Litchfield enquirer., 1830-03-11

it, must acknOw ledge. upon grounds of con- struction and argument, which seem impreg- nable, but, even if the power were doubtful, on the face of the Constitution itself, lthad been assumed and asserted in the first reve- nue law ever passed under that same COnstl- tuition and. on this ground, as matter sell tied by cOtempO-anpOuS practice, hao re- trained from expressing the opinion that the Tariff laws transCendSd constitutional limits as the centlem An suppOses. What did say at Faneuil Hall, as far as 1 nUw remember, was, that this was originally matter of doubt ful construction. The gentleman himself, suppose. thinks there is no doubt about #, and that the laws are plainly against the Constl- tuition, Mir. Madison's letters, already re- ferred to, contain, in my judgment, by far the most able cxpOstlonn extant OI this part oi the Constitution. He has satisfied me, SD tar as the practice of the Government had left It an open question.
 With great majority of the Representa- | tves of Massachusetts, 1 voted against 'lle Tariff of 1894. My reasons were then glFen' and l will not now repeat them. Bnt' not
 withstanding our dissent. the great States "t
 New York, Pennsylvania, Ohoi and hen- lucky went for the bill, in almost unhroken column, and it passed. Congress and the l President sanctioned it, and II became the law ] of the iand. What, then, were We to do Our only option was. either to fall in with this settled course of pnbllc policy, and accomm"- date ourselves to it as well as we could, or to embrace the South Carolina doctrine. and talk of nufying the statute by Stale inter ] ference.
 1 This last alternative did not suit our prin- ciples, and, of course, Ne adopted the form CT. In 1897. the subject came again before Congress-, on d proposition favorable to wool and wool!ens. We looked upon the system of protection as being fixed and settled. The law of 1924 remained. 1t had gone into fnil
 operation, and in regard to some objects ln- l tended by it, perhaps most of them. had pro duced ali it's expected effects. No man pro-
 posed to epeal it, ne man attempted to renew the general contest on its principle. But ow- ing to subsequent and unforeseen occnrren. ces. the benefit intended by it to wool and woolen fabrics. had not been realized. Events not known here when the law passed had taken place, which defeated its object in that particular respect. measure Was accorc- ingy brought forward to meet this precise
 deficiency, to remedy this particular defect
 It was limited to wool and WoolIrns. Was ever any thing more reasonable Ii the pol icy of the Tariff laws had brcome establish ed in principle, as the permanent policy ot the Government, should they not be revised and amended. and made equal, like other laws as exirencies should arise. or justice re- ouire? Because we had doubted about a. dOpting the system, were we 10 refuse to cure it's manifest defects, after It became a.
 dopted, and when no one attempted us re-
 neal? And this, Sir, is the inconsistency so
 much bruited. had voted against the Ia
 riff of 18s4-but it passed; and in 1927 and
 1928, I voted to amend it, in point essentla
 to the interest of my constituents. where Is the inconsistency? Could do otherwise
 Sir. does political consistency consist m al
 ways giving negative votes! Does It require
 of public man to refuse to concur ID amend ing laws. because they passed against his con sent? Having voted against the Tariff ori- ginalIv, does consistency demand that should do all in my power to maintain an unequal fa- riff. burdensome to my own constituents, Tn many respects, favorable in none To con sistency of that sort, l lay no clalm-and there is another sort to which lay as little and that is. kind of consistency, by winch persons feel themselves as much bound to oppose proposition after it has become the law of the land, as before.
 The bill of 1927, limited, as have said. to the single object in which the tariff "f lSs4' had manifessly failed in its effect, passed the House of Representatives. but was lost here. We had then the act of 1928. need not re- ] cur to the history of a measure so recent. Its enemies spiced it with whatsoever they thot would render it dstasteful; it's friends took it, drugged as it was. Vast amounts of proper ty, many millions. had been invested in man. ufactures, under the inducements of 1924. Events called loudly. as thought. for further regulation to secure the degree of protection intended by that act. was disposed tu vote for such regulation and desired nothing more but certainly was not to be banterrd out of my purpose by threatened augmentation of duty on n1olasses put into the bil! for the a. vowed purpose of making it obnoxious. The vote may have been right or wrong, wise or unwise but it is little less than absurd to al Iege against it an inconsistency with opposition to the former law.
 Slr, as to the general subject of the Tarih, have little now to say. Another opportuni- " may be presented. I remarked the other day that this policy did not begin with us in New England; and yet sir, w-England is charged with vehenence, as being favorable, or charged with equal vehemence, as being | unfavorable to the Tariff policy. just as best suits the time, place, and occasion for making 1 some charge against her. The credulity of the public has been put to it's extreme capaci- " of false impression, relative to her con duct, in this particular. Through all the South, during the late contest, it was New England policy, and New England admin stratiOn, that was atfiicting the country with