Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-01-26
VOL. 80, NO. 2I.-wHoLE NO. 194s.

our cherished policy should not be committed for |
saie-keeping, to men Of doubtful fidelity to those
interests. 1t is not to be disguised that in the |
contest Of the coming year-a contest involving in
its results the character of our national policy pro-
badly for long time 10 come--0nr main conflict |
! is TO he with men Of this stamp. The current |
signs but too plainly indicate that the banner of
our opponents is 10 be borne by ga Northern man |
with Southern principles"n man, who of all !
other living men, is the most adroit in the arts of
political leger demaln; and who will not be |
slow TO practice them in reference TO the question
OF the protective policy. Ofhis ndroitncss herein
we have had abundant evidence in his remarkable
career The "Iudicious tariff" Of Gen. Jackson
llurnished in It's wonderful adaptedness TO every
phase OF opinion on this subject, evident marks OF
this paternity. That disguise 10 worn out, and
incidental protection has been substituted. Ask
disciple of this school if he is in favor of protec-
ton 'Certainly -cerainIy,' is The reply. am in
favor Of incidental proiecon.' IL will not do TO u
bandon protection. But what is Incidental prUtec-
ton? This is a grave question: Is there any
thing fixed aud definite IN this. idea? Incidental
10 what? incidental 10 ifgru}ng of revenue is
the reply. But hoO ? lncid ,ntal to the mere act
Of raising Of revenue, by Whatever rates of 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
II so, then il the government cnn mos: convent
emily raise the required amount, from half dozen
articles, no matter what they may be, there is,
then, protection to the extent of The idea express
led by the word incidental. This would be Gc.ci-
cidenlal protection, and, of course, might be no
protection at all. And that is just the protection
that the most strenuous advocates OF tree trade
are willing 70 give. For those who wish TO look
one way and row the other-and there enough
Of them -" incidental" is a mnrveousy convent
ent and very JudiciouS" word
But there is another form Of this disguise. 1t is
protection incidental to discriminating duties
that ls dutics that shall Discriminate ms TO the
4 bprn
the question arses-What shall be the rnle OF
discrimination Shall it have respect to the pur.
pose OF revenue or to that OF protection Ii TO
the purpose OF revenue only then the protection
may be Just accidental rs in the other case be-
cause it is very apparent that Congress may dis
crimina,e in the manner best suited 10 the mere
purpose of raising revenue and have no regard
Whatever to protection, and, in fact, give none to
any interest II abundant revenue he tie only
purpose, The duties may be ,nd mainly Oh arti.
clGs which do not come in competition with any
, thing we produces; leaving those Which do thus
, compete, subject to duy giving no protection
Indeed duty of fifteen per cent. on the latter
class ofarlcles would, by reason OF the heavy I'M
porlations undrrsuch duty: raise probably, more
t revenue than 40 or so per cent.
SO, then, we may have discriminating tariff,
, and yet have no adequate projections. Indeed the
> discrimination may be for the very purpose OF de-
mroying protection. Away, then, with the gener-
= u indefinite language, only suited 10 the purpose
ut double DEALING aud hold the prolcss ed friends
/ ola protective tariff to do something which shall
\ laslcn them 10 the true den OF protection and COM
r, pei them 10 toe the mark, or 90 openly totheir
. own place.
+ What, then, | may be asked, do we want?
answer Discrimination for The Suke Of protection
/ so that II Il revenue of twenty millions is needed
, ii shall, by discrimination, he adjusted upon the
= various articles Of observation-disclosures upon
those we do not produce, and high on those we do
s SO rs 10 raise tile amount required, and give pro-
r lection to our own industry. Every one must see
that such discrimination is very different from
that which has respect to the single purpose oil
G raising the twenty millions. The would KEEP
= protection steadily in view, aud secure it /; the
is other would look 10 revenue alone, and, that Sc
/ cured, would leave protection TO take care of it.
!. self.
If have laid down these principles which no in
Is teigGnt friend of the protective policy will under
o. take 10 conlroyerl-tor the purpose OF testing the
n doctrines of the great leader of LocOocoism,. IA
IS find them set forth ia his letter, dated the l5lt
IA OF February last, in reply 10 heterogeneous ad
dressed to him by the Democratic" > ute Con
venon OF Indiana, held at Anna, oils on the Sll
of January 1913 1t contains formal exposition
or rather mySi5ication Of his views on the subjec
OF tho protective policy; aud is probably 10 be th'
y, formula OF the doctrines on this subject during thu
OF canvass OF 1874.
Of Mr.. Van Buren, opens his exposition by referrin
It. To his letter "o the Shocco Springs meeting il
90 1882" in which he says he distinctly ayowed
O. conviction that the establishment OF conmerclu
81 regulations WIKI Il view TO the encouragement o
at do nestle interests is within the Constitutions
ng power of Congress" He goes on to say
n, lore than ten years have elapsed since tIa
an communication was made and during that en-
m tire period the people Of the United States hav
paid large amounts OF duties avowedly impose
Tor the encouragement and protection OF donesli
manufactures with gradual reductions accordn
ct. the provisions OF the compromise ACT Of 1885
ID The unhuSpl gputiD1put N The in
OIL 10 what IS under such circumstances, the prope
rule for legislative action upon this subject has,
lg think by the course of events and the progress o
At opinion. been brought the conclusion briefly eS
OF pressed in one Of the resolutions fyour conyen
lg lion, viz ga discriminating taIB for revenue Ptj
le possess only and phieh lo incidentally protect Il
III mericdn Industry"
H. Here, then, we have Mr. Van Buren's " rule 70
n. legislation upon the subject" viz: "discrimnatio
for rerenue purposes ONLY and which will in
ar cdentay protect American industry" Here
e. prGiessed protection. But what is it d? Incident
es protection, aud incidental to discrimination. l}t
ly what sort OF discrimination Discrimination TO
Or the purpose Of protection? Oh no. No sue
CO purpose enters into his contemplation. lie take
u indeed, special exclude il, by declaring thu
n discrimination must be Tor revenue purposes an
nd for revenue purposes ony. So then, we hav
discrimination aud incidental protection, " all IA
r. aud nlce," aud yet both ara rendered nugator
rot by qualification which expressly excludes ever
n Ql~of purpose from the rule OF eglsleuon' bI
he that OF raising revenue, Oniy"
~. That MIR. Van Buren, intended TO make broo
Iut distinction between a Tariff for reuenue aud tart
IS for protection is not left 10 a mere construction
on 1he language OF his "rule Of legislation" He
TO- his own expOsltor; for little further on in h
d.? letter. after having discussed the general quest,
i! as TO the raising Of revenue by imposs compare
IL with direct taxation, he says
is "Of the great mass OF opponents TO prolect'
list tariff, there is moi 30 far as know, single Sta
ad or even district, that has taken grounds against
it revenue tariff"
fiji SO, then, "revenue tariff" is u very dfere
k thing, in his estimation, from "proteeiire tariff
lly -as, of course, it must be- 10 make it aeeeptai
his TO the great mass OF opponents TO protective ia
I'd. it, and vet tariff discriminating for mere reyeu