The Woodstock age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1844-1845, 1844-10-31

=
it is suddenly brought into peril, lively
years ago the system Of protection wa
put in similar peril, by the coincident &C
ton Qualification on the one hand, ant
betrayed by its protested friends on thu
other That is the character ofthe pres
ent danger. Modification it is true, ha.
lost much of its power; but false princi
pies, deceptive reasoning, and disguised
enmliy are so strong, perhaps stronge
than ever, This is illustrated in the sue
cess OF efforts to confound all Just dislnc-
tons In regard TO protection, and LEAD
the unsuspcctlng to an incautious com
initial ofthc protective system to the hand:
of its enemies.
Thus we have the doctrine of protec,
ton misstated and perverted, by dccla-
ratiOns, that it consits in "diScrimiaQii0ns
for the purpose of recwue only;" with pro-
lection incident to such discrimination
and again, that "the true limit of the
right and claim to protection, is that rate
OF duty upon day gjreR article which will
y'e'd the largest amoum of rercnac," Be-
You'd this, it is asserted, the Constitution
gives no power to impose duties.
The hinge on which tic whole protcc-
tive system turns, is, the purpose for
which determinations are made in the
adjustment Of scale of duties. If ''rev-
enue only" is the purpose, every one ia
wllar with the subject can see that it
may not afford adequate protection to
any interest, since it is obvious that a
duty on a given article, falling far short
of just protection its rival Of American
production, may be the duty which will
yield the greatest amount of revenue from
that article, by reason of its greater i'm
poltaton under the lower duty. To sub
lect the protected interests to the opera
ton of such rule, is to commit them to
mere chance. If this is the "i,We Hmn
of the right and claim to protection" it
Is limit within which every protected
interest in the country may be crushed
The true doctrine is, not discrimination
Tor reoea"c, with incidental protection,
but tariff for revenue with discrimina-
ion for protection. The revenue purpose
IS to govern, when VIC arc considering
he amount ofrcyenuc to be raised upon
he whole Of the importations No more
revcnue, in the aggregate, may be raised,
nan SHAH be necessary to supply the
wants Of the governmcnt--makng tar
If, IN this sense, a revenue tariff. But !
while this great revenue purpose is to be
Kept in view, and its limit never exceed
ID, another purpose is, also, to be kept
n view, name ly-that of so discrimina- !
ing between different classes of articles, |
md between one article and another, of
he same class, that while, in the aggrc-
rate, we raise the required amount, we
may, by the discrimination, impose high .
Iutlcs on articles needing strong protec-
ion-moderatc duties on those needing
css protection, and no duties on such as
iced no protection. This is discrinina-
ion for protcction-thc genuine doctrine,
# which discrimination for revenue, with
Incidental protection, is the counterfeit.
1t was this false doctrine which formed
he leading feature in the report Of the
ommitiec Of Ways and Means, at the
ate session of Congress, and the bill re-
orted by that Committee, and which
lands upon the calendar of the House
Or its action at the next session, was the
ngitmate result of that doctrine.
As perpetual vigilance is the price of
berry so is it cmphatically the price of
rejection to our industry. We can well
esist the attacks of the open enemies Of
ne protective policy, but may find our
elves batled and ioiled by the deceptive
'arlare of its pretended friends The
lvestigations Of this year, aided by the
byious benefits of the existing tarill,will,
lay be hoped, result in firmly establish
lg correct principles on this subject and
living permanency to the tariff, of which
ley form the basis.
There is another subject Of great i'm.
ortancc which demands our attentions:
nd the more so because it is question
l which our rights as a state, arc direct
, involved refer to the debated poll
y of distributing to the states the pro-
ceds Of the sales of the public lands.
The leading object to di,tribntion-a-
idc from its alleged corrupting influence
pom the states, which is not worth con-
ldcring-is, that, by taking the amount
{ the land sales from the treasury, we
lcreasc the taxes for the support of gov
and thereby, in effect, tax the
eople for the purpose Of Distribution
4 other words, that we corrupt the peo-
lie with their own money. The argu-
lent rests upon erroneous views OF the
fleet of the tariff. 1t is well known that
n increase of ddty does not, necessarily,
reduce an increase of price. If the pro-
eeds of the lands are taken from the
reasury for distribution, a necessity will
f course be thereby created for raising
n additional sum, equal to that amount,
y duties on imports. But, it is well
nown. in the first place that an augmen-
ed duty, if it has the effect of increasing
he domestic supply of rival articles, is,
a effect divided between the foreign pro-
ucer and the consumer; and in the next
lace, that so far as tie consumers pay
he additional duty, their ability general
Y, to do so. is increased by the tariff it.