Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1830-02-27

that a. an original question, the authority OF
Compress TO txercise the revenue power, win
di,ec, reference to he protection OF manufae'
,ure.. is , Questionable authority, Tar more
questionable in my judgment, than the power
Of Internal improvements must confess. SIT,
that. In one respee', some impression has been
made on my opinions lately. Mr.. Macisons
,u bile alton has put he power in very strong
light. He has placed il, must acknowledge,
upon grounds OF construction and argument,
which seem imprs enable. But, even 1t the
power were douhifu on The face OF the Constr.
luton itself, i, had oeen assumed and asserted
in the 6rst revenue law ever passed under that
Csns,itu, ton; and, on this ground, a. matter
settled by eotemporaneou, practice, ! had re-
Trained from expressing the opinion that the
Tariff laws transcribed constitutional limits,
a. ibe gentleman supposes. What ! did say at
Faneuil Hall, IS far as new remember, was,
that this was originally matter OF doubtful con-
.,ructfon. The gentleman, himself, suppose,
thinks there is no doubt about it, and that the
laws are plainly against the Constitution. Mr..
Madison's letters, already referred 10. contain,
in my Judgment, by far the most able s1posi-
ton extani Of this part Of the Constitution
He has satisfied me, SO far as the practice OF
the Governmrn, had left it an open question.
With grea, majority Of the Represent tive.
of Massachusetts, l voted against the Iaria
Of 1872 My reasons were then given, aud
will not now repea, them But, notwitbstand'
ing our dissent, The great States Of New York,
Pennsylvania, Ohio and Kentucky went for the
bill. in almost unbrokeb column and II passed.
Congress and the President sanctioned it, and
il became the law Of the land. Wha', then,
we're we TO 90! Our only option was, either to
fall in with this settled course Of public policy,
and accommodate ourselves TO do il as we'll as
we could, or 10 embrace the South Carolina
doctrine, and talk of multiplying the statute ny
State interference.
The last alternative did not suit our princi'
Piles, and, Of course, we adopted the former.
In 1877, the subject came again before Con.
gre.s, on proposition favorable to wool and
woollehs We looked upon the system OF pro
lection az being fixed aud settled. The law of
1924 remained. II had gone into full opera
ton; and in regard to some objects intended by
it, peril ps most Of them, had produced all its
expected effects No man proposed to repeal
il, no man attempted TO renew the general
contest on its principle. But, owing 10 susse-
uuent and unforeseen occurrences, the beneh'
intended by il to wool and woollen fabrics, had
not been realized. Events, not known here
when the law passed, had taken place. which
defeaIed lis object in hat particular respect. -
A measure was accordingly brought forward to
meet this precise deficiency, to remedy this
par ocular defect. II was limited to wool and
woollens. Was ever any Thing more reasona.
BILE? If the policy Of The Tariff laws had be-
come established in priD iple, as the permanent
policy Of he Government, should they not be
revised and amended, and made equal, like
other laws, as exigencies should arise, or JUS
tice reQulrei Because we had doubted about
doping he system, were we TO refuse TO cure
its manifest dcfec,s, after i, became adopted,
and when 40 on. stsemP'ed its rcpsaR And
this sir, 10 he inconsistency 8" much bruitsd.
I had voted against the Tariff Of 1924 but II
passed; and in 1897 and 1928 / voted to amend
it, in a point essential TO The interests OF my
commitments. Where is the Inconsistency
Could do otherwise! Sir, does political con-
sisteney consist in always giving negative votes!
Does il require Of q public man to refuse 70
concur in amending laws, because They passed
sga,ns, his consenr! Having voted against The
Tariff originally. does consist ency demand that
I should do all in my power 10 main, ain
an unequal tariff burdecsome to my own
constituents, in many respects. favorable in
none, 10 consistency OF thai sort. lay no
clsim-and there is another sort to W ich lay
as little land that is. kind Of consis ercy, by
which person, feel themselves as much bound
20 oppose proposition afisr ii has become the
law Of he lard, as before
The bill of 1897, limited, as have said, to
he single ohjer, IN which the tariff "f 1924,
had manifes,ly failed in its effect, passed h.
House Of Representatives bu was lost here.
We had then the act Of 1928. need
not recur 10 the history uf measure so re-,
eat. Is enemies spic,d i with whatsoever
hey thought would render il distasteful; its
friends took j. ,drugged as i was Vast amour,
o. property, many millions, had been invested
IN ma"uf,e .ures, under the inducements of
1924 Events allied loudly, as l thought, for
fu' ther regulation 10 SECURE the degree of pro-
lection intended by that act. l was disposed
TO vote for such regulation and desired nothing
more; bur certainly was ne, to be ban,ered ou'
Of INV purpose by a threatened augmentation
Of duly on molasses put into the bill for the
purpose of making it obnoxious. The vote
may have been right or wrsng, wise or unwise:
bu, it is little less than absurd to allege agains,
il an Inconsistency with opposition to the for
mer law