Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-11-09
-u:h .ooules. to pro,enl IL. bc4s jpsslsd out Of Wow

The same Tariff may, then, be both a measure Of reve.
nue. and one oil protection; and 10 determine whether il be
so, we must examine the duties Of which It consists. But
wha' m we TO inquire into, TO determine with reference
10 any particular duty, whether il be a revenue duty cor a
protective duty! Not into its amount: for a duty OF 8, or
w. or %, or 100 per cent, may be the one as well as the
otner. Not into its operation for every duty, on an ar
ucie' the like OF which is produced among ourselves, aE.
,ords IN some degree protection to the home manufacturer.
INTO what, then, are we to inquire! Into the object ,cith
a r'e'c to ,rhieh the duty was first laid, and fixed where
II was hxed; or continued after being laid. fthat object
De revenue solely, then Il tho act Of imposing II, or OF con-
nnni'g u, purely q measure Of revenue although de
operation OF the measure may DO to afford protection. II
The object DO protection solely, then is the measure purely
one oil protection: although its operation may be 10 yield
revenue. IL the duty be laid, or continued, or fixed where
u Is hxed, with a view to both objects. then is the mea-
sure, one Of both revenue and protection.
Does not every man, who has ever bestowed a thought
upon the subject, know this' What is the ground on
which we are in this respect divided! What constitutes
the essential difference between a Taridite and an Anti
triHtc,-between the advocates and the opponents of the
Protective System! The former advocate the imposition
and OF encouraging particular branches of industry. The
iauer oppose the imposition OF duties for those purposes.
As UNJUST, or unconstitutional, or both. There is one OBJ
Jcct, other than revenue, with aview TO which, a man HAY
support tic continuance of a duty at a particular point, or
wen a new imposition. without thereby being, in the
sIic'cs, sense Of the term, an advocate Of the Protective
system. mat object ~, TO save the interests embarked in
some particular branch of industry, from the injury thai
would result from the sudden discontinuance Of the duty,
or from some accidental and temporary cause, the opera
lion oil which may be prevented by the additional |imposi-
uon' Buthe who advocates such a measure, for the pur-
pose oil MAINTAINING a particular branch Of industry,
ana preventing the capital and labor engaged in il from
being withdrawn, Is, 10 that extent, an advocate Of the
fro'ecuye Systein IN its pursst essence Particularly, is
q whenth object OF tho measure Ia, TO foster the
gro,cfh OF the branch in questions: Ho who advocates
such u course, as a systea,-with a view to !. foster the
INDUSTRY Of tho country. /" 10 provide inv estmonts for ia CAPT.
,si aud labor, aud home markets for is agricultural pro-
duce, &c. is. to the fullest e1fent, and in the re,y s~trictesi
sense oil the term, an ultra advocate Of the Protective
system. III its highest quiutsssonco. This, il will be do
monstratod, Mr.. Calhoun was,
Before wa leave this subject. 1t may no, bs ami.s,o give
a moments consideration 10 the real meaning Of the term
incidental, when applied to protection. A vague use of
1t has been made 10 do no small service, in GOV ering the
most OF organizations aud untruths which hope to break
up. Besides, al a moment whsn the subject Of duties or
imports occupies so large a share Of public attention, il is
highly important that We should know precisely what
we mean when We talk Of Incidental protection.
du'y laid with . Wow 10 revenue exclusively, may
have tho operation OF ahording protection to sonie home
manufacture and the same effect may DO produced
with a view TO this effect. The difference between
the two cases Is obvious; in one, the protection afford
intended effect. The degree Of protection afforded in the
two cases may be the same, or il may be different but ir
we except these differences OF mere degree, the difference
just pointed out is the only imaginable difference be-
tween tile protection Afforded by one duty and that afford
ed by another. In both cases, and in all cases, the opera-
fton, the way in which the protective effect i, produced.
