Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-08-31

mas also been alleged against me, that gave my
sahcuon TO law which recognized 'the protective sys
tenn as the settled policy Of the country Upon what
authority this allegation is made am ignorant It's NOT
sustained by any words which have uttered or bv anv
language IN the context of the law by any interference
TO be drawn from either II il is TO be inferred from H.,
fact, that the resrctioniss i'm he conprom<c &
declared themselves winskp enter into, did not agree 10
abandon protection, which he claimed as ,;ob1 II 10
admitted that they did not. Nothing is more certain than
tat no law would have been passed. had this abandon
ment been demanded one of its conditions Tbo
basis upon which the law protested TO be founded
was that Of mutual compromise and concession -
where one sac surrenders the very ground which
Is IN dispute, there may be victory defeat bu mutual
ana concession are terms, utterly napplcable
10 sucn position oil Tie parties Ii by the allegation tho
meaning Is intended TO be conveyed that hessrs BI
and MITCHELL and myself who voted Tor the act of 1892 in
any mode or manner recognized the protective system a
NE settled policy OF the country, would be sufficient
TO deny tile impuation and 10 ask the proof But nei
Their the conduct of those Of my colleagues whom bayo
named nor Of myself is susceptible of an amIir,ons a.,
depreciation. Upon the floor OF the House of Renreso,n
uves, repeated what had often stated bo,I h. ,
elsewhere that in my opinion, protective tariff was nm
constitutional unequal aud oppressive called ,uon ,bo
friends oil Free Tradenot 10 acknowledge The consi
uiuonahty or the policy OF protective tariH-not 10
yield any principle 10 sacrifice any nteres,~brt
10 iorbear from insisting upon the sudden ALAMEDA
ment OF system, which would be attended wiib ,h
run I o. nlions-to endeavor TO Obtain ameoration
OF ts provisions, by compromise with their opponents
anu 20 poPohe all efforts Tor its repeal, 10 future and
more ausPicious period General Blair so far from CON
ceivng that his vote recognition .of The settled %
hcy OIL the protective SYSTEM, declared that he M nor
Vo!e Tor The bill as compromise of the subject mr. nc
quieus OF the complaints ofthe South b,f en- The ,,,
pie Of reductions; and Mr.. Mitchell who smoke NJ len,h
against the BILL gave his support for raasons -
TO those which had been assigned bv General Bajr uJ
my conduct in relation TO this bill been the reverse m bat
II was nad voted against il, and had this vote been cited
10 ESTABLISH that had been inconsistent and reochc,os
to my duty, should have felt that was incomnetcnt 80
defend myself against these grave accusations mieL
nave urged as subtertuge, that would not suffer los,
I DC cnro"ed IN FAVOR OF any protective tariff but
would not have been coniounded and siIenceJS L IL
Iepy ulat the law which refused TO vote for had been
feceu law more grieyous, and which contained pro
ecuVe duties more onerou would be in force; and a ~,
declining to exert myself accomplish the passage of ,b
ACT oil 1857, virtually contributed 10 rvct pon NV
citizens the greater oppression of the act S isoS
The compromise which recommended i'm the Honso oc
hSTy WISE iG9Giaar irs:ifs
destruction OF the Union. To avert this deep and dire
calamity an immediate remedy necessary-that rene
ly could not be administered withou, the cooperation of
the friends and the adversaes of projections ha co.one
ration TO the extent which has been mentioned, OBJ
tanned: it unconnected with any compact erpyesS mr.
implied as to fS settled policy Of the cOunry or as
to the true construction OF the powers lay and col
iect taxes" o regulate commerce. That the pro-
tective principle is contained in the act Of 1882 is
il also contained in the bill which
was reported by hr. McDuie, the chairman of The
Committee OF Ways and Means for in that bin duties Of
% per centum adj vaorem for prescribed periods wcre o
Cotton Bagging, WOollens, &c afterwards the duty was
to be gradually reduced TO II IL per cen, adj vaorem
which, under that bill, estimated To- be The rate of
duty lchich accessory for revenue The constitl-
ondlty of the protective system plainly admitted
by egsang for the continuance of protected Items
during single year, as by esslating for all of them.
