Southern planter., 1832-10-27
JAMES HAMILTON, Jr
sAnrEL + HAMMOND, Sec'y of Stale.
CALHOUN's OPINION OF THE TARs
IEE nIS toQo

erd.S AR CAbHOUN'S OPINION OF THE TAR
co"s' IFF OF 1889.
conn FoRr HILL, 18Th September, 1880
or.+ Cdtemca;-l have been honored BY your not
,nJt he 28th August, inviting me 10 partake of
|6od ~ billie dinner to be given by tho Free Trade an,
bs Rights Association of Chesterfield Distric,
49,. Ihe Court House, on the 18th inst. 10 those o
I, 49, f Senator's aud Representatives who voted n
hist the Tariff bill of the last Session, in esti
s,' boz Of your appreciation Of their conduct on the
I, iuaOu.
lpprOving Of their vote with you, as decided,
amd having the highest Respect politically and
Rlp npnally, for the distinguished individuals Ia
sm the honour is intended, had it been in my
Ne, which lregret 10 say is not, would gladly
n (. lolned my fellow cirzens of Chesterfield in
yme Ibis deserved testimony of respect for their
on a pWoea
eVetg Viewing the subject, as J do. ! cannot SEQ on
e ~ 'ha principle they could have acted otherwise,
oma4 nlea, indeed, thar, which would attach more
20 e ptancetO the detail of the Tariff than 10
engAle obnoxlous and unconstitutional ground, on
ns afhch il rests. whatever division Of sentiment
ecl e may be, as to the former, there can be none
Gals uloihe fact that ilfully recognizes the principle
ande protection. So far from Welding on that point,
au@ fUp Of relaxing, It IL under every respect in
niHhehit can be regarded, more truly, purely and
ema hacally, protective Tariff, than any thai pre-.
| u
ba distributes the burihen more unequally, between
.kppiecied and unprotected articles, and between
9oa fanif and staple States, but il imposes heav
neat sthen, proportion 10 the wants Of the Gov
nmen,; and affords a higher absolute protection
the manufacturers, than any which has ever
. y ben passed by Congress.
If compared with the Tariff Of 1896, the diff
Fence will be found most striking. That was
i, PISSED, when we had debt Of Si3OOO,0OO, this
hen we had debt at all, that was limited, being
offended 10 endure only, as long as the debt for
ss e payment of which, il was imposed, and with
y. Al which there would have been no protection;
~ wv! is permanent, without period to which we
~ nu look forward for reduction; that lald higher
aies on the unprotected articles than the proiec-
NM articles, thus clearly showing that its object
" ls mainly revenue: this, while the duties on the
~ e,c!are more than doubled in most instances, com
T. bred 10 10, either repeals or reduces almost 10
inlhing, the dates on The former, thus clearly
i9aing, that the7man object is protection, and
lni revenue. might go on wath this contrast, by
~, Blowing hat the act of 'l6 raised more money,
han ibe wants of the country required, while
Mat Of '32 raises millions beyond that amount
. hat The one afforded moderate, incidental and
y imporary protection 10 manufactures, which had
~ gown up under the exercise Of the legitimate
r nd constitutional powers Of the Government,
While the other affords protection doubly great,
Without limitation, as to time and without one OF
he reasons that justified the other, and YET, 50
n. lsange thing is the human mind, that we ind
inong the strongest apologsts Of the present, the
h. samest denouncers Of the Tariff of 1916.
,s II we compare the Tariff Of '2l with the pres
". al, though the contrast will not be found so mprk
nj, q, yet the protective character Of tue latter Will be
hund lar more strongly marked than the former
- lsall must admit We had still in "a large debt
| In 0,,. Al. ha
,.r while the amount of the protection was far less
" and the distribution Of the burhen far more equal
~ and yet all must remember that the act OF "a uni
NJ I'D the State in the most determined resistance Il
lhe System, under the lead of one Of cur late Sen
iors.
Nor will the comparison Of tie act Of 1928 llh
N bill Of abominations) be found favorable 10 th
n, present. Passing 10y the disputed point, whethc
h, ahas Or has moi, in reality, reduced the bur'he
Al y The South, which has been 50 fully discussed
IA impossible not TO see, be that decided asi ma.
that the protective feature ls more deeply make
and more firmly fixed than it was even IN that hgI
Nj y obnoxious measure.
Il is, in the first place, a higher protection. AZ
l. hitting, as is claimed by the apologlsts Of the pre-
N entaci, that the duties on the protected aIuc,
tTereduced a million of dollars, though II wou
be easy to show that, small as that sum IS, TIC ea
mate Is over the truth, yet who can doubt but ih
h were the manufacturers TO loose one miiiion
The direct reduction on the protected articles, 'h
would gain many millions by tho reduction IN son
cases. aud the repeal in others, Of the duties on
Unprotected articles, the price OF many ol wh'
enter directly into the expense OF manniaclur
articles, and all indrecty and, Of course lhai
Protection is greater, under this act, than that VIII
nropealed. Ii is, in the next place, far more
equal between the Staple and Tariff States, as
will admit; 10 which, if it be added, that II lmpo
aburhen far hgher IN proportion to the wants
lhe Government, and that it leaves no peT'ot
which we can hope Cor reliel-no future debt to