The Charlotte journal. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1835-1851, 1842-03-10

had grown up under State protection. and
that this protection ought TO DO continued.
The expression to regulate trade was well
understood at that time, 20 include the en-
couragemenl Of manufactures; and when
this power was taken from the States, and
given 10 the General Government, it was
not in any degree impaired. The power
exists now as fully and ns perfectly, as 1t
did under the Confederation: then, it resid
ed in the States now, in the General Gov.
eminent.
No other view Of this subject can be en-.
,ertained for a moment. The States do
not possess the power to lay discriminating
duties, and if this power does not reside 10
Congress, the United States presents the
anomaly Of great nation, stripped OF
power which has ever been regarded as es.
sentia, not only to national prosperity, but
10 national existence. This argument,
which has been put forth with great power
by Mr.. Madison, Gen. Jackson, and others,
is perfectly incoutroyer,ible.
Not only The commercial and general
welfare provisions, bu, the express gran, Of
power 10 "laY aud collect taxes, duties,
and imposis," unrestricted as it is, places
the constitutionaity of protective Tariff
beyond all reasonable dispute. Congress is
authorized to lay duties to promote the gen.
eral welfare. This is all that the wsrmest
friend Of protection desires. Regulate
commerce SO as 10 give the three great IN
,erests-Commerce Agriculture, Manulac.
tures-the best security, and We ask no
more. No enlightened Statesman will
contend for such an exercise Of the Com.
merclal power, as will injure Agriculture,
or destroy Manufacture. This power is to
be exercised upon commerce, but not for
commerce alone; il is TO be so exercised
as TO give 10 industry lis greatest reward.
And this is TO be done by countervailing
duties, and by imposing the heavies! duty
upon those articles which come in compeil
ton with our own labor. II is our duty to
protect Agriculture as well as Manuiac.
lures. On this broad principle the frs.
tariff act was founded. That act not only
recognised the right Of protecting AmcH-
can manufactures, by discriminating, bat
by countervalling duties. Mr. Madison, in
The debate upon that subject, said "Some
gentlemen have seemed to call in question
the policy Of discriminating between ma.
lions in commercial alliance with the Uni.
ted States, and those with whom no
treaties exist. For my own part, am
well satisfied that there are good and sub
stantial reasons for making it. Ia the first
place, it may not be unworthy of considera
ton that the public sentmen, of America,
will be favorable TO such discrimination.
There is another reason which, perhaps, is
moro applicable TO some parts OF The Union
than TO others one Of The few nations with
which America has formed commercial
connections has relaxed considerably IN that
rigid policy before pursued-not SO far, 10
be sure, as America could wish, with respect
to opening her ports TO our trade; but she
has permitted our ready built ships a sale,
and entities them 10 the same advantages I
when owned by her own citizens, as if they
had been built in France. The more this
subject ls examined the greater necessity
there appears for Discrimination"
Mr.. Baldwin, Of Georgia, said: "Thiuk.
ing a discrimination necessary, aud know
ing that The voice Of the people calls for it,
we shall mol answer the end for which we
came here, by neglectiug or refusing to
make H."
Mr.. Tucker, Of S. c., expressed himself
in favor Of some discrimination. Mr..
Smith, OF Nd, stated that there was pro.
priety ID discriminating between nations
in, and not in, alliance with US. Mr.. Jack. |
son, Of Georgia, said " am il favor Of
discriminating duties"
These remarks and many others that I
nigh. be quoted, show that the sennmen.
prevailed 10 the first Congress, that in ad /
iIstng our tariff, we ought to some extent,
a, least, TO adopt the principle of counter
vailing duties, and to admit products from /
nations in commercial alliance with US on
more favorable terms than from nations NOT |
in alliance.
This, as kindred principle, is recog-
nIsed more fully 10 Inc second public act
passe1 By that Congtess-lhe act imposing
duties on tonnage.
In relation TO this act, Mr.. Goodhue, Of |
Massachusetts,, said " He was glad to
hear from several parts Of the House, iha, I
there was disposition to give preference
to American shipping. This principle ix.
ed, ); only remained for the House TO as
certain the proper degree Of encourage.
ment TO be given"
Nr. Madison said +" He would move to
reduce the duty on fotegn tonnage from
50 cents to 40; but then he would
make il sixty cents per ten after December,
1890. T
Mr. Page, of Va, replied, "That forty
cents was really nothing; fifty was bot a
mere triie. Ninety or a hundred cents
would be very little, aiier the time men.
tioaed. Can gentlemen seriously believe
that small duty Of fifty cents is too high,
when they see British ships paying double
that sum in Virginia 2"
L; is unnecessary to multiply quotations
upon this subject. No member who spoke
upon this su6lec. opposed duty 90 tonnage
giving a preference 10 American bottons.-f