without any limitation as 10 time Although The principle
oil nv
although is embraced within the provisions of The of
1882 have yet supposed myself less at liberty
now, than formerly, to all my exerions to erase il
from our statute book; and derive little confidence in
the repeal of protective tariffs, from the fact that dmnu-
lion OF the power of those who have hitherto been re-
garded to be the and uncompromisne supporters
OF protection, manifested by the passage Of the act Of
July last in spite their unemng and strenuous oppo-
to it, aided by the cooperation of seycrai IF td
who term themselves the friends Of free trade amone
whom included, both of our Senators and six
OIL our hepresentauyes. These Senators and Repre-
sentaves might have been able to reconcile their conduct
WIN what they conceived to be policy and duty. could
not initiate their example, shall be prevailed upon TO
'hk that ought to have done until shall he pefsuad-
the 6urthen oil protective duties is increased by
reducing their rate and GmOiDli:-and that where the
choice is submitted TO representative Of uhioctng hs
constituents to greater lesser evil he ought TO pre-
fer nilicing upon them The greater.
Ameiorations in the existing Tariff have been achieved
in Congress- which will be produced by tie election of
new members, according 10 the Apporionment Bill of the
last session. there is every reason to expect at sin r
her advances will be made towards the iulfment of what
is desired by the friends of unrestricted industry In the
interim, What "dS been DONE impede, but will ra-
her dccecrdfe the progress Of more just and liberal legs-
auoP were called upon to state what firmly believe
c be the OF the tariff system which now uIscs
our state should conscenousy reply, that it is to be
attributed to the Act OF the 9Th of April, 1916, the pas
sage OF which was so srenuousy advocated by three
tourtbs Of the delegation from South Carolina that they
insisted upon ''the necessity OF ahorling protection IL
manufactures, 10 PIT them beyond the reach IF cOnfin-
gency from foreign competition" The restrictive moa-
of the government before the late war with Creat
Britain, and the interruption to Commerce. during
that war, had virtually protected domestic manufac,
lures; but when the Act Of April 1916 was under
discussion, the duties which were intended for pro-
lection, generally SO light as almost 10 have
escaped observation. I'm April, 1916 the principle
OF protection openly avowcd and enforced in many
instances, by correspondent duties. Then was invented
the mischievous and delusve conryance Of the mini
NUNS, which first applied to that fabric the
cria of which constitutes the great staple Of the South
IL is true that provision inserted that the Of
duty upon manufactures Of cotton and wool should
duced within three years but these the only csc-
lions in that Act Its protective character, in other re-
spects, was preserved The minimum upon Cotons, by
the operation OF which those Of the East Indies were dyen
25 cents, without the annexation Of any Limitation as TO
time. High duties upon other commodities were imposed
without any reservation; and among them the duty upon
salt, which is now ten cents the bushcl, fixed At
twenty cents, and the duty upon brown sugar which
DC tie act OF 1882, will be cents tc pound, fix
eel at cents the pound From the OF the passage Of
the Act Of April 1916, tie transfer of capital invited
and rapidly diverted from us natural channels into invest.
in those einp0ymcnts Of labor which were snt.
lated by Legislative protection. These investments have
been made upon extensive scale that Withdrawal Of
them cannot be attempted otherwise than slowly and graz
dully without the inevitable ruin of millions Of icl-
low citizens, large proportion Of whom originally
as hostile TO protective tariff Tie inhabitants
Of our State The sin The Of having aided in the
passage OF the Act Of 1916 cannot be imputed 10
neither responsible for 0at law for thc caanites
Of which II has been tho baciul source. have never
given vote upon any question he favor of ts prncplos
These principles have always resisted and shall con
nuo TO resist them by Oh the means IN my power which
consistent with The obligations of honesty respect for
the letter and spirit OF the federal compact and