Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-08-31

of the South--the exclusive friends of protection
ON the one hand, of free trade, ON the othcr;-
but whether any middle course Gould be devised, |
which would reconcile conflicting prcludccs and
the fury raging In the bosoms oil
the two great tariff parties into which the people
were divided and prevent that collision between
them, which might not only disturb the harmony,
but cndampcr the existence of the Union.
The difficulty of cilcctng this arrangement, was
probably, greater than any which had ever been
presented to the deliberations of Congress, since
the aiop,ion of the Federal Constitution. Whilst
a large minority of the people regard i protective
tariff to be unauthorized by the Constitution, ma
ority ofthcm have arrived ut Numerically oppo-
site conclusion. If all those who were hostile to
protective tariff, pronounced 1t to be unconsttu-
tional and all those who were in favor of ii, pro-
nouncc il TO be constitutional, it might, naturally,
he presumed that these discordant differences result
cd from sectional prcludccs or individual interests.
Bat such is no; he relative position of the contend
ing parties. The advocates of protection are
unanimous on their side oil the question, where
as it's advcrsarics differ among themselves.
Many of the most intelligent delegates to
the Free Trade Convention which met in
Philadelphia in September last expressed their
conviction of the legitimate power of Con-
gress to pass protect vc tariff acts, though
they condemned their principle, as fraught with evil
and injustice; and the same opinions we're avowcd
by Mr.. Galatn, the author of 4 memorial from the
Convention, in which the injurious consequences
of legislative interference with the capital and
labor of Individuals demonstrated with abil-
i;y and clcurncSS which have not been cquallcd by
any production which has issued from the Amcri-
press. The majority of the people not only
think that protective duties constitutional, but
they confident, that they essential TO the
general veal; and in support of their views, they
rely upon the numerous protective tariff acts which
have been passed, and upon the appreciation of
them by every President of the United States.
The minority thoroughly convinced, that n
protective tariff impairs the of the communi-
ty, and subjects them to heavy taxation for the
benefit of the comparatively, few. When the pco
pie thus differ upon subject, in which their inter
ests are deeply involved-when those interests are
believed To he foscred depressed by legislation,
according to geographical positions, it must be
Obvious, that Congress could pass act so modi-
lying protection as to give complete and gcnSral
satisfaction. The only course, therefore, which
the late Congress could adopt to calm the public
excitement, and to arrest the pcrilous march of
deep and bitter discomfort, was TO propose law
upon the basis of mutual concession and COM
promise. Upon this basis the act of July,
1889, was founded by which the conditions of
concession and compromise were understood to be,
that the advocates of restriction should consent to
n considerable reduction in the rate of protective
duties and in the amount of revenue TO be collected
from imports, and that some changes should be
made in those parts ofthc system where its pressure
was peculiarly obnoxious. The ultra rcstrctionists,
and the partzans of Notification did not subscribe
to these terms the former being to any
dimuution of the protective duiics-the latter re-
pudiatng every species of compromise which did
not include the abandonment of the principle of
protection These utraiss, however, were mi
nority. The ma ority ucqucsccd i'll the compro-
mise which has been mentioned; but where the real
the supposed interest of the parties vari-
ant, ii vain to expect that any compromise
could be so executed as to- he exempt from mutual
objections. An approximation towards that which
each of them desired, was as much could have
been, reasonably, calculated upon, the passage of
the first tariff act which had been introduced during
nanny years with the declared intention of rcdu-
cling the rates of protection. That approximation,
IT seemed to me, effected by the act of 1892,
imasnuch as by it the mnmums upon woollcns
were repealed, and the aggregate of the revenue
and the amount of the protective duties consdera-
bly, diminished
Being satisfied that this act was incomparably
better than that of 1928. l accordingly voted for
it. Upon what ground L can, even pausbly, be
charged with impocy Inconsistency, for thus
voting, am unable To discover. 1t is true that
have always expressed myself adverse TO the con-
and the cxpcdicncy Of protective
tariff; but Whatever may be my opinion and
he opinions of the larger portion of the
citizens of the South, j am compelled to adj
nit that the constitutonality Of protective la
Iff is not only dcbatcablc question, upon which
wise and honest men may and do disagree, but that
he weight of numbers and of great names pre-
ponderaes i'll favor of those who Inaintain its
Under these circumstances when
reflected that the act of 1882 diminished the
listing duties, repealed the minimums upon wool
lens, (among the most odiOus devices of most
NdIous law) and lightcned, generally, the hurthcn
of taxation, felt myself not merely justified, but
impcriously required 10 facilitate lis passage, by
every means in my power Had supported
h4ll which augmented the protective duties, which
extended the deceptive minimums, which added to
the public burthcns, the impoty and the incon-
sistcncy of my cendLct might well have been no.
ticcd as meritiDg the severest animadversion.
1t has also been alleged against me, that gave my
sanction to law which recognized ''the protective
system the settled policy of the country;" upon
what authority this allegation is made, am igno-
rant. 1t is not sustained by any words which l
have uttered, or ny any language in the context of
the law, or by any Inference to be drawn from CT.
Their. lit is TO be inferred from the fact that the
in the compromise which they de-
clarcd themselves willing to enter into, did not
agree to abandon protection, which they claimed
right it is admitted that they did not. Nothing
is more certain, than that no law would have been
passed, had this Abandonment been demanded as
one of lis conditions. The basis upon which the
law was profcssed to be founded was that of mutu-
al compromise and concession. Now, where one
side surrendcrs the very ground which is in dispute,
there may be victory defeat, but mutual com
promise and concession terms utterly inappli-
cable 10 such position OF the parties. If by the
the meaning is intended TO be conveyed,
that Mcssrs. Blair and Mitchell and myself, who
voted for the act of 1892 i'll any mode or manner
''the protectiIc system as the settled
policy Of the county, it would be sufficient to de-
ny the imputntion, and to ask for the proof. But
neither the conduct of those Of my colleagues
whom have named, nor ofmysclG is susceptible
of an ombgno"s Interpretation. Upon the floor of
the House Of Representatives repeated what had
often stated both there 81 elswherc, that, in my OPT
MON, protective tariff unconstitutional, unc-
quail s. oppressive. called upon the friends of Free
Trade not to acknowledge the consttuIionality or
the policy ola protective tar-not to yield any prin-
ciplG to sacrifice any Intercst-bul 10 forbcar from
insisting upon the sudden abandonment of a system,
which would be attended with the ruin of millions
to cndcavor to obtain omclioration OF its pro-
visions by COMPROMISE with their opponcn;s and TO