The Arkansas banner., 1844-03-27
From tbe New York Plebian. I
THE POLICY OF MIR VAN BUREN AND MIR. CLAY ON THE TARIFF, CONTRASTED.

subject of the Tariff, are as opposite as light and darkness. The policy of the one IS friendly, the other hostile to foreign com merce. Mir Clay is in favor of protection, for the sake of protection-in favor of dls- criminaton or differences in duties, for the sole and exclusive object of beneftting partic- ular classes of industry. If duty laid on revenue principles is not sufficiently protec- tive. he is in favor of increasing the duty, with the sole view of protecting the interests of the manufacturing classes.
 That our readers may see that we do not misrepresent Mir. Clay, we will state hls views as expressed by himself in his last speech m the Senate of the United States, March 4th, 1942. In this speech, Mr. Clay entered into detailed view of what he termed "a true public pozicy' of the United States Ills re- marks were made in anticipation oi retre- ment from public life, with desire that hls countrymen should fully understand the line of policy he would pursue If called upon to fill more dignifed station Hear him:
 @But it is said that, by the adoption of our fixed arbitrary maximum of ad yalorem dutv3 we shall not derive that measure of protec= ton which is expected; and admit that there may be certain articles, the product oi the mechanic arts-such for example, as shoes, hats, and ready-made clothing, and sugar, iron, and pepper-some or all ot winch may not derive the protection which they need under the plan propose. On that subject can only say what said at the time oi the passage of the compromise Act: If some few articles shall not prove to be sufficiently pro tected beneath the established maximum rate l should hope that in the spirit of harmony and compromise additional duties above that rate. sufficient to afford reasonable protection to those few articles, by general consent would be imposed. l am not prepared to say whether the rule have suggested, will afford adequate protection to these particular interests or not-I fear 1t may not-But Ii the subject be looked at in the spirit of patriot ism, without party bias or local influences, It will be found that the few articles alluded to, are so distributed, or are of such nature as to furnish the grounds of friendly adjustment. The interests of the sugar of the South may then be set againstthe ironofthe centre, and the production of the mechanic arts, which al though prevailing everywhere, are the most concentrated at the North
 aThen there IS the essential article of iron that Is a great central interest; whether 1t will require higher degree of protection than 1t will derive from such system as l have sketched, have not sufficient iniorma- ton to decide; but this lam prepared to say, that question will be with the Representatives of those States which are chiefly interested, and if their iron is not sufficiently protected, they must make out their case to be an ex- ception to the general arrangement-l again say, I am willing to follow, but l will not lead'
 Now, we say to the people of the South and West, and the friends of Free Trade eve rywhere, the policy of Mr. Clay is we'll de- fined. There Is no ambiguity. He is i'll ia vor of protection, exclusive of revenue, and all he asks is, that if the various interests ol our people want higher protection than will be afforded by revenue duty, to state their case, and it shall be granted He would, in order to win the South, advocate protective duty on sugar, and in order to satisfy the centre, he would protect iron. So ot the dis= ferent sections of the Union having different interests he would plunder the great mass oi agriculturists and consumers to support and protect class interests. This IS the policy of
  cultes, but calls upon those engaged in the several species of industry to make out their case, the degree of protection they require. and 1t ought to be granted.
 Now. what are the views of MT. Van Bu- ren? He would limit the protection afford ed by the Tariff, to that which would accrue from pure revenue duty; and all his dis criminations 1couzd Dc belou the maGimuk and of course be made for other purposes than protection. Let us explain the meaning of the word marimtm, as used by Mir. Var r Buren and Mr. Calhoun: fl mdrin1uns dutJ iS rate of duty Ma aciH bring into ht 1 Treasury he greatest amount of money.- Consequently, if the duty should go above this maximum, the revenue would fall of, ant it would be purely Protective duty. Suel duty would prohibit importation, and give to the home manufacturer monoply of tht market, and tax the consumers for his bene- fit. But if the maximum rate ofduties should bring more money into the Treasury than the necessities of Government should require the rate of duty can be lessened, and thus the revenue decreased, and this is what is mean by discriminating below he marimum.''- This species of discrimination, instead of ia- creaSiag fhe protection 10 hc home nsa'sufdc- turer, zesSens tt. But discriminating above the maxims#m has an opposite effect; it no only lessens He rerenue, but it increases Me protection, and taxes the people for double purpose-for the support of Government and for the protection of the manufacturer It is true, that duties, even when laid for revenue solely, are in a degree protective in theil character; but the protection is purely inci- dental, or perhaps the word ineritable would be better. Some have used the word acci- dental to explain the kind of protection that results from the duties being laid on revenue principles solely; but this is of all terms the most objectionable. There is no such pro- . lection as accidental protection. The term is a fallacy. Not dollar can come into the Treasury (unless it arises upon the importa- ton ofarticles not grown or made here,) with Out atit;or,!:ng protection to the home oroWe,