$ The same: II Is by raising the price OF the imported aru-
Gle; and thus enabling the home producer 10 pre- sent 10 the
consumer, a similar article OF the same price. So far,
Then, IS the distinction Of incidental and direct, has sny
foundation, 1t rests upon this difference. So far as
these words, when applied TO protection, have any real
meaning IL $50 this difference, and TO IL alone, that they
refer. a Tepenue duty, fixed al a certain point, tcifh a
rieto to incidental protection, is nothing but a contradie-
ZION in terms To say that a duty affords protection 10 a
certain article, is TO say, that il prevents the importation
OF an article that would be, but for the duty, consumed in
the place Of the former. To the very extent, then, that
Its operation is protection, to that very same extent does its
operation cease TO be revenue. If this operation be
intended, then has there been an Intentional sacrifice of
so much revenue 10 70 much protection; and to talk
OF this intended sacrifice of revenue. as the incidental
operation OF n revenue du,y-when the only real
distinction between the protective operation Of a duty in
any two cases, refers solely to the absence OF that very i'm
tenuon, IN one oil them Is to cheat ourselves with an un-
meaning word. One OF the fallacies in which this term
has played the chief part, deserves particular notice.
With reference to high duties, imposed at the time when
Were was a demand for a great revenue, but admitted TO
have been. nj the same time, "arrsnged so as 10 afford in
cidental ProtectioD, il has been insisted that the protec-
'lon thus afforded was incidental, because the revenue pro-
duced by the duties was wanted. To see iuto Ibis f.llacy,
IL ia only necessary 10 ask, what amount of revenue the
and where they would have been fixed, had they been
fixed solely with a view to make them produce that
amount! That they would have been fixed at some lower
point, Is q TACT involved in the very propositions. If no adj
dition had been made to them on account OF protection,
ihey would, in no sense, have been arranged with y view
to protection. In some degree or other, then they were
made higher than they would have been made, had reve-
nue. been their only object; and any such addition whe-
Their the revenue wanted be great or sinall-is itselfa as direct
a protective duty, az if 10 revenue whatever had been
wanted; and a duty to that amount had been impos-
ed, solely for protection. Suppose the necessary amount
u revenue 10 be such as TO require a duty of fifty
per cent, as n mere revenue duty; and that, with
a view to protection, the duty be made ffy-tue per cent.
suppose, again, that the requisite amount Of revenue be
so small as TO require only a duty Of one per cent, and that.
WIN u view 10 protection, the duty be made sir per cent.
so lar as the principle Of protection is involved, so lar as
the cases have any bearing upon the point really in issue
between the advocates and the opponents of duties laid
Tor the purpose of protection, what difference can be point
cd out between them? None. In The latter case. a far
greater amount of revenue than il required, would proba.
bly, be produced; and this is, doubtless, an impol t,nt dife-
renee; but il has nothing TO do with the principle of pro-
lection. Neither has the ratio which the protective addi-
diiion may bear 10 the revenue rate OF the duty. And, so
Tar as lhIs ratio presents a question Of political economy,
the truth is directly the reverse of the vague notions pre-
valent on the subject. In the first case the protection aft.
fOrled would be talked Of as being incidental TO a revenue
duty, and would not be deemed very grievous: ia the latter.
as a direct protection, and as altogether insupportable
In truth, however, the less the addition made TO a duty
Tor The purpose OF protection, relatively is to The amount of
duty required Tor revenue, the worse and more ericyous
II is. when the necessities OF a government require
That the citizen be taxed fifty per cent. OH his consumption.
u IS Infinitely worse 10 add another five per cent. 10 the
buriher, than itisto make the same addition when the 90
vernnient wants. only one per ct. from him. So far, howe
yer, asst regards the principle upon which the tariTouestion
turns, the cases are identical. In both, there is a certain
amount Of duty imposed, not for revenue but for pro,ec.
ton. In both, the operation even Of the prote ctive adj
dition, is the same; which il need not have been, 10 make
the cases Identical in principle. In both, the effect oil the
auui'ional hVe per cent. is 10 impose n burthen to that
amount, upon the whole consumption of the article, be.
yond what the wants Of the government require.
One point yet remains, on which a word may be neces-
sAry'io Tree Tie question from the mis,s which hive been
so indudnously gathered round IT,. Among the ingredi.
ents oil me ttIrbid Hood, raised to overwhelm and coniound
The public mind on this question, the fact, that the CON
snNNHohd'q question was not raised in 1916, has not been
The least copiousy used. Whether this be a fact, or not.
and whatever may be its importance in other respects, il
mas no manner OF bearing upon the subject before us.
mat sunJect Is, the assertion that Mr.. G.. had, in 1916,
gwen ms countenSnee and support 10 the Protective Sys-