Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1842-03-07
OBJECTIONS TO A PROTECTIVE TAR.
IFF Considered
OBJECTION TO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.

III.
one to Protection; 1t s, Hot Congress has mol pow.
er under The constitution In any shape, direct or in
direct, 10 give protection. This is The objection.
in its broadcast shape and is urged by but few.
aud those the most ultra anti.tariff men, a, the
South. OF course ifhis is granted, there is an
end TO the question. But there are others who
present the s0me objection under different
phase they deny tie power to grant protection,
only MS 1t may follow incidentally, from raising
revenue And here let us suy that this must NOT
I've CO nfornded with one OF the positions of pro-
ec'ionisls viz. that the right 10 lay dscriminatiye
dnhes Tor the purposes of protection is incidental
10 tho power granted in the constitution so Inv
ana cohect taxes, duties, lmposts, and excuses" &c.
The opponents of protection deny thul the now.
er thus conferred can be used with the intent of
granting protection and affirm that the intent
must be for revenue only, and duties arranged nc
cordngly. Protection, with them, is entirely incl
dentOl-or accidental. The protectionst insists
that the po,cer of granting protection is incidental
TO the revenue power and is thus as fully confer
red on Congress as it would lie by specific grant
Protection, with these, is no, thing of accident,
but ihingto be aimed at as constantly and sys
the scope of the federal government The sec.
ond class of Ubeetors-tho acknowledgements
prises the mass OF anti-proectionisis, in every
section of the country. In the North, they may
be said to comprise the mass of The locofoco pres
SEES and leaders, whose members in Congress are
the allies Of the ultra anti-nriff men, always vo-
ting and acting with them. Theoretically, they
differ somew hat from each olher-praccalIy they
are one /; Athertoh votes with Rheti in the House.
and Woodbury. votes with Calhoun in the Senate.
Admitting in theory that protection may ensue in
cidentaily from revenue duties, they unite with
the uItrasts in using every way Of getting reven-
ue other than by imposing duties on foreign arti-
Giles. Hence they 60, one and all, against the
Land Distribution, and oppose works of internal
improvements ;-as by these modes so much the
less revenue will I've left to be raised by duties
and hence, TOO, bolder men broadly declare in ia
vor Of direct taxation, averring with The Yermont
Patriot of Feb. s. land ,oithoui its saving cause,)
that " ,Oe (they) beIiere DIRECT TAXATION to
be The only equal and just mode Of supporting The
national government
Other things flow directly from their theory
as their primary object is only rerenue, they must,
and generally do, denounce prohibiiory duties al.
together, and insist that all duties should be ar
ranged at point so us to produce the greatest a.
mount Of revenue, when large amount is need
ed or, less amount being required, then must
the rate OF duties be graduated and reduced to The
amount required. Protection, thus, is thing
of mere chance, TO begin with if it chance to be
granted when a large amount of revenue is re-
u, ,a vyho "a.
ed aud is not therefore permanent, and cannot be
relied upon. 1t may chance, too that the revenue
rate of duties may be high enough to protect one
branch of industry and not anolher-nud the re-
sui. is precisely that partial, unequal, and unjust
system, which the opponents OF Protective Tar
i'll profess 10 hold AN nbomnabIe thing alto =
gelher. To illustrate this part of the subject more
fully, we beg leave to quote from the Vermont Pat
riot Of Feb. l2. After stating that IA millions of
revenue is required fol 1912, the editor of The Pat
riot says:
"The difficulty, if any lies in supplying this
defciency--in so arranging the duties upon i'm
pors as 10 produce The amount Of rerenue requisite
TO discharge the annual Liabilities of the govern
men Nlh this view, i high duty is laid up
on The staple products Of our country-icooi and
i0ooiens for instance IN order 10 protect The domes-
NC uTHCle U0eS u nor operate 10 deIeQt the OBJECT OF
rerenue by diminishing The amount of importG-
tionsg We can readily see that, if we levied SO
high duty upon these articles as TO prevent their
importation altogether, all revenue would be cut
Of Hence, II strikes our mind that, in proportion
as The duty becomes protective, tho amount of
revenue must he diminished, the idea OF protection
10 The home product implying the keeping out of
our markets the foreign. And, then, again, if
high duties are levied on necessaries and uxuries
OF foreign production, toW not The additional a.
mount Of duty so enhance The price as 10 hare the e
feet 10 diminish The amount consumed? Upon the
whole, then, may not the administration find diff
culty in raising the requisite amount OF revenue /?
for they have not been dull as not TO have
learned that funds required 10 administer the
government with facility. May they not ,1ish the
land revenue back in the Treasury, instead of being
scattered over the Union TO benefit nobody /? Let
them work"
Observe, first, that the Patriot adopts the anti
protective rule of graduating duties by the amount
ofrcvenue required. Observe next, the objection
that "a high duty" will operate TO reduce reyen-
ne and so operate " in proportion as the duty
becomes protective;" and also that high duties
on luxures and necessares by enhancing tho price
will diminish the quantity consumed-of course
diminishing the quantity imported, and thus re-
ducc the amount of revenue. The whole object
is TeNehue tHe o'yoCuoh isi 'hal pioeS'No uutes
ON wool and woolens, for instance"-wi d-
mnsh revenue; and hence the irresistible con-
cluson thar we must not hare proitctipe dulles on
"wool and woollens," for instance What say the
wool-growers TO that? But The same objection
may be made-and is DANGEROUSLY made by bold
err, though NE believe not more decided enemies
of Protective Tarff,-to duties on every article
OF whatever kind. They insist that al protective
duties reduce the revenues or, TO use the idea
of Mr.. Rhett, that " where protection begins rev.
cnue ends !" and SO they go against oil duties for
the purpose of protection. "Wool and woolens'
ara not the only things which would suffer under
their system, bur every other article of lnanuiac-
: turns; ave- and the very produce Of the soil As