to National industries. The Whigs and the Republicans have demanded unceasingly constructive legislation for the nurture and maintenance of home manufactures. The Democrats have wanted no legislation of this nature, and whenever a tariff system has been established they have strenuously endeavored to overthrow it. The Republican party was recruited from the ranks of the Whigs and Free Boilers, whose consciences revolted g ainst slavery as a legalized institution in a free country. It demanded legislation against a system of human bondage degrading alike to masters and slaves. The Democratic party from the beginning of its history until the emancipation proclamation was opposed- to such legislation. When civil war burst upon the country it was still the defender of the slave owning oligarchy, and precisely as it had opposed the Federalist doctrine of a strong, centralized National government, it resisted coercion of the Southern States in the first instance, and for four years, while the armies' were in the field, was uniformly hostile to legislation for the successful and vigorous conduct of the war. The Morrill tariff, the legal tender act, and the establishment of the National banks, emancipation, and the constitutional amendments, the reconstruction policy, and specie resumption were distinctively Republican achievements in constructive legislation. The Democratic party was opposed to each and every demand for more legislation. It wanted no legislation. What the Democratic party has been in the past it remains to tnis day—the party that is opposed heart and soul to legislation in behalf of National interests, and social and political reforms. Under Republican tariff legislation thousands of industries have been established and American progress has become the marvel of Christendom. .The Democratic party stands to-day for the repeal of that legislation—the foundation of the Nation’s prosperity. The Republican party stands for the protection of those industries by legislation, and also* for the protection of what should be the most sacred interest in the Bight of every true man—the American home. Since the Maine law was enacted a generation ago that party has been in sympathy with every legislative attempt for the restriction or suppression of the drink evil. In States where prohibition amendments have been carried, the In States where high license laws have been proposed or enacted, the game

party has been the active agent of social reform. The Democratic party, true to its obstructive instincts, has been the unswerving opponent of legislation of any kind for the restriction of the liquor traffic and the suppression of intemperance and all the blighting evils of drink. It never was known to vote against a barrel of whisky. Before oar yoang friend casts his first vote next year let him weigh well this fundamental difference between the party that wants legislation and the party that wants no legislation whenever issues involving the highest interests of the Nation are raised. The Democratic party to-day is, aa it has ever been, opposed to legislation by which National security, commercial prosperity, and social and political reform are promoted. The Republican party has always favored progressive legislation.