Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-03-14
RICHMOND, MARCH IA.

We comply with the request of the author of
Colbert, but his Indignation 10 not altogether so
new as he seems to consider it. The most mate
rial authorities which he cites were in fact called
upon during the discussion IN the Senate of Virgil
mia, when these Resolutions were before them
Most OF that body considered, that they did not
apply TO SO strong the present Tariff
They were met too by the consideration, that be-
tore the rules OF the Constitution had been pract
cally tested and critically applied; that in 1889
before the dangers of loose construction had been
strongly presented things might have been said and
points OF expectancy maintained, which ought ne
yer to be called into presidents: that in truth the
question of power had never been properly argued
and therefore could not be said to be decided so as
10 enter INTO the stream OF precedents. The doc
trines of MIR. hladson's celebrated Report in 1900,
in opposition 10 Mr.. Hamilton's celebrated Re-
por, on Manufactures, was also strongly relied on
TO shew that the present tariff was in violation of
the spirit of the Constitution Was there ever any
thing more absurd than 10 talk of protecting the
culture of tobacco and cotton in the u. States,
by high duties? The protection 10 these articles
originated in error, and the laws have remained
dead letters the statute book:1 o. -
To the Editors of the Enquirer.
Iregret that the proposer Of the Resolution pass
ed by the Legislature OF your state against the
constitutionality of duties for the protection of
manufactures, well as those who voted for il.
hdu hOt Sadiciuiiy Tie proceedings oil
this government from the period of its oreapiza-
ton. Had they adopted this course, which is
surely rational one, they would have been fully
convinced that long prescription, and often repeat
ed practice decidedly against their construction
of the Constitution.
BY this mail, SEND you paper in which hope
have established this point beyond the power OF
! controversy. rely on your honor as gentlemen,
and your independence and impartiality as editors
will admit this into tha t..
however opposite to your opinions and those OF
| your patrons. The liberty of the press would be
but sorry privilege, were access to the public
| eye, to depend on the accordance of the senti-
ments of writers with those Of Editors or Proprie-
| tors of GaZeites. '-
The duties on manufactures, tobacco and snuff.
Originally and o cents, now 10 and t2) have
been prohibitory from the commencement of the
government, and were thus laid expressly with a
view to secure the consumpfiaR oftobaeco in the
| " s. TO the american planters. The extrava-
CANT duties spirits imposed and are CONT
| nued for the protection of the whiskey and peach
brandy Of the farmer. ! pass over the high duty
on cheese and Other farming articles. The duty on
cotton is equal to 33 per cent, on that from the
East Indies, and was expressly imposed for the en-
couragement Of cotton planting (The duty is 3
cents per lb.-and the ordinary to middling cotton
was sold at New Orleans on the 18th ult. at 10
and III l-2 cents this only is from IS to 33 per
cent on the price in our markets. The duties
tea imported in foreign vessels erage AZ cents
per h., whereas those that article imported in
American vessels average only 81 cents being
difference OF above 81 per cent for the protection
Of the 6plericea merchant
Now, Sirs, solemnIy ask you and those who,
q must say, uDguardediy) voted for the condem-
natory resolution, whether there be any thing 20
sacred in the character OF the farmer, the planter
or the merchant, that renders it Just and constitu
tional TO impose duties for their protection and
whether, on the other hand, the manufacturer be
of an inferior cast, that it is unjust and uncon-
s,itutions to impose duties for this protection?
COLBERT,
Philadelphia, March 9, 1926
POLITICAL ECONOMY.
Is congressional protection of manufactures
a piolafiOn ofthe Constitution?
This is an important question, which has never,
it is believed, been fully discussed. 1t ought 70
have been finally settled long since.
Whenever, Of late years, the question ofproteet-
ing the Industry Of that useful and numerous por-
ton OF our citizens engaged in furnishing domes-
tic market for the flour, the beef, the pork, the
mutton, the lamb, the poultry, the vegetables, the
spirits, the cotton, the wool, the hides, the skins
the hair the tallow, the timber the hemp, the flax
the Goals, the iron, the lead the copper, Of their
fellow citizens who cultivate the soil, or explore
the bowels Of the earth for her hidden treasures has
been agtated, formidable opposition has been ex-
cited among those very fellow citizens, on the
ground OF the constitution presenting an nsupera-