The Spartan. [volume] (Spartanburg, S.C.) 1843-1852, 1844-08-28

found 1T difficult 10 decide whether his labors
more resembled those OF a hamminsL bird in a
flower garden, or a butterfly In u farm yard. The
honorable senator referred to the tariff of 1889
said the protection afforded by that tariff was ann
ply sufii. lent; that the great und wise man who
directed the deliberations Of the first Congress had
gwen us model statute--a perfect beau ideal of
the protective system; and holds up this 5eautifu
specimen OF the workmanship Of our wise and
patriotic ancestors assthe prototype aud jus,ilica-
ton for that gigantic monster--,he act of lS42-
that one-eyed Cycl0ps, ''a,oastrxm, horrenaa,a
'afornnc, isgcns, cni iumen ademptum" into whose
voracious cave you may trace the ingoing foot
steps OF his victims, but never solitary vcs-
tige to show that one of those victims has re-
turned
shall now attempt to show the Senate no,
only the principles of protection involved in this
model tariff Of 1889, but of the form and dimen-
slons of the protective system it was then esta-
bllshcd. The average rate of duties imposed by
that act, and regarded by the honorable Senator
from Massachusetts sufficient to give ample
protection to our infant manufactures, was "a per
cent. upon all that class Of commodities to which
Alexander Hamilton refers, in his celebrated re-
port two years afterwards, as coming within the
purriew OF the protective system. l will now
proceed to make few specifications. >ss
The duty Imposed upon woollen manufacture
the greaa mae1sTs Of this prosse.ye system
y, n nm
Virginia Mr.. Archerl then so ably exposed and
denounced in the other branch Of Congress) was
only per cent. in 17S9 less than one eighth part
Of the present duty. &a
The duty on iron and iron manufactures THAT
interest which my friend from Pennsy ylvania iBfr.
Buchanan is always prepared to defend, being
ever on the alert ut every sound tha, indicates
danger) was also five per cent about one twen.
teth part of the present duty.
And cotton manufactures, which are now SUBJ
Ject to rates OF duty ranging from 80 to 15O-the
actual imports OF such as are not excluded ave-
raging so per cent.--then paid only 5 per cent,
raised, however, in $780, to "a per cent. ...-.'
put subsequent to the passage Of the tariff of
l7e9, during the administration of General Wash
ington. and up to the war Of 1912, various other
acts OF Congress were passed, increasing the rates
OF duty. And 1t Is remarkable fact to which L
call the particular attention of the Senate that al
th"neh, in the preurnbi. Of etis=u 1900,
was declared to be "for the support Of govern
mcnt, for the discharge Of the debts of the United
States, and the encouragement and protection Of
manufactures, yet, in all the succeeding acts, the
principal increase of duties is upon articles of
luxury not manufactured in the United States.
and 1t is indicated by their titles that the increased
duties were to raise revenue for specific purposes
The act OF 1890 was entitled can act to raise an
additional sum to discharge the public debit" the
act OF lT92, IAN act 10 raise revenue for defending
the frontiers against Indian depredatons - an
other to defend our commerce in the Mediterra-
mean sea against the Algcrne pirates and so on
throughout. In no single one of these acts is
there any allusion in the title or preamble to the
protection of manufactures y from which it is
| Legitimate inference, that the duties imposed by
the tariff Of 1889 were regarded as tho. tull mea
sure OF protection to manufactures. But with all
the additions made up to the period of the war,
the duties on manufactures did not average Is
per cent. - --75 - ? p 70
But the honorable senator from Massachusetts
seems to regard protection sort Of fmeta phy
cal entity, entirely independent of the rate of
duty, and depending upon the motive of the le-
glslature. He, therefore, considers "a per cent
an ample protection in 1859; because certain
members OF Congress and the preamble declared
1t to be designed as we'll to protect manufactures
as to raise revenue. But he regards the bill on
your table, imposing duties four times as high, as
denying all protection whatever, because the du-
ties are hortsontoI, and called revenue duties |!
II the senator will consent to reduce the present
duties from 40 to 80, to and "a per cent, he
may entltle the law protective tariff as it cer-
talnly will be, as 1t was In 1889, to the extent of
the duties imposed. l acknowledge myself in
debted to the senator from Massachusetts for call
ing my attention to the debates on the tariff of
1889; and L recommend every senator to read
them who wishes to draw lessons from these pure
and primitive fountains OF ,Nisdnrn and pairir,f-
ism. During the whole progress Of the debates
and proceedings, no one thought of rate of du-
ties as high as 10 per cent ad valorem And
when a duty OF + cents pound was proposed on
manufactured tobacco-which could not have
exceeded 125 per cent ad valorem-it was pro-
nounced to be prohbtory. What pgmies were
our ancestors in their simple notions Of protec-
tive system and the blessings of high taxes And
what rail road progress have we made in the
mysterious arts of taxation and plunder!
One Of the duties proposed in 1889, was duty
OF SIX cents gallon on molasses; and so vehe-
ment was the opposition of Massachusetts, that
the debate on this item occupied nearly as much
time as the whole of the other items, and Mr..
Ames significantly intimated that the Union would
he endangered And finally, although Massa-
chusets did not proceed to the extremity of nulli-
! hcatlon, she had the duty reduced to 81 cents a
gallon.
! should have been surprised at this /: but I
lind, from a review OF the history of Massachu-
setts that she has always been more sensitive to
taxes imposed upon herself and exhibits a more
philosophical composure in bearing the burdens
imposed upon others for her own benefit, than
any State in the Union.
Mr.. Madison, in the course of that debate. dis