The northern galaxy. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1844-1848, 1844-02-14

vi iaisinS Icfcuuc, ny whatever rates oil
duties! Is the great claim of protection to
be answered by the mere fact that an amount
of revenue is to be raised adequate to the
wants of the government? If so, then if the
government can most conveniently raise the
required amount, from half dozen articles,
no matter what they may be, there is, then,
protection to the extent OF the idea expressed
by the word incidental. This would be ac-
, cidental protection, and, of course, might he
no protection at all. Ard that is just the pro-
lection that the most strenuous advocates of
free trade are willing to give. For those who
wish to look one way and row the other
and there are enough of them" Incidental"
is marvellously convenient and very "ju-
diciOuS" word.
But there is another form of this disguise.
1t is-protection incidental to discriminating
duties-that is, duties that shall discriminate
as to the rates of duty, between different ar
ticles. But here the question arises-What
shall be the rule of discrimination! Shall it
have respect to the purpose Of revenue or to
that of protection! If to the purpose of rev.
enue only, then the protection may be just as
accidental as in the other case; because il is
very apparent that Congress may discriminate
in the manner best suited to the mere purpose
of raising revenue, and nave no regard what
ever to protection, and, in fact, give none 10
any interest. If abundant revenue be the
only purpose, the duties may be laid mainly
on articles which do not come in competition
with any thing we produce; leaving those
which do thus compete, subject 10 duty Civ
ing no protection. Indeed duty of fifteen
per cent. on the latter class of articles would,
by reason of the heavy importations under
such duty, raise, probably, more revenue
than 40 or 80 per cent.
So, then, we may have a discriminating
tariff, and yet have no adequate protection
Indeed the discrimination may be for the very
purpose of destroying protection. Away,
then, with general, indefinite language,
only suited to the purpose Of double dealing,
and hold the professed friends of protective
I tariff to something which shall fasten them
to the true idea of protection, and compel
/ them to toe the mark, or go openly to their
own place.
| What, then, may be asked do we want
l answer-DiscriminatiO for The sake Of pro-
lection ; so that if a revenue of twenty mill
ions is needed, it shall, by discrimination, be
adjusted upon the various articles of importa-
tion-moderate upon those we do not pro-
duce, and high on those we dO-so as TO raise
the amount required. and give protection 10
our own industry. Every one must see that
such a discrimination is very different from
that which has respect to the single purpose
of raising the twenty millions. The one
would keep protection steadily in view, and Sc
cure it; the other would look TO revenue alone
and, that secured, would have protection tC
take care of itself.
have laid down these principles-whicl
I Il.
will undertake to contrOvert-fort the purpose
of testing the doctrines of the great leader o.
Locofocoism, as we find them set forth in hi:
letter, dated the 18th of February last, in re
ply to inteTogatOries addressed to him by
1.-THE Democratic y State Convention of In
diana, held at Annapolis on the Sth of January
1913. 1t contains formal exposition or ratk
er justification, of his views on the subject Of
the protective policy; and is probably TO be
the formula of the doctrines on this subject
during the canvass of 1S44.
Mr.. Van Buren, opens his exposition by re-
ferring to his letter "to the Shocco Spring;
meeting in 1892" in which he says he eds
tinctly avowed conviction that the establish
ment of commercial regulations with a view
to the encouragement Of domestic interests is
within the Constitutional power Of Con
greSS- lie goes on 10 say
"More than ten years have elapsed since
that communication was made; and during
that entire period the people of the United
States have paid large amounts Of duties a
vowedly imposed for the encouragement and
protection of domestic manufactures, witt
gradual reductions according TO the prOvis
ions of the compromise act Of 1888. The
unbiased sentiment of the country in respec
to what is, under such circumstances, the
proper rnlc for legislative action upon thi:
subject has, think. by the course of event:
and the progress Of opinion, been brought Il
the conclusion briefly expressed in one of thu
res buttons of your convention, viz: ga DIS
eliminating tariff for rerenue purposes only
and ,clich lciH Incidentally protect America'
Industry"
Here, then, we have MIR. Van Buren,.
''rule for legislation upon the subject viz
discrimination for rereRWe purposes ONLY
and which will incidentally protect American
industry Here is protested protectiOn.-
But what is it? Incidental protection; anc
incidental to discrimination. But what sor
of discrimination Discrimination for the
purpose of protectionl Oh no. No such
purpose enters into his contemplation. He
takes, indeed special care TO exclude it, by
declaring that DISCRIMINATION must De lor rev
enue purposes, and for revenue purposes only
So then, we have discrimination and inciden-
tai protection, all fair and NICE" and yet boil
are rendered nugatory by qualification which
expressly excludes every other purpose from
: ..the rule of legislation but that Of raising
revenue, only"
That Mr.. Van Buren, intended to make ;
broad distinction between a tariff for revenue
and tariff for protection is not left to mer'
7 construction of the language Of his "rule o
legislation" He is his own expositor; for
little further on his letter, after having dis
cussed the general question as to the raisin;
: of revenue by imposts compared with drec
taxation, he says
"Of the great mass of opponents TO pro
tective tariff, there is not, so far as know, ;
single State or even district, that has taker
grounds against revenue tariff"
So. then, "revenue tariff is very diff
, ferent thing, in his estimation, from ''Pro
, tective tariff as, of course, it must be, t.
f make it acceptable to the great mass OF op
ponents to protective tariff; and yet tart
discriminating for mere revenue purposes,
, Tho only tariff tn which this DrOfesSed trlenC